Bloody Western Hypocrisy Once Again [including Uncle Sham]

Wars usually bring out a goodly share of hypocrisy, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine is no exception. Here and now we see tremendous upset and concern in Europe, North America and elsewhere over the horrors and injustice of the war and invasion. But there have been many  other fairly recent cases of invasion, occupation, mass slaughter, population expulsion or displacement that do not seem to get much attention or rouse much concern at all. 

In 2020 we saw the Armenia-Azerbaidjan war/ Thousands were killed and parts of historic Armenia were conquered by the Azeris. Ancient and  medieval Armenian buildings were damaged in the war and afterwards by the Azeri forces.

In 1974, Turkey occupied about 35% if the island of Cyprus. Neither the Europeans --inside and outside of the EU-- nor the Americans make much of a fuss over the continued occupation and the expulsion in that year of an estimated 200,000 ethnic Greek Cypriots from their homes plus the Turkish vandalism to age-old Greek buildings/monuments in the occupation zone in northern Cyprus. 

Then there is the Syrian civil war, going on since 2011. In the course of this civil war, an estimated 600,000 Syrians have been killed [Syrian Observatory for Human Rights]. Moreover, millions of Syrians have fled or been driven from their country by their own government or the jihadi Sunni mlitias, now mainly sponsored by Turkey or by ISIL [DA'ESH] or other forces on the ground. With more than four million Syrian refugees estimated in Turkey plus a million or so in Lebanon and another million in Jordan, the number of refugees is only exceeded by the number from the war in Ukraine. 

Now some may note that a great deal of world attention is focussed on the Palestinian Arabs. This, just parenthetically, reminds us of a rule of the "international community": Arab lives do not matter -- unless somehow the blame for the Arabs' deaths or refugee status or other plight can somehow be attributed to Israel and Jews, with some plausible degree of honesty, however minor, or without any grain of truth at all. Compare the media treatment of the Syrian Arab victims of the Syrian civil war [as well as Palestinian Arabs living in Syria] with media treatment and coverage of the Palestinian Arabs in areas under Israeli jurisdiction -- often fashionably depicted as somehow a separate nation or people but somehow connected to the Arabs in general, and as perennial victims, even as a collective Jesus in much journalistic blather.

Then we have the massacres of Kurds in Syria by Turkish-sponsored Sunni Arab militias and by the Turkish airforce, plus de facto expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Kurds from areas controlled by Turkey and those militias in northern Syria. That Kurdish suffering has not gotten much attention in the media.

All of the above is part of the general hypocrisy.

However, the USA has shown its own unique and special hypocrisy. Back in late 2013-early 2014, the USA encouraged "right-wing" or "neo-nazi" Ukrainian parties --Right Sektor & Svoboda -- to revolt against the pro-Russian Yanukovich government.  Eventually Yanukovich fled and the new rulers, the extreme nationalist parties named above, made declarations that were felt as highly threatening to the ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine, such as honoring Stepan Bandera, who had led a German-sponsored Ukrainian militia during WW2, which slaughtered Jews and ethnic Russians in the Ukraine. These provocative declarations gave Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin, the pretext that he needed for invading eastern Ukraine and annexing the Crimea [which truth be told, had been a part of the Russian republic in the USSR but was transferred to Ukraine by the post-Stalin Khrushchov govt in 1954 although its population was overwhelmingly non-Ukrainian ethnically]. 

Now after the Russian government showed its hand after the overthrow of Yanukovich, the Obama administration refused to sell or give the Ukraine weapons needed for its self-defense against Russia. And this after the State Dept's Victoria Nuland had gone to Kyiw [pronounced Keef]  to  encourage the rebels. Trump and his administration were the first to supply real weapons to the post-Yanukovich govts. 

Then there was Joe Biden's shakedown of the Ukrainian leadership [Poroshenko & Yatseniuk] by threatening to withhold needed loan guarantees if a state prosecutor looking into the Burisma company that had placed Biden's son Hunter on its board, were not dismissed. The prosecutor was fired, as Joe boasted later on.

After Trump, the ill-fated Biden presidency resumed the Obama Ukraine policy. Biden & Co. have been stingy about sending weapons to Ukraine. Maybe if Washington had sent the needed weapons [such as Javelins & Stingers] when Russia began its military build up on the borders of Ukraine in the first half of 2021. Maybe it would thus have dissuaded and deterred a Russian invasion. Even when the invasion began it took some time for Joe B & Co. to decide to send needed weapons.  But then how do we explain that on the third day of the war when the Ukrainian resistance was holding up, the Biden national insecurity crowd [Susie R, Brian D, Tony B, Jake S] offered President Zelensky of Ukraine sanctuary outside of the Ukraine? Did they not understand that if the leader ran away the resistance was likely to collapse? Was this offer of sanctuary not hypocrisy? Was it not an effort to undermine the Ukrainian struggle against Russia?

Indeed we may wonder whether Biden's foreign affairs gang were keeping Ukraine relatively weak and lacking the most important self-defense weapons in order to lure the Russians into invading Ukraine [which Putin had apparently long wanted to do]. Does this sound too bizarre, too far-fetched, too unreasonable? Yes, it would -- if we did not know that a major theoretician of US foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's advisor for national insecurity, had not boasted of luring the Soviet Union into making war in Afghanistan around 1978. Now Brzezinski was Barack Obama's mentor in foreign policy matters and Obama was planning to make him his own national insecurity advisor, as Carter had done. Indeed Brzezinski was the favorite foreign policy advisor of the Democratic Party. Now, when a big donor to the Democratic Party, Penny Pritzker, told Obama that she would not donate and  manage fund-raising for his campaign if Zbig were to be made national security advisor [Alan  Dershowitz, then a prominent Democrat, also opposed a role for Zbig in an Obama presidency], Susan Rice was brought in as a replacement. We may assume that Susan Rice's views on foreign policy, on issues of war and peace, etc, were not and are not far from Zbig's views and theories and understandings and desires. Now since Biden's foreign policy team are retreads from Obama's administration, we may assume that they all [Tony, Susie, Jake etc] share Zbig's basic proclivity for warmongering. Hence if the Ukraine were left weak and lacking needed defensive weapons, it may have been by design in order to lure the Russians into an invasion. As Zbig did in Afghanistan.

What Did Russia Get in Return for Alleged Support for Trump?

For the past year, the first year of the Trump administration, Washington has been roiled by the quarrel between anti-Trump and pro-Trump factions, roughly speaking Democrats against Republicans although some Republicans also have worked against the president. The anti-Trumpers have tried to delegitimize Trump and his presidency. Allegations have been made by the anti-Trump side --including most of the press & media-- of Trump complicity or collusion with Russia in order to win the election. These charges led Trump to appoint a special investigator to conduct an inquiry. The special investigator was Robert Mueller, former head of the FBI.

The investigation has turned up little so far to support those allegations, as far as the public knows, even according to anti-Trump sources. Be that as it may, one essential question has not been asked, to my knowledge. That is: What did the Russians get for their alleged collusion with Trump? After all, if they colluded with Trump's representatives to support him, if they wanted to put him in the White House, and colluded with Trump or his campaign for that purpose, would they have done it expecting nothing in return?

In fact, if we look at Trump's foreign policy over the past year since the inauguration, we see that he in fact worked against Russian policy in three areas, Syria, the Ukraine, and North Korea. In Syria, Trump had American aircraft attack a Syrian air force base from which planes flew to make a chemical warfare attack on civilians in rebel-held areas. The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad is being protected and aided by Russia. In Ukraine, the Trump administration sold weapons to the Ukrainian government which is engaged in a war, now in a cease fire phase, with Russian-backed, ethnic Russian rebel militias in eastern Ukraine. Perhaps Russian troops too are directly involved in combat on the side of the rebels.

As to North Korea, Trump has several times attacked and threatened the regime and its dictator, Kim Jung Un [Little Rocket Man]. This policy on Trump's part has led to clashes with Russia at the UN Security Council. Further, Trump succeeded in getting Security Council resolutions passed critical of North Korea. Hence, we do not see what Russia got in return for any help to Trump and his campaign.

Next, we have to ask whether Russia or its government did anything that gave or might have given the election to Trump. This question is important because it was being alleged by Democrats that Russia did indeed help Trump against Hillary Clinton. Did the Russkis do anything to swing the election in Trump's favor? And if so, the thinking ran, then Trump's election was illegitimate. This is obviously a partisan claim on behalf of the Democrats and Hillary. But is there any truth to it? Anti-Trumpers have pointed to a massive dump of information by Wikileaks of emails exchanged among active employes of the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic figures, emails which put the Democratic Party and Clinton's campaign in a very bad light. Indeed, these emails were embarassing to Clinton, her party and her campaign organization. One item that emerged was that high officials of the DNC [democratic national committee] had worked against Hillary's rival in the primary elections, one Bernie Sanders --who espoused a political line allegedly to the "Left"  of  Clinton-- whereas the DNC was supposed be impartial.

The Democrats and Hillary did not deny that these embarassing emails were real and truthful. Rather they counter-attacked, after release of the emails, by claiming that Russia had leaked them to Wikileaks, as if only a state or only Russia could have hacked into the computers of the DNC and then supplied the emails to Wikileaks. However, Julian Assange, the head of Wikileaks, specifically denied on TV [I watched the TV program] that his organization had gotten the emails from Russia. You don't have to believe Assange of course. However, did the emails uploaded to the Internet by Wikileaks have to have come from a hacking operation? Besides, there are other hackers and other interested parties. Another possible explanation is that someone in the DNC organization had leaked them to Wikileaks. And here we have the unexplained murder of Seth Rich, an employe of the DNC whose body was found in Washington with valuable personal effects like his watch and wallet still with him. Did Rich have anything to do with supplying the emails to Wikileaks? We can only  speculate.

If anything or any person swung votes from Hillary to Trump, it was FBI director, James Comey's last minute revelation before the election that the investigation into Hillary had to be renewed because additional emails. from and to Hillary had been found on the computer of Anthony Weiner, estranged husband of Hillary's gal Friday, Huma Abedin [before, after and during Hillary's presence at the State Department]. That's why Hillary was so angry at Comey. She wanted him fired from the FBI. She in fact called for him to be fired from the FBI about a week before Trump did in fact fire him in early 2017. At that time, nobody was saying that Hillary was undermining public respect for law and order.

Before concluding, we must say that many countries want to influence elections in other countries. Least of all is the United States ashamed of doing that. During the 2015 election campaign for the Knesset, it was notorious in Israel that the Obama administration, of which a Hillary presidency would have been a continuation, was interfering with money and personnel in Israel's election in favor of the Labor Party, or to be more precise, in favor of the Zionist Union party which brought together Labor with a few members of Tsipi Livni's HaTenu`ah party.

So it would come as no surprise to learn that Russia wanted to influence the 2016 US presidential election. But Russia would hardly be unique in doing that or trying to do that.

Before concluding, one might argue that Obama's administration, of which Hillary was a shameful part, both aided Russia and hurt Russia. Obama helped Russia in Syria among other ways by allowing Assad's regime to get away with using poison gas against his own population through not enforcing Obama's own "red line" against such use and making an agreement that Russia would take Syria's stock of poison gas and chemical weapons away from Syria, as a substitute for US military action against Syria's stock of such weapons. In fact, Syria still has such weapons and they were reportedly used just the other day against the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Moreover, while Hillary was secretary of state, it is credibly alleged, she intervened to facilitate the purchase by a Russian company of part of US uranium production [used in building nuclear weapons]. This facilitating of the Russian purchase took place after the Russian company had made a sizable "charitable" contribution to the Clinton family foundation, widely considered a tax free depository for moneys paid to the Clintons.

But back to the point. While letting Russia's protege, Assad in Syria, get away with murder literally, the Obama administration also worked against Russia in its next door neighbor, the Ukraine. Victoria Nuland of the State Department and other US officials were encouraging neo-fascist parties in the Ukraine --Right Sektor & Svoboda-- to work to overthrow the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovich, who was considered pro-Russian. This overthrow was in fact accomplished. Ms Nuland, by the way, met with leaders of the anti-Yanukovich movement in Kiev, such as Mr Klichko, whom she affectionately called Klich. So the Russians had reason to hate Obama as well as reasons to appreciate his help for them, as in Syria. Furthermore, it is hardly clear that any help or support Russia may have given to Trump's candidacy won or swung the election for him.

Nevertheless, the most important argument against Russian complicity or collusion with Trump to help him win the election is the lack of any sign that Trump has delivered any return or quid pro quo to Russia or Putin personally. Rather, Trump record has been more anti-Russian.

"The West's Proxy War against Israel"

UPDATING 6-24-2011 at bottom

The "peace" in Peace Process refers
to peace of mind for Judeophobes
- Eliyahu
When fascism comes to America, it
will be called "anti-fascism."
- Huey Long

Are ostensibly humanitarian or human rights-oriented NGOs serving as anti-Jewish, anti-Israel political tools of Western powers? Let us first look at the history of governments using "non-governmental" organizations to attack Jews, whether physically or verbally. The Encyclopedia Judaica [JTo], vol 3, col 86, tells us:

In Rumania and czarist Russia, anti-Semitism was to a large extent government-sponsored . . .

Focussing on the Russian Empire, where the most Jews lived at that time, we read:

. . . the first known reactionary anti-Semitic organization, the Sacred League [usually called the Holy League], which sprang up after the assassination of Czar Alexander II in March 1881, was clandestine, although arch-reactionary high officials and even ministers seem to have furthered it. In their eyes the Jews were the source of all rebellion, and they themselves used terror and violence to destroy the "leaven of revolution." It is generally believed that the Sacred League was instrumental in fomenting the pogroms of 1881 and 1882. It was dissolved at the end of that year. Toward the end of 1904, when the Japanese war was going badly for Russia, and early in 1905, when the revolution broke out, another anti-Semitic organization was formed, the Union of the Russian People, rather similar in character and aims to its predecessor. This league was openly recognized, and even furthered by the Czar and his government, together with its secret fighting squads, the "Black Hundreds," which were largely responsible for the pogroms of 1905 and for counterrevolutionary political assassinations. The Union of the Russian People, acting in the open, continued in existence until World War I, and inspired the formation of several similar "patriotic" organizations. . . Even during the war [WW 1], government-sponsored Anti-Semitism scarcely abated. . . [EJ, vol 3, col 86.]

Today, we see Israel confronted with a series of extremely hostile demands on it by several Western powers. Britain, France and Germany appear to have joined in with Obama's demand [enunciated on 19 May 2011] that Israel start negotiations after having already conceded that negotiations will start with the assumption that the 1949-1967 armistice lines will be the future border except for "land swaps" between the little vulnerable pre-1967 Israel and a future Arab state to be called "palestine." This acre-for-acre formula allows the Arab side, aggressors in two wars on the Judea-Samaria front [1947-1949 & 1967], to start over again without losses of territory to punish and compensate for their aggression. It also disregards the stipulation in Security Council resolution 242 [post-6 Day War] that negotiations between the parties should work towards "secure and recognized boundaries." This Obama formula would, therefore, deny Israel "secure" borders, which means defensible borders on the Judea-Samaria front.

But Obama's negotiating formula is a diplomatic position. It is in the area of open diplomacy. There are also surreptitious ways that Obama and his administration utilize for working against Israel. They seek to embarass and discredit [that is, delegitimize] Israel in world public opinion. Caroline Glick, referring to Joel Fishman's research, tells us that the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc sought to do that after the Six Day War.

. . . in the aftermath of World War II, and particularly after Israel’s victory in the Six Day War, the Soviets adapted Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda to demonize Israel as the new, collective Jew and in turn demonize the collective Jew as the new Nazi Germany. [Caroline Glick based on J Fishman, "The Big Lie and the Media War against Israel: From Inversion of Truth to Inversion of Reality," in Jewish Political Studies Review, March 2007]

Apparently, at least since the fall of the USSR, Western states too depict Israel in the colors of evil, playing on centuries-old themes of Western Judeophobia. One such device is the encouragement by the Obama administration and its close supporters for publicity stunts designed to embarass Israel, like the "Free Gaza" Flotilla which seems now to be coming out in its second, 2011 edition. The Hamas jihadists [a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] who rule Gaza enforce Islamic law there and aim to go farther with it. It hardly needs to be said that Islamic law not only denies basic human dignity to non-Muslims but severely restricts what Muslims can do, and holds women --even Muslim women-- as degraded inferiors. That is, Islamic law --shari`ah-- is opposed to freedom. A movement aiming to support Hamas can no more be called a "freedom movement" than Simon Legree can be called a champion of liberty. In a widespread effort to besmirch Israel:

According to Fishman, . . . ex-Nazi propagandists [in Communist & Arab service, developed propaganda/psywar themes] to delegitimize Israel . . . after 1967. The call to arms was published first in a Pravda editorial in October 1967. There, Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement was reviled as dedicated to “genocide, racism, treachery, aggression, and annexation . . . all characteristic attributes of fascists.”

Caroline Glick comments:

With both the Soviets and the Arabs spewing the same inverted message, it didn’t take long for it to become the rage in Europe. Europe’s adoption of the Nazi-inspired propaganda in which reality was inverted and Israel – the victim of Arab imperialist, genocidal aggression – became the imperialist, genocidal aggressor was facilitated by France’s embrace of the Arab camp after its withdrawal from Algeria . . .

Consider here too De Gaulle's notorious statement [27 November 1967] that the Jews were "a domineering people." Glick goes on:

By 1975, with the UN General Assembly’s adoption of the Soviet-Arab sponsored resolution 3379 defining Zionism as racism, most European governments had fallen in line with the Soviet-Arab propaganda war.

Here we should add Bat Yeor's research on the EU-Arab alliance, which she calls Eurabia. After Europe was won over to the anti-Israel cause, Glick adds,

They in turn spent the next generation bringing their message to America.

But I trust that no one will be surprised if I point out that there were Judeophobes/antisemites in America even before the Six Day War. Judeophobes/antisemites can be found both among what is called "the Left" and what is called "the Right." These sectors of public opinion are not necessarily so different. Let's consider Franklin D Roosevelt to whom Obama has been compared. How did FDR feel about Jews? Did he try to help Jews during the Shoah or did he try to prevent them from being saved and rescued? Many books have been written on this historical issue. The truth of the matter indicts what are called Liberals and what are called the Left. To be sure, in America there were also Liberals and Leftists, as well as Conservatives and Republicans who helped the Jews. For example Hugh Scott, Republican congressman from Philadelphia, who revealed info about the ongoing Holocaust to Jewish activists with the Bergson Group. This was info that FDR was keeping back from the public. Others who helped spread the info as well as the fact that the FDR administration was not helping Jews were Josiah DuBois, Charles Beard, etc.

More characteristic of "Liberals" today is Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for president in 2004, a close associate of the White House, and several times an Obama envoy to Assad Basher in Syria. The significant point here is that Kerry has also been a friend of the "Free Gaza" movement, giving a letter of recommendation to Code Pink leaders before they set off to Egypt in December 2009 on a Freedom March to Gaza, five months before they joined the Turkish Armada to Gaza, thugs of which attacked Israeli naval commandos on 31 May 2010. Kerry called the Code Pinkers "humanitarian," whereas their aim was to undermine the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt, thereby allowing Hamas to import heavy weapons by sea into the Hamas-ruled zone. The weapons would be used against Israel of course. As to humanitarian needs, tons of food were and are transported into Gaza from Israel every day, and Gaza gets much of its water and electricity supply from Israel.

Code Pink became widely known for acting out clownish antics in order to arouse opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq. However, Obama has sent more troops to Afghanistan than Bush had there, yet Code Pink has not played its flamboyant, histrionic, juvenile stunts to oppose Obama's war in Afstan, although formally opposing it. Here is something about Code Pink's relationship to the White House. First,

Jodie Evans [Code Pink founder and leader] . . . was one of Obama’s top funders and donors in the 2007-2008 presidential campaign [here]

She also "gave Kerry $1000 in 2004 for his presidential run." [here]
Next, Jodie Evans has White House access:

Code Pink has worked as a conduit between Hamas and Obama, delivering a letter from the terrorist group to Obama last June. Jodie Evans met with Obama administration official Buffy Wicks at the White House after Code Pink brought the letter out of Gaza. [here, also see here & here]

Evans and her other gal ghoul friends of code pink & male companions like Bill Ayres, another friend of Obama, took part in the "Gaza Freedom March" which in fact supported the Hamas, enemies of freedom [here].
Another friend of Free Gaza in Washington is Lee Hamilton, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center [1/3 US govt funded]. Hamilton is a mentor of Obama and the Hamilton of the Baker-Hamilton Report, which recommended that the US move closer to the Syrian Assad Basher regime at Israel's expense, pushing Israel to surrender the strategically vital Golan Heights to the murderous Assad gang. Hamilton had his Center confer the Woodrow Wilson Public Service Award [here] on Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu just a few weeks after his govt, Erdung's govt, had sponsored the May 2010 "Freedom Flotilla" to Gaza [here].
To top off all of this, Obama's misnamed "counterterrorism czar", John Brennan, was the chief White House contact for the "Free Gaza" convoy.

The Encyclopedia Judaica tells us that in Tsarist Russia, "high officials and even ministers seem to have furthered" the anti-Jewish Holy League. About 20 years later, the anti-Jewish body, "the Union of the Russian People, rather similar in character and aims to its predecessor [was founded]. This league was openly recognized, and even furthered by the Czar and his government, together with its secret fighting squads, the 'Black Hundreds'" who perpetrated pogroms. Is there any similarity between the tsarist Russian method for attacking Jews and the Obama method?
- - - - - - -
The Wiesenthal Institute cites EU funding for "Israel=apartheid" event at Erasmus University in the Netherlands [here]
EU foreign affairs commissioner, Catherine Ashton, makes a typically hypocritical EU utterance on violence in Gaza [here pdf].
Martin Peretz on Western hostility to Israel disguised as a "peace process." [here]
Gaza physicians complain that medicines brought by the ostensibly "humanitarian" Turkish Armada are past their expiry date [here]
Lee Smith welcomes Fatah-Hamas pact because it exposes Western mendacity re possibility of peace between Israel and Palestinian Arabs [here]
Pix of "Free Gaza" movement with Hamas honcho Ismail Haniyah in Gaza [here]
Organizers of the "Audacity of Hope" humano ship to Gaza admit to not carrying humano goods [here]
NGO Monitor researches funding sources for NGOs operating in the Land of Israel. Typically they are heavily funded by the EU, EU member states and powerful institutions in Western countries [here].
Phyllis Chesler describes the Flotilla of Fools and the ignorance, bigotry and narcissism of its actors [here]
Pajamas Media reported on Code Pink's obsequious visit to the ayatollahs of Iran back in 2008, oblivious to the execution of an Iranian woman [here]
6-24-2011 The pro-Hamas convoy to Gaza does not want to openly acknowledge what Hamas really stands for. Hamas stands for war and killing of Israeli civilians, while suppressing their fellow Arabs in Gaza [here]

Surreptitious Ways of Striking at Jews -- An Old Story

UPDATING 1&3 & 16 July 2010 [see link added to Jerome Corsi]
& 7-11,12 &8-23-2010 at bottom

Many roads go to Rome and to Jerusalem for that matter.

One way to get to Jerusalem is to go through "non-governmental organizations" --NGOs-- ostensibly popular, independent grass roots orgs. Maybe like the Free Gaza Movement. But Free Gaza is actually astroturf, fake grass roots. It was created by Fenton Communications with Qatari money. Qatar is one of those super-rich per capita Arab emirates on the Persian Gulf. Funny thing is though that the so-called "Left" which poses as anti-capitalist, doesn't mind super-rich capitalists as long as they're Arabs. And if super-rich Arabs put up money for their pet anti-Israel projects [which both rich Arabs and Judeophobic Westerners are fond of], then that's OK.

Don't forget that "Free Gaza" [they don't want to free the folks of Gaza from Hamas to be sure] teamed up with the present authoritarian regime of Erdogan. They don't mind Erdogan's war against the Kurdish insurgents in southeastern Turkey [involving incursions into northern Iraq], nor his continued denial of Ottoman Turkey's genocide of Armenians, nor Turkey's occupation of northern Cyprus which led to ethnic cleansing of Greeks from the occupation zone [later paralleled by ethnic cleansing of ethnic Turks from the southern part of the island, the still independent Republic of Cyprus]. We may point out here parenthetically that some occupations are viewed more favorably than others. Just as "Free Gaza" couldn't care less about northern Cyprus being occupied, few in the West cared that Germany, Austria and Japan were occupied after WW 2 --and American troops are still in Germany and Japan, while Russia annexed huge areas of Japan and part of Germany and part of Finland. On the other hand, Israel is falsely accused of "occupying" parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, assigned by the League of Nations in 1922 to the Jewish National Home. But why go on with Western hypocrisy?

A semi-official branch of the US Govt, the Woodrow Wilson Center in DC, just last week gave an award to Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who recently called the Israeli boarding and seizure of the blockade-running Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, "Our 9/11." That hyperbole was worthy of an Arab, whom Turks often look down on. It is significant that the Wilson Center is headed by Lee Hamilton, a stuffed shirt white guy who is one of Obama's mentors [see previous post at bottom]. Hamilton praised Davutoglu. He "personifies the attributes we seek to honor at the Woodrow Wilson Center," Hamilton claimed. Just incidentally, Hamilton thereby contradicted the silly words of his spokeswoman who claimed that the award was not an "endorsement" of the Turkish FM. Now we have to wonder if the Wilson Center award to the Turkish FM was the White House's way of encouraging Turkey's anti-Israel policy, including the thugs on the Mavi Marmara ship. This is because, as said, Hamilton is one of Obama's mentors and John Brennan, Obama's so-called "counterterrorism czar" [pro-terrorism czar?], has a soft spot in his heart for both Hamas and Hizbullah. Brennan has also been tied to Free Gaza by Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily [here; also here]. Obama's old friends Bill Ayres & Bernardine Dohrn are also linked to Free Gaza [see link just above]

This use of surreptitious methods, of subterfuges, against Jews is an unfortunate part of Jewish history. It was common in the Russian tsarist empire more than 100 years ago. These methods
went so far as organizing pogrom mobs to attack Jews, including a nasty group of thugs called the Tshernotentsy, the Black Hundreds. Here is the historian Solomon Grayzel:

For the six million Jews in the Russian empire, the decade and a half before World War I was a period of oppression and heroism. Russia was in the midst of its long overdue struggle for general emancipation . . . the Jews naturally aligned themselves with the forces of liberalism. The tottering czarist system and its reactionary supporters resorted to the old game of identifying the revolutionaries with the Jews and attempting to turn attention away from the existing abuses by stirring up anti-Jewish feeling. A wave of pogroms swept over Russia. The massacre in Kishineff [now Chisinau in Moldova] at Easter 1903 saw dozens killed, hundreds wounded, and thousands of homes sacked. The cry of horror which went up all over the civilized world and among the liberal elements in Russia itself did not stop the government from instigating similar pogroms in the city of Homel and elsewhere. The only police interference was with the efforts of the Jews to defend themselves. [Solomon Grayzel, A History of the Jews (Philadelphia: JPS 1959), pp 708-709]

Does that last sentence sound familiar? The Russian police interfered "with the efforts of the Jews to defend themselves." How about the policy of the EU, UK, UN, OIC [Organization of the Islamic Conference], Turkey and others to prevent Israel from defending the Jews of Sderot and the rest of the south of Israel? How about all that sympathy for the trials and travails of a territory ruled by Nazi-like Muslim terrorists, the Hamas? The Hamas Charter calls for murdering all the Jews at Judgment Day. The noble Western states want the Hamas to have all the concrete and steel that it needs to build bigger and better underground bunkers so the Hamas leaders will have somewhere to hide the next time that they provoke Israel with hundreds of missiles.

Now are there any other parallels between then and now? Yes, Virginia, there are other parallels. Then there was the Mendel Beilis case. Beilis was a Jew accused in Kiev of murdering a non-Jewish boy [a prefiguration of Muhammad al-Durah]. The case became a blood libel with the Tsarist govt pressing for conviction of Beilis, hoping to arouse a pogrom atmosphere [see Grayzel, pp 709-710]. Fortunately, Beilis was defended by some of the best, most respected Russian attorneys. He was acquitted in a jury trial by the jury. The real murderers of the boy who had disappeared were found.

What today is comparable to the Beilis case? First, the murdered boy has a parallel in young Muhammad al-Durah. But whereas the boy in Kiev had in fact been murdered by known criminals, al-Durah was not killed at the time and place alleged by France2's Charles Enderlin at the end of September 2000, in a notorious, very short film clip released by France2 free of charge to TV broadcasters throughout the world at that time. As we can see in the parts of the film taken by the same cameraman on that same day of al-Durah but not released to TV, little al-Durah was not killed and his death does not appear in the very short film clip meant to indict and convict Israel in a new blood libel, updated for the new century. A French court in Paris ordered Enderlin to produce the full, uncut film in court. He did not bring the full film but what he did bring was enough to overrule his accusation of libel against a media critic who had argued that the al-Durah affair was a hoax [an argument partly based on the reports of senior French journalists who had seen the full film or most of what was not shown on TV back in 2000]. Hence, today we don't know whether al-Durah is dead or alive , although in the parts of the film shown in court little Muhammad is shown holding a red cloth that might seem to be blood if you see it only for a few seconds.

Any other parallels? At least one, a host of false accusations are made against Israel. Some focus on alleged Israeli crimes against the Turkish jihadist thugs on the Mavi Marmara [one of them being an American citizen whose parents brought him to Turkey when he was 2 years old and never visited America afterwards] who are described as "peace activists" by the trained minions of Fenton Communications. The active Judeophobes in the United States show much more "sympathy" for that Turk of American birth than for the three thousand Americans murdered by jihadist fanatics not much different from the goons on the Mavi Marmara.

Then too we have the Goldstone "Fact Finding Mission" report prepared by the staff of the UN"human rights council" which is subject to the OIC, the most powerful bloc in the UN. The "goldstone report" was meant to be a trial and conviction in the court of public opinion worldwide of Israel and the Jews. Something like the Beilis trial. Another set of false charges as in the Beilis case.

We note that historian Solomon Grayzel was somewhat naive. He didn't know the "liberals" of today. Most of the most outspoken "liberals" around today are fascist rabble rousers and demagogures.
- - - - - - - - - - -
More on the Award to the Turkish Foreign Minister Who Favored the Mavi Marmara Blockade Running Gambit
The Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, 1/3 funded by the US Federal Govt, is giving Erdung's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, an award in the name of former president Wilson [here]. It is called the Woodrow Wilson Public Service Award. How kind of the Wilson Center, headed by one of Obama's mentors, Lee Hamilton, a former US representative!! Hamilton was co-author of the notorious Baker-Hamilton Report which recommended that the US shaft Israel and befriend the fascist regime in Damascus. For those who still believe in "Hope & Change", the Baker-Hamilton recommendations are part of Obama's foreign policy within the generally disastrous guidelines set by Zbig Brzezinski. For those who believe that centers and institutes named after illustrious historical figures and proclaiming lofty goals and principles have policies decided by sugar plum fairies, David Boyajian shows that the Wilson Center is closely connected to various large corporations that do big business with Turkey. Davutoglu is commonly considered the architect of Erdung's turn towards a pro-Muslim, pro-jihad policy.
The Wilson Center explains the award [here]. The Center's spokeswoman claims that it is not an "endorsement" of Davutoglu's views or deeds.
Claudia Rosett considers the award the decision of a fool [here]. Maybe somebody more sinister than a mere fool, methinks.
Michael Rubin has his doubts about the award [here]
The Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, 1/3 funded by the US Federal Govt, is giving Erdung's foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, an award in the name of former president Wilson [here]. It is called the Woodrow Wilson Public Service Award. How kind of the Wilson Center, headed by one of Obama's mentors, Lee Hamilton, a former US representative!! Hamilton was co-author of the notorious Baker-Hamilton Report which recommended that the US shaft Israel and befriend the fascist regime in Damascus. For those who still believe in "Hope & Change", the Baker-Hamilton recommendations are part of Obama's foreign policy within the generally disastrous guidelines set by Zbig Brzezinski. For those who believe that centers and institutes named after illustrious historical figures and proclaiming lofty goals and principles have policies decided by sugar plum fairies, David Boyajian shows that the Wilson Center is closely connected to various large corporations that do big business with Turkey. Davutoglu is commonly considered the architect of Erdung's turn towards a pro-Muslim, pro-jihad policy.
The Wilson Center explains the award [here]. The Center's spokeswoman claims that it is not an "endorsement" of Davutoglu's views or deeds.
Claudia Rosett considers the award the decision of a fool [here]. Maybe somebody more sinister than a mere fool, methinks.
Michael Rubin has his doubts about the award [here]
The ever sleazy and slimy Lee Hamilton proudly announced that Davutoglu "personifies the attributes we seek to honor at the Woodrow Wilson Center." So much for Hamilton's spokeswoman's claim that the award was not an "endorsement." Hamilton added that Davutoglu's "contributions have been numerous and significant." [here] Is Hamilton endorsing the Mavi Marmara pro-Hamas provocation as a "significant . . . contribution"??
Jennifer Rubin suggests that the US Govt stop funding the Wilson Center [here]

LINK ADDED 7-17-2010 Carlo Panella on Davutoglu's aggressive anti-Israel policy [qui in italiano].

UPDATING 7-3-2010 Fresno Zionism shows clear understanding of the role of Fenton Communications in the Western-Arab assault on Israel. He includes a document [here]

7-6-2010 Qatar wants credit for smearing Israel [here]
7-11-2010 US funding for Ghaddafi's son's "charitable foundation" which in turn is sending another "humano ship" to Gaza. Another curious coincidence.
Jodie Evans of Code Pink notoriety is part of the "Free Gaza movment" which does not intend to free Gazans from Hamas. Evans became notorious [or famous, if you like] for her leadership of Code Pink and its aggressive demonstrations against the war in Iraq while George Bush II was president. However, since her chosen one, Mr Barack Hussein Obama, became president and sent more troops to Afghanistan than Bush had, Jodie and Code Pink have had little or nothing to say about the war in Afghanistan, let alone vociferously protest it. Her and Code Pink's energies seem all to be focussed now on the alleged plight of Gaza, actually a much more prosperous place than Afghanistan. But Jodie and Code Pink are not against war as such, just against the wrong war. Hamas' war against the Jews seems A-OK, while the war in Afghanistan is not especially objectionable [here & here].
UPDATING 7-12-2010 Fenton Communications has supposedly decided not to renew its contract to break Israel's blockade of Gaza, a contract with the sheikha or "princess" of Qatar [here]

- - - - - - - -
UPDATING 7-16-2010 The New York Times finally got around to reporting the terrorist ties of IHH, the "charitable foundation" behind the Turkish Thug Armada, and IHH's ties to high Turkish govt officials, including PM Erdogan [here]
UPDATING 8-23-2010 Dr Aviva Efrat, a lecturer on Turkish affairs at Bar Ilan Univ: "Erdogan is suffering from very serious criticism domestically because unemployment is rising. One of the reasons for the large number of demonstrators against Israel is economic. Many of them receive payment for their participation in these demonstrations. A sizable part of them don't know what is written on the signs that they are carrying. They are an incited mob. . . . Erdgogan is a provocateur by his nature. That's the attitude towards him in his own foreign ministry. . . . He is a man who gets angry very quickly." Maqor Rishon, 7-2-2010 p 22.