Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Similarities in Zionism and the National Party of South Africa

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is probably the most covered and discussed topic in the world.
The South African Apartheid was arguably just as internationally covered. Ironically the National Party of South Africa gained power in the same year that the Zionist nationalist movement created their own state, and that year was 1948.

Both imposed laws based on an ethnic disposition, which in turn received world-wide condemnation from the international community. The establishment of these ruling parties came only three years after another ethnically-motivated nationalist movement was dismantled in Europe, which is probably why both these movements were put on the international radar.

The stark negative reactions against these movements were displayed with similar UN resolutions against both groups:

  • UN GA Resolution 1761 was passed in 1962 in response to the racist policies of apartheid established by the South African Government. The resolution deemed apartheid and the policies enforcing it to be a violation of South Africa's obligations under the UN Charter and a threat to international peace and security.
  • UN GA Resolution 3379 in 1975 "determined that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". This was due to the concept of a state based on a specific ethnicity rather than the demographics of the region. 
The international community also undertook similar boycott movements against both regimes. 

  • Trade embargoes against South Africa were gaining traction, as well as the famous UN arms embargo which became mandatory with the passing of Resolution 418. Boycotting of sports games by international teams had a profound effect on the white population, perhaps more so than the trade embargoes did.
  • Similarly, the BDS movement against the Zionist regime has been in full force world wide, as well as a mirroring on the sporting stage where the Israeli football team was boycotted by most of the Asian Football Confederation in the 1970s and so Israel had no choice but to join the European Federation (UEFA).

There is also a frightening similarity in the respective propaganda and the "state of emergency" laws that were implemented in both regions.

  • Serious political violence in South Africa was a prominent feature from 1985 to 1989, as black townships became the focus of the struggle between anti-apartheid organisations and the government. Numerous township councils were overthrown or collapsed, to be replaced by unofficial popular organisations, often led by militant youth. The government also raised concerns about South Africa's isolation amongst surrounding "hostile Black-ruling" nations that unified under the same cause.
  • Zionism had to face numerous intifadas and resistance against its settlement activities and occupation, particularly in Gaza, which was also replaced by an unofficial popular militant organisation. Israel also raised concerns about its international isolation especially amongst its neighboring "hostile Arab nations".

The world was not fooled however because these propaganda techniques were seen before by the Nazi regime who tried to use the "victimization card" in order to gain support internationally for their cause, usually using false-flag operations.

Significant international awareness campaigns against these racially motivated groups had always been growing. These reactions were most likely due to the remnant memories of what had become of Europe because of the Nazi party and its regime.

Since both the South African Apartheid and Nazism have been dismantled, the Zionist regime is all that remains from an era of racial nationalistic radicalism, and so naturally international coverage over the last few decades have concentrated on the Israeli Apartheid more so than many other conflict... until of course one day it too becomes dismantled and justice is returned to the inhabitants of the region.

All the Arabs need is another Nelson Mandela.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Does Iran have Nuclear Weapons?

The main person pushing this idea is Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Israeli political leaders have been warning for more than 20 years that Iran is at a "breakout capability" for developing nuclear weapons.
It has developed into a boy-who-cried-wolf type scenario.

In 2012 Netanyahu stood before the UN General Assembly and promised that Iran were "within months" of developing a nuclear weapon.
In the most recent speech to US congress he said that negotiations with Iran were "paving the way for an Iranian nuclear weapon in a matter of weeks".

Netanyahu mentioned in his last speech to congress to ignore intelligence agencies, and to "just Google it". The reason why he doesn't want to rely on intelligence estimates is because according to both the US intelligence estimates and Israeli intelligence estimates Iran is not on a path to enrich uranium for the development of nuclear weapons, and in fact they've concluded that Iran have not even pursued research in that regard since 2003.

So what we keep seeing from Netanyahu in his speeches to the US Congress and the UN General Assembly is the same old rhetoric and fear mongering.

The fact that Iran has allowed the UN Nuclear inspectors to visit their uranium mines shows the level of ongoing cooperation Iran is willing to conduct, and that in itself shows these theories to be extremely weak.
U.N. nuclear inspectors in Iran to visit uranium mine

Netanyahu's insistence that Iran have no nuclear capability whatsoever including those that are illicit for it to have and to develop under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty points to the hypocrisy of his stance, since there are four nuclear rogue states who refuse to sign the treaty, one of those ironically is Israel.

The reason Israel refuse to be part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is because it has its own undeclared arsenal of an estimated 80 nuclear weapons. The fact that US Congress and Netanyahu refuses to to address this issue while trying to punish Iran who is part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is developing legitimate civilian nuclear energy under this signed treaty is hugely hypocritical.

Whats even more hypocritical is the stance the US has taken when it was the only nation in the entire history of mankind to actually use nuclear bombs on an entire population of civilians, twice, and has not been held accountable for the atrocities it inflicted in arguably the worst terrorist attack humanity has ever seen.

[cited: Josh Ruebner, Jewish-American author, political analyst]