Weather in Brum Where The Sun Always Shines On The Blues.

Friday 14 October 2016

The Zionists deliberate attack to smear Labour Party leader Corbyn as anti-Semitic.

The Likud Party led by Benjamin Netanyahu wins...
The Likud Party led by Benjamin Netanyahu wins a narrow victory in the Israeli general election (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
 Any attacks on any race is deplorable including attacks on Jews or anti Semitic remarks. However this blogger accuses the state of Israel of being a terrorist and racist country which commits war crimes against the Palestinian people.  The State of Israel runs an apartheid system by discriminating against Arabs.  It is also breaking a number of U.N. resolutions regarding its seizure of Palestinian territory. So why is Benjamin Netanyahu not being accused of war crimes by the western governments and their servile media? I also accuse the Jewish establishment in the U.K. of trying to poison and smear Jeremy Corbyn as anti Semitic. So why do we rightly see the West accusing Assad of war crimes whilst nothing is said about the terrorist State of Israel?
 However to be anti-Zionist is not to be anti-Semitic. Zionism is a political movement.Advocates of Zionism view it as a national liberation movement for the repatriation of a persecuted people residing as minorities in a variety of nations to their ancestral homeland. Critics of Zionism view it as a colonialist,racist and exceptionalist ideology that led advocates to violence during Mandatory Palestine, followed by the forced exodus of Palestinians, and the subsequent denial of their human rights.
 My honest belief, as someone who served in British Intelligence for  over twenty years, is that at some stage during the creation of the State of Israel there was a secret agreement signed, guaranteeing the preservation of the Israeli state. The agreement, I can divulge, included  the supply of arms and the sharing of top secret intelligence, by organisations such as Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) with them, and the guarantee of  military intervention to support them, if it looked as if they were about to be over run. The original parties to the agreement would most definitely have included Israel itself 
the United Kingdom, and France and, at a later stage, crucially the USA.
 One early indication of  this occurred in 1956 when France and the UK , under the cover of protecting the Suez Canal from nationalisation under Nasser, launched a military operation against Egypt including a secretly agreed invasion by Israel to coincide with this. Although Britain and France withdrew because of American and Russian opposition and enormous domestic pressure the Israelis  continued the war and achieved their territorial objectives. Excluding the initial Israeli overthrow of  the state of Palestine this was to be the first Arab Israeli war.  The American objection to the French and British action does not nullify the assurances that they have given that I was suggesting earlier. Nor,  at any time , have these rhree members of the UN Security Council raised objections to Israels development of a nuclear bomb.
 I have come to this conclusion as the only possible explanation for the unconditional support that, "The West" has given to the Israelis since the formation of that state  and the deafening sound of silence to the war crimes committed by Israel over many years and more recently in Gaza whilst these same hypocrites have condemned Russian action in The Ukraine and other actions sadly currently occurring in the middle-east. This western support for Israel  and the gun runners and torturers of Saudi Arabia is all part of a wider policy of military and political action in Libya, Iraq  and elsewhere which have been a disaster for mankind and may yet result in unforeseen consequences which could dwarf  9/11.  
 When, after the first world war, the British and the French carved up the middle east by drawing straight lines on a map and ignored the history of the Arab peoples over many, many centuries they laid the seeds that have grown into the disaster that is today the worlds biggest crises area. As for today's Foreign Office it continues, like its predecessors,  to regard "The Dirty Arab" with contempt. Shame on them and shame on us.




Coat of Arms of Saudi Arabia
Coat of Arms of Saudi Arabia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


No comments: