[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Barack Obama’s Executive Action on immigration, which provided a free break for nonwhite invaders who entered the US before January 1, 2014, created an “open border” situation with Mexico, the head of the National Border Patrol Council (NPBC) told the US Congress.
NPBC president Brandon Judd told the House Judiciary Committee that Border Patrol agents were instructed to take invaders’ “word for it” that they had been in the US before that date, even though they were dripping wet after just having crossed the Rio Grande River.
Judd said that Border Patrol agents were ordered to “release dripping-wet illegal immigrants at the Rio Grande unless they actually see them climbing out of the river.
“This has created what amounts to an open border with Mexico,” Judd said.
The agents were, he continued, given the orders verbally soon after President Obama laid out plans for limiting immigration enforcement in 2014.
“We have apprehended illegal aliens just north of the border who are still soaking wet from crossing the river. If they claim, as increasingly they are doing, that they have been here since January 1, 2014, we will process and then release them,” Judd said in written testimony following up on questions from a hearing earlier this year.
“They are still wet from the river and miles from any civilization and on their word alone we release them unless we physically saw them cross the river,” he said. “This policy de facto creates an open border with Mexico for any illegal alien who wants to claim that they were here before 2014.”
The January 1, 2014, date was part of Obama’s “enforcement priorities” he laid out in November that year, which were designed to remove the threat of deportation to the vast majority of the illegal invaders in the US.
The Obama plan consists of giving long-time illegal immigrants “lower priority” for deportation in favor of recent border-crossers, and those with gang ties or who have amassed serious criminal records in addition to their immigration violations.
The rule meant that those illegal immigrants already in the pipeline for deportation were told they could have their cases dropped if they met the new cutoff and didn’t have serious criminal records.
Judd said that the invaders had quickly learned to “game the system,” and if apprehended anywhere, simply said that they had arrived before 2014—and Border Patrol agents had been instructed to simply “take their word for it” even if it was patently untrue.
Judd added that under the verbal directions, agents have been told to fingerprint illegal immigrants and process them to see if they have serious criminal records.
But those that claim to have been here since 2013, and who don’t show up with problems in their criminal history, are released into the US rather than held for deportation.
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican and Judiciary Committee Chairman, agreed, and said that the order had led to more illegal immigrants trying to make the trip into the US.
“Word has spread around the world about the administration’s lax immigration policies and now we see unlawful immigrants gaming the system and the administration’s so-called ‘enforcement priorities’ to come here,” said Goodlatte, after listening to Judd’s testimony.
Rerevisionist: April 11, 2016 at 6:33 pm - “Obama’s ‘own country’ is not the USA.”
The sort of alliance that Majorityrights advocates between European peoples and Asia(ns) is Happening. We envisage a coordinated effort to protect our peoples, secure our lands, access to vital resources and to maintain our channels of commerce. Allying our peoples and military stations along that line come with the broader purpose of securing our people against Islamic, Arab and African populations, Abrahamic/Judaic and Jewish populations, power and influence.
A home to military bases for the US, France and soon China, Djibouti may be the most important tiny African state you’ve never heard about.
At the close of another hot day on the coast of Djibouti, a tiny country on the Horn of Africa, workers are clambering over huge concrete cubes beneath a red crane. One by one, the 2,500-tonne blocks are being submerged in the water: part of a plan to stun the shoreline into submission and create a vast new port at the heart of global trade.
“We’re going to fill in the sea,” Abdo Mohammed, the logistics manager for the $590m project, tells me with quiet glee.
Thirty per cent of all shipping in the world passes this point on the north-east edge of Africa, where the water narrows to a few kilometres opposite Yemen. A former French colony that became independent only in 1977, Djibouti sits at the southern entrance to the Red Sea, en route to the Suez Canal — a waypoint between Africa, India and the Middle East. Over the past 15 years, the country has set about capitalising on its location at the nexus of international trade: once completed, the Doraleh Multi-Purpose Port will be the largest of eight ports that together will handle containers, livestock, oil, phosphates and more.
But the geostrategic ambition of the small, authoritarian state — which at 23,200 sq km (8,950 sq miles) is only slightly larger than Wales — does not stop there. The US, several European countries and Japan have all pinned global military ambitions on Djibouti. Now China is set to do the same.
Construction began on the new port in 2013. “But then [last year] we had to change things around,” says Mohammed. He gestures with his phone in the direction of the arid land behind us. “We had to make a new section over there, beside the mountain, inside the port. That’s where the Chinese military base will be.”
The sun, by now a giant orange disc, slips behind the sea. Mohammed’s nonchalant disclosure marks the culmination of the search that brought me here. China is planning its first overseas military base at Doraleh, within a few kilometres of America’s largest military outpost in Africa. As superpowers jostle for strategic influence, this impoverished state, home to fewer than a million people, is helping to shape a new world order.
Djibouti first came to the attention of France when the French navy commandeered its coastline in 1862 as a stop to refuel and restock coal steamers en route to French Indochina. French Somaliland, as the colony became known soon after, opened up the landlocked African hinterland to international trade; in the 1910s, a new railway from Addis Ababa to Djibouti linked Ethiopia to the sea. Djibouti is a barren land of mountains and desert, and its location has always been its most precious resource. Even now, it is more port city than country: by far the majority of the population lives in the seaside capital of the same name.
A military and trading entrepôt that welcomes all comers, Djibouti today oozes espionage chic. It is home to pirate-hunters, soldiers, spies and Arab traders. Conservative Somali culture mixes with the legacy of flamboyant French Legionnaires.
“Djibouti is really experiencing a boom,” says Ahmed Osman Guelleh, the 56-year-old chief executive of GSK Group, a family logistics company that has forged its fortune through shipping. Yet the baking heat makes it remarkable that anything much gets done at all. One US soldier who served here describes it as “a hot hell box in the armpit of Africa”. Temperatures reach into the mid-40s for nearly half the year. Government offices shut down at 12.30, and an entire nation of men, and many women, take up the national pastime: chewing for hours on khat, a bitter leaf so renowned for its amphetamine-like properties that it is banned in Britain and the US.
The drug gives its wired adherents a daily buzz — and mollifying fuzz — they cannot be without. I watched market traders, government officials and on-duty police officers chew khat. Even the 49-year-old finance minister Ilyas Moussa Dawaleh admitted to me that his family has shares in the largest khat importer.
“If Djiboutians stopped chewing khat for seven days, they would overthrow the government,” says one port worker. He is only half joking. Eccentric and appealing as it is, Djibouti is authoritarian and brittle too. President Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, a former head of the secret police who has run the country since 1999, will seek re-election for his fourth term on April 8, having altered the constitution in 2010 to allow him to extend his rule. The opposition complains regularly of illegal security crackdowns and the impossibility of free and fair elections.
Flanked by Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia, Djibouti is viewed as a haven in the unstable Horn of Africa and hosts armed forces from around the world. “There’s no country with so many military bases. You can throw stones from one end to the other of Djibouti and find military bases all the way, right next to each other,” says one senior official. France pledged to protect its former colony as part of a post-independence deal; after 9/11 it was joined by the US, which chose Djibouti as its base for rooting out emerging Islamist terror networks in the region. Initially, US troops were stationed on a navy ship but in 2003 they set up in Camp Lemonnier, a rundown French Legionnaires’ base beside the airport. The site has since expanded from 88 acres to 500. In 2014 a 10-year lease nearly doubled the annual rent the US pays Djibouti to $63m, with an option to extend for another 10 years.
In the past decade piracy has increased the tiny state’s strategic importance; as Somali pirates took hundreds of crews and vessels captive, costing global trade an estimated $7bn at a 2011 peak, several nations contributed to anti-piracy missions in Djibouti, including Germany, Italy and Japan.
Russia may also be interested in establishing a base. Djibouti’s foreign minister Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, an articulate 50-year-old with a reputation as the most competent minister in the government, tells me that while Djibouti turned down a request from Iran to host its military here — “because we think that Iran’s policy in the region is not a peaceful one” — it has not declined a similar recent request from Moscow. “Russia is a key player, it is a permanent member of the Security Council,” he tells me in his office. “For Russia we have no problem.”
The country is already so full of military personnel that its small, sandy capital city at times resembles a sprawling garrison. US fighter jets share the same airport runway as commercial airlines at the civil airport. French soldiers in impossibly skimpy, neon-hued shorts jog past brightly veiled women and mosques. The five-star Palace Kempinski hotel, a bubble of exclusivity in the otherwise poor city, serves $5 Cokes and popcorn tossed in truffle butter to crewcuts in uniform. Battle tattoos flash on the biceps and backs of Speedo-wearing soldiers in the infinity pool. Special-forces operatives sip Moscow Mules on the pontoon. International spies and drones operate daily. One western spy told me they enjoyed Djibouti because it is “quirky”.
Despite the multi-force troop presence, when rumours started circulating early last year that China was not only going to build its first overseas military base but that it was going to build it in Djibouti, rival powers were taken by surprise. Western countries and their allies view the prospect of China’s military arrival at a global chokepoint for trade and security with alarm. An anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden in 2008 was the first time China had sent naval ships on a mission outside its territorial waters in more than 600 years.
For two fundamental reasons, I welcome China‘s outreach to African states (and believe any sane person should, though I must admit that sanity is not a commodity in great supply in the US these days). First, Africa needs all the help it can get and the Chinese have lots of stored up capital. Second, when the Chinese try to attach strings to their aid, before or after, the Africans smell it out rather swiftly. So far, the Chinese have been less than stellar in camouflaging such strings.”
Since then, Beijing has gradually shifted its foreign policy to embrace a more assertive military posture, moving to a strategy it calls “active defence”. Its pursuit of a Djibouti base has been cloaked in secrecy, with public statements short on detail. Some diplomats speak darkly of China’s “100-year horizons”. One senior western diplomat, with a more immediate timeframe in mind, says, “The worst-case scenario is that they [China] develop this web of bases to give them a kind of control over strategic waterways all the way into the Med.”
In financial terms, China is already what one official in the region describes as the “major show” in town. Following the model it has employed throughout Africa — offering billions of dollars in financing in exchange for access to resources — China is helping to bankroll a targeted $12.4bn of spending on huge infrastructure projects including the Doraleh port and a new railway to Ethiopia. Amid the boom in construction, Djibouti’s growth rate is likely to surpass 7 per cent this year. But the investments are having “limited trickle-down effects”, according to the International Monetary Fund. Nearly two-thirds of the population lives in poverty, and half the labour force is unemployed. In the absence of many skilled domestic workers, Chinese labourers have been flown in.
Loans from China for a water pipeline and the new railway from Ethiopia — agreed before talk of a military base — come to $814m, half of the country’s annual GDP. In 2013 the IMF suspended discussions with Djibouti because of its concerns over debt vulnerability; last year it warned of “elevated solvency risks”. Finance minister Dawaleh tells me he recently travelled to Beijing, seeking to negotiate easier repayment plans. Djibouti’s public and publicly guaranteed debt burden is likely to reach 81 per cent of GDP next year, mostly as a result of Chinese financing.
“We don’t want the Americans to leave but the Chinese invest billions of dollars in our infrastructure; that’s what the Americans are not doing,” foreign minister Youssouf explains. “So we are trying to keep the balance to see where our interest lies, as a small country with very limited resources.”
In early 2014, Djibouti and China signed an agreement to allow the Chinese navy — which contributes to international anti-piracy operations — to use its port. Beijing made no official comment when President Guelleh said, last May, that Djibouti was in talks with China to establish a military base. In November, China confirmed only a naval “support facility” destined for Djibouti, with a spokesperson saying, “It will help China’s military further carry out its international responsibilities to safeguard global and regional peace and stability.” Even in February this year, announcing the start of work on the project, China referred only to “logistical facilities” for naval rest and resupply. The Chinese embassy in Djibouti turned down my requests for an interview with the ambassador.
But when I speak to Youssouf, he is candid and happy to provide details of the deal he and President Guelleh have struck with China. “The terms of the contract and agreement are very clear and they are the same for each and every country that requested military presence in Djibouti,” he tells me in his office in the capital.
China will, he says, pay $20m a year for a 10-year lease for the military base, with an option to extend for a further 10 years. There will probably be “a few thousand” troops and military staff at the site, along with its own naval berth at the new port. It would use the base to protect its national interest — monitoring its merchant vessels passing the Bab el-Mandeb Strait that leads to the Suez Canal, and for its navy to refuel and restock — much as the French did more than 150 years ago. Youssouf also says that China, which is slated to build a second major airport in the country, would have as much right to use drones as the US and French. China’s foreign ministry declined to respond to faxed questions from the FT about the terms of the new base.
“The Americans have enough technology, enough fighter aircraft, enough drones [here] to control each and every piece of this land and even beyond,” says Youssouf. “Why should the Chinese not have the right to also use those materials . . . to preserve and protect their interest in the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb. Why?”
Official comments from those potentially affected are clipped: “We follow the situation about the Chinese base very closely,” says Tatsuo Arai, Japan’s ambassador to Djibouti. Youssouf admits that both Japan and the US have “expressed their worries” to both him and President Guelleh about the arrival of a Chinese military presence so close to their own, and its potential capabilities.
“Those preoccupations and worries expressed by the Americans and others are groundless, for us at least,” Youssouf tells me, deriding the west’s “hypocritical vision of our common interest”.
“We can host Chinese bases as we can host American bases . . . They might have conflicting interests elsewhere but here they cannot have conflicting interests, because the strait of Bab el-Mandeb is vital for each and everyone in the world,” he says. “There is no conflict of interest when it comes to global peace. China has no interest in doing anything [bad]. Everybody knows that nobody can take any action that could jeopardise the maritime traffic . . . This is a vital lifeline for the whole of international trade.
“We tried to reassure [the Americans and Japanese ], saying don’t worry, the same agreement we signed with them is the one we signed with you. So there is no reason to worry.”
That sense of equivalence may be precisely what is worrying the US. America, after all, is undertaking in Djibouti what Ambassador Tom Kelly tells me is “the biggest active military construction project in the entire world . . . It’s number one of everything we’re doing.” In his office at the US embassy, a monolith in sand-blown Haramous (what counts as the city’s upmarket district), the 54-year-old Kelly is unambiguous about the country’s vital role, describing Djibouti as “at the forefront of our national security policy right now”.
Geography is important (most who use the term ‘geopolitical’ don’t even know what they are implying by it). From Djibouti, Aden is just across, as is its state, Yemen, where al-Qaeda abounds. The narrowest part of the Red Sea route, south, is there. Jeddah is just up the opposite coast and Mogadishu, another haven for al-Qaeda, is the other way across the landmass. Moreover, the government of Djibouti, unlike most other African states, seems to be either sufficiently worried about its own security or lusting for hard currency, or both, to be one of the few African states willing to host a US troop presence.”
“The greatest threat to the US is terrorism, and we’re right on the front lines here,” he says. “It is an extremely important counterterrorism platform for the United States; within striking distance of two active affiliates — AQIP [al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] and al-Shabaab in Somalia.”
The US runs special ops across the continent as well as drones from Djibouti, protects 16 embassies in the region and fights al-Qaeda affiliates in Somalia, Yemen and further afield. The country is also a key point for monitoring and securing trade routes. At Obock, a sleepy fishing port at the mouth of the Bab el-Mandeb Straits, the US has installed a surveillance centre.
From here, Djibouti can monitor southern access to the Suez, track seafaring traffic, patrol coastal waters and protect maritime borders. The US built a naval pier here in 2009 and conducts counterterrorism training and houses radar equipment in the nearby Ras Bir lighthouse.
The US presence is growing; $1bn is being spent on expanding its base, bulking up its presence for the long term. While the drone site has been moved to Chabelley, 10km south-west of the capital, the main US base in the city still has what operatives call a “secret side”, with a covert compound dedicated to special operations, targeting not only AQIP and al-Shabaab but also the main branch of al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Lord’s Resistance Army and Isis. As US troops withdraw from Afghanistan, Djibouti is now the active centre for what US soldiers at the camp refer to as “g-wot”: the global war on terror.
“Guys who come back can’t believe how much bigger it’s got,” one of the 4,500 troops and contractors living inside the base tells me. Unlike the French, they are allowed to leave the base only rarely during their downtime. Camp conditions approximate to, in the words of one resident, “adultday caree”. US forces eat at Combat Café, watch films at the Oasis Movie Theatre, play ping pong, poker and Xbox 360 in the gaming room, go to the gym and crack gags instructing each other to “have a Djiboutiful day”.
Japanese troops, whose anti-piracy mission numbers several hundred, sometimes visit for a game of soccer or touch rugby to alleviate what one Japanese soldier described to me as a dismal time coping with heat and boredom. Japan’s base also finds ways to remind cooped-up soldiers of home: I was treated to a tour that included a room filled with manga comics, traditional Japanese communal hot baths and the rare prospect of sushi.
The confines of the camp are in contrast to the freer life downtown. My own interest was piqued when a Somali friend described Djibouti as “Mogadishu meets Las Vegas”. The country, which a diplomat calls “one of the sentinels of moderate Muslim societies”, goes more or less by the secular French penal code, a leftover from colonial days. Compared with neighbouring Somalia’s practice of sharia, it is relatively liberal. Women rarely wear the full niqab, some shirk a headscarf completely. They meet for late-night sheeshas, guava juice and gossip beside the quay in the hot night air. Many have boyfriends, even if they shield it from their families.
“You can have your private life in Djibouti. That’s why we’re not like Somalia,” an impassioned 30-year-old woman tells me, saying it was down not to French influence but to “the Djiboutian mentality”. “We are much more open, more free. We don’t talk about sex ever but it goes on out of marriage. As long as you don’t bring shame on your family, your private life is free.”
Djibouti’s nightclubs stay open until 4am, with police carefully shepherding revellers to avoid clashing with the call of the muezzin as worshippers attend morning prayers. I watch a group of five Frenchmen — all swagger, sleeves rolled up, hands in pockets — rolling out of l’Historil, a bar-restaurant, heading for the bright lights of the disco zone. Another group of French soldiers passes through the metal detectors to enter Shams, a nightclub rammed with revellers lit by disco balls. The outlines of the Statue of Liberty and a bare-breasted woman hang on the walls; 13 waitresses stand elbow to elbow serving drinks at the red-lit bar.
While parts of the city and many Muslims are dry, drinking is common. “Everyone here drinks and if they don’t, they drink in private,” one Djiboutian jokes to me over his whisky. Alcohol is sold in bars and the state licenses a clutch of tightly controlled booze importers.
Larry Modi is among them. The Christian son of an enterprising Indian runaway and an Ethiopian woman, the 67-year-old has run a supermarket in Djibouti City for many years. Warm and avuncular, with soft features, big round eyes and greying hair, he greets me at 11.30am with an offer of “champagne?”, pouring glasses for us both. His shop features floor-to-ceiling shelves of beer, gin, vodka and more. He is beloved by generations of soldiers and his office has the military memorabilia — gifts from soldiers serving out their time in this peculiar way station — to prove it; the French made him an honorary Legionnaire.
The cultural quirks of a country that appears to welcome all belie Djibouti’s repressive political climate. A London judge last month, ruling on a corruption case brought by Djibouti, painted a picture of President Guelleh’s regime as “capricious”, “cavalier” and on occasions “reprehensible”. Diplomats whose troops rely on the president’s welcome describe him as the crafty, powerful and impressive leader of a centralised autocracy, one stop short of dictatorship.
Human-rights activists decry a series of abuses. The government routinely suppresses the opposition, “harassing, abusing and detaining government critics”, says the latest report from the US state department, published last year, which also censures Djibouti for conducting torture, arbitrary arrest and detention of demonstrators, opposition members and journalists.
In 2011, the state put down a series of protests that hinted at the beginnings of Arab Spring-like uprisings. In December last year, police clashed with the opposition, killing at least seven and wounding dozens. Today the opposition protests against vote-rigging and harassment.
“There’s a lack of freedom, people are desperate, poor — it creates a lot of discontent. People are patient but there’s a limit,” Daher Ahmed Farah, spokesman for the opposition coalition group Union for the National Salvation, tells me.
Opposition figures such as Farah, a 54-year-old who goes by his initials “Daf”, have been followed, arrested and tortured. They meet and speak with the furtive glances and low voices borne of well-informed paranoia. Daf himself has been arrested more than 25 times since 2013, he says.
When I meet him one afternoon, we go to an empty café until a lone man comes and sits right next to us and, Daf feels, listens in. We lower our voices, move tables, and finally we leave.
That evening, I receive a call from reception to my hotel room. “There are some visitors here to see you.” I was not expecting any. I go downstairs to see a man wrapped in a skirt, wired on khat, and his adjunct dressed in a camel flannel uniform. “Come with us,” says the man in the skirt.
“Hello. Greetings. How can I help?” I ask, attempting a smile. “Police. Come with us.” I say I do not think it wise for us to have this conversation — or perhaps it is an arrest — at night, in the dark, in an unknown location, and could we pursue this tomorrow. They insist.
I manage to alert my back-up contacts before the police take me to what turns out to be the city’s central commissariat. Along with two other men, a colonel questions me at length, asking why I met with the opposition, what Daf said and who introduced us. I demur.
He directs the same questions to me again and again, especially the last, in a bad comedy of repetition, peppering his inquisition with the admission that it is perfectly legal for me, an accredited journalist with the right visa, to meet the perfectly legal opposition. The whole thing lasts four hours.
Back in my hotel room, I do not sleep for what is left of the night. I relate the tale the next day to a diplomat. “It’s intimidation,” he tells me.
In May 2014, Djibouti’s assumption that it was a well-protected island of peace in a troubled region was shaken when al-Shabaab launched a double suicide attack on a downtown restaurant popular with locals and westerners. One person was killed and dozens wounded.
Being targeted not only for sending troops to fight al-Shabaab in Somalia but also for hosting foreign bases — the attack took place in the same month that Djibouti signed its extension agreement with the US — was a shock to a country that had until then considered itself off-limits.
“Djibouti is calm, peaceful — a Djiboutian can never do that, they like peace too much — but, if someone is prepared to die, you can’t stop them,” says a member of the government’s antiterrorism group, which comprises 160 security officers and 600 civilians linked into a reporting network. “It was a wake-up call,” says the agent. “We have totally reorganised policing and protection along the border. Now we pick up communications — we see the value in talking to people and we’re much more alert.”
Djibouti’s belief that it stands to benefit from being the linchpin for an international coalition against terrorism clearly brings its own risks. But foreign minister Youssouf insists that the country has not wavered “from our belief that globalisation means everything”. Djibouti’s security role also helps establish a modicum of leverage distinct from populous, landlocked Ethiopia, on which it has always been seen as dependent. “Everyone said Djibouti would be swallowed by Somalia or Ethiopia but in the end we are the umbilical cord for Ethiopia, and now they and the Chinese see us as that,” says Youssouf, concerned to dispel the notion that Djibouti exists solely to service the Ethiopian economy.
The US has tried to enlist China as friend not foe in the military field in Africa, suggesting integrated operations in areas such as landmine clearance and peacekeeping training. China turned down a request for a joint demining programme but it participates in international anti-piracy missions and some naval exercises. The US hopes to encourage greater co-operation. Djibouti could, if it goes well, become a catalyst for what one observer calls “a joint globalised security architecture”. But the flipside augurs ill: well-armed superpowers jostling in a city of closely guarded secrets, raising the stakes on the militarisation of trade routes and security chokepoints. Managing the existence of both a US and a Chinese military base in the same country “will be a challenge for all involved”, says ambassador Kelly.
For Djibouti, the answer is clear. “For many years Japanese, Italians, Germans, French and Americans are just coexisting in this very small land,” says Youssouf. “So why should it be different in the future?”
It has emerged that Israel racially segregates its maternity wards by race, with one Israeli Member of Parliament saying that this is done because “Arabs are my enemies and that’s why I don’t enjoy being next to them.”
Like many other racial segregation measures in Israel, the Jewish state has kept news of the segregated hospital wards secret until now—an incredible feat given that most Jews in that state will have had contact with the hospital system for decades.
According to a report in the Times of Israel, the revelations started with a report on Israeli Radio saying that hospitals have been separating Arab and Jewish mothers in maternity wards “when the mothers request it.”
Then, a Knesset member, Bezalel Smotrich, took to Twitter to support the racial segregation measure.
“My wife is truly no racist, but after giving birth she wants to rest rather than have a hafla”—a mass feast often accompanied by music and dancing—“like the Arabs have after their births,” the Knesset member tweeted.
After his tweet received negative replies, Smotrich went a step further, writing: “It’s natural that my wife wouldn’t want to lie down [in a bed] next to a woman who just gave birth to a baby who might want to murder her baby twenty years from now.”
He then added that “Arabs are my enemies and that’s why I don’t enjoy being next to them.”
His wife, Revital, later told Israel’s Channel 10 that she had “kicked an Arab obstetrician out of the [delivery] room. I want Jewish hands to touch my baby, and I wasn’t comfortable lying in the same room with an Arab woman.”
“I refuse to have an Arab midwife, because for me giving birth is a Jewish and pure moment,” she said.
Smotrich in the Knesset.
The resultant publicity has forced the Israeli Health Ministry to quickly back down from its segregation policy, and issue a statement saying that such a practice was “not allowed.”
Despite the official condemnation, the reality remains that there has been—and most likely still is—such segregation “upon request.”
The real issue is, once again, not if Jews in Israel want to be segregated from Palestinians or not. From their point of view, there are possibly good reasons for doing so in order to preserve their identity and culture.
However, it is when Jewish activists in Israel and other nations start agitating against any Europeans who dare to suggest that they also have a right to protect their identity, that the problem comes in.
For, if Europeans dare to suggest that they should have a right to a European state—in the same way that Jews have the right to a Jewish state—then these same Jews are the first to attack them as being “Nazis” and “haters.”
Proof of this can be seen in the complete silence by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish organizations about Smotrich and his wife’s public comments. Any European politician who had dared say anything similar—about non-Europeans or Jews, for example—would immediately have been condemned by the ADL and lambasted in the Jewish-dominated media in the West.
But, as usual, that media remains silent on outbursts by Jews and racial segregation measures in Israel.
There always seems to be one rule for Jews, and another rule for Europeans.
Israel’s Education Ministry has formally banned a book about an interracial affair between a Jew and a Gentile because, the Jewish state’s government says, the book “threatens Jewish identity” and does not deal with the “significance of miscegenation” between “Jews and non-Jews.”
Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett, and the book banned for promoting “miscegenation” in Israel.
At the same time, the organized Jewish lobby in America and Europe —which fanatically supports Israel—demands of Europeans that they accept miscegenation and mixed marriages in order not to be “racist.”
According to an article in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper, titled “Israel Bans Novel on Arab-Jewish Romance From Schools for ‘Threatening Jewish Identity‘” (December 31, 2015), Israel’s Education Ministry has “disqualified a novel (called “Gader Haya,” or “Borderlife”) that describes a love story between an Israeli woman and a Palestinian man from use by high schools around the country.”
An official statement released by the ministry said that the book had been banned from schools because of the “need to maintain the identity and the heritage of students in every sector,” and that “intimate relations between Jews and non-Jews threatens our separate identity.”
The Education Ministry added that “young people of adolescent age don’t have the systemic view that includes considerations involving maintaining the national-ethnic identity of the people and the significance of miscegenation.”
The book tells the story of Liat, an Israeli translator, and Hilmi, a Palestinian artist, who meet and fall in love in New York, until they part ways for her to return to Tel Aviv and he to the West Bank city of Ramallah, where Israel’s racial segregation laws force them apart.
The decision to ban the book was endorsed by Education Minister Naftali Bennett’s office, which issued a statement saying “The minister backs the decision made by the professionals.”
In a separate article, Haaretz columnist Alon Idan frankly admitted that the reason why the book was banned was so that Israel could “maintain purity of blood.”
Alon said that the decision meant simply that “Jews and Arabs are forbidden to have sex with one another; Jews and Arabs are forbidden to love one another; Jews and Arabs are forbidden to marry one another; Jews and Arabs are forbidden to have families with one another; Jews and Arabs are forbidden to live together.”
No one with any clear-thinking mind would dispute the right of Jews to maintain their identity in their own country.
However, the organized Jewish lobby in America and Europe—which is one of Israel’s strongest supporters—demands of Europeans that they adopt exactly the opposite policy to that which they support in the Jewish state.
The ADL, for example, which describes itself as “the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice, and bigotry,” has an entire section of its website devoted to boasting about the Jewish role in dismantling anti-miscegenation and anti-mixed marriage laws in America.
For example, an ADL press release from March 2015, dealing with the promotion of homosexual marriage (something else which is illegal in Israel), titled “ADL Urges Supreme Court to Overturn State Marriage Bans” quotes Christopher Wolf, ADL Civil Rights Chair, as saying that “Marriage bans unconstitutionally enshrine one particular religious view of marriage into law.”
The ADL goes on to quote Deborah M. Lauter, ADL Civil Rights Director, as saying that “Discriminatory laws targeting disadvantaged groups have long been justified by religious and moral disapproval, but time and time again, the Supreme Court has rejected these arguments. The Court needs only to look at its decisions ending slavery, segregation, interracial-marriage bans, and laws restricting women’s roles in public life to reach the right conclusion.”
The ADL was joined in this demand by The American Jewish Committee; Bend the Arc — A Jewish Partnership for Justice; The Central Conference of American Rabbis and the Women of Reform Judaism; Global Justice Institute; Hadassah — The Women’s Zionist Organization of America, Inc.; Jewish Social Policy Action Network (JSPAN); Keshet; The National Council of Jewish Women; Nehirim; Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and Jewish Reconstructionist Communities; Society for Humanistic Judaism; T’ruah: Rabbis for Human Rights-North America; and Women’s League for Conservative Judaism.
In addition, the ADL was joined by a host of Christian, Asian, and Sikh organizations—but none of them were being hypocritical about their public stance, unlike the Israel-supporting Jewish groups.
The ADL has a special section of its website devoted to explaining to its supporters how to defend Israel. Titled “Israel: A Guide for Activists,” the ADL page provides detailed instructions on every aspect of the Jewish state, and how to answer accusations made against it.
In addition, the ADL—and all the other organized Jewish organizations—set up formal visits to Israel, engage in lobbying on behalf of the Jewish state, and ensure that their controlled media never reports negatively on Jewish political manipulations or their control of Western governments.
It is clear that the Jews know and understand perfectly the principles of race and the need to preserve racial homogeneity in order to maintain Jewish cultural identity.
In Israel, this understanding takes practical effect through the banning of mixed marriages, the outlawing of non-Jewish immigration, racial segregation in schools and living areas, and their ultimate goal—a separate Jews-only state.
Yet, in America, Europe, and anywhere else where there are large numbers of Europeans, the Israel-supporting Jewish lobby actively promotes policies which are the diametric opposite to the policies which their state enforces.
The facts are inescapable: the Jewish lobby knows perfectly well that miscegenation and mixed marriages will lead to the destruction of Jewish identity and the Jewish nation-state.
They therefore also know that promoting miscegenation and mixed marriages among non-Jews will lead to the destruction of European identity, and the destruction of European nation-states.
This “hypocrisy” is too obvious to be an accident: it can only be the result of a conscious, deliberate decision, aimed at bringing about the destruction of non-Jews.
Though Switzerland is held up as a model providing the most hope and the sanest policies for we native-nationalists, it has our problems too. We will be speaking with our friend in Zurich again soon: when we spoke to him few days ago, he told us that although Switzerland is something like an island of sanity in an insane Western Europe, what is happening in the rest of Europe cannot help but spill-over, and it is, to some extent, even seeping into Switzerland. What is of more concern is that the people have become complacent - insulated from the brunt, they are more susceptible to accept the liberal PC propaganda that is funneled in from media abroad. The indifference to the threat from without can be very frustrating. While passing through Germany, he was shocked by the throngs of immigrants, groups of healthy adult Middle-Eastern males in the train stations. His comment: “This is real!” He noted that there has been a similar overconfidence in Poland from which a percentage are only slowly being awakened. Same as in Switzerland, comparatively few are sufficiently alarmed by the gravity of what is threatened. Lastly, he noted, that there are YKW in Switzerland, he’s spoken and has goings on with some of them while they are ensconced among the comfortably unperturbed by what is happening in Europe.
Switzerland—another nation being flooded with nonwhite “refugees”—currently has no less than 60 Jihadists being investigated for possible terrorist links, that country’s attorney general has announced.
Speaking to the Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Michael Lauber confirmed that the number of criminal investigations into Islamist groups in Switzerland has doubled in the past four months.
More than 60 Jihadists are currently facing prosecution, Lauber said, adding that last November the number of cases being handled was 33.
He said that most of the proceedings were to do with Islamist propaganda and support for terrorist organizations such as Islamic State (IS) and al-Qaeda.
Earlier this month a court in Ticino found three Iraqi invaders guilty of supporting ISIS.
All four had been charged with trying to create an ISIS cell in Switzerland and planning terrorist attacks. They were jailed.
“At the moment we do not have a case as serious as that of the Iraqis,” Lauber said. “But there are various groupings of people considered problematic in Switzerland.”
The majority of the cases involved internet propaganda, and the Office of the Attorney General was looking for guidance from the courts as to what constituted propaganda under Swiss law.
“We hope particular cases will show us whether our laws are sufficient or whether we need to adapt them,” Lauber said.
Cases currently under investigation include one against a member of the executive of the Islamic Central Council of Switzerland who released a video supporting a jihadist organization.
Another case involves a nonwhite arrested at Zurich airport under suspicion he was headed for Syria to join the fighting.
READ Why Does the Controlled Media Refer to Illegal Immigrants as “Infiltrators” in Israel, but “Asylum Seekers” in Europe?
There are so many nonwhites living in Switzerland legally—despite Swiss residence and citizenship laws being notoriously strict—that there are also increasing numbers of “returnees” coming back from fighting for ISIS in Syria.
“As part of the joint efforts with Federal Police and the Federal Intelligence Service, we assume that we have an overview of the so-called returnees in Switzerland,” Lauber said.
Switzerland took in 45,000 nonwhites posing as refugees last year alone. The government planned to admit “only” about 29,000 “asylum-seekers” that year, but along with the rest of Europe, was overwhelmed by the Angela Merkel-caused invasion.
Switzerland is however not a member of the European Union, and thus is not part of the mandatory relocation scheme for asylum applicants which most EU members now face.
* The single largest party in the Swiss parliament is the Swiss People’s Party. In multi-lingual Switzerland, this party has three names: in German, the Schweizerische Volkspartei or SVP; in French, the Union démocratique du centre; and in Italian, the Unione Democratica di Centro. Both French and Italian names translate as Democratic Union of the Center, or UCD.
Despite being the single largest party, the peculiar Swiss government system has meant that the SVP has been unable to take over the government, and is forced to share power with Social Democrats, Liberals, and Christian Democrats, all of whom are pro-invasion.
Just over one thousand patriots put in a surprise appearance at a peacenik rally in central Brussels today, sparking off heated confrontations with a similar-sized crowd of reds and nonwhites who had come to proclaim “peace and love” after the Muslim terrorist attacks in the city.
Although the patriots did nothing but chant, the police attacked them with water cannon and batons, while at the same time, nine more nonwhite terrorist suspects were arrested in dawn raids across Belgium.
The 1,000 reds and nonwhites were first on the scene at the Place de la Bourse square in Brussels, where large numbers of flowers have been laid in commemoration of the attacks. There they mouthed the usual platitudes for “peace” and “tolerance” which characterize those who have no understanding of the racial demographic cause of the violence.
However, by 2 p.m., according to Belgian broadcaster RTBF, about 1,000 patriots had suddenly appeared, carrying banners and chanting slogans which identified them as belonging to a previously unknown organization called “the nation.”
Some of the banners appeared to be of English origin, with one in particular reading “Casuals against Terrorism.” The word “casuals” is in common use in Britain to describe football fan clubs.
Other slogans chanted by the patriots included “this is our home,” and “the state, Daesh accomplice,” (Daesh being the abbreviation for ISIL in Arabic), the latter slogan indicating their opinion that the Belgian state was responsible for the terrorist attacks by allowing the Muslim invasion in the first place.
Some of the nonwhites in the red crowd, clearly shocked at the size of the patriotic turnout, attempted to attack the patriots, but were restrained by other crowd members. As the tension increased, the Belgian police were deployed to form a line between the two groups, backing the patriots up to the stock exchange building.
By now, the controlled media, present to cover the “peace” rally, were busy sending news wire stories out saying that “neo-Nazis” had come to the rally and were making “Nazi salutes” (even though the photographic evidence shows nothing of the sort, with the only symbols being made of clenched fists and the well-known two-armed chant pose of the “casuals”).
Then the police were given the order to attack the patriots, and moved in with riot police, batons, and water cannon. A handful of the patriots fought back against this totally unwarranted and excessive police action, and about a dozen were arrested in the ensuing melee.
Most however dispersed as quickly as they had gathered, leaving the police to protect the reds, as they always do whenever there is a confrontation of that sort.
Then the police were given the order to attack the patriots, and moved in with riot police, batons, and water cannon. A handful of the patriots fought back against this totally unwarranted and excessive police action, and about a dozen were arrested in the ensuing melee.
Most however dispersed as quickly as they had gathered, leaving the police to protect the reds, as they always do whenever there is a confrontation of that sort
A newly-released Hilary Clinton email confirmed that the Obama administration has deliberately provoked the civil war in Syria as the “best way to help Israel.”
In an indication of her murderous and psychopathic nature, Clinton also wrote that it was the “right thing” to personally threaten Bashar Assad’s family with death.
In the email, released by Wikileaks, then Secretary of State Clinton says that the “best way to help Israel” is to “use force” in Syria to overthrow the government.
The document was one of many unclassified by the US Department of State under case number F-2014-20439, Doc No. C05794498, following the uproar over Clinton’s private email server kept at her house while she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.
Although the Wikileaks transcript dates the email as December 31, 2000, this is an error on their part, as the contents of the email (in particular the reference to May 2012 talks between Iran and the west over its nuclear program in Istanbul) show that the email was in fact sent on December 31, 2012.
The email makes it clear that it has been US policy from the very beginning to violently overthrow the Syrian government — and specifically to do this because it is in Israel’s interests.
“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad,” Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying.
Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Iran’s “atom bomb” program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to “justify” destroying Syria in the name of Israel.
READ Depression—Biological and Gender Factors
She specifically links Iran’s mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Iran’s “atom bomb” program threatens Israel’s “monopoly” on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
If Iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon, Clinton asserts, this would allow Syria (and other “adversaries of Israel” such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt) to “go nuclear as well,” all of which would threaten Israel’s interests.
Therefore, Clinton, says, Syria has to be destroyed.
Iran’s nuclear program and Syria’s civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.
An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today.
If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.
It is, Clinton continues, the “strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria” that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel’s security.
This would not come about through a “direct attack,” Clinton admits, because “in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel” this has never occurred, but through its alleged “proxies.”
The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel’s leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests.
Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly.
Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.
Clinton goes on to asset that directly threatening Bashar Assad “and his family” with violence is the “right thing” to do:
In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.
With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s mind.
The email proves—as if any more proof was needed—that the US government has been the main sponsor of the growth of terrorism in the Middle East, and all in order to “protect” Israel.
It is also a sobering thought to consider that the “refugee” crisis which currently threatens to destroy Europe, was directly sparked off by this US government action as well, insofar as there are any genuine refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria.
In addition, over 250,000 people have been killed in the Syrian conflict, which has spread to Iraq—all thanks to Clinton and the Obama administration backing the “rebels” and stoking the fires of war in Syria.
The real and disturbing possibility that a psychopath like Clinton—whose policy has inflicted death and misery upon millions of people—could become the next president of America is the most deeply shocking thought of all.
Clinton’s public assertion that, if elected president, she would “take the relationship with Israel to the next level,” would definitively mark her, and Israel, as the enemy of not just some Arab states in the Middle East, but of all peace-loving people on earth.
That’s right - no peace for the enemies of Europe and its peoples
