Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY [LINK | Article]
Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
Anti-Islamist Riots in Germany: Hooligans Against Salafists
23 Aug 2015
Anti-refugee protest turns violent in Heidanau, Germany
3 Oct 2015
Riots in a refugee camp in Kassel / Germany
Published on 3 Oct 2015
The European Migrant Crisis: Riots in a refugee camp in Kassel / Germany (State of Hesse)
26 Sep 2015
Immigrants already causing trouble in German
MEDIA COVER UP - ZDF
23 Sep 2015
German Media Caught Covering Up Rapes By Migrants
23 Sep 2015
"Paul Watson and guest, Alex Benesch, reveal why Germany cannot handle the number of refugees they are taking in and how the local media is covering up reports of rapes at the hands of Muslims."
InfoWars Video: Transript Alex Benesch talks complete sh*t, discrediting this video Link | here
European refugee flood; revolt of the Christian laity
October 3, 2015 1:49 PM MST
Timothy Whiteman Wilmington Conservative Examiner
While Europe nations from the Balkans to Scandinavia are attempting to cope with at least hundreds of thousands of refugees already on the continent, the leaders of the three largest Christian Churches in all of Christendom, albeit to various degrees, are exhorting the faithful to assist the migrants. While the Pontiff of Rome, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' have expressed varying degrees of support for the migrants, the pushback is coming from an unexpected source; the Christian laity.
As reported by Ilgin Karlidag of the new media Turkish Weekly news portal on Oct. 3, 2015, as the overwhelmingly Muslim tide of humanity coursing across Europe are finding that while ecclesiastical leaders may be lobbying on their behalf, the reality closer to the ground is much different. As the Turkish reporter noted, Slovakia has already announced that only Christian refugees and not Muslims will be admitted to the Central European republic.
Ironically, while the vast majority of the European democracies have slowly but surely been abandoning their centuries old Christian faith, culture and heritage over the past half century, the massive infusion of adherents of Mohammed may be the catalyst to a Christian re-awakening for the ever increasingly agnostics populations. As the Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported via Zee News of India on Sept. 26, 2015, despite France's Catholic hierarchy admonishing acceptance of all migrants, as well as the federal government's official refugee policy, the mayors of numerous Gallic cities, towns and villages have made it clear they would happily accept migrants. But the hitch is only if said migrants are Christians.
Even among the migrants themselves, the Christian minority of routinely singled out as easy targets for the Muslim majority. As the Jewish Press cited on Oct. 1, 2015, German police have been forced to separately house Christian refugees from Muslim. As reported, "A policy of segregation has already been implemented in the German state of Thuringia after Christian migrants in asylum centers were attacked by Sunnis attempting to impose Sharia law."
Examples of repression even in the refugee camps include, "Women are being forced to wear veils. Men are forced to pray. Islamists want to impose their values.” International Society for Human Rights official Max Klingberg complained that many of the refugees in Germany are actually radical Islamists. “Among the new arrivals is not a small amount of religious intensity, it is at least at the level of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.
Explaining that even if the Middle Eastern or North African Christians are to a certain degree somewhat alien to the average nominal Christian from Minsk to Manchester, a number of elected officials explain that with a shared Christian heritage the displaced and often violently repressed Middle Eastern and North African Christian refugees would have a much better chance of assimilating than their Muslim countrymen.
Even within the past number of weeks have a handful of European nations jettisoned any semblance of political correctness by clearly and unambiguously stating that if any migrants are allowed to remain, it'll be the Christians only. Hungary, Cyprus and the Czech Republic have all openly spoken against taking in Muslim refugees. Earlier this week, Cyprus announced it will allow 300 refugees sanctuary inside its borders, as long as they are Christian." Not alone, Ivan Netik, the Slovak Interior Ministry Spokesman, said Muslims “would not feel at home” in his country.
Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico warned that his country would not like to “wake up one day” and find Slovakia overrun by Muslims. “If a mechanism for automatic redistribution of migrants is adopted, then we will wake up one day and have 100,000 people from the Arab world and that is a problem I would not like Slovakia to have,” he stated.
According to the BreakingIsraelNews.com website, "We would seek for them to be Orthodox Christians,” explained Cyprus Interior Minister Socratis Hasikos on state radio. “It’s not an issue of being inhuman or not helping if we are called upon, but to be honest, yes, that’s what we would prefer.” Hasikos, who is responsible for migration policy, added that Christian refugees would have an easier time adjusting to life in Cyprus compared to their Muslim counterparts."
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has described the influx of Muslim refugees as a threat to Europe’s "Christian roots," while Bulgaria`s Prime Minister Boyko Borisov stated he was "concerned" over a potential massive influx of migrants in the coming months. "I`m scared and the Bulgarian people are scared, if only where religions are concerned. We are Christian, they are Muslim." At least on paper, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic are overwhelmingly Catholic, while the vast majority Cypriots and Bulgarians classify themselves Orthodox Christians.
Breaking from the pack of Church leaders, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church's Patriarch Neofit has called on the government to cease allowing any Muslims at all into the nation, as reported by the Reuters news service on Sept. 25, 2015. "For those who are already here, it is right for us, as Orthodox Christians and as a society, to look after as much as we can and as much as our scant resources allow us, but not any further," the Church said on its official website.
Not quite done yet, Patriarch Neofit also let it be known that "The Bulgarian Orthodox people should not pay the price of our disappearance as a state." As previously cited from AFP, the Bulgarian Patriarch also stated of the current crisis, "This is a wave that looks like an invasion."
Published: 01 Oct 2015 08:00 GMT+02:00
Facebook Twitter Google+ reddit
A 25-year-old Palestinian who stabbed a police officer at an asylum centre in Denmark this week is the same man who attacked a Swedish minister earlier in the year, Danish officials have said.
Sweden's Minister for Justice and Migration, Morgan Johansson, was uninjured in the attack in March this year, which took place as he visited a housing project for refugees in southern Sweden.
He was leaving the building when a man grabbed a fire extinguisher and sprayed foam over the minister, regional newspaper Kristianstadsbladet reported at the time.
The Danish Security and Intelligence Service (PET) said in a press release on Wednesday that the Palestinian was the same man who is currently accused of stabbing and seriously wounding a police officer at Sandholm asylum centre in Denmark, on Tuesday.
PET said that it had been warned about the man’s mental health and potential loyalty to the terror group Isis, alternately known as ISIL, Daesh or the Islamic State.
“PET received information from other Danish authorities that the suspect may be psychologically unstable, have a wish to travel to Syria or Iraq, that the person in question might have been radicalized and symphathize with ISIL and that the person in question had said that he previously attacked a Swedish minister in Sweden,” an agency statement read.
Danish broadcaster TV2 reported that the Swedish incident in question was the March attack on Johansson at the refugee housing project in Broby, near Kristianstad in southern Sweden.
The PET statement did not mention the Swedish minister by name, but Swedish authorities confirmed that the suspect in the Sandholm stabbing was the same person involved in the attack on Johansson.
“Yes, it's the same person. I can confirm that information,” Fredrik Milder, press secretary for the Swedish security police, Säpo, told Swedish tabloid Aftonbladet on Wednesday and added that the agency had been in contact with its Danish counterpart.
PET also said that the suspect had previously been cited for threatening a police officer.
In Tuesday’s attack at Sandholm a 56-year-old officer with the North Zealand Police was left seriously injured after being stabbed three times.
The suspect’s asylum application had been rejected by Danish authorities and he was scheduled to be deported. He had been held at Udrejsecenter Sjælsmark, a centre for rejected asylum seekers, since July. The centre is operated by the Danish Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalforsorgen) and is located just a few kilometres from Sandholm, where the attack took place.
The centre is Denmark's largest institution for asylum seekers and currently houses around 600 people. The former military barracks lie around 20 kilometres (12 miles) northwest of Copenhagen.
Importing Islamic Nightmares -- While Denying Them
The horror caused by mass Third World Muslim immigration will not go away by censorship and self-delusion.
April 1, 2013
Fjordman
A report prepared by groups in the various Nordic countries has proposed instituting a legal ban on anti-Feminist “hatred,” comparing this to “racism.” Representing the left-wing coalition government in Norway, Ahmad Ghanizadeh from the Socialist Left Party (SV), the State Secretary in the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, was positive towards the proposal, and promised that the government would look into it.
My initial thought upon hearing this is that Leftism is now officially a religion, and that its proponents desire a “blasphemy statute” to ban any serious discussion of left-wing doctrines and their consequences as “hate speech.”
Writer and fellow online dissident Takuan Seiyo commented that not even George Orwell could have come up with anything that tops this scenario. Yes, there is a serious proposal afoot in Norway to ban “anti-Feminist hatred”. Yes, the ministry really has the Orwellian name of Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion. And yes, this State Secretary in Norway really is called Ahmad Ghanizadeh, originally from Iran.
In 2013, Norway’s Minister of Culture is Hadia Tajik, whose Muslim family came from Pakistan. One must assume that Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of the Labour Party appointed her partly to remind the native population that they no longer have a culture, only “Multiculture,” but mainly in order to appeal to the Muslim and other Third World immigrant voters whose support his left-wing coalition depends upon in order to stay in power.
PM Stoltenberg in his prestigious New Year’s Speech for 2013promised that his government would seek to ban “hateful utterances” on the Internet. The year before, Stoltenberg used his New Year’s Speech, always broadcasted on prime-time national TV and watched by a large proportion of his countrymen, to launch a frontal attack on alleged “totalitarian seducers” who use the Internet to spread unfounded “hatred.”
I was shortly afterwards contacted by the journalist Ragnhild Sleire Øyen from the state broadcaster NRK, the local equivalent of the BBC, who considered it obvious that the Prime Minister was referring to me personally. I’m sure many other citizens got the same message, and that may well have been intentional.
The PM didn’t mention any names explicitly, but then he didn’t have to, since so many others had done that dirty job for him. His right-hand man in Labour, Party Secretary Raymond Johansen, has singled me out for public attack by name several times, both before and after the Prime Minister gave this speech, as one of the individuals spreading irrational “hate” against Islam and therefore holding me partly responsible for the mental climate that allegedly createdAnders Behring Breivik. I wasn’t the only name on that short list, but I usually topped it.
Norway is a small country, but I still find it unhealthy that a sitting political head of state uses his most prestigious annual speech addressing the nation to launch a thinly veiled attack on individual citizens who have done nothing criminal. An analogy for Americans would be if the President of the United States used his State of the Union speech to launch a thinly veiled attack on writers who use the Internet to publish ideas he dislikes, for instance the conservative author Michelle Malkin, or Glenn Reynolds with his major blog Instapundit. Even Obama hasn’t gone that far, at least not yet. The Social Democratic Prime Minister of Norway has.
Who gets to define “hate,” and do negative feelings always come out of nowhere?What if public anger, assuming it exists, actually has a cause that needs to be addressed? For example, being displaced in one’s own country by often hostile tribes? Should we simply ban any real discussions of this problem instead of dealing with the actual cause of public frustration? If so, what will be the long-term results of such a policy?
Elisabeth Skarsbø Moen is the debate editor and a regular columnist in VG, one of Norway’s two largest newspapers, and the largest one with a truly national readership. She writes in positive terms about Feminism, while at the same time championing the continued mass immigration of people from cultures that are extremely hostile to women. Like most other Western Feminists of her ilk, she sees no contradiction in this.
In October 2012, Skarsbø Moenwrote a deeply emotional column in VG entitled “Our children”, where she lamented that her society sometimes makes a distinction between “our” children and “other” children, that is, people born in other countries. She chastised her own country for not treating all children born anywhere on the entire planet as equally ours. The occasion concerned two young male Muslim asylum seekers from Afghanistan.
I don’t know these specific individuals, but it’s a fact that quite a few of the young asylum seekers who come to Europe from Afghanistan are actually young adults who lie about their age; so they are in fact neither children, nor are they “ours.” Skarsbø Moen thereby managed to tell two blatant falsehoods in just two words.
It also must be mentioned that these “children” usually bring with them an Islamic culture that is often violent and usually extremely hostile to women’s liberties. Yet this self-appointed Feminist does not seem to care much about that, or worry about the future consequences of allowing such a culture gain a foothold in her own country. Skarsbø Moen’s column was pure emotional pornography about how cruel and evil we are for not allowing potentially violent and generally hostile Muslims into our countries.
Neighboring Sweden has in little more than three decades metamorphosed from a safe country into being flooded by street crime and having one of the world’s highest recorded rape rates. Young blond girls in Stockholm suburbs are getting used to being called “whores” on a daily basis, and sometimes dye their hair in an attempt to avoid sexual harassment in the streets of what once was their own country.
Coincidentally, this transformation all took place at the same time as the largest wave of mass immigration in recorded history, much of it from brutal and repressivemale-dominated cultures. Yet most of the left-wing or Marxist Feminist activists and journalists in Scandinavia strenuously deny that there is any connection between these two phenomena, and will aggressively attack as “racists” those who dare to suggest that the mass immigration they support has caused any of this.
In December 2011 a Swedish mother-of-two was subjected to a brutal gang-rape by perhaps a dozen young male asylum seekers from Afghanistan in a refugee camp in Mariannelund, Sweden — although only seven of them were convicted for this gruesome crime. Swedish newspapers such as Aftonbladetsystematically conceal the ethnic identity of the perpetrators in cases involving immigrants, though, and only show photos featuring white criminals.
Reports stated that “The rape was oral, anal and vaginal sometimes with three rapists inside her at the same time while everybody was cheering and clapping. The gruesome rape marathon lasted for 7 hours. 11 suspects may have been involved, taking turns while drinking and getting high on drugs. The asylum seekers were cheering and clapping their hands during the rape marathon while calling the victim ‘whore’ and ‘slut’.”
The Swedish victim went into shock and has naturally become heavily traumatized. She is now subject to panic attacks and lives in a psychiatric clinic. She is also bound to a wheelchair due to the damage to her abdomen. The main perpetrator – Rafi Bahaduri, 25 – had already committed four other rapes in Sweden that we know of.
Despite this, Elina Gustafsson, a local member of the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League (SSU) who defines herself as a “proud Feminist,” thought it would be “racist” to expel these convicted Muslim criminals.
I’m reminded of another left-wing politician from Sweden. The Marxist Feminist Gudrun Schyman, then the leader of the “reformed” Communist party, in a speech in 2002 suggested that Swedish men are just like the Taliban.Fredrik Virtanen, a male columnist for the national newspaper Aftonbladet, immediately agreed with her that yes, Western men are just like the brutal Taliban regime and other Muslims from Afghanistan.
The young woman from Mariannelund, Sweden who just had her life ruined might disagree with this claim.Even native-born psychopaths rarely behave in this manner, yet such a treatment of women is unfortunately not rare in the most repressive parts of the Islamic world, whose primitive tribal cultures Western authorities insist on mass-importing to our cities.
Gang rapes and certain other types of violent crime were exceedingly rare in the Nordic countries a few decades ago, but are currently in the process of becoming routine. In Trondheim, Norway, on the 28th of May 2011, a young girl named Eva Helgetun took her own life. She was just 14 years old, and had been gang-raped by immigrants a few weeks before. Too many others share her fate.
In the 1960s when the so-called Second Wave of Feminism began, often with strong Marxist inspirations, Western women were relatively safe compared to women in other parts of the world. Half a century later, Western women have never had more Feminism, yet they and their children have also never been less safe.
Perhaps pointing out this fact constitutes “hate” in the eyes of some people, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
The problems caused by Third World mass immigration will not go away if we ban people from speaking truthfully about them. How hard can it be for members of the ruling elites to grasp this simple fact?
Swedish minister Margot Wallstrom: shaking up the world with words
Annie Maccoby Berglof
Towering over a busy roundabout in downtown Stockholm is a bronze statue of King Gustav II Adolph on his horse. Almost 400 years after Gustav II conquered northern Europe, Sweden’s foreign minister,Margot Wallstrom, is shaking up the world not with weapons, but words, in an ornate yellow building just across the street. Since taking her post in October last year, the veteran Social Democratic politician has recognised the Palestinian state, denounced Saudi Arabia’s “medieval” floggings and adopted a “feminist foreign policy” that includes calling for a halt to sexual violence against women in war. [Comment: But is fine with importing barbarity and rape to Sweden.]
Now, as desperate migrants trek towards Sweden, and neighbouring EU countries balk at accepting refugees, Wallstrom, a former EU commissioner, insists that the rest of Europe must join Sweden and Germany in shouldering the burden. “We have to find solidarity and help each other out. We have to share responsibility for the refugees based on our shared values . . . If one country is putting up a fence, and another is opening up, this is not sustainable,” she says. Comment: Wallstrom also used the holocaust and the WWII dead in propaganda (here) urging Europe to relinquish national sovereignty & accept of the 'European Constitution', so Wallstrom urging absorption of Medieval emirates imports, is more of the same official neocon-serving propaganda ... the consequences of which Wallstrom herself doesn't have to live with.]
There is little hint of the crisis on a sunny afternoon in the rooms of the foreign ministry, which looks on to the Royal Opera, bridges and blue waters beyond. Wallstrom, 60, who is softly spoken in person, greets visitors at the door of a red-silk-themed room of the Prince Royal’s Palace. “It’s an old palace from the 1600s . . . Sophia Albertina, sister of Gustav III, bought it in 1783,” says Wallstrom, leading the way into the Blue Salon with its display of 18th-century furniture. “They’ve tried to restore the covers with the original patterns,” she says, noting that the royal bedroom where she keeps her desk was the princess’s sewing room. “She would sit with her maids, and make the wall tapestries. I can well imagine that she’s sitting sewing when I am at my desk.”
Today, rolls of fine silk on the gilded, Gustavian-style desk have given way to urgent reports from the wars in Syria and Iraq. Swedenhas taken in more migrants per capita than any European country. “This year we’ve had over 80,000 asylum-seekers,” says Wallstrom, “And we’ve given asylum to over 80,000 Syrians since 2011.” [Comment: Iraq which was invaded illegally & Syria that has been destabilised by the West and its allies funding and arming terrorists.]
Wallstrom — a mother of two sons, Viktor, 30, and Erik, 22 — has been married to her husband, Hakan, for 34 years. She got her political start protesting strife in Vietnam and Chile from the town of Skelleftea, on the edge of Lapland. “A neighbour whose children I babysat asked me if I wanted to be one of the young people to start a Social Democratic youth club,” she says. “It was a political time. It started with international solidarity.” She also discovered power in local politics, and was writing newspaper articles at 17. “I learnt we could change things; get an extra bus [scheduled] at midnight.”
The ministry’s Blue Salon
At 25, she was elected to parliament and, by 34, was minister of consumer affairs, with two other ministerial posts (culture, social affairs) between 1988 and 1998. Regularly topping popularity polls and tipped as a future Social Democratic leader, in 1999 she left for Brussels to become EU commissioner for the environment until 2004 and then EU communications commissioner until 2009. In 2010 she became the first UN special representative on sexual violence in conflict. She returned last year to run the foreign ministry. [Comment: Who knew babysitting & a spot of political protest could lead to such a distinguished career in European politics? -- here]
“We have meals for foreign guests in here,” says Wallstrom, heading through a gallery and pausing in front of Napoleonic-era portraits of noble ministers with necklaces of medals and elaborate oiled curls. “This is interesting. Sometimes people live with the impression men are not vain,” she notes wryly, turning into another reception room. [Comment: Yeah, the question of apportioning vanity to gender is the really pressing big issue in Sweden.]
Lined up around the room, which is fitted with red-checked drapes, are portraits of previous foreign ministers. On the far wall is a giant, 17th-century oil painting of a bewigged count, Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna. “He tried to introduce modern administration. He was a powerful guy,” she says.
To the left are portraits of more recent foreign ministers, including one of Wallstrom’s close colleague Anna Lindh, who was assassinated in Stockholm’s NK store in 2003 by Mijailo Mijailovic, a mentally ill Swede of Serbian descent. “It took away all the joy of being politically active,” says Wallstrom, “She was not a confrontational person. She was kind. I’ve tried to learn from that.” [Comment: Does anyone in Sweden ever actually get killed by a native Swede?]
“It’s my favourite thing because when I started as a minister of foreign affairs, I got it from my two sons,” says Wallstrom, of a silver necklace with a charm. “It’s a horseshoe, for good luck.”
She then plucks out a small paperback from her bag and hands it over to me. “It’s How to Cure a Fanatic, by Amos Oz. I love this book. It has ways to fight fanaticism and extremism.” [Comment: LOL ... it looks like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is reduced to a battle over 'real estate' and the author urges: compromise. Good luck with the peace mission.]
She leads the way into more modest personal quarters that include a small kitchen, where she pours coffee. “It may be too strong,” she warns, turning into a simple private room brightened by orange woven blankets brought in to make the space more cosy. Here, she reads briefings and ebooks on her iPad at the end of the day. “I’ve told my sons that in life they should always read books. And do something unselfish.”
The migrant crisis has prompted Wallstrom to increase calls for global action to halt the violence generating the exodus to Europe. “How do you fight rape as an ideology?” she says, referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. “When women are sold on a modern slave market as pieces of meat it’s time that the international community reacts at the highest level, shows it has the means and strength and tools to stop it . . . Violence against women must be defined as a peace and security issue.” [Comment: What a load of garbage this is. The West promotes sectarian violence and funds and arms proxy destabilisation of the Middle East, and is responsible for illegal wars ... but these politicians pretend to be the saviours of foreign women getting raped & sold by terrorists --- the same terrorists West has been supporting and arming, in the quest for control of the Middle East. With politician endorsed and forced immigration to Europe, not only are women being raped in foreign sh*tholes, they're been raped and otherwise assaulted by foreigners in their European homelands ... thanks to these vapid neocon puppet politicians.]
Clock in the drawing room
Wallstrom’s stance on human rights sparked criticism this spring. Her remarks on abuse in Saudi Arabia prompted a diplomatic spat: she was barred from giving a speech to the Arab League, the Saudis recalled their ambassador and the Swedish government cancelled a Saudi security agreement, risking $1bn of arms sales, and creating a backlash from Swedish industrialists arguing for free trade.
Yet Wallstrom says she received thanks for her outspokenness from around the world. “Every day flowers arrived. People long for those who stand up for their values,” she says, noting that Swedish-Saudi relations have been normalised, with both ambassador and trade restored. [Comment: Oh, what a heroine: imports a stunning assortment of Medieval savages, terrorists, killers, head choppers, and rapists to assault the domestic population. But, hey, the Saudi agreement's supposedly cancelled, or so we're *told* ... so Sweden's the centre of wholesome values (never mind those rapes & IKEA killings). LOL ... And what's the bet that there's a leak in several years' time that indicates there's been no such cancellation of arming Saudi Arabia (top Western ally), which now insists on entering into *secret* arms agreements (see Canada).]
A statue by Johan Tobias Sergel
Her frankness extends to migrants. Asked about the proliferation of temporary migrants of Roma origin begging on the streets of Stockholm, she says, “We have to act in a humane way but they have to go back to Bulgaria and Romania.” She adds that both EU countries have received substantial Swedish aid and should take care of their citizens. “The children must go to school.”[Comment: Good luck keeping the beggars at bay, when you've got open borders, an EU three ringed circus, plus Soros promoting European-wide Bedlam.]
Now, Wallstrom must help convince her EU counterparts to offer homes to tens of thousands of refugees. “We have to show that we are capable of dealing with these numbers,” she says. Can Sweden cope? “We’ve done it before, in the 1990s with the Balkans. It will be a strain on our systems — education, housing — but we can do it with help. If we shared responsibility between 28 [EU] countries, it would not be a strain.” [Comment: Save for defeated and utterly co-opted Germany, they're not interested in sharing any such 'responsibility', you ditzy muppet.]
Our time is almost up. She glances at the fine weather outside, but will have to wait to enjoy it. When not travelling, Wallstrom, who owns a small Stockholm flat, spends weekends at her home in Varmland in western Sweden with her husband, whom she credits for supporting her political life. “You have to choose the right husband. Why not choose a carpenter who can do all the practical work and is a smart guy, handsome and the best father?” she says, passing back into the staterooms — once filled with maids at embroidery and bewigged counts plotting war. [Comment: Take it that's not real estate in the immigrant ghettos of Sweden ... the ones that emergency workers and police cannot enter without back-up.]
The reception room in the ministry
For the war-weary who reach Sweden, an outpouring of sympathy has temporarily quieted the anti-immigrant party, Sweden Democrats, now polling at up to 27 per cent. “It has been very moving. We now have to manage that engagement in a wise way,” says Wallstrom, who acknowledges a possible extremist backlash. But as the exhausted masses trudge towards northern Europe, Wallstrom says she will keep pressing EU leaders on their common values. “Our humanity trumps all." [Comment: Oh, sure. But apparently not humanity towards your own kind. Yep, 'humanity' is sooooooo plausible, under the circumstances. LOL]
All asylum seekers have the right to a health screening to
determine whether they need medical care and to detect contagious
diseases like tuberculosis. The check-up is also a chance to inform
asylum seekers about how Sweden's health and welfare systems work.
But Swedish Radio News found that four out of 10 applicants were not
tested last year. Mohammed Sharkan was one of them and said none of his
fellow asylum seekers living in Varberg, southwestern Sweden, received
any medical examination.
"No one has asked me if I want to see a doctor, no one here has been asked," he said.
Robert Jonzon, of Sweden's Public Health Agency, is leading a project
to encourage more applicants to medical exam. He said the Migration
Board and local counties need to do a better job telling applicants
about the purpose of the medical examination.
'Right' to health checks? 'Encourage' applicants? Jesus, have the Swedes no balls at all?
Shouldn't this be a mandatory OBLIGATION and a precaution to protect the population of Sweden?
2013 Sweden -- clearly nobody in authority gives two sh*ts.
Europe's an effing nightmare.
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
COMMENT
Got to be kidding. And Europe is voluntarily opening itself up to this?
The IKEA murders were for the same reason: denied asylum.
But sometimes the trigger for crime is also granted asylum: a Swedish social worker was raped by an immigrant freshly granted asylum, as he knew (and plainly stated) he would not be deported to the Middle East.
Looking for that story (which I cannot locate the link to at the moment), I came across the marathon rape article (above).
What the political elite (and the media that suppresses information from general public awareness) is doing to Europe is criminal.
I feel physically ill reading these stories and cannot comprehend how any country can allow their own people to be subjected to this savagery and tyranny, let alone take pride in facilitating it.
While it's not exactly a relief that it was in Switzerland rather than in Germany, it is something of a relief to learn the violence was at least confined to violence between immigrant parties, rather than attack on the host community.
The LiveLeak footage indicated that it was a confrontation between Kurdish and Turkish parties, and that 4 police and a K9 were injured, in addition to the various other parties injured (and possibly killed).
News article related to this:
Watch: Migrant Kurds And Turks Battle On The Streets Of Switzerland
by Liam Deacon12 Sep 2015
Kurds and Turks went to war on the street of Europe once again today. A group of Kurdish independence supporters leaving a rally in the Swiss town of Bern were rammed by a car allegedly driven by a supporter of Turkish nationalism. Two are thought to have died, with twenty injured.
The initial rally was organised by the “Union of Turkish Democrats in Europe” against Kurdish “terrorism,” NZZ reports. Around 100 Turkish nationalists gather and were met by a counter demonstration of around 180 supporters of Kurdish independence and the prescribed group the PKK.
Local News provider Watson reports that the town center was sealed off and several bridges closed. Riot police used rubber bullets and peppers spray to separate the rival groups, who were angered by the ongoing conflict between their two ethnic groups in the Middle East.
The fatal attack was on a smaller, breakaway group on the edge of the rally, local media Blick reports. Videos loaded to social media show a black Mercedes accelerating into a group of Kurdish demonstrators, identifiable by their yellow PKK flags. Several people are struck and screaming is heard.
A spokeswoman for Canton Police confirmed to Watson that an “incident” involving a vehicle had occurred on Saturday afternoon. The driver had been detained but disruption in the town was ongoing when the spokeswoman addressed journalists at 18:00 local time.
The violence follows Thursday’s bloody clashes in Frankfurt, Germany between Kurds and Turks, which descended into a riot, and further reports of violent clashes between the two ethnic groups in Hannover today.
WATCH: Migrant Turks And Kurds Battle On Frankfurt Streets, German Army Called In
by Simon Kent 11 Sep 2015
At least five arrests were made in Frankfurt on Thursday night after a march by supporters of Turkish nationalism descended into bloody violence when they clashed with rival Kurd separatists.
Video of the riot has emerged on the same day Germany announced it will place 4,000 soldiers on standby over the weekend to help with a new wave of up to 40,000 refugees arriving in the country.
Police said The Thursday event was billed as a “solidarity march commemorating fallen Turkish soldiers”. According to FR Online to it was organised by the “Federation of Turkish young people” which campaigns on behalf of Turkey. The fracas involved a group of around 380 participant and started at the city’s main railway station at 18.30.
Soon after the Turkish supporters set off there were attacks by immigrant Kurd counter-demonstrators who used sticks, bottles and stones to attack marchers. One taxi driver reportedly had his car damaged in the brawl.
Police confirmed the counter-demonstrators were of Kurdish origin and quickly withdrew.
More than 40,000 people have died since the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) launched its armed campaign in 1984 calling for an independent Kurdish state within Turkey.
Now immigrants from both sides of that battle are carrying their fight onto the streets of Frankfurt.
Meanwhile, Germany will mobilise 4,000 soldiers in the next 48-hours to help with the entry of up to 40,000 refugees in the country, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen said on Friday.
She told Der Spiegel that she was placing the troops on alert with the expectation they could be asked to do more than just welcome the immigrant arrivals.
“The country can be sure that the Bundeswehr [German army] will be supporting” efforts to care for refugees, Von der Leyen said, adding that the army could do yet more if called upon.
“We are spreading these 4,000 soldiers across the country and they will intervene if the federal states [which are responsible for the initial uptake of refugees] request it,” a Defence Ministry spokesman told The Local.
“They will provide a helping hand, for example to set up a refugee camp, to help with organization, provide buses and drivers, other types of transport, medical services and equipment, anything of that kind.”
Record numbers of people from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa continue to pour into Europe, with around 7,600 entering Macedonia in the last 12 hours.
Bendigo mosque protest: Anti-mosque and anti-racism protesters clash
Date August 29, 2015
Tom Cowie, Reporter
Police deployed capsicum spray in the heart of Bendigo on Saturday afternoon as violent scuffles broke out between opposing protest groups over plans for a mosque.
About 200 people gathered in the central Victorian city for a protest organised by the United Patriots Front, where they were met with equal numbers from left-wing groups including No Room For Racism and the Socialist Alternative.
A huge police presence, including a mounted unit, locked down large areas of the regional city in anticipation of the groups coming together.
The anti-Islam demonstration was organised as part of a vocal campaign to stop a mosque from being built in Bendigo. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Council recently dismissed an appeal against the project.
Police set up a barricade around Bendigo Town Hall for the anti-mosque protest at 2pm, as the No Room For Racism group gathered outside chanting and playing music.
The groups tried to clash on several occasions, including at the Hargreaves Street Mall, but were met with large police numbers.
At one point, protesters came together when a flag was burned by the anti-racist demonstrators. Police used capsicum spray on the anti-Islam protesters who were trying to get across the police line.
Speaking out against the mosque and Islam were several leaders from the right-wing United Patriots Front, as well as Go Back To Where You Come From star Kim Vuga.
The lead objector against the mosque, Julie Hoskin, spoke in front of the crowd and said the majority of people in Bendigo opposed the mosque.
She accused the council and "complicit media" of trying to convince residents that most people in the city supported the mosque.
"We are local and we are vocal and we don't want a mosque in Bendigo," she said.
Many of the anti-Islam speakers were not from Bendigo but when they asked how many people in the crowd were from the area a large amount put their hand up.
Several protesters on both sides wore masks to hide their identity.
The anti-Islam demonstrators carried Australian flags and protest signs, including one that said "Say no to the Islamisation of Bendigo". Another said the local council was "sacrificing Bendigo to Islam for their own greed".
Controversial Bendigo Councillor Elise Chapman, who has been a vocal opponent of the mosque, was in the crowd wearing an Australian flag.
United Patriots Front leader Blair Cottrell was seen washing his eyes out with water after police deployed the capsicum spray.
In his speech, Mr Cottrell lashed his opponents from the anti-racist protests as "losers, renegades and traitors". The UPF have been engaged in ongoing street battles with left-wing groups, including outside State Parliament last month.
Life-long Bendigo resident Sue McConnachieattended the rally with friends to show support for the mosque, but was disappointed with the level of aggression from both sides.
"It seemed like the emphasis on the local cause was certainly weakened by the people on the front lines," Ms McConnachie said.
The anti-racist group at one point played Khe Sanh by Cold Chisel, a reference to Jimmy Barnes asking right-wing group Reclaim Australia not to play his songs.
The rally broke up at about 4pm. Police remained on high alert after the protest in preparation any subsequent clashes. There were no arrests.
The
wide range of problems in Switzerland, Germany, France, and a number of other Western European countries that result from cross-cultural immigration are staggering.
But non-European refugees and immigrants keep pouring in, thanks to the policies of neocon politicians who are (a) responsible for the chaos abroad that results in displacement and migration (b) responsible for failing to make alternate arrangements for those they have displaced.
Meanwhile, the domestic bleeding hearts and demented ideologues, are all for opening borders to more chaos, as well as irreconcilable cultural and other issues (at best).
I strongly sympathise with those that seek to preserve their amenities, their national heritage, and the integrity and primacy of their own cultures, be it in Europe or in the colonies.
It's impossible to see solutions. All I see is doom.
German Jews blast mayor who blamed Israel for refugee crisis
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL \ 09/29/2015 06:05
Mayor of Jena who supports a boycott of Israeli products, was in Ramallah on Friday meeting with Palestinians.
REFUGEES WALK along train tracks leading from Serbia into Hungary on Friday
BERLIN – Jena Mayor Albrecht Schröter was the subject of biting criticism after he accused the Jewish state of partial responsibility for the Syrian refugee crisis overtaking Europe.
“Germany must break with restraint toward Israel as an occupying state,” he told the Thüringische Landeszeitung daily, in an interview published on September 18 that was widely interpreted as blaming Israel for the Syrian refugees pouring into Europe.
The mayor, who supports a boycott of Israeli products, was in Ramallah on Friday meeting with Palestinians.
Schröter “fosters anti-Semitism,” wrote Reinhard Schramm, the chairman of the Jewish community in Thuringia state, in an email to The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. Jena is a university town in the eastern German state.
“There is the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict... but it is not this conflict that caused the wave of millions of Muslims and the attended fears from parts of the German population,” Schramm said.
He said the direct causes of the refugee crisis are: “Hundreds of thousands of dead in the civil war in Syria and Iraq, the murder-terrorism of Islamic State, the inhumanity against the Yazidis, Christians, Kurds and other minorities, and the conditions in Afghanistan.”
Schramm said when Schröter casts responsibility in the direction of Israel, he is following the “age-old cliché ‘The Jews are to blame,’ and therefore fosters anti-Semitism ...
The cliché was false in the Middle Ages and false today. And it can lead to pogroms.”
Schröter responded to a detailed Post query, including as to whether he plans to resign, but without answering the questions. He did not respond to a follow-up email.
Post queries to the Berlin and Thuringia offices of the Social Democratic Party, of which Schröter is a member, were not immediately returned.
Markus Giebe, a deputy head of the Jena City Council for the party, told the Post during a telephone interview that “Israel is not responsible for the refugee crisis.” He said he does not believe that “Schröter is a left-wing anti-Semite.”
Giebe signed a petition from the Jena Jusos group – the young adult organization of the Social Democrats – that criticized Schröter for contributing “unwittingly to making anti-Semitic thinking respectable in our society.”
The student council of Friedrich Schiller University Jenaissued a statement last week, rejecting “the anti-Israel anti-Semitism from Schröter.”
After Schrötersigned a petition in 2012 supporting a broad-based boycott of Israeli products, the neo-Nazi NPD party branch in Thuringia wrote that he is “courageous” for his anti-Israel activity and that “as nationalists who have to deal every day with these Jewish/left-liberal defamation tactics, we think of Goethe’s sorcerer’s apprentice, who couldn’t get rid of the spirits he summoned.”
Jenas OB: "Germany must abandon restraint toward Israel"
09/18/2015 - 08:47 clock
Jenas mayor Albrecht Schröter (SPD) has the foreign policy of the United States and Germany made responsible for the refugee crisis - and called for a change of course.
Albrecht Schröter (59, SPD) sees the wave of refugees as Resulat the foreign policy of the USA and Germany. Photo: Tino Zippel
Jena. "The Islamophobic US policy of the past decades to bear fruit", Schröter said in Jena after facing the influx of hundreds of thousands refugees alone Germany, A major change of policy is needed to defuse the conflicts in the Middle East.
Also his party colleague and Secretary of State Frank-Walter Steinmeier Schröter sees in the obligation. "Germany change its role in the Middle East conflict must be, "said the Social Democrat. "It must face from its elegant restraint Israel emerge as Besatzerstaat. "
The men are on the run from war, famine and economic misery situations Schröter said. Therefore urgently needed to be helped to improve the situation in the countries of origin. "We need to help that people have again an incentive to stay in their countries. Otherwise we will the flood of refugees is not sir.
Dem Jenaer Oberbürgermeister Albrecht Schröter (SPD) wird vorgeworfen, sich antisemitisch geäußert zu haben.
The Jena mayor Albrecht Schröter (SPD) is alleged to have expressed anti-Semitic.Zu den Kritikern gehört nun auch der Landesvorsitzende der Jüdischen Gemeinde. Among the critics now include the state chairman of the Jewish community.
Reinhard Schramm, chairman of the Jewish national community. Photo: Esther Goldberg Gera.
Reinhard Schramm has the face of Schröters remarks on the political-satirical couplet "At all the Jews are to blame" referenced. The German composer Friedrich Holländer had written the song 1931st
Schramm felt recalled because the Jena mayor the increasing number of after Germany coming refugees in immediate conjunction with Israel had brought.
This is contradicted by Schramm a statement that there is this newspaper: "There is the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whose solution is not in sight.
But not this conflict caused the mass exodus of millions of Muslims and the associated fears of parts of the German population. Hundreds of thousands of deaths in the civil war in Syria and in Iraq , The murder terror of the Islamic State, the inhumanity against the Yezidi, Christian, Kurdish and other minorities in the states Afghanistan - These are the immediate causes ".
The refugees, as Schramm Next, ask the culprit for their tragedy and parts of the German population to ask for the guilty for their fears.
If Schröter blame seekers towards Israel as a scapegoat joints, he Serve the ancient cliché that the Jews are to blame, writes Schramm , "He promotes anti-Semitism both in the refugees as well as the population. The cliché voted neither in the Middle Ages, yet it is true today. Yet it led to pogroms. "
The Jena mayor stayed on Friday for talks with Palestinians Ramallah , As BelTA learned from the municipal government, it comes to town twinning, which should promote a peaceful development in the Middle East.
Wolfgang Sagittarius /09.28.15 / OTZ
---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------
COMMENT
So the Mayor of Jena, in Germany, said:
“Germany must break with restraint toward Israel as an occupying state"
and this has caused such a stir that there's:
a) a denunciation by Reinhard Schramm, the chairman of the Jewish community in Thuringia state.
b) Markus Giebe, a deputy head of the Jena City Council & Social Democratic Party member, that has signed a petition from the Jena Jusos group (young socialists / youth wing of the SPD Jena) criticising Schröter for contributing “unwittingly to making anti-Semitic thinking respectable in our society.”
c) a statement issued by the student council of Friedrich Schiller University Jena, "rejecting “the anti-Israel anti-Semitism from Schröter.”
d) JPost columns devoted to Schröter's purported 'anti-Semitism' (according to various parties), as well as German press columns of more of the same.
Going by that single statement of Schröter's (without having read any of the interview), I fail to see the slightest support for claims of 'anti-Semitism.'
So far, what I do see is:
1) Schröter standing up for Palestine (which is an occupied state), while also discussing the Middle East generally, in terms of the 'refugee crisis'.
2) a spineless Markus Giebe signing some baloney petition, presumably to appease the Jewish group in Jena. Edit: nope. It's a baloney brainwashing petition of the baby socialists ... it's a young socialists / youth wing of the SDP (Germany) petition. Mein Gott! Someone, please set them straight. lol
3) a statement from the NPD party of German nationalists, who state that they're fed up with "Jewish/left-liberal defamation tactics."
No idea what the "Goethe’s sorcerer’s apprentice" reference is to, but it sounds interesting.
Accusations of 'anti-Semitism' appear to be levelled at a German political figure who is mildly critical of Israel, and also a supporter of Palestine and the BDS movement.
As far as I can see, this is a minor politician being mildly critical of Israel and subsequently being censured and smeared in press (by subtle association with 'anti-Semitism'), and via petition, student issued statement/censure regarding 'anti-Semitism', fellow party member back-stabbing de facto denunciation (ie what amounts to it, via the petition signature).
In my view, if anyone deserves to be fired, it's Markus Giebe, for (a) spinelessness and (b) disloyalty to a party member. Oh, wait. It's the baby socialist 'youth wing' petition ( ... WTF? ...) ... so maybe the entire party should fire itself for gross stupidity.
After I wrote this, I thought I'd look up the article in question to see if there's something I may have missed.
Nope. There's nothing more.
It looks like this is all the 'anti-Semitic' and 'so, will you quit your job' campaigners have to go on:
"Germany change its role in the Middle East conflict must be, "said the Social Democrat. "It must face from its elegant restraint Israel emerge as Besatzerstaat. "
'Besatzerstaat' translates to 'occupierState' (if you play with Google Translate, until you break down the word to get a translation -- as Google Translate does not directly translate 'Besatzerstaat' to what it means).
Well, that really was much ado about nothing.
I'm guessing this is simply supporters of Israel, and perhaps of Israel policy in the Middle East, targeting Schröter because he has challenged what is the occupier state, Israel; because he is a supporter of BDS (which Israel and supporters of Israel are vehemently against); and because he happens to have mentioned Israel while having also discussed the current state of affairs in the Middle East, that's 'bearing fruit' and, without question, inundating Europe with Middle Eastern immigrants.
So what is Israel's role in the chaos of the Middle East, one wonders ...
January 25, 2003 Israel, American Jews & the War on Iraq
by
by BILL And KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
Most of the vociferously pro-Israeli neo-conservative policymakers in the Bush administration make no effort to hide the fact that at least part of their intention in promoting war againstIraq (and later perhaps against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Palestinians) is to guarantee Israel’s security by eliminating its greatest military threats, forging a regional balance of power overwhelmingly in Israel’s favor, and in general creating a more friendly atmosphere for Israel in the Middle East. Yet, despite the neo-cons’ own openness, a great many of those on the left who oppose going to war with Iraq and oppose the neo-conservative doctrines of the Bush administration nonetheless utterly reject any suggestion that Israel is pushing the United States into war, or is cooperating with the U.S., or even hopes to benefit by such a war. Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word “domination” anywhere in the vicinity of the word “Israel,” as in “U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East” or “the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel,” and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.
This is tiresome, to put it mildly. So it’s useful to put forth the evidence for the assertion of Israeli complicity in Bush administration planning for war with Iraq, which is voluminous, as the following recitation will show. Much of what is presented below could be classified as circumstantial, but much is from the mouths of the horses themselves, either the neo-con planners or Israeli government officials, and much of it is evidence that, even if Israel is not actively pushing for war, many Israelis expect to benefit from it, and this despite their fear that a war will bring down on Israel a shower of Iraqi missiles.
The evidence below is listed chronologically, except for two items grouped separately at the end. Although deletions have been made for the sake of brevity, and emphasis has been added to occasional phrases and sentences, no editorial narrative has been added. The evidence speaks for itself.
“Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative.To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can [among other steps] work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies a clean break from the slogan, ‘comprehensive peace’ to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling backSyria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right, as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria’s regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq..Since Iraq’s future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which allowed strategic retreat, by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response. Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea.Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace it seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: ‘Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important, if not the most important, element in the history of the Middle East.’ Israel-proud, wealthy, solid, and strong-would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.” [Comment: What? In what world is Israel a catalyst for ME peace?]
“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” policy paper written for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, mid-1996, under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Authors included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, now all policymakers in or policy advisers to the Bush administration
“Iraq’s future will profoundly affect the strategic balance in the Middle East. The battle to dominate and define Iraq is, by extension, the battle to dominate the balance of power in the Levant over the long run. Iraq tried to take over its neighbor, Kuwait, a catastrophic mistake that has accelerated Iraq’s descent into internal chaos. This chaos has created a vacuum in an area geostrategically central, and rich with human and natural resources. The vacuum temptsIraq’s neighbors to intervene, especially Syria, which is also driven to control the region. Iraq’s chaos and Syria’s efforts simultaneously provide opportunities for the Jordanian monarchy. Jordan is best suited to manage the tribal politics that will define the Levant in the wake of failed secular-Arab nationalism. If Jordan wins, then Syriawould be isolated and surrounded by a new pro-western Jordanian-Israeli-Iraqi-Turkish bloc. It would be prudent for the United States and Israel to abandon the quest for ‘comprehensive peace,’ including its ‘land for peace’ provision withSyria, since it locks the United Statesinto futile attempts to prop-up local tyrants and the unnatural states underneath them. Instead, the United States and Israel can use this competition over Iraq to improve the regional balance of power in favor of regional friends like Jordan.”
“Coping with Crumbling States: A Western and Israeli Balance of Power Strategy for the Levant,” policy paper written for an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, December 1996, by David Wurmser, now a State Department official in the Bush administration
“In the [occupied] territories, the Arab world, and in Israel, Bush’s support for Sharon is being credited to the pro-Israel lobby, meaning Jewish money and the Christian right. [In April 2002] state department professionals convinced Bush that it was important to quell the violence in the territories before assaulting Iraq. The U.S. militarysupported that view, emphasizing the critical importance of the ground bases in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for the success of the mission. But according to a well-placed American source, the weather vane turned. Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld’s deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, asked Bush what kind of coalition-shmoalition he needed to win the war in Afghanistan. They calmed his concerns by saying there’s no chance the situation in the territories will shake the regimes of Mubarak in Egypt and the Abdullahs in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Last Saturday [April 20], the president convened his advisors in Camp David, for another discussion of the crisis in the territories and Iraq. They decided to sit on the fence.”
Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar, Ha’aretz, April 26, 2002
“It echoes the hawks in the Bush administration, but Israel has its own agenda in backing a US attack on Iraq. As Egypt and other Arab alliesissue vehement warnings to dissuade Washington, Israel’s fear is that the US will back off. ‘If the Americans do not do this now,’ said Israeli Deputy Defense Minister and Labor Party member Weizman Shiry on Wednesday, ‘it will be harder to do it in the future. In a year or two, Saddam Hussein will be further along in developing weapons of mass destruction. It is a world interest, but especially an American interest to attack Iraq. And as deputy defense minister, I can tell you that the United Stateswill receive any assistance it needs from Israel,’ he added. Viewed through the eyes of Israel’s hawkish leaders, however, a US strike is not about Iraq only. Decisionmakers believe it will strengthen Israel’s hand on the Palestinian front and throughout the region. Deputy Interior Minister Gideon Ezra suggested this week that a US attack on Iraq will help Israel impose a new order, sans Arafat, in the Palestinian territories. ‘The more aggressive the attack is, the more it will help Israel against the Palestinians. The understanding would be that what is good to do in Iraq, is also good for here,’ said Ezra. He said a US strike would ‘undoubtedly deal a psychological blow’ to the Palestinians. Yuval Steinitz, a Likud party member of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, says he sees another advantage for Israel. The installation of a pro-American government in Iraq would help Israel vis-a-vis another enemy: Syria. ‘After Iraq is taken by US troops and we see a new regime installedas inAfghanistan, and Iraqibases become American bases, it will be very easy to pressureSyria to stop supporting terrorist organizations like Hizbullah and Islamic Jihad, to allow the Lebanese army to dismantle Hizbullah, and maybe to put an end to the Syrian occupation in Lebanon,’ he says. ‘If this happens we will really see a new Middle East. It might be enough not to invade Syria but just to have an American or UN blockadeso that no one can ship weapons to it,’ Steinitz adds.Mr. Ezra predicts a US strike would ‘calm down the entire region’ by eliminating ‘the extremism of Saddam.'” [Comment: So, much for the 'calm down' of region prediction. lol]
Ben Lynfield, Christian Science Monitor, August 30, 2002
?
“As the Bush administration debates going to war against Iraq, its most hawkish members are pushing a sweeping vision for the Middle East that sees the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq as merely a first step in the region’s transformation. The argument for reshaping the political landscape in the Mideast has been pushed for years by some Washington think tanks and in hawkish circles. It is now being considered as a possible US policy with the ascent of key hard-liners in the administration, fromPaul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith in the Pentagon toJohn Hannah and Lewis Libby on the vice president’s staff and John Bolton in the State Department, analysts and officials say. Iraq, the hawks argue, is just the first piece of the puzzle. After an ouster of Hussein, they say, the United States will have more leverage to act against Syria and Iran, will be in a better position to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and will be able to rely less on Saudi oil. The thinking does not represent official US policy. But increasingly the argument has served as a justification for a military attack against Iraq, and elements of the strategy have emerged in speeches by administration officials, most prominently Vice President Dick Cheney. A powerful corollary of the strategy is that a pro-US Iraq would make the region safer for Israel and, indeed, its staunchest proponents are ardent supporters of the Israeli right-wing. Administration officials, meanwhile, have increasingly argued that the onset of an Iraq allied to the US would give the administration more sway in bringing about a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though Cheney and others have offered few details on precisely how. In its broadest terms, the advocates argue that a democratic Iraq would unleash similar change elsewhere in the Arab world. ’Everyone will flip out, starting with the Saudis,’ said Meyrav Wurmser, director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute in Washington [and another author of the 1996 policy paper written for Israel, above]. ‘It will send shock waves throughout the Arab world. Look, we already are pushing for democracy in the Palestinian Authority, though not with a huge amount of success, and we need a little bit more of a heavy-handed approach,’ she said. ‘But if we can get a democracy in the Palestinian Authority, democracy in Iraq, get the Egyptians to improve their human rights and open up their system, it will be a spectacular change. After a war with Iraq, then you really shape the region.'”
John Donnelly and Anthony Shadid, Boston Globe, September 10, 2002
?
“Slowly, President Bush’s war plan againstIraq is emerging from the thick fog. At first it looked like a collection of hazy slogans, but gradually it is becoming clear that it has definite, if hidden, aims. The war plan of the Bushies makes sense only if the US leadership is ready (more than that, is actually longing) for the occupation of Iraq in order to remain there for many, many years. But in the eyes of Bush and his advisers, this is a very worthwhile investment that would yield immense benefits. Among others:
*The main objective of the American economy (and therefore of American policy) is the oil of the Caspian Sea.
*The existence of a secure American base in the heart of the Arab world will also enable Washington to bully all the Arab regimes, lest they stray from the straight and narrow.
*The new situation will destroy the last remnants of Arab independence. Even today, almost all the Arab countries are dependent on America.
A massive American physical presence in their midst will put an end to any pretense of Arab power and unity. A grandiose, world-embracing, yet simple and logical design. What does it remind me of? In the early 80’s, I heard about several plans like this fromAriel Sharon (which I published at the time). His head was full of grand designs for restructuring the Middle East, the creation of an Israeli ‘security zone’ from Pakistan to Central Africa, the overthrow of regimes and installing others in their stead, moving a whole people (the Palestinians) and so forth. I can’t help it, but the winds blowing now in Washington remind me of Sharon. I have absolutely no proof that the Bushies got their ideas from him, even if all of them seem to have been mesmerized by him. But the style is the same, a mixture of megalomania, creativity, arrogance, ignorance and superficiality. An explosive mixture. Sharon’s grand design floundered, as we know. The bold flights of imagination and the superficial logic did not help; -Sharon simply did not understand the real currents of history. I fear that the band of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perleand all the other little Sharons are suffering from the same syndrome. Sharon may believe that he will be the big winner of such an American move, though history may show that he brought a historical disaster on us. He may succeed in exploiting the ensuing anarchy in order to drive the Palestinians out of the country. But within a few years Israel could find itself surrounded by a new Middle East region full of hatred, dreaming of revenge, driven by religious and nationalist fanaticism. And in the end, the Americans will go home. We will be left here alone. But people like Bush and Sharon do not march to the beat of history. They are listening to a different drummer.”
Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery, CounterPunch.org, September 10, 2002
?
“Ever since the Bush administration ordered the CIA to nurture the exiled Iraqis, nothing happens to them by accident. [Jordanian] Prince Hassan didn’t just happen to drop in [on a meeting of Iraqi exiles in London] because he was in town. The Hashemite dynasty has never given up its dream to revive the Iraqi throne. It could be a great job for Hassan, whose older brother [the late King Hussein] denied him the Jordanian kingdom at the last minute. It’s true that restoring a monarchy in Iraq does not exactly fit the Bush administration’s vision of a democratic Middle East. But there are signs that it fits some old dreams of a few of the key strategists around the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld triangle running America’s Iraq policy. A few weeks ago, Richard Perle invited the Pentagon chiefs to a meeting with researchers from a Washington think tank. According to information that reached a former top official in the Israelisecurity services, the researchers showed two slides to the Pentagon officials. The first was a depiction of the three goals in the war on terror and the democratization of the Middle East: Iraq, a tactical goal; Saudi Arabia, a strategic goal; and Egypt, the great prize. The triangle in the next slide was no less interesting: Palestine is Israel, Jordan is Palestine, and Iraq is the Hashemite Kingdom.”
Israeli commentator Akiva Eldar, Ha’aretz, October 1, 2002
“The summer of 1993 saw the emergence of two contradictory paths concerning Israel and its place in the Middle East. The signing of the Oslo agreementraised hopes for Israel’s integration into a web of political, security and economic cooperation with its Arab neighbors. At the same time, Harvard Prof. Samuel Huntington published his essay, ‘The Clash of Civilizations,’ in which he argued that the conflicts around the world would no longer be over ideology, but over culture instead. ‘Islam has bloody borders,’ Huntington wrote, counting Israel as a ‘Western creation’ on the fault lines of the conflict, along with Kashmir and Bosnia. The idea was accepted enthusiastically by the Israeli right wing. It also had some supporters on the left, most noticeablyEhud Barak, who described Israel as a Western fortress in the region, ‘a villa in the jungle.’ As of now, it appears that the argument was settled in favor of the clash of civilizations theory, which has taken over the political and security establishment in Israel. The appeal of the clash of civilizations theory is also expressed in theIsraeli enthusiasm for the expected American assault on Iraq, in the hope of showing the Arabs who’s the boss in the region. Israel is the only country to absolutely support the American decision, and has urged it to act, and quickly. The tangible result of the change in consciousness has been deepening Israel’s dependence on American defense and economic support.Sharon led that policy. The same Sharon says there are no free lunches in policy and is now begging for aid from Washington, trying to point the American cannon in the direction of its next target after Iraq.”
Israeli correspondent Aluf Benn, Ha’aretz, November 14, 2002
“The embrace of U.S. President George W. Bush is Ariel Sharon’s chief asset as he vies for another term of office as prime minister. Sharon is finding it hard to show any achievements during his 20 months in power. The only card left in his hand is the diplomatic card, as personified by Israel’s good relations with the White House, and all of Sharon’s campaign revolves around it. Sharon and his cronies are now asking the voters for an extended period of grace, and are promising that next year will be the year that counts. All of their hopes and expectations are pointed toward Washington: an American attack on Iraq is seen as the lever which can extricate Israel from its economic, security and social quagmire. It is hoped that the removal of Saddam Hussein from power will set in motion a ‘domino effect,’ will end the Palestinian Intifada, bring about the end of Yasser Arafat’s regime and eradicate the threat to Israel from Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.”
Israeli correspondent Aluf Benn, Ha’aretz, November 18, 2002
“To understand the genesis of this extraordinary [US global] ambition, it is also necessary to grasp the moral, cultural and intellectual world of American nationalism in which it has taken shape. This nationalism existed long before last September, but it has been inflamed by those attacks and, equally dangerously, it has become even more entwined with the nationalism of the Israeli Right. The banal propaganda portrayal of Saddam as a crazed and suicidal dictator plays well on the American street, but I don’t believe that it is a view shared by the Administration. Rather, their intention is partly to retain an absolute certainty of being able to defend the Gulf against an Iraqi attack, but, more important, to retain for the US and Israel a free hand for intervention in the Middle East as a whole. From the point of view of Israel, the Israeli lobby and their representatives in the Administration, the apparent benefits of such a free hand are clear enough. For the group around Cheney, the single most important consideration is guaranteed and unrestricted access to cheap oil, controlled as far as possible at its source. [A]s alternative technologies develop, they could become a real threat to the oil lobby, which, like the Israeli lobby, is deeply intertwined with the Bush Administration.War with Iraq can therefore be seen as a satisfactory outcome for both lobbies. [W]hat the Administration hopes is that by crushing another middle-sized state at minimal military cost, all the other states in the Muslim world will be terrified into full co-operation in tracking down and handing over suspected terrorists, and into forsaking the Palestinian cause. The idea, in other words, is to scare these states not only into helping with the hunt for al-Qaida, but into capitulating to the US and, more important, Israeli agendas in the Middle East. ’The road to Middle East peace lies through Baghdad’ is a line that’s peddled by the Bush Administration and the Israeli lobby. It is just possible that some members of the Administration really believe that by destroying Israel’s most powerful remaining enemy they will gain such credit with Israelis and the Israeli lobby that they will be able to press compromises on Israel. But this is certainly not what public statements by members of the Administration, let alone those of its Likud allies in Israel, suggest. It’s far more probable, therefore, that most members of the Bush and Sharon Administrations hope that the crushing of Iraq will so demoralise the Palestinians, and so reduce wider Arab support for them, that it will be possible to force them to accept a Bantustan settlement bearing no resemblance to independent statehood. From the point of view of the Arab-Israeli conflict, war with Iraq also has some of the character of a Flucht nach vorn, an ‘escape forwards,’ on the part of the US Administration. On the one hand, it has become clear that the conflict is integrally linked to everything else that happens in the Middle East, and therefore cannot simply be ignored, as the Bush Administration tried to do during its first year in office. On the other hand, even those members of the American political elite who have some understanding of the situation and a concern for justice are terrified of confronting Israel and the Israeli lobby in the ways which would be necessary to bring any chance of peace. When the US demands ‘democracy’ in the Palestinian territories before it will re-engage in the peace process it is in part, and fairly cynically, trying to get out of this trap.”
Anatol Lieven, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, London Review of Books, December 2002
“If you want to know what the administration has in mind for Iraq, here’s a hint: It has less to do with weapons of mass destruction than with implementing an ambitious U.S. vision to redraw the map of the Middle East. The new map would be drawn with an eye to two main objectives: controlling the flow of oil and ensuring Israel’s continued regional military superiority. [Patrick] Clawson [a policy analyst with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy], whose institute enjoys close ties with the Bush administration, was candid during a Capitol Hill forum on a post-Hussein Iraq in 1999:‘U.S. oil companies would have an opportunity to make significant profits,’ he said. ‘We should not be embarrassed about the commercial advantages that would come from a re-integration of Iraq into the world economy.’… But taking over Iraq and remaking the global oil market is not necessarily the endgame. The next steps, favored by hard-liners determined to elevate Israeli security above all other U.S. foreign policy goals, would be to destroy any remaining perceived threat to the Jewish state: namely, the regimes in Syria and Iran. In 1998, [David] Wurmser, now in the State Department, told the Jewish newspaper Forward that if [Iraqi opposition leader] Ahmad Chalabi were in power and extended a no-fly, no-drive zone in northern Iraq, it would provide the crucial piece for an anti-Syria, anti-Iran bloc. ‘It puts Scuds out of the range of Israel and provides the geographic beachhead between Turkey, Jordan and Israel,’ he said. ‘This should anchor the Middle East pro-Western coalition.’ [Richard] Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli groups was ‘at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein.’Now, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran,arguing in a November interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran ‘the day after’ the Iraq war ends. [T]he hard-liners in and around the administration seem to know in their hearts that the battle to carve up the Middle East would not be won without the blood of Americans and their allies. ‘One can only hope that we turn the region into a caldron, and faster, please,’ [Michael] Ledeen preached to the choir at National Review Online last August. ‘That’s our mission in the war against terror.'”
UC Berkeley journalism professor Sandy Tolan, Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2002
“The immediate and laudatory purpose of a United States military campaign against Iraq is to stamp out the regime of Saddam Hussein, the world’s most psychopathic ruler, and to strike a blow against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As such this is a welcome move from Israel’s standpoint, whatever the consequences. [T]he American planners, who display considerable disdain for most of the Muslim and Arab worlds, seem to think that the forcible removal of Saddam’s evil regime and the consequent implantation of an American military presence in the wild Middle East will project a civilizing or liberating influence. They are not alone; not a few progressive Arab thinkers (and many Israelis) appear to welcome this American deus ex machina into the region.” [deus ex machina - "god from the machine" - definition, (in ancient Greek and Roman drama) a god introduced into a play to resolve seemingly unsolvable entanglements of the plot / person or event that provides a sudden and unexpected solution / ... So the American Mercantile Empire is 'god'-provider of solutions re the Middle East? lol]
Israeli military/political analyst, Yossi Alpher, bitterlemons.org, December 23, 2002
“I think that the conquest of Iraq will really create a New Middle East. Put differently: the Middle East will enter a new age. For the time being this will happen without us, as long as there’s no Palestinian solution. Many peoples in the region are ruled by frightened dictators who have to decide whom to fear more, the terrorists or the war against terrorism. Asad fears for his legitimacy due to the war against terrorism. Arafat can also lose his legitimacy. The Saudis gave money for terrorism due to fear. No terrorist-sponsoring country is democratic. In those countries [that support terrorism] there will be revolutions. Television will play a role like in the collapse of the Iron Curtain. This will happen with the Palestinians, too. The Arab world is ripe for internal revolution like the USSR and China in the past decade.” [Comment: US is the biggest sponsor of terrorism worldwide when you consider its interventions, support, arming of various groups & backing of murderous dictators ... & the US purports to be democratic. So the statement re 'democracy' and 'terrorist support' (which is always subjective, given 'terrorist' is defined by one's political agenda) doesn't mean much, if you look at the big picture.]
Former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, bitterlemons.org, December 23, 2002
“Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, having just returned from a week-long fact-finding trip to the Middle East, addressed the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations Dec. 16 and said out loud what is whispered on Capitol Hill: ‘The road to Arab-Israeli peace will not likely go through Baghdad, as some may claim.’ The ‘some’ are led by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In private conversation with Hagel and many other members of Congress, the former general leaves no doubt that the greatest U.S. assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime. That view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why U.S. forces today are assembling for war. As the US gets ready for war, its standing in Islam, even among longtime allies, stands low. Yet, the Bush administration has tied itself firmly to Gen. Sharon and his policies. In private conversation, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has insisted that Hezbollah, not al Qaeda, is the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization. How could that be, considering al Qaeda’s global record of mass carnage? In truth, Hezbollah is the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization from Israel’s standpoint. While viciously anti-American in rhetoric, the Lebanon-based Hezbollah is focused on the destruction of Israel. Thus, Rice’s comments suggest that the U.S. war against terrorism, accused of being Iraq-centric, actually is Israel-centric. That ties George W. Bush to Ariel Sharon. What is widely perceived as an indissoluble Bush-Sharon bond creates tension throughout Islam. On balance, war with Iraq may not be inevitable but is highly probable. That it looks like Sharon’s war disturbs Americans such as Chuck Hagel, who have no use for Saddam Hussein but worry about the background of an attack against him.”
Robert Novak, Washington Post, December 26, 2002
?
“With a scandal chipping away at his government, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon changed the subject to Iraq this week and found his country eager to listen.Mr. Sharon’s remarks seemed to strike a chord with Israeli voters, who are concerned about an Iraqi attack and still traumatized by the events of 1991, when 39 Iraqi missiles landed in the country. To some Israeli commentators, the week’s events highlighted the lingering effects of the first war with Iraq, and how Mr. Sharon, an incumbent prime minister with an unmatched reputation for toughness, is the likely beneficiary of any debate over a second one. ‘What happened in 1991 is an unfinished chapter,’ said Asher Arian, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute in Jerusalem. ‘The Israeli public feels it has a score to settle. When Sharon talks about Iraq, it has enormous resonance.’ Part of the explanation for the positive reception of Mr. Sharon is the genuine fear that many Israelis harbor of an Iraqi attack. The other factor, commentators here say, is the looming memory of the Persian Gulf war of 1991. For Israelis, proud of their military successes over the years, that war was a different experience. At American insistence, they endured Iraqi missile attacks without fighting back. ‘The gulf war was the first time in Israel’s history where people had to hide and run way,’ said Itzhak Galnoor, former commissioner of the Israeli civil service. ‘For Israelis to be helpless, that was very traumatic.'”
Dexter Filkins, New York Times, December 29, 2002
?
Authors’ note: Given the prevailing atmosphere in the United States for debate on Israel, the frequency with which critics of Israel are accused of malicious ethnic motives, and the widespread skittishness about associating Israel or American Jews with war planning against Iraq, the following items are of particular interest. The first of these items reports a clear Jewish effort to suppress any evidence of Jewish support for war. The second is evidence, from a non-Jewish perspective, of the effect of the silence imposed on critics of Israel.
“A group of U.S. political consultants has sent pro-Israel leaders a memo urging them to keep quiet while the Bush administration pursues a possible war with Iraq. The six-page memo was sent by the Israel Project, a group funded by American Jewish organizations and individual donors. Its authors said the main audience was American Jewish leaders, but much of the memo’s language is directed toward Israelis.The memo reflects a concern that involvement by Israel in a U.S.-Iraq confrontation could hurt Israel’s standing in American public opinion and undermine international support for a hard line against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. ‘Let American politicians fight it out on the floor of Congress and in the media,’ the memo said. ‘Let the nations of the world argue in front of the UN. Your silence allows everyone to focus on Iraq rather than Israel.’ An Israeli diplomat in Washington said the Israeli government did not request or fund the efforts of the Israel Project and that Israeli leaders were unlikely to follow all the advice. ‘These are professional public relations people,’ the diplomat said. ‘There’s also a political-diplomatic side.’ The Iraq memo was issued in the past few weeks and labeled ‘confidential property of the Israel Project,’ which is led byDemocratic consultant Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi with help from Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and Republican pollsters Neil Newhouse and Frank Luntz. Several of the consultants have advised Israeli politicians, and the group aired a pro-Israel ad earlier this year. ‘If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash,’ said the memo, titled ‘Talking About Iraq.’ It added: ‘You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.’ In particular, the memo urged Israelis to pipe down about the possibility of Israel responding to an Iraqi attack. ‘Such certainty may be Israeli policy, but asserting it publicly and so overtly will not sit well with a majority of Americans because it suggests a pre-determined outcome rather than a measured approach,’ it said.”
Dana Milbank, Washington Post, November 27, 2002
“[We need to] demystify the question of why we have become unable to discuss our relationship with the current government of Israel. Whether the actions taken by that government constitute self-defense or a particularly inclusive form of self-immolation remains an open question. The question of course has a history. This open question, and its history, are discussed rationally and with considerable intellectual subtlety in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Where the question is not discussed rationally, where in fact the question is rarely discussed at all, since so few of us are willing to see our evenings turn toxic, is in New York and Washington and in those academic venues where the attitudes and apprehensions of New York and Washington have taken hold. The president of Harvard recently warned that criticisms of the current government of Israel could be construed as ‘anti-Semiticin their effect if not their intent.’ The very question of the US relationship with Israel, in other words, has come to be seen as unraisable, potentially lethal, the conversational equivalent of an unclaimed bag on a bus. We take cover. We wait for the entire subject to be defused, safely insulated behind baffles of invective and counterinvective. Many opinions are expressed. Few are allowed to develop. Even fewer change.”
Joan Didion, New York Review of Books, January 16, 2003
Kathleen Christison worked for 16 years as a political analyst with the CIA, dealing first with Vietnam and then with the Middle East for her last seven years with the Agency before resigning in 1979. Since leaving the CIA, she has been a free-lance writer, dealing primarily with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Her book, “Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy,” was published by the University of California Press and reissued in paperback with an update in October 2001. A second book, “The Wound of Dispossession: Telling the Palestinian Story,” was published in March 2002.
Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit. They can be reached at: christison@counterpunch.org
Jewish individuals, Israel, Israel/Zionist supporters and various support organisations that resort to crying 'anti-Semitism' whenever the subject of Israel (or some subject concerning Jews -- eg Jewish / Zionist / Israeli influence on American or other politics) is raised, questioned, or in any way challenged, is as tiresome as it is predictable.
It appears to be the reflexive response, and is also often used to politically smear, intimidate, and silence critics and, therefore, would-be critics or opponents.
If you take a look at the part that Jewish-American US & Israeli cross-over political advisers, Israel itself, various American and Israeli politicians, pro-Israel groups (and so on) played and continue to play in politics -- and if you consider the combined influence on shaping policy and affairs that have detrimentally impacted on populations in the Middle East, it is not at all unreasonable to discuss Israel's (and/or Israel supporters') role in the context of the current European 'refugee crisis,' given the obvious convergence and effects of American, Jewish-American, Israeli (and supporter / ally) interests.
Albrecht Schröter (SPD) discussing the tsunami of refugees in terms of being a result of American and German foreign policy and urging Germany to end the:
"restraint toward Israel as an occupying state"
isn't at all the 'anti-Semitic' attack it is perceived and portrayed to be, either on face value or when analysed in more detail.
In my opinion, Markus Giebe of SDP should be ashamed of himself for signing that ridiculous Friedrich Schiller University Jena Jusos group petition that is either unwittingly, or witting, an exercise in political smear and intimidation.
PS
Schröter's remark:
"The Islamophobic US policy ..."
isn't accurate, in my opinion.
US policy in the Middle East has nothing to do with 'Islamophobia' per se: Saudi Arabia is an underwriter of terrorism in the Middle East, is a fundamentalist Muslim dictatorship, and an ally of USA and Western friends.
Who gets bombed and targeted in terms of regime change in the Middle East depends on how useful they are (and how accommodating they are) to interests of USA and, presumably, Israel and the various Western allies.
The West is aligned with the Sunni Muslims, by the look of things. So that's hardly 'Islamophobic.'
PPS
I don't know anything about the NDP, but I can't help wondering why all right-wing European nationalist parties seem to be described as 'neo-Nazis' or 'fascists' (or other like derogatory and dismissive terms), while extreme nationalists that actually govern Israel (and their supporters / Zionists etc) are *not* described in like terms in mainstream media.
Why is extreme nationalism and right wing politics OK if it happens to be in Israel, but 'not OK' for Europeans?
PPPS
Why is Jena, in Germany, even 'twinning' with Ramallah?
Jena doesn't appear to have a significant Muslim population (although that's subject to change, now I guess).
Presumably this is part of an overall SDP initiative, in perhaps trying to win Muslim votes in Germany.
So German politicians on the left are most likely aiming to pander to interests of foreigners and therefore votes of foreigners in Germany, instead of focusing first and foremost on the interests of German working classes. This appears to be one of the 'benefits' of demographic/cultural 'diversity'.
PPPPS
Corrected my error. It was not a University petition, it was a 'young socialists' Jena SDP Germany youth wing petition ... Mein Gott, they're turning baby socialists into brainwashed idiots. This explains all. lol
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 
