Student Protests
On 18 April, students at Columbia University in New York initiated a sit-in on the campus lawn, protesting the Ivy League institution’s ongoing financial links to companies connected to Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its brutal war on Gaza.
The demonstrations quickly spread to other top US universities, as demands intensified for an end to both the war and support for the occupation state.
This growing wave of US and global student activism is of vital importance: it represents the soft power ripple effects of the resistance‘s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, and as with other historic, mass US student movements against South African apartheid and the Vietnam war, will likely begin to fray at American support for Israeli aggressions.
Pro-Palestine student demonstrations have been gaining traction in recent weeks. Footage of protesters being beaten up and tear-gassed has circulated across all social media platforms. These harrowing images indicate a new low in the state of Western democracy, where state policies supportive of Israeli apartheid benefit only a few, particularly the financial class that profits from war spending and extends colonial policies. It is fair to say now that nothing about the US can truly be deemed democratic, let alone its academic institutions. These are, after all, institutional agencies of the two families and their deep-state networks.
For decades, the US has portrayed Israel as a beacon of democracy in a region dominated by authoritarian regimes, often citing it as “the only democracy” in the Middle East to justify its unwavering support.
However, recent shifts in public perception, particularly among western youth, now increasingly portray Israelis as “terrorists” and “colonizers.” This sea change in the discourse, driven by the global spread of information and activism, will have a significant impact on the Zionist entity.
Israel’s global reputation had already been tarnished by the time South Africa filed genocide charges against the state in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) earlier this year, the first time Israel has faced such accusations at this level.
In March, the ICJ demanded that Israel take immediate, effective measures to ensure the entry of essential food supplies to Gaza’s residents, emphasizing the severe famine conditions already present.
A Gut Punch to ‘Brand Israel’
“Soft power” is defined by Joseph Nye as “the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or pressure “- soft power can be more effective than hard power in achieving political outcomes, because it influences the preferences of others rather than forcing them to change through coercion. This form of influence arises through culture, values, and policies that are universally attractive and morally legitimate – and, therefore, harder to contain.
Decades of Tel Aviv’s “nation branding” or soft power initiatives in the west ( at a cost to the Rothschild Empire of tens of billions over the past 75 years ), geared at deeply entrenching the notion of Israel as “the only democracy” in West Asia that shared the occident’s “Judeo-Christian values,” aimed to justify Washington’s unconditional support for the occupation state. It took a show of Palestinian hard power, however, to unlock that narrative stranglehold in the west. Within weeks of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, western populations began for the first time to see the real face of Zionism – unleashed in an overwhelming military assault on Gaza’s hospitals, universities, infrastructure, and civilian populations. Had Tel Aviv not reacted with unhinged “hard power,” western sentiment may have remained firmly with Israel. Instead, today, western populations have interacted profoundly with these horrifying scenes and with actual Palestinians on the ground in Gaza, galvanizing “soft power” support for the Palestinian cause across the globe.
Middle Eastern wars could not achieve what footage out of Gaza has done: Not only are the two-state solution and the Palestinian cause back at the top of the international agenda, but the very viability of Israel’s colonial project is being discussed widely, and in incautious language, for the first time in the state’s short history.
Recognizing Palestine as a State
In the realm of soft power, the Palestinian resistance put Palestine back on the map. Today, Spain, Ireland, Malta, Slovenia, and Norway have shown a willingness to recognize the State of Palestine, a pivotal shift influenced by the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the strategic failure of the once-vaunted Israeli military machine. None of these diplomatic developments would have unfolded without Operation Al-Aqsa Flood triggering subsequent events.
The impact of the Gaza war is further highlighted by the contrast in the UN Security Council’s votes: from a draft resolution in 2014 that received minimal support to a strong majority favoring Palestine’s full membership in April 2024 – with the US as the sole dissenting vote.
Power card: student protests for Palestine
In less than a month, thousands of university students have amassed in protests across the US demanding an end to the genocide in Gaza; a halt to US military aid for Israel; divestment of university funds from Israeli entities, companies, and universities; and upholding their right to protest on campus without facing repercussions. During these demonstrations, more than 1,000 people have been arrested on at least 20 college campuses across the country, with countless student activists subjected to brute force by state security forces.
One notable aspect of these demonstrations was the presence of flags associated with resistance movements like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, long demonized by the US establishment. This shift reflects how once-vilified Middle Eastern resistance movements have gained moral traction among American university students, influencing the mindset of US future leaders. On the flip side, scoring zero points for Tel Aviv, US-born and educated Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the university protests as “horrific” and characterized the student activists – many of them Jewish – as “anti-Semitic.“
Tel Aviv views the campus protests as a long-term existential threat to Israel, fearing the impact these young influencers might eventually have on US foreign policy.
Hard Power Talks
The appeal of supporting Palestine has resonated beyond US campuses, with significant demonstrations now taking place in Germany, France, Italy, Britain, and Ireland – in addition to Japan and South Korea – also calling for an end to the Gaza conflict. This reflects a broader shift evident in US opinion polls since the Gaza war began, indicating a growing disapproval of the conflict among western youth, who comprise about 20.66 percent of the US population.
The Gaza War and regional events have profoundly affected perceptions of Israel’s vulnerability. Incidents like the 7 October resistance operations and the Iranian retaliatory attack on 13 April have exposed Israel’s absolute reliance on western governments – for weapons and political cover – who have themselves now turned to the use of force to subdue critics. Therefore, any discussion of Israel’s dwindling soft power and the global youth-led protest movement must acknowledge and credit the hard power demonstrated by the Axis of Resistance in advancing Palestinian national liberation.
Indeed, with each passing day and further Israeli carnage, Palestine’s soft power projection only grows stronger, adding to the mounting global pressure against Israel’s disproportionate use of hard power.
After seven months of a brutal military assault on Gaza, it is abundantly clear that Israel has not succeeded in eradicating Hamas. Instead of delivering a decisive military victory, the occupation state finds itself being drawn kicking and screaming into negotiations over a two-state solution.
Today, the two-state option is frantically being resuscitated in Washington, of all places, and by stalwart allies of Tel Aviv. The reason for this revival is not complicated. There are, after all, only a few possible alternatives to the two-state solution. There is Hamas’ solution, which is the destruction of Israel. There is the Israeli ultra-right’s solution, which is the Israeli annexation of the West Bank, the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the deportation of Palestinians to other countries. There is the ‘conflict management’ approach pursued for the last decade or so by Bibi , which aimed to maintain the status quo indefinitely – and the world has seen how that worked out. And there is the idea of a bi-national state in which Jews would become a minority, thus ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state. None of those alternatives would resolve the conflict – at least not without causing even greater calamities. And so if the conflict is to be resolved peacefully, the two-state solution is the only idea left standing.
The Ball is in Israel’s Court
Although Israel’s western allies have long sought to exclude Hamas from any and all Palestinian processes, it has become abundantly clear that Gaza’s military leadership, particularly Al-Qassam Brigades, is set to play a crucial role in any negotiation process. This is an extraordinary victory of sorts for Hamas, which has successfully managed to insert itself into future deliberations, not only on Gaza but Palestine as a whole. The movement’s tactical decision to endorse the 1967 borders not only aims to position Hamas as a credible negotiator but also strategically corners the far-right coalition government of Benjamin Netanyahu.
By signaling willingness to demilitarize in exchange for statehood, Hamas aims to place the onus on Tel Aviv, toying with the inherent vulnerability of its coalition government and potentially precipitating its collapse. This move not only improves Hamas’ leverage in any forthcoming negotiations but, ironically, also aligns with the US interests in seeing regime change in Israel.
It is clear that Hamas has – whether out of conviction, under pressure, or as a wily tactic – become a necessary partner in broader and long-term political negotiations concerning the future of Palestine and the region.
Compelling Israel to do Hamas’ will
But today, Hamas’ renewed strength comes from two main factors: the relentless, unified military pushback by the region’s Axis of Resistance in support of their Palestinian allies and unprecedented global condemnation of Israel’s Gaza genocide – both sharply impacting and confounding Tel Aviv’s initial, over-confident war objectives. Rather than defeating Hamas, Israel now finds itself on the back foot, engaging in negotiations that center around the one outcome it had least expected – that of a two-state solution. Tel Aviv’s disturbing dilemma also showcases the political acumen of Hamas and the Palestinian resistance, who recognized the utility of hard power in achieving political ends rather than as an end in itself – in sharp contrast to Israel’s approach throughout this conflict.
The fact that, seven months after Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, Hamas retains its array of capabilities signifies not only the abject failure of Israel’s military and political objectives but also an unexpected humbling of Tel Aviv. Israel, today, is being forced into negotiations on Palestinian statehood that it has assiduously avoided for 30 long years.
This shift is undoubtedly energized by the unprecedented US student protest movement and other anti-colonial voices around the world, adding a global dimension to the local struggle. These developments are yet another ace in the hand for Hamas and another nail in the coffin for Israeli leverage.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
Over the last decade or so, the Black Lives Matter movement raised such nationwide protests by college students to new heights, both on and off campus, often involving large marches, sit-ins, or vandalism, and this may have been propelled by the increasing influence of smartphones and social media. Meanwhile, the mainstream media regularly praised and promoted this “racial justice movement,” which reached its sharp peak following the death of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. That incident triggered a massive wave of generally youthful political protests, riots, and looting that engulfed some 200 cities across America, the worst urban unrest since the late 1960s. But unlike that earlier era, most of our establishment media and political class fiercely denounced any suggestions that the police are deployed to quell the violence. Indeed, in many or most cases local law enforcement stood down and did nothing, even as some of their political masters loudly raised the outcry “Defund the Police!”
Most of these political protests, especially those on college campuses, were widely hailed by those holding the media megaphones as signifying one of the greatest virtues of American democracy. The many elite defenders of such social and cultural upheavals argued that these events demonstrated the great strength of American society, which freely allowed the fiercest public attacks against its most sacred national icons and heroes. Americans accepted the sort of searing self-criticism that would surely be permitted almost nowhere else in the world. That long history of permitting or even glorifying public protests against perceived injustices had naturally been absorbed and taken to heart by the young college students who began their classes in September 2023. Then within weeks, a remarkably daring surprise raid by the Hamas militants of long-besieged Gaza caught the Israelis napping and surmounted the high-tech defenses that had cost perhaps a half-billion dollars to construct.
In past decades, these horrifying events might have gone relatively unnoticed, with the overwhelmingly pro-Israel gatekeepers of our mainstream media ensuring that little if any of this distressing information reached the eyes or ears of ordinary Americans. But technological developments had changed this media landscape since video clips on relatively uncensored social platforms such as TikTok and Elon Musk’s Twitter now easily circumvented that blockade. Despite their decades of suffering and oppression, Gaza’s Palestinians were a fully modern people, well-equipped with smartphones, and the scenes they filmed were shared worldwide, quickly attracting huge audiences among the younger Americans who relied upon social media as their primary source of news.
As usual, the overwhelmingly pro-Israel mainstream media portrayed the attack in extremely one-sided fashion, devoid of any historical context, a pattern that had been followed for three generations. As a result, Israel received an enormous outpouring of public and elite sympathy as it mobilized for a retaliatory attack against Gaza.
Instead of attacking Hamas, Netanyahu took advantage of the wave of global sympathy by unleashing an unprecedented military assault against Gaza’s more than two million civilians, apparently intending to kill huge numbers of them and drive the remainder into Egypt’s Sinai desert, allowing Israel to annex their territory and resettle it with Jews. Soon afterward, the Israeli government began distributing assault rifles to the Jewish Settlers of the West Bank, ordering some 24,000 of those automatic weapons for that purpose. Putting such armaments into the hands of religious fanatics would surely lead to local massacres and these might provide an excuse for driving all those millions of Palestinians over the border into Jordan. The ultimate result would be the creation of a racially-pure Greater Israel stretching “From the River to the Sea,” the longstanding dream of the Zionist movement. So if he were successful, Netanyahu’s place in Jewish history might become a glorious one, with his many venal sins and blunders easily overlooked.
As American airlifts supplied an unending flood of the necessary munitions, the Israelis began a massive aerial bombardment campaign against densely-populated Gaza and its helpless residents. Secure in their underground tunnels, relatively few Hamas fighters were killed, but Gaza’s civilians suffered devastating losses, much of it inflicted by one ton bombs, almost never previously deployed against urban targets. Large portions of Gaza were soon transformed into moonscapes, with some 100,000 plus buildings destroyed, including hospitals, churches, mosques, schools, universities, government offices, bakeries, and all the other infrastructure necessary for maintaining civilian life. After just a few weeks, the Financial Times reported that the destruction inflicted upon much of Gaza was already worse than had been suffered by German cities after years of Allied bombing attacks during World War II.
Although Netanyahu was strictly secular, he played to his religious base by publicly declaring the Palestinians to be the tribe of Amalek, whom the Hebrew God had commanded to be exterminated down to the last newborn baby. Many other top Israeli leaders voiced very similar genocidal sentiments, and some of the more zealously religious Israeli soldiers and commanders probably took those statements quite literally. This gigantic bloodlust was further inflamed as the Israeli government and its supportive propagandists began promoting outrageous Hamas atrocity-hoaxes such as beheaded or roasted Israeli babies, sexual mutilations, and gang-rapes. The notoriously pro-Israel global media credulously reported these stories, using them to deflect attention from the enormous ongoing slaughter of Palestinian civilians. To ensure that the coverage remained one-sided, the Israelis targeted independent journalists in Gaza for death, killing some 140 of them over the last few months, a figure as large as the combined total in all the world’s other wars over the last several years.
With Israel’s leaders publicly declaring their genocidal plans for their Palestinian enemies and Israeli troops committing the greatest televised massacre of helpless civilians in the history of the world, international organizations gradually came under strong pressure to involve themselves in the ongoing conflict. In late December, South Africa filed a 91-page legal brief with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of committing genocide. Within a few weeks the ICJ jurists issued a series of near-unanimous rulings supporting those charges and declaring that the Gazans were at serious risk of suffering a potential genocide at Israel’s hands, with Israel’s own appointed judge, a former Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court, concurring in most of those verdicts. But instead of backing off, Netanyahu’s government merely redoubled its attacks against Gaza, tightening the blockade of food shipments by banning the UN organization responsible for distributing them. The Israelis apparently believed that the combination of starvation, bombs, and missiles would be the most effective means of killing or driving out all the Palestinians.
With graphic images of devastated Gaza neighborhoods and dead Palestinian children so widespread on Twitter and other social media outlets, polls have revealed that a majority of younger Americans now favor Hamas and the Palestinians in their ongoing struggle with Israel. This is a shocking reversal from the views of their parents, which had been shaped by generations of overwhelmingly pro-Israel material across broadcast television, films, and print publications, and such trends are only likely to continue now that Israel is being prosecuted in the International Court of Justice by South Africa and 22 other nations, accused of committing genocide in Gaza. As a consequence of these strong youthful sentiments, anti-Israel demonstrations have erupted at many of our universities, outraging numerous pro-Israel billionaire donors. Almost immediately, some of the latter launched a harsh retaliatory campaign, with many corporate leaders declaring that they would permanently blacklist from future employment opportunities any college students publicly supporting the Palestinian cause, underscoring these threats with a widespread “doxxing” campaign at Harvard and other elite colleges.
A few weeks ago, the uniformly pro-Israel elected officials entered the fray, calling the presidents of several of the most elite colleges—Harvard, Penn, and MIT—to testify before them regarding alleged “antisemitism” on their campuses. Members of Congress severely brow-beat these officials for permitting anti-Israel activities, even ignorantly and absurdly accusing them of allowing public calls for “Jewish genocide” on their campuses. The responses of these college leaders emphasized their support for freedom of political speech but were deemed so unsatisfactory by pro-Israel donors and their mainstream media allies that enormous pressure was exerted to remove them. Within days, the Penn president and her supportive Board chairman had been forced to resign, and soon afterward Harvard’s first black president suffered the same fate, as pro-Israel groups released evidence of her widespread academic plagiarism to drive her from office. Most of these students were absolutely stunned at such reactions. For decades, they and their predecessors had freely protested on a wide range of political causes without ever encountering even a sliver of such vicious retaliation, let alone an organized campaign that quickly forced the resignation of two of the Ivy League presidents who had allowed their protests. Some of their student organizations were immediately banned and the future careers of the protesters were harshly threatened, but the horrifying images from Gaza continued to reach their smartphones.
As Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL had previously explained in a leaked phone call, “We have a major TikTok problem.” Indeed, the Israelis continued to generate an avalanche of gripping content for those videos. Mobs of Israeli activists regularly blocked the passage of food-trucks, and within a few weeks, senior UN officials declared that more than a million Gazans were on the verge of a deadly famine.
When the desperate, starving Gazans swarmed one of those few food delivery convoys allowed through, the Israeli military shot and killed more than 100 of them in the “Flour Massacre” and this was later repeated. All these horrific scenes of death and deliberate starvation were broadcast worldwide on social media, with some of the worst examples coming from the accounts of gleeful Israeli soldiers, such as their video of the corpse of a Palestinian child being eaten by a starving dog. Another image showed the remains of a bound Palestinian prisoner who had been crushed flat while still alive by an Israeli tank. According to a European human rights organization, the Israelis had regularly used bulldozers to bury alive large numbers of Palestinians. UN officials reported finding mass graves near several hospitals, with the victims found bound and stripped, shot execution-style.
As Internet provocateur Andrew Anglin has pointed out, the behavior of the Israeli Jews does not seem merely evil but “cartoonishly evil,” with all their blatant crimes seeming to be based upon the script of some over-the-top propaganda-film but instead actually taking place in real life. These grim developments have naturally sparked a continuing wave of student protests condemning Israel for committing these monstrous crimes and our own Biden Administration for enabling them with money and munitions. Even worse scenes took place at UCLA as an encampment of peaceful protesters was violently attacked and beaten by a mob of pro-Israel thugs having no university connection but armed with bars, clubs, and fireworks, resulting in some serious injuries. A professor of History described her outrage as the nearby police stood aside and did nothing while UCLA students were attacked by outsiders, and then arrested some 200 of the former. According to local journalists, the violent mob had been organized and paid by pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman.
We have never previously heard of organized mobs of outside thugs being allowed to violently assault peaceful American student protesters on their own campus, something that seems far more reminiscent of turbulent Latin American dictatorships. This sort of very physical “deplatforming” was intended to ensure that their threatening ideas never reached impressionable college students and led conservatives to begin organizing their own groups such as the Proud Boys to provide physical protection. Violent clashes occurred at Berkeley and some other colleges, while similar antifa riots in DC disrupted Trump’s inauguration. From what we know, most of the organizers and financial backers of these violent antifa groups seemed to be Jewish, so perhaps it’s not surprising that other Jewish leaders have now begun employing very similar tactics to suppress different political movements that they regard as distasteful.
The Rothschilds push their puppets to pass laws in the US Senate & Congress
Some years ago a former senior AIPAC official once boasted to a friendly journalist that if he wrote anything on a simple napkin, within 24 hours he could get signatures of 70 Senators to endorse it, and the political power of the ADL is equally formidable.
The United States House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would expand the federal definition of anti-Semitism, despite opposition from civil liberties groups. The bill passed the House on Wednesday by a margin of 320 to 91, and it is largely seen as a reaction to the ongoing antiwar protests unfolding on US university campuses. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.
Giving legal sanction to that presumption that Israel must be protected from bigots means that the United States is well on the way to forbidding any criticism of Israel at all. Americans can criticize their own country or nations in Europe, or at least they are able to do so currently, but bad-mouthing Israel could soon constitute a criminal offense. This Act is just one aspect of how the power of organized Jewish groups over the government and media is shaping the kind of society that Americans will be living in in the near future.. And the one most interesting aspect of that power is how it has successfully hidden the fact that it even exists, while also propagating the myth that Jews and Israel are especially worthy of special consideration because they suffered the Holocaust- one of the biggest cons of the 20th century. So the United States will again go to bat for Israel and Israel will ignore what comes out and dodge any consequences. The United States was once a symbol of freedom and opportunity. Now it has become an international embarrassment.
Although it received very little media coverage, the implications of this proposed legislation are certainly dramatic. Put simply, “antisemitism” is the dislike or criticism of Jews and “Anti-Zionism” is the same thing with regard to the State of Israel. So potentially banning any criticism of Jews or Israel would certainly represent a remarkable legal development in our society. This massive suppression of all political opposition to Zionism through a mixture of legal, quasi-legal, and illegal means has hardly escaped the notice of various outraged critics. They may or may not have been aware that their angry denunciation closely paralleled one of the most notorious Far Right phrases of the last half-century, which condemned America’s existing political system as nothing more than ZOG, a “Zionist Occupation Government.” Although it’s difficult to be sure, the passage of that controversial House bill may have been a major strategic blunder for the pro-Israel forces, the ADL, and the other Jewish groups behind it. Jews only constitute about 2% of American population and over the last several generations many of their organizations seem to have waged a highly successful campaign to gain control over the key nodes of our society, but this has always required that their growing strength and influence remain invisible. However, the absolutely lock-step and uniform American political support for Israel’s ongoing massacre of the Palestinians has raised the awareness of some elements of our population and this legislative attempt to essentially outlaw criticism of Jews and Israel may have a similar impact. Views that had previously only circulated in extreme fringe circles may now begin to gain much greater traction.
During the early decades of the Twentieth Century the enormous Russian Empire was only about 4% Jewish, but after the heavily Jewish Bolsheviks seized power, the top political leadership of that country became overwhelmingly of that one ethnicity. This enormous, blatant mismatch between ruled and rulers naturally provoked a great deal of hostility in the broader public, and the Bolsheviks responded to this problem by outlawing anti-Semitism, with the penalty sometimes even including summary execution.
Since America’s Jewish groups do not possess such extreme administrative power, they have been forced to rely upon concealment and political manipulation to achieve their ends, and they may now have severely over-reached themselves with this latest legislative effort to outlaw criticism. More and more people may start to pay closer attention to the seemingly inexplicable political decisions taken by so many of our elected officials while also noticing the unusual composition of the top ranks of our government. When we are faced with a government run by individuals who seem to have little political independence, it is worth speculating upon the means by which such nominal rulers are controlled.
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and so forth.
However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed the looting of Russia’s entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history. An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets that are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. More and more thoughtful Americans are becoming aware that on so many important matters our two major political parties often seem more like separate wings of a single political entity, sometimes labeled the “uniparty. Most of the Americans who elected Barack Obama in 2008 intended their vote as a total repudiation of the policies and personnel of the preceding George W. Bush administration. Yet once in office, Obama’s crucial selections—Robert Gates at Defense, Timothy Geither at Treasury, and Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve—were all top Bush officials, and they seamlessly continued the unpopular financial bailouts and foreign wars begun by his predecessor, producing what amounted to a third Bush term.
Consider the fascinating perspective of the recently deceased Boris Berezovsky, once the most powerful of the Russian oligarchs and the puppet master behind President Boris Yeltsin during the late 1990s. After looting billions in national wealth and elevating Vladimir Putin to the presidency, he overreached himself and eventually went into exile. According to the New York Times, he had planned to transform Russia into a fake two-party state—one social-democratic and one neoconservative—in which heated public battles would be fought on divisive, symbolic issues, while behind the scenes both parties would actually be controlled by the same ruling elites. With the citizenry thus permanently divided and popular dissatisfaction safely channeled into meaningless dead-ends, Russia’s rulers could maintain unlimited wealth and power for themselves, with little threat to their reign.
Several months ago a young military serviceman named Aaron Bushnell from a strongly Christian background became so distraught at his country’s active involvement in what he regarded as the supreme crime of genocide that he set himself on fire and died in an act of protest, an event certainly without precedent in American history and extraordinarily rare elsewhere in the world. Although the story quickly vanished from our own media, the coverage on global social media was enormous, and may have lasting consequences. For similar reasons, the tens of thousands of dead Gazans did not lose their lives in vain. Instead, their martyrdom has dominated the global media for the last five months, conclusively revealing to the entire world the moral bankruptcy of the international system that had condemned them to their fate. Probably hundreds of millions of people worldwide have now begun asking themselves questions that they never would have previously considered. Those responsible for the destruction of Gaza may come to rue the day when they helped open doors that they may eventually wish had been kept tightly shut.
Netanyahu is gambling hugely with Israel’s (and America’s) future – and may lose.
U.S. Democratic Party support for Israel is fast fissuring – an “ideological tremor”, Peter Beinart (editor of Jewish Currents) calls it. Since 7 Oct “it has become an earthquake” – a “Great Rupture”.
This concerns the fusion of Liberalism to Zionism that long has defined the Democratic Party:
“Israel’s war in Gaza has supercharged a transformation on the American Left. Solidarity with Palestinians is becoming as essential to leftist politics – as is support for abortion rights or opposition to fossil fuels. And, as happened during the Vietnam War and the struggle against South African apartheid – leftist fervour is reshaping the liberal mainstream”.
Put plainly, in tandem to Israel moving to the far Right, pro-Palestinian support in the U.S. has hardened. By November 2023, 49 percent of American Jewish voters ages 18 to 35 opposed Biden’s request for additional military aid to Israel. That is one vector; one direction of travel within the American polity.
On the other path, American Jews – those most committed to Zionism; the ones who run establishment institutions – see that liberal America is becoming less ideologically hospitable. They are responding to this shift by forging common cause with the American Right. Netanyahu had made the observation that Israel and a wokish Democratic Party were on divergent paths some ten years earlier – shifting the Likud and the Israel Right away from the Democrats to the American Evangelicals (and thus, broadly in the direction of the Republican Party). As a former senior Israeli diplomat, Alon Pinkas, wrote in 2022:
“With Netanyahu it was always transactional. So in the last decade or so he developed his own vile version of “replacement theory”: The majority of evangelical Christians will replace the vast majority of American Jews. Since it’s all about numbers, the evangelicals are the preferred ally”.
Beinart writes: “Supporters of Israel remain not only welcome in the Democratic Party but are also dominant. But the leaders of those institutions no longer represent much of their base”.
Numbers of younger ‘changelings’ are larger than many recognize, especially among millennials and Gen Z; and the latter are joining a Palestine solidarity movement that is growing larger, but also more radical. “That growing radicalism has produced a paradox: It is a movement that welcomes more and more American Jews – but correspondingly finds it harder to explain where Israeli Jews fit into its vision of Palestinian liberation”, Beinart worries.
It was to bridge this Gulf that the Biden Administration confected its awkward stance at the UN Security Council this week, when the U.S. abstained on a ‘Ceasefire and Hostage Release Resolution’. The resolution was intended by the White House to ‘face both ways’, appealing to (older) American Jews who still identify as both progressive and Zionist, and – facing the other way – appealing to those who view the growing alliance between leading Zionist institutions and the Republican Party as uncomfortable, even unforgivable and want the Gaza massacres to stop now.
Gaza is forcing the issue. American Jews who had claimed to be both progressive and Zionist must choose. And what they choose will have huge electoral implications in swing-states, like Michigan, where American leftist activism potentially could determine the Presidential outcome.
Netanyahu likely knows that Gaza will become an unceasing insurgency – and will blame Biden, who is already being cast as the ‘punchbag’ for trying to foist a Palestinian State on to an unwilling Israel.
On the other hand, Netanyahu is gambling hugely with Israel’s (and America’s) future – and may lose.
Zionism Is Antichrist: Western Judeo-Christianity and the Gaza Genocide
The phenomenon of Zionism, with all the evil associated with it, is the product of Jewish ideology, and to defeat it we do indeed need to “blame the Jews,” meaning the active carriers of the ideological virus. It’s no accident that in the Arab world, which has had a front row seat for the bloody 75-year spectacle of the genocide of Palestine, the terms yahood (Jew) and sahyuni (Zionist) are pretty much interchangeable.
The basis of Jewish ideology is the rejection of Jesus. Those among Jesus’s people who accepted Jesus’s message became Christians—and later, in many cases, Muslims, who are still “Christians” in the sense of accepting Jesus’s message and embracing Jesus as the one and only true Messiah; while those who scorned, hated, and rejected Jesus became “Jews.” Even today, the main criterion for being accepted as a Jew by the relevant authorities, namely the rabbinical establishment and the laws of Israel, is rejecting Jesus. As long as you reject Jesus (and are therefore neither Christian nor Muslim) you can be pretty much anything: as long as you either have a “Jewish” mother or intone some conversion mumbo-jumbo you constitute a perfectly acceptable Jew. Jesus is the one and only real anathema. So Judaism is, above all, an anti-Christ religion. It’s most profound and definitive roots are in its decisive rejection of Jesus. No wonder the Jews of Israel routinely spit on Christians and desecrate the holy sites of pro-Jesus monotheists, whether Christian or Muslim. And no wonder they love killing the babies, and the mothers—especially the pregnant mothers—of the people of Jesus, the Palestinians. Every time the Jewish snipers put a “one shot two kills” bullet through the swollen belly of a pregnant Palestinian woman or the emaciated belly of a malnourished Gazan child, urged on by Ayelet “kill the little snakes and the mothers who bear them” they are symbolically murdering the infant Jesus and his mother Mary.
What does it mean for Judaism and Jewish identity to be foundationally anti-Christ? The power establishment of Jesus’s community expected their Messiah to be a brutal military conqueror who would slaughter and subjugate the goyim (non-Jews) and establish Paradise, meaning perpetual Jewish supremacy, on Earth. Every Jew would live a life of luxury, lording it over a hundred goyim slaves who were created to be mere “hewers of wood and drawers of water.” Jesus, the actual Messiah, turned out to be very different. He advocated pushing pacifism to its limits by “turning the other cheek,” while making an exception for the Jewish bankers operating out of the Temple (today’s Federal Reserve, Wall Street, City of London, BIS, etc.—if Jesus were here today he would presumably lead a military attack on those unholy “temples”). Jesus’s emphasis on universalism and love was a full frontal assault on those high priests who had distorted their religion to ground it in tribalism and hate. Faced with Jesus’s message, the Palestinians of 2000 years ago faced a sharp choice. Some surrendered to God, let go of their (tribal) egos, and became followers of Jesus. Others, especially rich usurers and their pet high priests, scorned and tried to kill Jesus—and have been scorning and pillaging and crucifying and ceaselessly scheming to subjugate his followers, whenever and wherever they can get away with it, ever since.
The conflict between the Middle Eastern monotheists who followed Jesus and became Christians or Muslims, and those who rejected Jesus and became Jews, has waxed and waned over the centuries. Today it seems to be coming to a head in the Holy Land. The movement to establish and idolatrously worship a “Jewish state,” and that movement’s obscene desecration of Jesus’s homeland and ongoing crucifixion of Jesus’s people the Palestinians, identifies Zionism with the eschatological notion of Antichrist.
Western Judeo-Christianity’s Complicity in the Antichrist Project
The Western (post)Christian world domination project headquartered in DC and London looks a lot like the Zionist one headquartered in Occupied Jerusalem. Western Christians and post-Christians have treated the rest of the world, and sometimes even each other, pretty much the same way the Jews treat the goyim: as subhuman vermin to be exploited, enslaved, or exterminated. And Eastern Christians and Muslims aren’t perfect either. All of this is becoming clear in the blood-drenched rubble of Gaza, where the Zionists try to “repair the world” by exterminating the goyim, aided by the descendants of Western extremists who endorse “creative destruction” of God because they hate God and His world and imagine they can make something better. They try to cover the monstrous evil of their murderous deeds with equally monstrous lies, which dominate the “reporting” of every Western news outlet. But the apocalypse/unveiling are proceeding apace. Jesus’s harsh words to the Jewish leaders also apply to most of today’s Western Christians: “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
A huge balance of deterrence has emerged in the North, one that “Israel” cannot live with even for a “single hour,” an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Maariv on Tuesday said. Avi Ashkenazi, the military correspondent of the newspaper, recalled in his piece the course of confrontation, the balance of combat, and the rules of engagement between Hezbollah and the occupation since before the withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000. According to the Ashkenazi, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was able, before the Israeli withdrawal, and over the years, to create engagement rules in his favor in the “security belt in Lebanon,” where “he decided that every Israeli attack on a civilian target would lead to rocket fire on Kiryat Shmona and settlements in the Galilee,” and that the targets of the rocket launches varied between “open areas and inhibited ones.”
Our next article is titled “GAZA-THE RESISTANCE BEGINS PHASE 2 “. This details how Israel is facing battlefield defeats on a daily basis. As well as the real reason why Israel decided to invade Rafah.
Stay tuned till then, folks!
