Tag Archives: Jonathan Cook

Israel’s leadership urge Netanyahu to Ignore “international demands” and exterminate the Gazans.

Posted on by
1

By Eric Zuesse

Source: The Duran

Increasingly, Netanyahu’s own cabinet and advisors are urging genocide there against Gazans. (Actually, this viewpoint has long been popular among Netanyahu’s voters — well prior to the October 7th Hamas attack.)

The legal basis for such a solution comes from many decades of apartheid laws there:

As Jonathan Cook, a great independent journalist on Palestinian affairs, observed:

In today’s United States or Europe, any argument that citizenship privileges should be assigned to a group because of its ethnicity or religion would be considered overtly racist. That nonetheless is precisely the position of all the Jewish parties in the Israeli parliament – without exception.

All of them believe, for example, that it is essential that Israel has two differentiated citizenship tracks. One, the Law of Return of 1950, allows all Jews in the world to automatically immigrate to Israel. The other, the Citizenship Law of 1952, bars almost all Palestinians from ever returning to their homes in what is now Israel. It also denies Israel’s 1.8 million Palestinian citizens, a fifth of the population, a basic human right: to marry a Palestinian non-citizen and live with them in Israel.

And that’s actually putting it mildly, because right from the start, Israel was based upon ethnic cleansing to get rid of the existing population; or, as Ben-Gurion said in 1937, “We must expel the Arabs and take their place” because (mythologically but definitely not historically) God gave that land to “the Jews.” In other words: Ben-Gurion was saying that what he thought of as “our tribe” owns that land because that tribe’s myth says it does. And acting on that ethnocentric instead of humanistic basis, progressive-minded Jews such as Albert Einstein condemned as “fascists” Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and other leaders of the settler movement who carried out Ben-Gurion’s racist-fascist plan, and so those racist-fascists (or ideological nazis) produced Israel. They were smart enough to lie constantly about what their intentions actually were, but in recent times the surviving documents that Israel’s Government hadn’t yet been able to destroy totally, have become ‘resurrected’ to point the finger of blame clearly at the Government of Israel as the aggressor in this war. Christians had started Hitler’s war against all Jews, but racist-fascist Jews then went to Palestine and created their own racist-fascist Israel, based, at its very start, and clearly now even until the present, on a final solution to Israel’s Arab problem. The only difference between Europe’s Nazis and Israel’s nazis is that it’s by a different tribe and against a different tribe. The actors are different, but the play is the same.

On November 20th, Jonathan Ofir headlined at mondoweiss.net, “Influential Israeli national security leader makes the case for genocide in Gaza”, and he reported:

——

Since October 7, there has been no shortage of genocidal calls from Israeli leaders, as well as clear plans, also at ministerial level, for the complete ethnic cleansing of Gaza. And while the usage of biblical euphemisms like Prime Minister Netanyahu’s “Amalek” reference may appear too vague for some, even if the story suggests killing infants, on Sunday retired Major General Giora Eiland, former head of the National Security Council and current advisor to the Defense Minister, decided to spell out genocide more explicitly.

In a Hebrew article [published November 19th] on the printed edition of the centrist Yedioth Ahronoth titled “Let’s not be intimidated by the world,” Eiland clarified that the whole Gazan civilian population was a legitimate target and that even “severe epidemics in the south of the Gaza Strip will bring victory closer.” His bottom line leaves no doubt as to his view:

“They are not only Hamas fighters with weapons, but also all the ‘civilian’ officials, including hospital administrators and school administrators, and also the entire Gaza population that enthusiastically supported Hamas and cheered on its atrocities on October 7th.”

Eiland speaks against humanitarian concern and the whole principle of distinction:

“Israel is not fighting a terrorist organization but against the State of Gaza.”

Therefore, per Eiland, “Israel must not provide the other side with any capability that prolongs its life.”

Eiland mocks the idea of “poor women” as the representation of uninvolved civilians:

“Who are the ‘poor’ women of Gaza? They are all the mothers, sisters or wives of Hamas murderers”.

The formulation is reminiscent of the far-right former Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, who, during the 2014 onslaught, suggested that Israel’s enemy was the entire Palestinian people:

“Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”

Eiland speaks against surrendering to American sensibilities. Humanitarian pressure (that is, cutting off all basic life necessities) is a legitimate means of war, he claims:

“The Israeli cabinet must take a harder line with the Americans, and at least have the ability to say the following: as long as all the hostages are not returned to Israel, do not talk to us about the humanitarian aspects”.

Also, the rest of the international community, with its humanitarian concern, must be resisted – even the spread of severe epidemics is a legitimate means of warfare:

“The international community warns us of a humanitarian disaster in Gaza and of severe epidemics. We must not shy away from this, as difficult as that may be. After all, severe epidemics in the south of the Gaza Strip will bring victory closer and reduce casualties among IDF soldiers” …

Eiland’s outrageously genocidal piece was endorsed by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who tweeted the full article and said he “agreed with every word.” Smotrich is known for, among other things, calling to “wipe out Huwwara” in the West Bank, so it should come as no surprise that he would now endorse Eiland’s call to do the same in Gaza.

A concentration camp

Eiland has a long history of being surprisingly forthright about his view on the state of the Gaza Strip. In 2004, then as head of the National Security Council, he regarded the Gaza Strip as “a huge concentration camp” as he advocated for the U.S. to force Palestinians into the Sinai desert as part of a “two-state solution.”

As per a U.S. diplomatic cable leaked to Wikileaks here:

Repeating a personal view that he had previously expressed to other USG visitors, NSC Director Eiland laid out for Ambassador Djerejian a different end-game solution than that which is commonly envisioned as the two-state solution. Eiland’s view, he said, was prefaced on the assumption that demographic and other considerations make the prospect for a two-state solution between the Jordan and the Mediterranean unviable. …

——

Ofir’s article closes by presenting an English translation of Eiland’s piece, “Let’s Not be Intimidated by the World.”

That 31 March 2004 WikiLeaked cable, which Ofir linked to, also said:

There are 11 million people in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip, and that number will increase to 36 million in 50 years.  The area between Beer Sheva and the northern tip of Israel (including the West Bank and Gaza) has the highest population density in the world. Gaza alone, he said, is already “a huge concentration camp” with 1.3 million Palestinians.  Moreover, the land is surrounded on three sides by deserts.  Palestinians need more land and Israel can ill-afford to cede it.  The solution, he argued, lies in the Sinai desert.

13. (C) Specifically, Eiland proposed that Egypt be persuaded to contribute a 600 square kilometer parcel of land that would be annexed to a future Palestinian state as compensation for the 11 percent of the West Bank that Israel would seek to annex in a final status agreement.  This Sinai block, 20 kms of which would be along the Mediterranean coast, would be adjacent to the Gaza Strip.  A land corridor would be constructed connecting Egypt and this block to Jordan. (Note:  Presumably under Egyptian sovereignty.  End Note.)  In addition, Israel would provide Egypt a 200 square km block of land from further south in the Negev.  Eiland laid out the following advantages to his proposed solution:

— For the Palestinians:  The additional land would make Gaza viable.  It would be big enough to support a new port and airport, and to allow for the construction of a new city, all of which would help make Gaza economically viable.  It would provide sufficient space to support the return of Palestinian refugees.  In addition, the 20 km along the sea would increase fishing rights and would allow for the exploration of natural gas reserves.  Eiland argued that the benefits offered by this parcel of land are far more favorable to the Palestinians than would be parcels Israel could offer from the land-locked Negev.

Consequently: whereas back in 2004, Eiland was NOT urging that “The Israeli cabinet must take a harder line with the Americans,” but was INSTEAD advising to take into account “the Americans” (who at that time would not have favored Israel’s extermination of Gazans), he now DOES urge Netanyahu to go all the way to — like was Hitler’s goal regarding Jews — exterminate Gazans (even to use biological warfare to kill them off).

Apparently, during the 19-year interim between 2004 and now, the U.S. body-politic has moved in step along with Israel’s, toward Hitler’s views (but against different extermination-targets than his), so that Netanyahu now is being advised to go all the way to a final solution, regardless of what “The international community” will say about it.

Americans spend annually $3.8 billion in tax-dollars (that’s paid to Israel’s Government each and every year — and Biden now wants $14B added to that for Israel this year immediately) being donated to Israel’s Government, at least $3.3 billion of it each and every year to be paid then by Israel’s Government to purchase from Lockheed Martin and other U.S. weapons-makers the tools to carry out Israel’s invasions, up to and including genocide (because how those weapons are to be used is under the control of Israel’s Government, not of America’s). American voters are being offered as prospective future public officials to vote for, only candidates who are neoconservative; i.e., who represent and vote for the interests of the investors who control and profit from America’s weapons-manufacturers — the firms that sell to the U.S. Government instead of to the public. Rather than the weapons-makers serving the Government, the Government serves the weapons-makers; i.e., it serves their owners. So, those people (the individuals who control those firms) share with Israel’s Government the guilt for this extermination that’s now occurring in Gaza. And Americans who vote in national elections find these candidates acceptable to vote for. This is not Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s America; it is Harry Truman’s, and it has produced a string of atrocious U.S. Presidents uninterrupted except possibly for JFK whom they got assassinated (so the fear in any decent person running for America’s top political office needs to be recognized). It’s by now clear that America’s billionaires won’t go down without a fight. Politics is hardball — like being played with depleted uranium ‘balls’. It is war by other means. And this is NOT democracy.

Is it already too late to say goodbye?

Posted on by
Reply

By Jonathan Cook

Source: Jonathan Cook Blog

It seems we may have reached the moment when it is time to say goodbye. It has been fun, educational and sometimes cathartic – for me at least. I hope you got something from our time together too.

I am not going anywhere, of course. Not for now at least. I love to write. For as long as I feasibly can, I will continue to rail against injustice, call out corporate power and its abuses, and demand a fairer and more open society.

But I have to be realistic. I have to recognise that a growing number of you will not be joining me here on this page for much longer. And it feels rude after so much time together not to bid you a fond farewell before it is too late. I will miss you.

Many of you may have assumed it wouldn’t end this way. You probably imagined that I would get banned by Facebook or Twitter. You would be able to rally round, send in complaints worded in the strongest possible terms, and lobby for my reinstatement. Maybe even sign a petition.

But it isn’t going to end like that. There will be no bang. I have been too careful for that to be my fate. I have avoided rude and crude words. I have steered clear of insults (apologies if my responses have sometimes been a little caustic). I have not defamed anyone. I have avoided “fake news” – except to critique it. I have not peddled “conspiracy theories”, unless quoting the British Medical Journal on Covid now counts as misinformation (yes, I know for a few of you it does).

But none of that has helped. My blog posts once attracted tens of thousands of shares. Then, as the algorithms tightened, it became thousands. Now, as they throttle me further, shares can often be counted in the hundreds. “Going viral” is a distant memory.

No, I won’t be banned. I will fade incrementally, like a small star in the night sky – one among millions – gradually eclipsed as its neighbouring suns grow ever bigger and brighter. I will disappear from view so slowly you won’t even notice.

Which is why I am saying my goodbyes now while I can still reach you, my most obstinate followers.

But this isn’t really about one small light being snuffed out. This isn’t just about our relationship coming to an end. Something bigger, and more disturbing, is taking place.

Journalists like me are part of an experiment – in a new, more democratised media landscape. We have developed new reader-funded models so that we can break free of the media corporations, which until now ensured billionaires and the state controlled the flow of information in one direction only: to speak down to us.

The corporate media need corporate advertising – or their owners’ deep pockets – to survive. They don’t need you, except as a captive audience. You’re both their prisoner and their product.

But the lifeblood of a reader-funded journalist, as the name suggests, are readers. The more of you we attract, the better chance there is that we can generate donations and income and make the model sustainable. Our Achilles’ heel is our dependence on social media to find you, to keep reaching you, to offer you an alternative from the corporate media.

If Facebook (sorry, the Meta universe) and Twitter stop independent writers from growing their readerships by manipulating the algorithms, by ghosting and shadow-banning them, and by all the other trickery we do not yet understand, then new voices cannot grow their funding base and break free of corporate control.

And equally, for those like me who are already established and have significant numbers of readers, these tech giants can whittle them away one by one. Ostensibly, I have many tens of thousands of followers, but for several years now I have been reaching fewer and fewer of you. I am starved of connection. The danger, already only too obvious, is that my readership, and funding model, will slowly start to shrivel and die.

Joe Rogan, Russell Brand and a handful of titans of the new media age are so big they can probably weather it out. But the rest of us will not be so lucky.

Readers will lose sight of us, as our light slowly fades, and then we will be gone completely. Vanished.

I have lost count of the followers who – because, god knows, an algorithm slipped up? – tell me they have received a social media post many months after they last saw one from me. In the cacophony of media noise, they had not noticed that I had unexpectedly gone quiet until that reminder arrived or else they assumed I had given up writing.

Which is why, if you want to keep seeing posts from me and writers like me, if this is not soon to be a final goodbye, if you think it important to read non-corporate analysis and commentary, then you need to act. You should be bookmarking your favourite writers and visiting their sites regularly – not just when you are prompted to by Mark Zuckerberg.

You need to be an active consumer of news – not a passive one, as you were raised to be when the choice was between three TV channels and a dozen print newspapers.

You need to search out and maintain those connections before they are gone entirely and the window has closed. Because those voices you prize now will wither and decay like autumn leaves if they have no audience. If you leave it too long, even when you finally remember to go search for them, you may find they are no longer there to be discovered. You will have missed the chance to say goodbye.

So let us say it now, while we still can: Farewell.

UPDATE:

Writing is a solitary activity, and it can be easy to imagine that what was obvious inside your head will be clear to others when that idea takes its place in the outside world. But a proportion of early readers of this post have mistaken it for an actual goodbye, rather than as a cautionary tale of what has been happening and what is still to come. So let me reassure you: I am going to continue writing and you can continue reading me, so long as either Twitter and Facebook direct you to me or you make the effort to find me.

Here’s hoping that my goodbye will prove unnecessary.

What the Charlie Hebdo Execution Video Really Shows

Posted on by
Reply

 1420643226f4e8b.-big

By Jonathan Cook

Source: Global Research

I am well aware that I’m stepping into a hornet’s nest by posting this video, which is going viral. Those who wish to silence all debate have an easy card to play here, accusing me of buying into a conspiracy theory. There’s only one problem: unlike the video-maker, I have few conclusions to draw about what the significance of this video is in relation to the official story. That is not why I am posting it.

But it does, at least to my mind and obviously a lot of other people’s, judging by how quickly it’s spreading, suggest that Ahmed Merabet, the policeman outside the Charlie Hebdo office, was not shot in the head, as all the media have been stating.

That said, it does not prove much more. It doesn’t prove that Merabet did not die at the scene. Maybe he bled to death there on the pavement from his earlier wound. It certainly doesn’t prove that the Kouachi brothers were not the gunmen or that the one who fired missed on purpose. Maybe he just missed.

Nor does the video’s removal from most websites prove that there is some sort of massive cover-up going on. Ideas of good taste, especially in the immediate aftermath of a massacre close to home (ie here in the West), can lead to a media consensus that a video is too upsetting. That can occur even if it does not show blood and gore, simply because of what it implies. Herd instinct in these instances is very strong.

But the unedited video clip does leave a sour taste: because unless someone has a good rebuttal, it does indeed seem impossible that an AK-47 bullet fired from close range would not have done something pretty dramatic to that policeman’s head. And if the video is real – and there doesn’t seem much doubt that it is – it clearly shows nothing significant happened to his head either as or after the bullet was fired.

So what points am I making?

The first one is more tentative. It seems – though I suppose there could be an explanation I have overlooked – that the authorities have lied about the cause of the policeman’s death. That could be for several probably unknowable reasons, including that his being executed was a simpler, neater story than that he bled to death on the pavement because of official incompetence (there already seems to have been plenty of that in this case).

The second point is even more troubling. Most of the senior editors of our mainstream media have watched the unedited video just as you now have. And either not one of them saw the problem raised here – that the video does not show what it is supposed to show – or some of them did see it but did not care. Either way, they simply regurgitated an official story that does not seem to fit the available evidence.

That is a cause for deep concern. Because if the media are acting as a collective mouth-piece for a dubious official narrative on this occasion, on a story of huge significance that one assumes is being carefully scrutinised for news angles, what are they doing the rest of the time?

The lesson is that we as news consumers must create our own critical distance from the “news” because we cannot trust our corporate media to do that work for us. They are far too close to power. In fact, they are power.

Official narratives are inherently suspect because power always looks out for itself. This appears to be a good example – whether what it shows is relatively harmless or sinister – to remind us of that fact.

UPDATE:

I’m still trying to imagine a plausible explanation for the video. I’m no ballistics expert, so I’m firmly in the land of conjecture. But I wonder whether, if the bullet hit the pavement close to Merabet’s head, it might have been possible for bullet fragments to hit him, possibly killing him.

This possibility (assuming it is one) does not invalidate the point of my post. If it was indeed the case, certainly no media outlet has suggested that the gunman missed Merabet and that he died from the exploding fragments.

This isn’t meant to raise technical, or gruesome, details of the case. It is to suggest that western journalists do not report fearlessly and independently when they examine events being narrated by official sources. They mostly regurgitate information on trust, because they trust the authorities to be telling the truth. They do the same when the acts of official enemies are being examined – they again turn to official sources on their side. In short, most journalists have no critical distance from the events they are reporting on our behalf.

That leaves us, ordinary news consumers, in a position of either blindly trusting our own officials too or trying to work things out for ourselves. You would hope that the issues raised by this video get aired by journalists as part of establishing greater trust in our profession and proof of our independence. Instead, I expect it will simply be consigned the “conspiracy theory” bin.