About Felix Quigley

Campaigning to show that Srebrenica was and is a huge hoax, which is also the case with Racak, Qana and Mohammed el Dura/France 2. When people understand that these are hoaxes then they will begin to understand that Yugoslavia was destroyed, and most important that they plan to destroy Israel, because the US Empire plans to rule the world along with Islam, the latter being a very evil fascist ideology which is very close to the evil ideology of US and EU NATO Empire. Of course there will be adaptations but I am certain that is the general trend. Build4international!




from the Nazi period this Serb is being beheaded by a crosscut saw by Fascist Croatians


heads of Serbs beheaded by Jihadists in Yugoslavia supported by the Empire (Bill Clinton supporting Izetbegovic)
Christian priest beheaded by the Jihad (financed and backed by the Empire led by Obama in Syria)


FELIX QUIGLEY PLACED THIS COMMENT ON THE MARTIN SHERMAN BLOGS (That is a Jewish Israeli blog and the commenters there were creating a situation where they were leaving out the overall reactionary strategy in the world of Empire, above all were leaving out for the readers of Sherman’s blog the role of Empire in Yugoslavia)



(begin extracts from Facebook)


Felix QuigleyThe lesson of Yugoslavia is that the US (The Empire) sets out deliberately to break up states, and to impose its henchmen in order to keep control. This is what is happening now in Iraq and Syria and none of the comments above reflect that

From Wikipedia “The accords called for NATO administration of Kosovo as an autonomous province within Yugoslavia; a force of 30,000 NATO troops to maintain order in Kosovo; an unhindered right of passage for NATO troops on Yugoslav territory, including Kosovo; and immunity for NATO and its agents to Yugoslav law.

In commentary released to the press, former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declared that:

The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.[4]

—Henry Kissinger, Daily Telegraph, 28 June 1999

    Felix Quigley…a further comment on the above words by Kissinger…”Kissinger is right and wrong. It was not a “terrible” document but a real document. the intention of the US (The Empire) was to bomb Yugoslavia and to destroy the Serbs as a nation people, and to have compliant US people in power in all of the former Yugoslavia. THAT is happening now in the countries which surround Israel and the Israelis are asleep, or like Caroline Glick who supported the 2003 war on Saddam, are compliant with US Imperialism…see many articles on this theme on www.4international.me, also on www.tenc.net and on www.hirhome.com
    defending Israel, defending Jews against antisemitism, support for Serbs, unity of Serbs and Jews.


In jailing Al Jazeera journalists like Greste el Sisi is defending the Christians from the Jihad savages


The present “Left” denies the Jihad of the Muslim Brothers against Jews and Christians


http://www.4international.me takes the political position of backing the military gpvernment of el Sisi in Egypt in its suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood and in its suppression also of Al Jazeera includingm and we stress thism the jailing of its journalists. We do so against ALL “Left” groups on the planet and against American and EU Imperialisms. In backing el Sisi and in urging the suppression totally of the Muslim Brotherhood we are also opposed to all “Human” Rights Groups. We cannot help but note how spineless and opportunist is Netanyahu and all Israeli leaders on the issue.


These are some points to consider:



  1. Egypt is at war with the Muslim Brotherhood
  2. Al Jazeera backs and finances the Muslim Brotherhood
  3. Al Jazeera pretends to be an impartial News Service but is not
  4. Al Jazeera offices in Cairo (that means all of Egypt) closed down July 2013
  5. Al Jazeera journalists … Arrested in a Cairo Hotel end of December 2013 … 6 months later
  6. They had no accreditation
  7. They were there on the basis of Al Jazeera being “neutral” but el Sisi has exploded that lie…That is what the case centres on, that Al Jazeera is neutral
  8. But is Al Jazeera in the war of the Islam Caliphate neutral or was it ever thus! Thus this is the myth that has been exploded
  9. Raised is the issue: Is Egypt really at war with the Muslim Brotherhood, a war which is still being fought?
  10. The “Left” backs Al Jazeera because it has sold out on its revolutionary socialist principles and because the “Left” today IS The Muslim Brotherhood (remember Galloway supporting the Flotilla to Hamas in Gaza)
  11. Exposed here above all is the US advocacy of the Muslim Brotherhood
  12. Also exposed is the spinelessness towards the necessary supporting El Sisi against the Muslim Brotherhood of the lsraeli leaders. Only 4international.me takes a clear position



Greste was arrested in December of 2013. The office of Al Jazeera in Cairo was closed down in July 2013. The Prosecution against Greste and two others included the relevant point that they had no accreditation. If the military government had closed down the office in July what was Geste doing in Cairo with a full operation going on in a hotel in December? (see note 1)


4international has read all of the attacks on el Sisi for the jailing of Greste. But the jailing of Greste is not a thing in itself, an abstract issue of “democracy” because the real issue is that Greste was working for Al Jazeera, and that Al Jazeera is NOT a normal news service, but was engaged in the war of the Muslim Brotherhood against the Egyptian people and especially against Egyptian women and non Muslims such as the Coptic Christians. THAT was the issue in the trial and sentencing of Greste.  (see note 2)


The Reuters article on the jailing of Greste is full of all the condemnations of the British, the Dutch, the Americans, Human Rights Watch and the UN. Those condemnations by THOSE tyrants should be enough to tell us that el Sisi is on the right tracks in suppressing Al Jazeera. If all those are on the side of Greste and against el Sisi then we can conclude that el Sisi is on the right track here. But more seriously, the whole of the lies of the ruling establishments concerning Islam are being challenged by the brave el Sisi (see note 3)


In fact the conclusion of el Sisi and the great majority of the Egyptians who elected el Sisi was that Al Jazeera was helping a terrorist organization. That is irrefutable! (see note 4)


Israelis Jews and all freedom lovers, but not the present “Left” or the BBC who are not freedom lovers, will take careful note of the position of those like Obama and Kerry leading American Imperialism especially (see note 5)



If Jews are to survive in this world today of deepening economic and political crisis and conflict with growing Antisemitismm and Fascist forces on the “Left”, as well as deep Antisemitic forces in US and EU Imperialisms, then it needs a courageous leadership. On the issue of support  for el Sisi Jewish leaders are cowardly. The Jewish leaders as they stand at present are political cowards, as cowardly as the Jewish leaders who were not prepared to ram home their victory in 1967, after they the Jews had been fighting a war for their very survival, a defensive war against the Muslim Brotherhood. Now their support for el Sisi if you could call it support is niggardly. You will find that every one of these Jewish leaders do not oppose el Sisi but they do not support him either. In fact against the Muslim Brothers the support of the Jews in the whole world should be unconditional. The best formula is a critical support for el Sisi but against the Muslim Brotherhood it is unconditional support (see note 6)







NOTE 1…Greste was arrested in Cairo with colleagues at the end of December 2013. The interior ministry said the journalists were accused of news reporting which was “damaging to national security”.[9] Greste was imprisoned in Egypt in solitary confinement for a month before any formal charges were made.[10] On 29 January, it emerged that the Egyptian authorities were to charge 20 Al Jazeera journalists, including Greste, of falsifying news and having a negative impact on overseas perceptions of the country.[11] His colleagues, Mohamed Fadel Fahmy and Baher Mohamed, are also imprisoned; the three men were being held in the same cell in early February 2014.[12] The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has urged the authorities in Egypt to “promptly release” the Al Jazeera staff they are holding in custody.[2]


On 21 February, Greste was refused bail and had his court case adjourned until 5 March.[13]


On 31 March, he and co-defendants Mohammed Fahmy and Baher Mohammed made a request to a judge during a hearing to be released. [3] During the hearing Greste told the judge: “The idea that I could have an association with the Muslim Brotherhood is frankly preposterous.”[3]


On 23 June, Greste was found guilty by the court, and sentenced to seven years in prison. Mohammed Fahmy also received seven years and Baher Mohammed received a sentence of ten years in prison.[14] International reaction was swift and negative. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was highly critical of the sentences of Greste and his co-workers, terming them “chilling and draconian” and noted he had spoken to Egyptian governmental officials including President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi.






NOTE 2…Many Egyptians see Al Jazeera as a force determined to destabilise the country, a view that has been encouraged in the local media, which has labelled the journalists “The Marriott Cell” because they worked from a hotel of the U.S.-based chain.


A video that appeared on a pro-government channel and spread online, reinforced the view that the journalists had sinister intents, showing their arrest in their hotel room, with close-ups of their computers, cameras and communications equipment.


Al Jazeera’s Cairo offices have been closed since July 3 when security forces raided them hours after Mursi was ousted. Criticism of the government and army has virtually vanished from Egyptian media since then.




NOTE 3…One Dutch woman and two Britons were sentenced to 10 years in absentia on the same charges of aiding a “terrorist group”.


Judicial sources told Reuters the verdicts could be appealed before a higher court and a pardon was still possible.


Egypt’s public prosecutor last week ordered the release of another Al Jazeera journalist, Abdullah al-Shamy, on health grounds after he spent more than 130 days on hunger strike.


Western governments and rights groups have voiced concern over freedom of expression in Egypt since Mursi was ousted. The crackdown has reinforced doubts about Egypt’s democratic credentials three years after an uprising toppled Hosni Mubarak and raised hopes of greater freedoms.


The case comes after a similar outcry over mass death sentences being handed down to Brotherhood supporters.


“Egypt’s reputation, and especially the reputation of its judiciary as an independent institution, are at stake,” U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay said. “There is a risk that miscarriage of justice is becoming the norm in Egypt.”


Britain, whose ambassador attended the hearing, said it was summoning the Egyptian ambassador to protest.


“Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of a stable and prosperous society,” Foreign Secretary William Hague said.


The Dutch foreign minister also summoned Egypt’s ambassador. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said her government was “deeply dismayed that any sentence was imposed” and was “appalled by the severity of it”.


“The Egyptian foreign ministry strongly rejects any comment from a foreign party that casts doubt on the independence of the Egyptian judiciary and the justice of its verdicts,” the foreign ministry said in a statement.





Human Rights Watch said: “These… verdicts are a stark admission that in today’s Egypt, simply practicing professional journalism is a crime and that the new constitution’s guarantees of free expression are not worth the paper they are written on.”


Egyptian officials have said the case is not about freedom of expression and that the journalists raised suspicions by operating without proper accreditation.




NOTE 4…Three Al Jazeera journalists were jailed for seven years each by an Egyptian judge on Monday, in what Washington called “chilling, draconian sentences” that must be reversed.


Cairo defended the journalists’ convictions – for aiding a “terrorist organisation” – and rejected the widespread condemnation as “interference in its internal affairs”.


The three, who all denied the charge of working with the now banned Muslim Brotherhood, included Australian Peter Greste and Canadian-Egyptian national Mohamed Fahmy, Cairo bureau chief of Al Jazeera English.


The third defendant, Egyptian producer Baher Mohamed, was given an extra three years for possessing a single bullet, at the hearing attended by Western diplomats, some of whose governments summoned Egypt’s ambassadors over the case.


The men have been held at Egypt’s notorious Tora Prison for six months, with the case becoming a rallying point for rights groups and news organisations around the world.


They were detained in late December and charged with helping “a terrorist group” – a reference to the Muslim brotherhood – by broadcasting lies that harmed national security and supplying money, equipment and information to a group of Egyptians.


The Brotherhood was banned and declared a terrorist group after the army deposed elected Islamist president Mohamed Mursi in July following mass protests against his rule. The Brotherhood says it is a peaceful organisation.


Al Jazeera, whose Qatari owners back the Brotherhood and have been at odds with Egypt’s leadership, said the ruling defied “logic, sense and any semblance of justice”. “There is only one sensible outcome now. For the verdict to be overturned, and justice to be recognised by Egypt,” Al Jazeera English managing director Al Anstey said in a statement.


The ruling came a day after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met newly elected Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in Cairo and raised the issue of the journalists.




NOTE 5…On Monday, Kerry said he called Egypt’s foreign minister to register his “serious displeasure” at the “chilling, draconian sentences”.


“Injustices like these simply cannot stand if Egypt is to move forward in the way that President al-Sisi and Foreign Minister (Sameh) Shoukry told me just yesterday that they aspire to see their country advance,” Kerry said in a statement.



NOTE 6…For Egypt’s neighbor Israel, security and stability are the top concerns. In recent pre-election statements, El-Sisi has said he would honor the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty as president.

“I respect all international accords, including the treaty with Israel,” he said.

Israel and Egypt have a shared interest in cracking down on Islamic terror groups in the Sinai, and in targeting the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

“Abdel Fattah El-Sisi is Egypt’s strong man right now and has been fighting against radical Islam and against the Muslim Brothers. This is very positive both for Egypt, but also for Israel and the entire Middle East,” former Israeli Ambassador to Egypt Zvi Mazel told JNS.org in January.

“We shouldn’t go out on the roofs and cry out in favor of El-Sisi. But what is going on in Egypt is positive for Israel, and you cannot deny it,” he added.


(by FQ…in fact nothing could show the reactionary Jewish Israeli leaders better. That is exactly what the Jewish leaders in Israel and int he whole Diaspora especially in America and Britain should do. They should go on the roofs and cry out for El Sisi against the Muslim Brotherhood)







There is not a thing the British ruling classes can do. From royalty down they are slaves of Islam. At stake are the lives of so many innocent and poor (by now) Britons and Irish too. The Muslim enclaves are well established and if you attack Islam you are labelled a racist from all sides especially the Churches and the “Left”

There is really nothing to stop this and it will take a totally revolutionary process but leadership on the left is absent and the present “Left” are covering for Islam. Many will die at the hands of these ISIS in Britain and Europe

A party needs to be built on the left that will concéntrate on teaching the youth what is Islam, especially its historym with special emphasis on Spain which is the centre of so many lies a la Karen Armstrong. Works of the early writers on this must be fundamental in this education and to counter the lies of Armstrong.

But in the meantime the British ruling class elites have ALREADY sacrificed the lives of thousands. Is this stoppable no! The proof is to google under pictures “ISIS Iraq” and that is your answer. They are primed to kill and will kill.





ISIL Jihadists move against Lebanon and Jordan and ….


As the Obama admin pretends jihad is a figment of the conspiratorial imagination of “fringe” counter jihadists and scrub our counter terror materials his fantasy – the big lie – is exploding and isn’t containing itself to Syria and now Iraq. It’s not a news story that is going to disappear. ISIL has just begun.

The media had amended the name of the Islamic army tearing through Syria and Iraq ISIS (Islamic State of Suria and Iraq). But the correct name is Iis ISIL (Islamic State in the Levant). What is the the Levant? The geographical area they mean to rule. The Levant includes Egypt, Lebanon Nigeria Central African Republic Thailand Burma ritz Levant is the following countries and they mean to seize it.

And it’s not ISIL that’s the problem, it’s the ideology.

Countries and regions located in the Levant region. (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Cyprus,  and Hatay.

Members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria are claiming on jihadist websites that the group is preparing an operation in which more than 15,000 of its militants will storm into Jordan, WND is reporting.

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/06/jihadists-move-lebanon-jordan.html/#sthash.LdrFtFjj.dpuf




The key issue is the 2003 war against Saddam. Just yesterday the Israeli regime led by Netanyahu has launched attacks on Assad which has meant the Fascist Islamist opposition to Assad has gained.

(Israel struck nine Syrian targets in response to boy’s death, and as a boost for the rebel bid for Quneitra

DEBKAfile Special ReportJun 23, 2014, 3:36 AM (IDT)

Israel carried out nine strikes against Syrian military targets after midnight Monday, June 23, in retaliation for a Kornet rocket attack which killed an Israeli boy, and injured two others a few hours earlier. They were conducted by air and by Spike NLOS anti-tank missiles (Tamuz), against the Syrian 90th Brigade command center in Quneitra and three battalions

But back in the years before the pivotal 2003 war on Saddam Netanyahu was doing the very same thing, as we will see. This was also the position of Caroline Glick and Ted Belman of Israpundit. The actions of all of these people, all Jews, opened the door it Jihad int he world and in the Middle East that may well threaten as never before the Jewish people and Israel.)


We have seen in these 4international articles over the past few days that Israeli politicians around Sharon were totally opposed to the Bush War




(plus other articles in the past few days, including one from 2008 on http://4international.me/2008/09/01/do-not-pin-iraq-onto-the-jews-and-israelsharon-opposed-the-war/)


Thus in 2003 and the years leading up to the Bush War on Saddam this critical situation for Jews as brewing. The War in 2003 created the situation where THE LEADER OF ISRAEL Arik Sharon,  was telling Bush that he was opposed to the War. (Just read my article to see how explicit and prescient was Sharon)


But there were MANY OTHER JEWISH FORCES who were working apart from Sharon, meaning apart from the Israeli Government, and who were cutting right across Sharon.


They were:

Certainly Caroline Glick

Certainly Ted Belman of Israpundit. Belman had a whole line about US and BUSH recreating the world)

Certainly and above all Netanyahu


On this we now turn to Netanyahu and here we introduce an extract from Wikipedia for you to consider. Note that Buchanan is correct when he refers to Perle, Feith and Wurmsur (But there were many others) (I am opposed to Buchanan on a critical issue, Buchanan is silent on what we say about the opposition of Sharon to the war on Saddam and he is silent because he is essentially Antisemitic)


I have already mentioned Glick and Belman. But go into the records and there were more. Thus there is within Jews today a battle going on. There are those like Glick and Pamela Geller, plus many more who are really communist haters and who will do anything in that regard on behalf of US Imperialism


Now this weekend we have Netanyahu cheered on by Belman who throws Israel and the IDF against Assad, which is like a stab in the back against all those Christians and other minorities who support Assad against the Jihad.


I have just looked at the sites of Pamela Geller and at Israpundit and they are silent, which means they support Netanyahu in this ominous development. It is back to the 2003 Bush War on Saddam


Read also very carefully the remarks by Ian Buruma in the pivotal New York Times. Read this very carefully. See how Buruma has described the situation. The image created is that the US and Israel are together in this horrific development the War to remove Saddam


THEY ARE ALL TOGETHER except for one Little detail … we now know that the Israeli Government under Sharon was opposed, AIPAC was opposed, the spokespeople for Sharon in America were opposed and were telling all Jews coming to America to OPPOSE THIS WAR


But the Israeli Government was surrounded and was bushwhacked by the NeoCons which also were made up by Glick and Belman, and Geller carries this on in the present.


Can Israel win today with these people still around and doing the same thing in different forms? No it cannot win. It is being betrayed.


(Start extract from Wikipedia here)

In March 2003 Patrick J. Buchanan, referring to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the report, wrote that “Their plan, which urged Israel to re-establish ‘the principle of preemption,’ has now been imposed by Perle, Feith, Wurmser & Co. on the United States.”[4]

Ian Buruma wrote in August 2003 in the New York Times that:[5]

Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make “a clean break” from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz‘s words, “The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad.” It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and “Jewish interests” are not the main reason for it now.

Buruma continues:[5]

What we see, then, is not a Jewish conspiracy, but a peculiar alliance of evangelical Christians, foreign-policy hard-liners, lobbyists for the Israeli government and neoconservatives, a number of whom happen to be Jewish. But the Jews among them—Perle, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, et al.—are more likely to speak about freedom and democracy than about Halakha (Jewish law). What unites this alliance of convenience is a shared vision of American destiny and the conviction that American force and a tough Israeli line on the Arabs are the best ways to make the United States strong, Israel safe and the world a better place.





This issue involves the Independence of Israel, Independence especially from the clutches of the US State Department, which has a history of Antisemitism.


The reason that Sharon opposed the Bush War was the very opposite of why Chomsky and the “Left” leading those demos of millions in London and Madrid opposed the Bush War. Like Saddam did also, Sharon knew that the main danger was not being dictatorial, but the Jihad and Sharia Law.


When Bush went to war on Saddam the writing was already on the Wall for millions of Christians. That is ironic considering that Bush and Blair were both Christian freaks!


This good article from Forward a few years ago has got good sources on this vital matter. We cannot move forward without dealing with it:


Olmert’s predecessor, by contrast, was anything but an amateur in Israeli-American relations, and more broadly in dealing with America’s policies in the region. When it came to Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq and to democratize the Arab Middle East from within, Ariel Sharon took a far more sophisticated position.

Publicly, Sharon played the silent ally; he neither criticized nor supported the Iraq adventure. One reason for his relative silence was Washington’s explicit request that Israel refrain from openly backing its invasion of an Arab country or in any way intervening, lest its blessing damn the United States in Arab eyes.

But sometime prior to March 2003, Sharon told Bush privately in no uncertain terms what he thought about the Iraq plan. Sharon’s words — revealed here for the first time — constituted a friendly but pointed warning to Bush. Sharon acknowledged that Saddam Hussein was an “acute threat” to the Middle East and that he believed Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Yet according to one knowledgeable source, Sharon nevertheless advised Bush not to occupy Iraq. According to another source — Danny Ayalon, who was Israel’s ambassador to the United States at the time of the Iraq invasion, and who sat in on the Bush-Sharon meetings — Sharon told Bush that Israel would not “push one way or another” regarding the Iraq scheme.

According to both sources, Sharon warned Bush that if he insisted on occupying Iraq, he should at least abandon his plan to implant democracy in this part of the world. “In terms of culture and tradition, the Arab world is not built for democratization,” Ayalon recalls Sharon advising.

Be sure, Sharon added, not to go into Iraq without a viable exit strategy. And ready a counter-insurgency strategy if you expect to rule Iraq, which will eventually have to be partitioned into its component parts. Finally, Sharon told Bush, please remember that you will conquer, occupy and leave, but we have to remain in this part of the world. Israel, he reminded the American president, does not wish to see its vital interests hurt by regional radicalization and the spillover of violence beyond Iraq’s borders.

Sharon’s advice — reflecting a wealth of experience with Middle East issues that Bush lacked — was prescient. The American occupation of Iraq has ended up strengthening Iran, Israel’s number-one enemy, and enfranchising militant Shi’ite Islamists. A large part of Iraq is slipping into the Iranian orbit. Iraq’s western Anbar Province is increasingly dominated by militant jihadi Sunnis who could eventually threaten Syria and Jordan, the latter a strategic partner and geographic buffer for Israel.

All these developments harm vital Israeli interests. This past summer, Israel fought a war against two militant Islamist movements supported by Iran — Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza — that were enfranchised and legitimized in their anarchic countries thanks to Bush’s insistence on hasty and ill-advised democratic elections “in this part of the world.”

Had Sharon made his criticism public, citing the dangers posed to vital Israeli interests, might he have made a difference in the prewar debate in the United States and the world? Certainly he would have poured cold water on the postwar assertions of critics, like professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who have fingered Israel, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and pro-Israelis in the administration for instigating the war. Ayalon, incidentally, was directed by Sharon to warn all Israelis visiting Washington not to encourage the American scheme for war in Iraq, lest Israel be blamed for its failure.

There were, of course, neoconservative types in Israel who did encourage the United States to occupy Iraq and advocated democratic elections wherever possible in the Middle East. But there were also many Israelis, this writer included, who spoke out openly and publicly against the American scheme.

Even Aipac officials in Washington told visiting Arab intellectuals they would rather the United States deal militarily with Iran than with Iraq. And pro-Western Arab leaders like Egypt’s Husni Mubarak and Jordan’s King Abdallah were outspoken in their criticism of Bush’s war plans, even though they could fall back on far less credit and lobbying support in Washington than in Israel.

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/9839/sharon-warned-bush/#ixzz35LpRi8UO


The issue of the 2003 Bush War on Saddam is fundamental. It is key. I return to this issue all of the time.


The opposition to the 2003 Bush War from the “Left” was clearly


1. part of the Alliance of the “Left” with Islam

2. a negation of the Jihad


i can show easily that this Alliance of the “Left” with Mohammedanism stands in contradiction to the great socialist founders, and most specifically with positions of Leon Trotsky.


The “left” refuses to believe that there is a Jihad in the world by the forces of Mohammedanism. But that should have been the real reason for opposing the Bush War on Saddam. Let me explain.


Saddam was at every point prepared to enter into Alliance with Bush and US for one reason and one reason only. Saddam saw as the main danger to himself and to his state as being the Jihad. Thus the FBI/CIA interviews with Saddam post capture tell a lot (Wikipedia has report)


“…had resisted U.N. weapons inspections because he “was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq,” according to the reports.[5] The former leader reportedly maintained that he did not collaborate with Al-Qaeda, as had been suggested by George W. Bush administration officials in support of its policy of regime change in Iraq.[6] Hussein said he feared Al-Qaeda would have turned on him, and was quoted calling Osama bin Laden a “zealot.”[3] 


The opposition of Saddam to the UN Inspections was also to show Iran that he was still strong. (Honour in Arab politics, loss of face…see Richard Landes on this) Saddam also had reason to fear Iran.


Thus there was a clear opportunity for the US and Britain to créate an Alliance with Saddam against Iran and against the Jihad in particular.


Bush did not take that road. There is obviously no question about that.


Was Gadhafi afraid that Bush would do the same to him? Yes (after Desert Storm who would not be!) but to pose it like that is to miss the other reality (that other reality!) which is far more important. These are secular Arab rulers who fear the Islamic Jihad. That was far more important in pushing Gadhafi into an Alliance with Bush and Blair agaisnt the Jihad.


The “Left” misreads, misunderstands, and now is an agent of Islam, and the “Left” opposition to the Bush War was leading all of those millions of youth and workers into a specific AND REACTIONARY direction. Under leaders like Chomsky and probably ALSO under the influence of state agents in their ranks the “Left” was becoming a problem for the working class itself…still is.


(see http://4international.me/2014/06/20/the-barbarism-brought-on-by-bush-glick-and-blair-overthrowing-saddam/)







Sayyid Qutb on trial in 1966 and executed by the secular Nasser


Sharon was wiser by far than the US influenced Caroline Glick and privately opposed Bush removing Saddam.


The “left” opposed the Bush/Glick/Blair war because they are degenerate “pacifism”…Also fuelled by anti-Americanism and pro Islam sentiments a la Karen Armstrong


The coming to power of Obama created an even newer and more dangerous situation. The middle class enraged is a most dangerous thing. The Middle Class in America elected Obama from its position of pacifism and from its phoney doctrines of anti-racism. These savages of the Middle Class thought it wonderful to elect a “Black” man. Thus the enraged Middle Class, the Media, the BDS crowd, Media Matters dot org, and so on decided to do away with political research. The history of Obama and CIA man Bill Ayers was ignored.


Obama got rid of all of these secular type rulers in the Arab world. This was a continuation of US and EU support for Izetbegovic and getting rid of the secularist Milosevic.


These leaders were downed one by one by Obama, including Mubarak, Ben Ali and Gadhafi.


Then followed Syria. The protests again were got underway. Obama insisted that Assad must go (see it…repeat of former Saddam Mubarak Gadhafi and Ben Ali)


Obama now had control of the US State Machine and in saying Assad must go Obama piled up an Armada opposite Syrian shores. But Assad had a political backing, that of minorities in Syria who feared the Jihad. For Christians and Kurds the Jihad meant death.


The same exists now in Iraq. First Obama withdraws the US Army. The road is thus cleared again, on top of murder of Saddam, for Jihad


Now Obama goes through some subterfuge. He sends a few hundred folk into Iraq. Just useless to stop ISIL. A joke!


He lays his conditions again, for the secular Assad and the secular Nuri Al Maliki (relatively speaking he also is secular) and Obama is really calling for total chaos in Iraq.


The Kurds are in danger. The Christians and others in total danger. The North will be a bloodbath as Kurds will fight to defend themselves but on their own??? The South Obama will insist will be handed to Iran. The vast majority of the country will descend into a tribal barbarism with brutal Sharia the norm.







To Martin Sherman and Richard Landes and my friends among the Jews…This is the disintegration of the world capitalist system


(Martin Sherman is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies)



http://www.4international.me is reprinting this important analysis of the present leadership situation in Israel today because we (mostly as we will see) agree with it. Yet Martin Sherman makes very serious mistakes which are rooted in history which unless they are corrected, in the sense of a leap in consciousness among Jews taking place, will lead into another cul de sac.


In the recent week 4international has called for Zoabi and her party to be exiled from Israel. More precisely 4international has called on Netanyahu to do just that.


Zoabi is today’s Fascist Antisemitism. Her call supports the kidnapping of the 3 Young boys from Hebron. They may by now be dead. I hope not but we are dealing here with Fascist Islamic Jihad.


The Nazis did not teach the Arabs anything about Fascism. Islam in the shape of Hajj Amin el Husseini simply morphed the traditional Jihad into modern Fascism. That was the significance of Hajj Amin el Husseini joining his forces with the Nazis in the 1930s. This was cemented in the concordat which el Husseini made with Hitler in late 1941 and in the key role which el Husseini played in the Holocaust. Zoabi stands in that tradition. It is a deadly tradition. It links with all aspects of Jihad not least being Iran and ISIl.


Martin Sherman quotes the Israeli journalist Gideon Levi in the following:


“The only way still open for the Palestinians to remind the Israelis of…their plight is the way of violent struggle. All other paths have been blocked. If the Gaza Strip doesn’t fire Qassam rockets at Israel, the Gaza Strip doesn’t exist.”


For one thing the position of Gideon Levi is first of all a theoretical and an historical issue. Levi is talking above about the “plight” of the “Palestinians”.


That right there in the use of the term is a political position right on its own is modern Fascism and Antisemitism.


In war situations such as this there cannot be two sides to the problem. In a war you chose sides. You cannot sit on the sideline in a war.


The “Palestinians” are a continuation of the Holocaust. This is proved by the existence in the history of the “Palestinians” of Hajj Amin el Husseini.


The “Palestinians” cannot write el Husseini out. He founded them.


Martin Sherman knows all of this very well and we on 4international will work with him on this amd all else.


Where Martin Sherman runs into the buffers is in his inherent anti-communism. There is no communist revolutionary movement in Israel and there never has been. What came into Israel were forms of social democracy (think Tony Blair) and Stalinism (think the gravediggers of the Russian Revolution here)


A new generation in Israel must as I said make a theoretical and political leap. This new generation will be of youth but will and can include thinkers like Martin Sherman and Richard Landes, such is the great power of the Jewish national and religious struggle (Zionism) that is very possible.


It is fairly difficult to know how to characterise these people of the Israeli Labour Party and the Israeli Stalinists. They have become such a total mess having liquidated themselves many times over in various formulations based on opportunism.


They are only a danger in that people do not understand their real history. Understanding that history I refer to is not at all an easy chore. It requires quite detailed study.


To understand them, and also to understand the “Left” as in BDS today, you have to base yourself on a serious study of Leon Trotsky as he battled through the 1920s and 1930s, as he analysed the ravages of Stalinism and the growth of the Fascists.


Fascism today in the world is a growing trend. But the most dangerous Fascists are not actually in parties like Le Pen of France but in the “Left” I referred to above.


To understand this “Left” today it is necessary to understand that Leon Trotsky, leader with Lenin of the Russian Revolution of 1917, through his analysis of world events had by 1937 called for an Israel to be set up, and by 1938 had warned and basically predicted what the Nazis would do – the Holocaust of the Jews.


Thus after an analysis which 4international agrees with in much we cannot at all forgive Martin Sherman for this ending, as follows:


I believe that is was the Arab-Israeli poet, Aton Shammas who once wrote that one cannot be both a Zionist and a Leftist.


 It would appear that even left-of-center columnist, Ben Dror Yemini, is coming to a similar conclusion. Echoing Shammas’s sentiments , he writes with evident despair and anguish: “There used to be a national left. There used to be a responsible left. There used to be a Zionist left. All of them are disappearing.”


I Felix Quigley disagree most fundamentally with Shammas and Ben Dror Yemeni. They are ignorant people who have not studied the history I have studied. To Shammas I say that Trotsky was not a “Leftist” but was a socialist revolutionary based on the theory and practice of dialectical materialism, and Trotsky was a Zionist. To the other historical ignoramus, Ben Dror Yemeni, I say there NEVER “used to be a Zionist left”. Read above.




(Begin analysis by martin Sherman here http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Into-the-fray-Israels-loony-lethal-Left-359984)


Since signing the Oslo agreement in 1993, Israel has made a series of astounding concessions, which did nothing but produce further Palestinian demands for even more far-reaching concessions.


   If the Left cannot even admit to the theoretical possibility that its position might be refuted, that position is no longer a rational political perspective but an article of “religious faith. They [the kidnappers] are not terrorists… They’re people who don’t see any way to change their reality and are forced to use these means until Israel wakes up a little, until Israeli citizens and society wake up and feel the suffering of the other.

– MK Haneen Zoabi on Radio Tel Aviv, June 17.


The only way still open for the Palestinians to remind the Israelis of…their plight is the way of violent struggle. All other paths have been blocked. If the Gaza Strip doesn’t fire Qassam rockets at Israel, the Gaza Strip doesn’t exist.


 And if, in the West Bank, yeshiva students aren’t abducted, then the West Bank disappears from Israel’s consciousness. Abductions or murders are aimed at puncturing Israel’s intolerable complacency.

– Gideon Levy, Ha’aretz, June 15.


 Compare the substance of the sentiments conveyed by the vitriolic anti-Zionist Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi of the Balad list (more on its roots later), with those conveyed by well-known columnist, Gideon Levy of the Israeli daily, Ha’aretz.


Apologists for abductors


 Fair-minded readers would be hard pressed to detect any substantive differences between the two. Indeed the message they both articulate is, for all intents and purposes, identical.


 They both portray the recent abduction of three Israeli teenagers as a justifiable act of desperation. They both condone acts of Judeocidal terror as the last remaining resort to jolt the awareness of an apathetic Israeli public into recognizing the collective pain of the “Palestinian people”.


This is, of course, a staggering “misrepresentation” of reality.


 Since signing the Oslo agreement in 1993, Israel has made a series of astounding concessions, which did nothing but produce further Palestinian demands for even more far-reaching concessions.


 Indeed, as Jonathan Tobin rightly points out (Commentary, June, 16), the claim that “Israelis have blocked all other paths for the Palestinians except violence…is, to put it bluntly, a lie. It is the Palestinian Arabs who have consistently and repeatedly rejected offers of peace and statehood…” In an opinion piece “Terror apologists blame Israel for abduction”, Yedioth Aharonot’s Ben Dror Yemini, echoed Tobin’s assessment. With biting sarcasm, he writes “Not a day has passed since the kidnapping incident, and experts on Middle Eastern affairs and peace on earth have already informed us that it had actually happened because of us…We were wrong not to agree to release thousands of additional prisoners.


 We were wrong not to welcome the hand extended in peace by Hamas…In short, Israel is to blame for the abduction”.


Aiding and abetting the enemy


 Not only is it difficult to identify any tangible divergence between the positions espoused by Levy and by Zoabi, but in light of the naked mendacity of their accusations, we would be equally hard pressed to understand how their proclamations deviate in any significant way from what Israel’s current legal system stipulates as the grave offense of aiding and abetting the enemy.


 Clause 99 (Aiding the Enemy) in Section 7 (b) of today’s Penal Code dealing with “State Security, Foreign Relations and Official Secrets: Treason” states: A person who, with the intent of aiding the enemy in its war against Israel, commits any act to so assist it in this objective – is liable to the death penalty or life imprisonment.


 Clause 91 provides the following definitions: Enemy – Anyone who is at war with, or maintains a state of war against Israel; or who declares themselves to be one of these, whether or not war has actually been declared, whether or not there are ongoing military actions; and a terrorist organization.


 Terrorist organization – an organization whose aims or activities are directed at the destruction of the State, or at harming the security of the State or the security of its residents or harming Jews in other countries.


 Accordingly, it seems impossible not to interpret the proclamations of both Levy and Zoabi as conforming precisely to the specified offense.


 After all, given their endeavor to provide a demonstrably fallacious rationale for justifying/ defending/endorsing actions that are clearly aimed “at harming the security of the State or the security of its residents”, and perpetrated by what is, by law, indisputably an “enemy”, there seems no other way to construe their conduct but as acting “with the intent of aiding the enemy in its war against Israel.”


The Zoabi-Levy nexus


 So, whether or not one feels that Zoabi and Levy should be punished to the full extent stipulated by law, there can be little doubt as to the gravity of their egregious actions.


 Indeed, as Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman remarked “not only are the kidnappers terrorists, Hanin Zoabi is a terrorist too. The fate of the kidnappers and the fate of the inciter who encourages kidnapping Haneen Zoabi should be the same,” But while Zoabi’s vehement opposition to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is undisguised, the case of Levy is far more invidious—and insidious.


 After all, Zoabi, an Arab resident of Nazareth, has “impeccable” anti-Zionist credentials.


 Her party, Balad, founded in 1995 by Azmi Bashari, later forced to flee the country under a cloud of suspicion of treason for aiding Hezbollah in the 2006-Lebanon War, openly opposes the founding rationale of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews. Yet, in the profoundly perverse and promiscuous political system in Israel, Balad is allowed to compete in national elections and participate in its parliament.


 Zoabi herself, has overtly shown her identification with Israel’s enemies, arguably most vividly illustated by her 2010 presence on aboard the Mavi Marmara, in support of the frenzied Judeophobic mob, chanting calls to kill Jews, and their attempt to break the maritime quarantine of the Hamasruled Gaza.


 However, while it is possible (albeit not prudent) to dismiss Zoabi as representing a marginal—and thus tolerably minor—constituency in Israeli society, this cannot be said of Levy. Indeed, it would be a serious error to dismiss the essence of the views expressed by him as unrepresentative of large swathes of Israel’s left-of-center so-called “intelligentsia”. The fact that he espoused the same venomous anti-Israeli invective as Zoabi, has particularly grave implications.


Revered, not reviled?


 For while Zoabi’s political doctrine openly prescribes ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state, Levy purports to be striving to make it a better Jewish state.


 Indeed, the Haaretz columnist is hardly a figure who is shunned by mainstream society.


 Quite the opposite, he is a welcome and frequent guest on radio and television, given roles in widely viewed docu-dramas and feted by many for his alleged “journalistic courage.” He has been hailed by New York Times’ Tom Friedman as “a powerful liberal voice”.


Unsurprisingly therefore, “Commentary’s” Tobin cautions against “dismissing Levy as an outlier”, lamenting that “his callous dismissal of Palestinian terror as merely Israel’s due is very much representative of much of the commentary that is published internationally about the peace process.”


Worse, as Tobin correctly observes, “Levy’s arguments are the foundation of much of the criticism of Israel and its policies even by those who are too fastidious to justify terrorism.”


Dramatically corroborating Tobin’s diagnosis, Yariv Oppenheimer, secretary-general of “Peace Now” published an opinion piece on Wednesday, in which, after perfunctorily condemning the kidnapping, heartily condoned it.


 Echoing precisely the Zoabi-Levy rationale, he wrote: “It was clear that the despair…and anger on the Palestinian side would find their way out…. But in order to understand how to deal with the problem and prevent escalation, we must examine reality from the Palestinian viewpoint as well. The loss of hope on the other side, the Israeli arrogance and the unwillingness to compromise are blowing up in our faces”.


The Levy-Livni-Lapid nexus


 Of course many in the mainstream Left in Israel would howl in protest at any suggestion that their worldview/ political agenda is in anyway comparable to Gideon Levy’s.


 While such protest might be entirely sincere subjectively,it would be entirely wrong objectively. For although there might be differences in style, semantics and sentiment in the expression of their political perspectives, there is very little—if any— difference in the substance in the political credo they promote.


 Both Gideon Levy on the one hand, and Yair Lapid and Tzipi Livni, on the other, essentially allege that the Jewish presence across the pre-1967 lines (a.k.a. “The settlement enterprise)” is the source of virtually all iniquity in Israeli society.


 Thus, at last week’s Herzliya Conference, Livni accused the Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria of being “a security, economic and moral burden”, hinting darkly that they comprise a fiendishly cunning scheme “aimed at preventing us from ever coming to an arrangement” with the Palestinians.


 At the same conference Yair Lapid, who immediately following the elections sought to distance himself from the “Hanin Zoabis of the world”, railed against the Jewish presence across the 1967 Green Line, alleging that, if only it were removed, Israel would “end its international isolation, increase the personal security of every citizen, create an economic boom, dramatically raise the standard of living in Israel”.


There can be little doubt that Levy (and Zoabi) would warmly embrace/endorse this “mainstream” excoriation of the Jewish communities and their residence as the root of all evil in the Israel-Palestine conflict, as a common core to their respective political agendas.


Religion of retreat


 The proponents of Jewish retreat seem to be totally impervious to facts—clinging forlornly, if ferociously, to a failed doctrine that, time after time, has brought nothing but predictable (and predicted) disaster.


 Yet, undeterred, they refuse not only to admit error but even the very possibility of error.


 At last week’s Herzliya Conference, I had a brief encounter with one of the most prominent proponents of Jewish retreat (a.k.a. the two-state paradigm), Prof. Alan Dershowitz. Although Dershowitz is undoubtedly a stalwart defender of Israel as a Jewish state, he seems oblivious to the fact that his support for the two-state idea obviates the possibility of a Jewish state.


 In this regard, I asked him if he could imagine, theoretically, some scenario, which if it occurred, would persuade him that his support of the two-state principle was mistaken, and thus bring him to retract his call for a significant Jewish retreat from much of Judea-Samaria.


 His response was that he could not conceive of any such theoretical scenario, and since he wanted to maintain Israel as a Jewish democratic state, nothing could induce him to admit error.


 In the past, I have had similar responses from other well-known two-staters, including Gershon Baskin and Alon Liel. (If I have misrepresented/misunderstood them or if they have since revised their position on the theoretical possibility of error, I would be happy to be corrected.) Clearly, if one cannot even admit to the theoretical possibility that one’s position might be refuted, that position is no longer a rational political perspective founded on fact and logic but an article of “religious faith” held irrespective of prevailing realities and impervious to any changes that might occur therein.


The irrelevance of Palestinian goodwill


 The two-state paradigm has always been afflicted by “tunnel vision”, and its validity predicated on the alleged existence of a Palestinian partner of good faith, who could be trusted not to take advantage of the far-reaching Israeli concessions that would be required for its implementation.


 As I have pointed out, repeatedly, in the past, the alleged sincerity of any Palestinian “peace partner” is largely irrelevant. For whatever deal may be struck, its durability cannot be assured.


 Even in the unlikely event of some Palestinian with the requisite authority and sincerity to conclude a binding deal with Israel did emerge, he clearly could be removed from power as the Gaza precedent demonstrates.


 All the perilous concessions made, on the assumption of “sincerity”, would then accrue to a far more inimical successor, whose political credo is based on reneging on commitments made to the “Zionist entity.”


Even this caveat is being overtaken by on-going events in the Mid-East, with the sweeping victories of the ultra-extremist Islamists (ISIS) in Syria and Iraq, now threatening to destabilize Jordan… Would an ISIS take-over of Jordan induce Levy or Livni, Lapid or Deshowitz, Baskin or Liel to recant their “religion of retreat”? Or would they still hold fast to their loony and potentially lethal dogma?


‘There used to be a Zionist Left’


I believe that is was the Arab-Israeli poet, Aton Shammas who once wrote that one cannot be both a Zionist and a Leftist.


 It would appear that even left-of-center columnist, Ben Dror Yemini, is coming to a similar conclusion. Echoing Shammas’s sentiments , he writes with evident despair and anguish: “There used to be a national left. There used to be a responsible left. There used to be a Zionist left. All of them are disappearing.”






It is possible even likely that Hillary Clinton will become the next US president. This will happen because Clinton is a woman, and will be elected in the same way that Obama was a Black man.


Intellectual life is dumbed down. The mass media continually works to dumb down the intellectual life of the masses.


In Britain the news on the BBC this morning is that one in three of the British are living in poverty. A big portion of the population are so poor that they consider themselves as not being able to have any social life.


In all western countries now there is such a thing as the “celebrity’s slot” where on TV there are these professional media prostitutes. They actually make some kind of a living out of these celebrity programmes.


There is now developing a movement to report to the people only “good news stories” and I recently heard a reporter bemoan the news headlines because they were all so negative. This reporter (a woman) went on to say that the release from hospital of Michael Schumacher should have been on the front pages rather than the massacre of tens of thousands by the Jihad in Iraq. This particular woman gets a full 2 hours every day of every week Monday to Friday


But it is not just her. She is of no importance. She only represents anti-intellectualism. BUT…On the Jewish blog Israpundit there is a man called Ross who comments. He is allowed by the editor to state any kind of conspiracy shi-ite that comes into his head and the latest is pure Antisemitism, that Netanyahu organised the kidnapping of the 3 Jewish youths. Such is the deadening of this ideology that there was no protest. Israpundit just slept on! Lack of a leadership again. Lack of leadership is the biggest danger to Jews and always was.


Meanwhile since conspiracy theory is in vogue Daniel Pipes, the man who believes that islam is good, but Islamism is bad, is given more airplay.


Only our movement, 4international.me, is interested and determined to follow the scientific method. What we write does not come out of our heads like Ross on Israpundit. It comes out of the real material world. We reflect on facts and we insist that there is proof for these facts.


We do know that the anarchist Indymedia in Ireland has just censored our views. Also we do know of the extreme anti-communism that we meet on sites such as martin Sherman, silence often means hatred.


We hold firm to our view of yesterday. Netanyahu can huff and puff all he likes over the kidnappings of the 3 youth. But unless he arrests and expels the organization of Zoabi, the Arab MK, then he will not protect the Jews.


The question resolves down once more to the question to Jews of Israel…What can Israeli Jews do and what must they do:


The very first step is independence. All leaders since 1948 have failed in this.


What type of leadership do Jews need in this present situation?


How to expose these agents (of what) like Ross on Israpundit.


The deepening crisis that Israel is in today as Iran creates the Nuclear Bomb and the US and EU are snuggling in behind Iran on Iraq.


How to fight against (defend against) the absolutely lethal for Jews argument of Daniel Pipes and Ross (Israpundit unchallenged) that the turmoil in Iraq is good for Israel. He says let them fight. But this will lead to the emptying of the whole of Muslim countries of Christians and other religions. Only Islam will remain whether Shia or Sunni that is the unmistakable reality. Ross and Pipes are prepared to accept therefore any amount of suffering endured by Arab Christians and Zoroastrians etc.


To me that is pure evil.


That is the reality without the leadership of 4international


“Hillary: Hamas Officials ‘Largely Technocrats,’” by Joel B. Pollak, Breitbart, June 16, 2014:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an audience in Toronto on Monday that she supported President Barack Obama’s decision to work with the Palestinian Authority’s new unity government, even though it includes the Hamas terror organization, because the new governing officials are “largely technocrats.”


“I think it’s a holding position,” Clinton said, describing Obama’s stance. “And the reason it’s a holding position is that the makeup of this joint [Fatah-Hamas] enterprise are largely technocrats. They’re academics and they’re business people. They don’t represent sort of, what you might call hard-core Hamas leadership.”


U.S. law prevents funding the Palestinian Authority if it is affiliated with Hamas, but as The Blaze reported last week, the new unity government exploits loopholes in American law by appointing ministers who are nominally “apolitical.”


The exercise is fictitious, however, as Hamas continues to carry out terror activities despite joining the unity government–including last week’s kidnappings, which were celebrated by both Palestinian factions.


In addition, Palestinian “technocrats,” such as former PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, often honor and support terrorists even though they may not be directly involved in terrorist activities themselves.


Hanin Zoabi has been elected into the Israeli Parliament Knesset. This makes her therefore a member of Knesset (MK). Zoabi belongs to a party called Balad


Balad is a political party,[6] whose stated purpose is the ‘struggle to transform the state of Israel into a democracy for all its citizens, irrespective of national or ethnic identity.’[7] It opposes the idea of Israel as a solely Jewish state, and supports its recasting as a binational state.


Balad also advocates that the state of Israel recognize Palestinian Arabs as a national minority, entitled to all rights that come with that status including autonomy in education, culture and media.[7] Since the party’s formation, it has objected to every proposed state budget on the grounds that they have discriminated against the Arab population.


The party supports creation of two states based on pre-1967 borders, with the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem to constitute a Palestinian state[8] and the implementation of UN Resolution 194 regarding the right of return to Palestinian refugees.


Balad describes itself as a ‘democratic progressive national party for the Palestinian citizens of Israel  (Wikipedia)




Haneen Zoabi, a Balad Knesset member, said in March 2009 that she was not worried about the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead she suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran would act as a counter-power to Israel. Zoabi also welcomed Iran’s growing influence on Palestinian affairs, saying that Iran has played a more beneficial role in region than Jordan and Egypt because it stood more firmly “against occupation than a lot of the Arab countries”. Balad’s chairman, Jamal Zahalka, said that Zoabi’s comments represented an “analysis,” not a “position,” and did not constitute “supporting a nuclear weapon in Iran.”[20]  (Wikipedia)




The idea of Israel according to Balfour (1917) was that the Jews would have a Homeland of their own. There was no wording, no terminology as today, no national concept among Arabs known in 1917 as the “Palestinians”.




This is dealt with in the famous biography by Joseph Nedava. Trotsky did not think that Jews would ever be safe inside a capitalist world because like us on 4international Trotsky identified capitalism in crisis as the source of this very dangerous form of capitalist rule-Fascism.


But he was no dogmatist. Recognising in those all too real times the great danger to Jews from Hitler Trotsky in effect (despite Nedava’s confusion on some aspects of the issue) not in words but in deeds stated himself as a Zionist, a Zionist based on science not religion. This is what Nedava wrote quite recently:


“The one thing one cannot say of Trotsky, as Mr. Carmichael does, is that whatever he wrote of Jewishness was “banal and predictable.” In 1938 Trotsky predicted the Holocaust and expressed his fear of the physical annihilation of seven million Jews in Europe. A year earlier he admitted the need for a “territorial” solution to the Jewish problem. These are far-reaching views. To be sure, in subscribing indirectly to the Zionist solution, it did not follow that Trotsky himself would have become a pilgrim to Zion: Zionism dawned on him too late in the day for that, but I am convinced that had Stalin spared him another eight years of life to witness the establishment of the State of Israel, Trotsky would have sanctioned this historic fact, even if only as a “temporary” solution to the Jewish problem until the Communist “millennium” was finally ushered in. In this respect, Mrs. Beba Idelson’s interview with Trotsky in 1937, which I cite in my book, is very illuminating.”




This brings us back to Zoabi and the situation that Israel finds itself in today. Trotsky was very clear on the reason for founding the Israeli state. One aspect which he had to stress in 1937 and indeed did stress was that the Jews needed a state for basic self-defence.


In this regard the Jews in the 1930s and in 1941 found that there was no country in the world, no capitalist nation whatsoever, including America and Britain, that was prepared to open its doors to the Jews in such danger from Hitler.


No help! That is the hard lesson of history! This was accentuated when Polish Underground members escaped, travelled to London, met the American and British representatives and asked in vain for the British and especially American planes (who were already overflying the camps) to bomb the ovens and the railway lines (Claude Lanzmann, Shoah)


One further aspect of the Holocaust must be noted. The Arabs were fully represented by Hajj Amin el Husseini. This Arab from Palestine area was a fully fledged Nazi and played a most central role in the Holocaust. There is THE MOST DIRECT line from that Nazi and Zoabi today.



The lesson…The state of Israel is first and foremost a defence against Antisemitism.


If the state of Israel is according to what Trotsky put forward a defence against Antisemitism then this is precisely what the Jewish leaders since 1948 have failed to do.


Continually the Arabs in the Middle East have been waging Jihad against the Jews and therefore against Israel. The leaders of Israel historically from Ben Gurion on into the present leaders like Netanyahu have let the Jews down very badly indeed by not defending the Jews against Israel.


4international is going to be placing emphasis on the size of this area. The whole of the area is less than the size of Munster, which is one of 4 roughly equal provinces in Ireland.


As Mark Langfan emphasises with his maps this is an area which the enemies of the Jews cannot be allowed to have any foothold whatsoever. THE AREA FOR ONE THING IS JUST TOO SMALL.


4international has long held that Jews because of world Antisemitism must live alone and that any others inside the Jewish state must be there only as guests.


There must not be any ability of any enemy of the Jews to wage war, verbal or lethal (as in kidnapping)


This is what separates us Trotskyists on 4international from so many in the world today. Disagree if you want but if you in word or deed allow any to wage any warfare on the Jews today you are indeed ANTISEMITIC.



There is therefore great urgency to have a leadership in Israel that will expel from Israel Zoabi and it is as simple as that. Until 4international sees that happening then we have no confidence in anything Netanyahu says or even does. It is all camouflage for more betrayal

(from Israel National News)

By Hezki Ezra and Elad Benari

First Publish: 6/18/2014, 6:15 AM
Balad MKs

Balad MKs
Flash 90

The Balad party, of which MK Hanin Zoabi is a member, dismissed on Tuesday evening the criticism that was leveled at Zoabi after she justified the kidnapping of three yeshiva students by Hamas.

In a statement, the party also blamed the “Israeli occupation” for recent violence.

“The mad cries of revenge by Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, the Jewish Home, MK Miri Regev and others, are proof of the Israeli political system, which does not want to hear a different voice that is not aligned with the nationalist consensus, which sanctifies aggression, occupation and settlements,” said the party.

“Balad and MK Hanin Zoabi see the Israeli government as responsible for the continuing violence and bloodshed. The occupation is the source of violence, and the way to prevent violence is to end the occupation and to take a path of serious dialogue on the basis of UN resolutions,” Balad’s statement read.

“Balad and MK Hanin Zoabi support the just struggle against the occupation,” the party continued, adding, “International law explicitly states that people which are under occupation have the right to struggle against the occupation. We emphasize our opposition to hurting innocent people, and the duty to conduct the struggle within the framework of reason and morality.”

The party statement added, “Balad and MK Hanin Zoabi hope that the issue of the abduction ends peacefully, and the way to do so is through dialogue and sending a message of willingness to release prisoners on hunger strike from administrative detention without trial. We condemn the re-conquest of the Hevron area and the arbitrary arrests.”

Zoabi’s comments on the kidnapping came in a radio interview, in which she stated that the “kidnappers are not terrorists” and that the kidnapping is a “last resort” for Palestinian Arabs frustrated by their lives.

“They are not terrorists, I do not agree with you!” Zoabi fired. “They have seen no other way to change their reality and they have to resort to these measures until Israel sobers up a bit and feels the suffering of others.”

Following the comments, Culture Minister Limor Livnat (Likud) announced that she intends to turn to the Attorney General demanding an investigation into Zoabi’s comments and whether they can be classified as an offense under Section 144 of the Penal Code against “incitement to violence of terror.”

Liberman slammed Zoabi in a Facebook post, writing, “Not only are the kidnappers terrorists; Hanin Zoabi is a terrorist.”

He called for harsh judgement to be meted upon the MK. “The fate of the kidnappers and the fate of Zoabi, an inciter, should be the same.”

“Expel her to Gaza and remove her diplomatic immunity,” MK Miri Regev (Likud) stated Tuesday. “This is a betrayal. She identified herself with terrorists on the Mavi Marmara and now she identifies herself with the Hamas terrorists who kidnapped our three boys.”

Tourism Minister Uzi Landau (Likud Beytenu) condemned the comments as well, telling Arutz Sheva that Zoabi “is an ambassador of terrorism in the Israeli Knesset.”


Volker Robert Krauleidies's photo.
Photo: This is the anti-Semitic cartoon that appeared on the official Fatah website showing Palestinian reaction to the kidnapping of 3 Jewish teenagers.<br />
This is Fatah, the party of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, not Hamas.<br />
This is the party of our so-called ‘peace partner’ who claims he is not anti-Semitic.<br />
Yet another display proving that Palestinian hatred of Israel is Palestinian Antisemitism.” width=”455″ height=”237″ /></div>
<div class= 
The Facebook Page of martin Sherman has this terrific and instructive example of what the “Palestinians” is all about. It starts with this image from the present Palestinians in which the three unfortunate kidnapped youth are portrayed as rats. Then a commenter took that image and provided a very siilar image from the Antisemitic stink holes of the German Nazis. The “Palestinians” are Nazi and the very founder of the “Palestinians” was a Nazi. He was named Hajj Amin el Husseini and he was the uncle of Arafat. Present leader of the “Palestinians” is Abbas and he worked with Arafat for 30 years and he is responsable for this present image which is using Nazi imagery of Jews being rats. What will Christy Moore say of that? Silent…you don’t say!






Obama backs these savages. Obama bullies and threatens Israel to submit to these savages. Obama on the side of jihadists every time. America has been hijacked. This is a crime against humanity. Three sweet young boys in the clutches of the undead. Good, decent people stand with Israel. Nazi imagery. – See more at: http://pamelageller.com/#sthash.frxWTIr3.dpuf




IRAQ-UNREST-MOSULAs the global Islamic jihad against Christianity and Christians continues to rage and escalate, will Christian leaders in the West finally wake up to the reality of it? Or will they continue to deceive themselves into thinking that if they keep quiet about it, their “dialogue” with Muslim leaders in the West will finally bear some actual fruit?

More on this story. “Christians in their thousands flee terror in Iraq Islamic jihadists rampage through city of Mosul,” UCA News, June 14, 2014:

The news of a church under construction which exploded east of Mosul is already on social networks. Together with the news that the monastery of Mar Behnam – dating back to the fourth century, one of the most important historical sites of Assyrian Christianity – is in the hands of militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant since yesterday, after taking control of Iraq’s second city.


Many question marks are also concentrated on the fate of the churches in Mosul itself, hastily abandoned by the clergy and the faithful who, despite all the suffering experienced by Iraq over the last decade, had always had the courage to remain. Now, they too are among the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing towards Kurdistan.


With the dramatic news that has been arriving from Mosul since yesterday, there is also the totally particular drama of the local Christian community, struggling with the nightmare of a jihadist militia which they know well and who have already shown what they are capable of in the Syrian province of Raqqa.


There is an email that expresses all the drama of the climate that reigns in these hours in Northern Iraq, sent last night by a Dominican religious in Mosul to his provincial superior: “I am writing in a critical and apocalyptic situation. The majority of the inhabitants of the city have already fled their homes and have ran away to the villages; they sleep out in the open without anything to eat and drink. Thousands of gunmen of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have attacked Mosul in the past two days. They murdered adults and children. Hundreds of bodies have been left in the streets and in the homes, without any mercy. Even the Army and the regular forces have abandoned the city, along with the governor. From the mosques you hear the cry: “Allah Akhbar, long live the Islamic state”.


From the message you can imagine that even in Qaraqosh – the most important town of the plain of Nineveh, where in recent years many Christians had taken refuge – the situation is disturbing. A Dominican religious wrote yesterday: “Qaraqosh is flooded with all kinds of refugees, without food or accommodation. The checkpoints and Kurdish militias are preventing many refugees from entering Kurdistan. What we are seeing and we are living in the last two days is horrible and catastrophic. The monastery of Mar Behnam and other churches have fallen into rebel hands … and now they have arrived here and five minutes ago they entered Qaraqosh. We are surrounded and threatened with death … Pray for us. I’m sorry but I cannot go on writing … They’re not very far from our monastery








If you google this (wsws jewish boys kidnapped) you will find that the wsws has not written one Word. Cowards and traitors to Trotskyism!


Google the Irish Singer Christy Moore and you will find Moore ignoring the kidnapping of the 3 Jewish boys even though Moore has so much to say about “Palestinians”.



4international believes that Obama and previously Bush were helping the Jihad of Islam against Jews and Christians.


The invasión of Iraq by Bush and the removal of Saddam and the Baathist Party was the touchstone because it removed the main bulwark against the Islamic Jihad


These were secularist leaders based on Nasserism and whether you agree with them or not in those particular conditions (as they faced the Jihad) had to be defended unconditionally


Later Mubarak and Gadhafi followed and the removal of these secular leaders opened the door for the great suffering that Christians and Jews are now suffering in the Middle East at the hands of Jihad. Of course Obama will not send tropos nor will cameron and Hague since they are on the side of Jihad when it comes right down to it.


There is a direct line between the scourging of Christians in Iraq and the kidnapping of the 3 Jewish boys in Judea.









There is only ONE answer to the kidnapping of the 3 Jewish boys from a Yeshiva in Judea and Samaria (the correct name for this historical Jewish land and not the incorrect name of the West Bank a name which emerged after 1967 and was destined to rob Jews of their history in the area)


There really is only the ONE answer and it is this. It means pushing back a little bit in order to make up for past mistakes/betrayals of Jewish leaders, especially in the post 1967 Arab Genocidal War against the Jews


“The build up to the Six-Day War came from President Gamal Abdul Nasser’s call in mid-May 1967 to all Arab nations to drive the “Jew into the sea”. This was Israel’s greatest fear. It was surrounded by hostile Arab countries…” (interesting article this)



Yesterday on a local commercial radio station Pippa Jones had as a guest the Breaking the Silence ANTISEMITIC JEWISH group spouting their LIES about the Israelis having a great responsibility to observe human rights, while the “Palestinians” have a little responsibility too but not so much because there is what the Pippa Jones show called (repeatedly meaning over and over and over) an “Occupation” . Jones may even be a Jew and the owner of the radio “Talk Radio Europe” is Jewish, a guy called Martin Nathan.


As I said there is only the one answer to this. It is this:


  1. End all talk about areas A B or C
  2. There is only one “AREA” and that is Israel
  3. The Arabs in that area are there by Conquest, a brutal conquest carried out by the Islamic Jihad, just as much as the Arabs in Jihad invaded as Jihadists into Spain
  4. Israelis must have a new leadership which will meet the Jihad in a certain way
  5. The area must be conquered in battle again even as it was in 1967. The Arabs have got to leave the area. Israelis are kind and civilised and will even make it easy for them to leave
  6. There is no alternative to this method…NONE
  7. The setting up of huts on hills or whatever else has been attempted since 1967 and is really pointless. They are essentially “Jewish do-gooders” and they dismiss the rules of war…First you conquer the area. Then you settle in the area.
  8. These youth were unprotected and were sitting ducks. First you get a leadership which will conquer the area, drive out the enemy of the Jews. THEN you settle the area.


Since 1967 and arguably before (Herzl and Ben Gurion) everything has been done arse about face






Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are wrong about Obama and ISIL in Iraq.

Pamela and Robert are both freedom fighters against Islamic Jihad and because they are freedom fighters were barred from entering Britain by the fast-becoming Fascist British Imperialist Government

This illegal action against Robert and Pamela by the British Imperialists WENT UNANSWERED BY THE FASCIST “LEFTS”

NOTICE THAT WE PUT LEFT IN INVERTED COMMAS which means that we on 4international do not consider them left or socialist

And today we learn on the websites that Socialist Unity is threatening a socialist with legal action using the British reactionary libel laws. THESE THINGS ARE ALL RELATED…




Basically Pamela and Robert are saying that US Imperialism (Obama) is acting like the “bungling bear in the china shop” in the sense that it inadvertently keeps knocking over the tables of china

The bungling bear like Bush on Saddam (2003) are really kindly bungling bears but they are just a bit clumsy and keep bumping into things. That is the analysis of Pamela and Robert and it even extends to Obama who is Islam sympathetic (at least)

That is because Pamela and Robert are themselves the servants of US Imperialism.

Look at it from this angle however. The US system of capitalism is in crisis. There could be another and deeper collapse of shares and whole economy in many countries. This pulls US elites AND OTHERS LIKE SPAIN towards Fascism and Dictatorsjhip.

On dictatorship look at the hatred that Pamela showed towards Edward Snowden who was MERELY WARNING OF PLANS TOWARDS DICTATORSHIP

The Alliance of US is more and more with the likes of ISIL, with the head choppers, and that is nothing to what they will do in the Homeland US to the workers, youth and unorthodox guys like Ed Snowden

If they were serious in opposing these Arab Muslim Fascists what would the US and EU do? They would immediately rush troops to destroy ISIL (WHICH IS ONLY A FEW THOUSANDS OF FASCISTS)

Obama ruled that out! Hillary Clinton this morning on BBC ruled that out also and supported Obama inaction! Cameron does not care! The EU governments only care about boycott on Israel.

So these US and EU political elites are on the side of the headchoppers of Islam

Meanwhile as we mentioned the Socialist Unity Fascist “Lefts” are taking a legal action based on the reactionary British Libel Laws against a real socialist in Britain. Typical. That is the most Fascist thing that can be done! Stop the discussion by all means is the method of Socialist Unity.

Stopping necessary discussion and using the state libel laws is exactly what Fascists do.

4international will defend socialists against Fascists who aim to stop discussion. That is exactly what Socialist Unity is aiming to do. They are not Socialists they are Fascists in the guise of socialists. 4international says expose Socialist Unity for what they really are. We will not be silenced so more articles by us on this Socialist Unity

4international will really examine carefully the politics of this group and we will try to answer the question as to what makes Socialist Unity so easily reach for the Libel Laws of Britain, the most reactionary Fascist Laws on the planet.

Shame on them.

Call for the defence of Robert and Pamela against these same British Fascists in the British State Machine who banned them from Britain.


The extent of territory known to be influenced by the group in January 2014. Out of date as of June 10th 2014
The extent of territory known to be influenced by the group in January 2014. Out of date as of June 10th 2014


(From The Telegraph Online)

The militants are believed to be from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the joint Iraqi-Syrian al-Qaida affiliate that is also fighting President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in neighbouring Syria. Seizing control of Mosul, which lies on a stretch of the Tigris less than 100 miles from the Syrian border, would help the group in its aim of carving out a swathe of uncontested territory straddling the two borders.


How much suffering?

How many Beheadings?

How many rapes?


Yesterday on Talk Radio Europe there was a woman on the panel who actually defended Obama when I said that Obama was Islam. How can such a person get onto a radio panel? What qualifies her?


How much suffering is the policy of Obama towards Islam going to cause these Arabs who are fleeing from Al Qaida in Northern Iraq, Mosul?


And as regards the woman defending Islam and Obama how much ignorance can grown people have?


Bush went to war against Saddam. Tony Blair and his whole British state joined in. That was a fatal move.

The “Left” Fascists such as the Anti War Movement took to the streets of London and Dublín in opposition. That movement was reactionary and false however because the real reason it was necessary to defend Saddam (Baathist regime brutal and mad) was that the secular Baathists were a defence against Al Qaida. The “Left” Fascists in taking to the streets were really defending Al Qaida. Notice that I place left in inverted commas. These are Fascists. They are also Antisemites. We on 4international are true Trotskyism and we oppose these Fascists who attack the jewish Homeland.


Bush and Blair were opening the door to Al Qaida in Iraq. Or in other words to the entrance of the Jihad based on the Quran into Iraq. And so these poor Arabs today flee in millions from Mosul. It only takes a moment of reflection to see that the “Left” fascists in the anti-war movement of the time were actually on the side of Al Qaida, and the consequences of the Bush War has had the same result.


In fact the necessary defence of Saddam Hussein then is very like the necessary defence of Assad today (but critical of Assad’s Alliance with Iran and Hizbullah) are very similar.


there are times when you have to defend dictators in politics because the lesser evil often is the rule.


This issue came up very often in the 1930s and there is a memorable retelling of an Aesop Fable by Leon Trotsky. It is about taking decisions to defend a particular position from Fascists, and Al Qaida is Fascism



From What Next? Vital Question for the German Proletariat, 1932

* * *

A cattle dealer once drove some bulls to the slaughterhouse. And the butcher came night with his sharp knife.

“Let us close ranks and jack up this executioner on our horns,” suggested one of the bulls.

“If you please, in what way is the butcher any worse than the dealer who drove us hither with his cudgel?” replied the bulls, who had received their political education in Manuilsky’s institute. [The Comintern.]

“But we shall be able to attend to the dealer as well afterwards!”

“Nothing doing,” replied the bulls firm in their principles, to the counselor. “You are trying, from the left, to shield our enemies — you are a social-butcher yourself.”

And they refused to close ranks.




4international who are the inheritors of Leon Trotsky and are devoted to telling the truth about Jews against Arab Antisemitism


The structures that she (Rachel Corrie) was attempting to protect by lying down in front of a bulldozer were fronts for tunnels along the border between Egypt and Gaza through which munitions and explosives intended to kill innocent Israelis were being smuggled.


Well damm it all folks! So it was a big lie that Rachel Corrie was defending a house that was being demolished. No What was at stake was or were tunnels through which arms and explosives were being smuggled through to Gaza TO USE IN THE MURDERING OF JEWS.


Even more to the point, the idea that Corrie was in Gaza to promote peace is a myth. The purpose of the International Solidarity Movement’s activities in Gaza was to shield Hamas and Fatah terrorists and to prevent the Israel Defense Forces from carrying out measures intended to stop the flow of arms and terrorist activity.

(both quotes from the excellent Commentary Magazine http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/28/rachel-corrie-was-no-peace-activist-israel-palestinians-terrorism/)


Now here is the point. Christy Moore of Ireland who is a very good Singer with a huge following has devoted a song called Burning Times to Rachel Corrie. The words of the song are peculiar in that they have nothing to do with Rachel Corrie at all.


In fact the words of Burning Times are anti-Christian which is just fine by us on 4international BUT Moore has never uttered a Word against Islam and Sharia…so we on 4international call Moore on that…sure slam the Catholics but sing songs to the Sharia protectors.


Which all adds up in my book to Christy Moore being a very good Irish Folk Singer but a very poor human being


Snap out of it Christy! For Christ sake grow up!




“Congress Seeks to Designate New Palestinian Gov’t as a Terror Org,” By Adam Kredo, Free Beacon, June 6, 2014″

That is from a report in the “Washington Free Beacon”

New resolution pushes to cut aid, dissolve new Palestinian unity gov’t House lawmakers are currently pushing a resolution to classify the newly formed Palestinian unity government as a foreign terrorist organization and cut off U.S. aid following the formation of a new ruling body that includes the terror group Hamas, according to a copy of the draft resolution obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The new resolution, sponsored by Reps. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) and Trent Franks (R., Ariz.), calls on the State Department to designate the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its new Hamas-backed unity government as a terrorist organization. The resolution is expected to be introduced Monday. It additionally calls for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) to be reclassified as a terror group and for the U.S. government to fully cut aid to the Palestinians, who have received around $5 billion in bilateral assistance since the 1990s.

“The Palestinian Authority has shown its true colors by forming a unity government with the terrorist organization Hamas,” Bachmann told the Free Beacon. “This nightmare scenario for the peace process means that Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and suspend foreign aid to the PA. We cannot continue to assist our enemies at the expense of our ally, Israel.”

4international, the movement founded by Leon Trotsky, takes a similar position.

This centres on our understanding of the Palestinian Arabs and Hamas represents the foremost point of world Antisemitism.

It is absolutely vital that the real story be told from about 1920 to the present.

Why is this telling of the real story so important? Well it is because it really is posible int he world of today to convince billions of people of a lie.

It must not be forgotten that the capitalist system in our world has got the power, and that means also the power of all the means of communication.

In our present world this means a colosal system of communication, radio, televisión, newspapers, people publishing material on blogs, huge organizations with their websites.

The big issue is are they telling the truth? Edward Snowden showed that modern capitalist life is based on a huge system of lies. If Edward Snowden had not spoken out then would we be any the wiser today about that huge system of snooping he described.

The answer is no we would not know. That is affirmed by the fact that if Snowden was in America today he would be in prison and for a very long time.

Just very recently in these last few days Obama made a swop reléase of taliban and an American soldier in Afghanistan. Obama and his government were selling it as a great thing for America and for the American people, but Obama and his whole publicity apparatus were hiding, truly hiding, that they were swopping a traitor to America.

Lies are told about Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer by the British Government and the latter actually stops these two from entering Britain.

A chap called Paul Weston from Liberty UK is arrested and imprisoned for quoting from a critical of Islam speech by none other tan great war hero Winston Churchill. Nobody in Britain knows this story.

The lie is very often silence which is the control by the Media of news.

Then there is the Fascist “Left” also who are part of this lie. The group called wsws is refusing to talk about anything but Ukraine. Now Ukraine is important but this Fascist “Left” group is fisking the news.


SO it is back again to the lies of the PLO and of Hamas. A whole narrative of lies has been spread about everything in the Middle East from about 1920 to the present.


I have a lot of agreement with people like Martin Sherman and quite a few others who try to tell the truth. But they are handicapped. The real truth tellers of this real narrative will be 4international and writers like Sherman are actually biased against us, 4international.




We ask who will defend this new Palestinian Government which Hamas plays the central part. That is the question we will be asking in our work in the months ahead.

We on 4international realice this is a most intensely difficult task. In the coming months we seek to recruit people who will tell the truth.

That is all we want and need. The truth.

Workers of Ireland must line up with Jewish Israeli patriots and oppose this new move by the Arab Palestinian Fascists who are in essence supported and promoted by world capitalism and all religious bodies. 4international alone stands with the Jews.




Islam and Sex Slavery

Robert Spencer

June 2, 2014

One thing we know about Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group that has appalled the world by abducting and enslaving 300 schoolgirls, is that what it has done is completely contrary to the tenets of Islam.

Or at least that’s what everyone is saying.

“The Nigerian terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls has nothing to do with Islam, and it’s grotesquely irresponsible of the media to suggest it does.” So wrote Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah in the Daily Beast. Ahmadi Muslim spokesman Qasim Rashid wrote at FoxNews.com that “Boko Haram’s claim that Islam motivates their kidnappings is no different than Adolf Hitler’s claim that Christianity motivated his genocide. This terrorist organization acts in direct violation of every Islamic teaching regarding women.” The nation’s two Muslim Congressmen, Keith Ellison (D-MN) and André Carson (D-IN), wrote, along with a host of U.S. Muslim leaders, a scolding open letter to Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, telling him: “Your actions have shocked Muslims across the world and have disrespected Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).”

The only problem with these and all other Islamic disavowals and condemnations of Boko Haram’s actions is that none of them have addressed the Islamic justifications for them. For Boko Haram itself has expressly and avowedly said that its actions are based on Islamic teaching.

Shekau said in a video in February that his group was “fighting Christians wherever we meet them,” following the Qur’an’s command to wage war against “the People of the Book” (its term for Jews, Christians, and some others) “until they pay the jiza [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

And as for the abduction of the schoolgirls, the Qur’an tells Muslims to take captives when they meet unbelievers (90 percent of the girls are Christian) in battle: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens” (47:4). It also refers to slave women belonging to the Islamic prophet Muhammad as spoils of war: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50).   What can be done with such captives? Islamic law has elaborated from these passages four options:

As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first, to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, ‘When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [Islam] then strike [their] necks’ (Qur’an sura 47, verse 4) (Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance).  

The first of these options, putting captives to death, is such a live possibility that it is stymieing a rescue operation. As for exchanging them, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau offered to exchange the girls who have refused to convert to Islam in return for Boko Haram prisoners held by the Nigerian government. As for the third option, enslavement, Shekau has gloated in a video: “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah…There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.” That is in line with the option of enslaving captives. The girls may be sold—if they haven’t been already—and then forcibly married to their new owners, all in accord with the Qur’an’s direction on the sexual enslavement of those taken as spoils of war:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial (Qur’an 4:3).

The twentieth-century Qur’an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains that such “enslavement is the penalty of disbelief,” and expresses a longing for the good old days:

The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:

Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”

The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine sanction. Muslim leaders and media commentators who denounce Boko Haram without addressing its justifications for its actions are actually doing a grave disservice, for they are lulling non-Muslims into complacency without saying anything that might make Boko Haram (or other Muslims who believe the same way) change their views.

The abduction of the Nigerian schoolgirls could have and should have been an opportunity to call upon Muslim leaders to work for genuine reform, so that the justifications for this savagery are removed. Instead, they altogether ignore the points of Islamic doctrine that need reform.

And that only ensures that there will be more such incidents.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of ten books, including two New York Times bestsellers, The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) (both


A typical example of what we talk about in this article, the Fascist and Antisemitic Irish IPSC could get only a handful out to “celebrate” so called Nakba day. These Fascists have the nerve to stand in front of the sacred and famous GPO in Dublín last month 2014



While Pamela Geller, Robert Spencerm Andrew Bostom and quite a few others do a good job in explaining what a Fascist Ideology is Islam…their websites especially the comments section become full of lies about Marx and Islam, Marxism and Islam. This has got HUGE dangers for the international working class, for Jews, for youth, for us all


I have filed a copy of what Marx actually said about Islam. It is basically what we say, what Spencer, Geller and Bostom also say.


Marx said that Islam divides the world into two, into the believers of Islam and into the rest, and that Islam wages a perpetual war on the rest (as Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria today)


I have filed the exact quote (enter the German into google and you get the source) which is taken by that particular blogger from the German and it reads:


(begin extract here)


http://www.mlwerke.de . . .


 It’s straight from one of his books:


 Karl Marx, “Die Kriegserklärung – Zur Geschichte der orientalischen Frage”, Marx-Engels-Werke, Band 10, S. 170.



A quote about Islam … by Karl Marx ! (karma: 3)  en>fr fr>en

By Axel_Bavaria Comments: 9498, member since Wed Apr 16, 2003

On Wed Nov 24, 2010 03:47 PM





German original:


„Der Islam ächtet die Nation der Ungläubigen und schafft einen Zustand permanenter Feindschaft zwischen Muselmanen und Ungläubigen.“



English translation:


 “Islam ostracizes the nation of the unbelievers and creates a state of permanent enemyship between the moslems and the unbelievers.”


 – Karl Marx (1818-1883)



As an example of how Pamela Geller allows this continual branding of Marx as being in favor of Islam these are examples from yesterday:


…Aside from the fact that you can’t even spell your lover-boy’s name, the only pathetic joke is that we’re stuck with a vile Marxist and Moslem sympathizer as President.


He is saying that Obama is a Marxist. This is very, very common in all of these circles in all of the ruling clases in every country especially Europe and America. Some of this is bias and somewhat unconscious and of course some is very conscious. You often see one person on these blogs pushing this idea with great regularity as if they were on a mission.


What is made very difficult for us in telling the truth about Marx and Islam is the crowds of Stalinist and Renegade groups calling themselves “Marxist” even “Trotskyist” who are indeed supporters of the Fascists of Islam. But difficult or not that is the ground that we have to fight on.




2010 Pentagon investigation: “incontrovertible” that Bergdahl walked away from his unit


bergdahl2That means the Obama Administration traded five dangerous jihad terror leaders for a known deserter. Will there be a full investigation this time, or will John Boehner start weeping and punt, as always?

“U.S. concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl walked away,” by Ken Dilanian and Deb Riechmann, Associated Press, June 2, 2014:

A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter.

Instead, the U.S. government pursued negotiations to get him back over the following five years of his captivity — a track that led to his release over the weekend.



Bergdahl was being checked and treated Monday at a U.S. military hospital in Germany as questions mounted at home over the swap that resulted in his freedom in exchange for the release of five detainees who were sent to Qatar from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo, Cuba.



Even in the first hours of Bergdahl’s handoff to U.S. special forces in eastern Afghanistan, it was clear this would not be an uncomplicated yellow-ribbon celebration. Five terrorist suspects also walked free, stirring a debate over whether the exchange would heighten the risk of other Americans being snatched as bargaining chips and whether the released detainees — several senior Taliban figures among them — would find their way back to the fight….



And in Kabul Monday, the Afghan Foreign Ministry called the swap “against the norms of international law” if it came against the five imprisoned Taliban detainees’ will. The ministry said: “No state can transfer another country’s citizen to a third country and put restriction on their freedom.”

Tireless campaigners for their son’s freedom, Bob and Jani Bergdahl thanked all who were behind the effort to retrieve him. “You were not left behind,” Bob Bergdahl told reporters, as if speaking to his son. “We are so proud of the way this was carried out.” He spoke in Boise, Idaho, wearing a long bushy beard he’d grown to honor his son, as residents in the sergeant’s hometown of Hailey prepared for a homecoming celebration.



The five detainees left Guantanamo aboard a U.S. military aircraft flying to Qatar, which served as go-between in the negotiations. They are to be banned from leaving Qatar for at least a year. Among the five: a Taliban deputy intelligence minister, a former Taliban interior minister with ties to the late al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and a figure linked by human rights monitors to mass killings of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001.



Questions persisted, too, about the circumstances of Bergdahl’s 2009 capture. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel declined to comment on earlier reports that the sergeant had walked away from his unit, disillusioned with the war. Such matters “will be dealt with later,” Hagel said.

But the former Pentagon official said it was “incontrovertible” that he walked away from his unit.

The military investigation was broader than a criminal inquiry, this official said, and it didn’t formally accuse Bergdahl of desertion. In interviews, members of his unit portrayed him as a naive, “delusional” person who thought he could help the Afghan people by leaving his army post, the official said.



U.S. military and intelligence agencies had made every effort to monitor Bergdahl’s location and his health, the official said, through both signals intelligence and a network of spies.

Nathan Bradley Bethea, who served as an officer in Bergdahl’s unit, said in an article Monday on the Daily Beast website that Bergdahl was not on patrol, as some reports have suggested.

“There was no patrol that night,” he wrote. “Bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted. I’ve talked to members of Bergdahl’s platoon_including the last Americans to see him before his capture. I’ve reviewed the relevant documents. That’s what happened.”…







Obama has liberated these Taliban killers of Afghans essentially and he has also liberated this traitor American who obviously with his Father will work to extend the Jihad in America.


This situation in America fast developing but which isunclear to many of us because of much obfuscation, with very dangerous asides, see my post on Pamela Geller website (will place it below) has to be understood along with this in Europe and this very useful report from Commentary


(begin extract here)


The revelation that the Belgium police have now made an arrest in relation to the recent shooting at the Jewish museum in Brussels, and more significantly that the suspect is a Muslim radical who spent time fighting in Syria, confirms what many had suspected about that attack; that it was the work of Islamic militancy and the Jew-hatred that constitutes a core aspect of that ideology. When a similar shooting attack took place in 2012 at a Jewish school in Toulouse, much of the media initially attempted to speculate that this was the work of a far-right white supremacist. No doubt the liberal media was holding out for such a result this time too. But in both cases these attacks were the work of home-grown Islamic extremism. These acts may for the moment only concern a very small number of radicalized individuals, yet such individuals emerge from a much wider sub-culture of hate that Europe’s elites not only attempt to ignore, but that is even excused and legitimated by the prevailing narrative in Europe.


The suspect in question has been named as 29-year old French national Mehdi Nemmouche, who spent a year fighting with rebels in Syria. It’s not as if there haven’t been enough warnings about the dangers represented by the phenomenon of large numbers of European Muslims going to fight in Syria, but if European governments have proven incapable of preventing these individuals from making their way to Syria, then one also has to wonder how they were so easily able to slip back into Europe. Still, the case of the Toulouse shooting provides a noteworthy parallel. The gunman in that case, Mohammed Merah, had already spent time in Afghanistan and Pakistan and now it is widely believed that Merah’s sister Souad is also currently in Syria.


It is more than just a little revealing that so many of Europe’s Muslims are drawn to fight for Islamic causes in far off countries in the first place; there are an estimated 600 French Muslims fighting in Syria and almost as many from Britain. It is similarly telling that when these people return they not only continue to engage in acts of violence, but that their violence is directed toward Jews. Of course we shouldn’t ignore the violence against Jews coming from Muslims who haven’t first been radicalized via Syria or elsewhere; on the same day as the shooting in Brussels two French Jews were assaulted in Paris as they were leaving a synagogue. There is hardly space here to rehearse all the recent incidents from Europe of Muslims attacking Jews, but a European Union survey from the fall exposed how in most European countries Muslims were by far the leading group responsible for anti-Semitic incidents, closely followed by individuals identified as being on the far left.


Europe’s elites have proven completely incapable of confronting and tackling this worsening phenomenon because they are incapacitated by a worldview that barely even allows them to openly acknowledge the problem. Most types of racism and bigotry in Europe have been swept away not by government legislation but by a culture of political correctness imposed by Europe’s media and cultural institutions that sets such views beyond the pale. Yet because that very doctrine of political correctness holds immigrant communities and particularly Muslims to be a victim group of the highest order, it has become impossible for Europeans to imagine that these people might themselves be the perpetrators of racism and bigotry. The model doesn’t allow for such a notion, especially not when the victims are Jews. Since Europeans perceive Jews as being white, Western, and affluent, that places them on the side of the oppressors and not among the oppressed.


Then there is the Israel factor. As much as critics of Israel like to stress that it’s Zionists and not Jews they take issue with, whenever Jews are attacked, liberals and liberal Europeans inevitably make the Israel connection and in so doing invalidate their own pretense that they view the two as being entirely separate. When Jewish children were mowed down by bullets as they made their way to school in Toulouse and the EU’s Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton was obliged to concoct some words of sympathy, she stunned observers by using this event to note how, “we see what is happening in Gaza.” It seems that for people like Ashton, it is impossible to acknowledge Jewish victimhood without also footnoting Palestinian suffering, as if in some attempt to explain away whatever has just been done to the Jews in question.


European liberals delight in expressing horror and gleeful outrage at the sight of American Evangelical Christianity. They warn against reactionary Christian attitudes on any social issue that arises in their own country and they are always sure to castigate the Catholic Church whenever the opportunity presents itself (Pope Benedict’s visit to London was marred by large and angry protests). But if Europeans were really concerned about ultra-conservative religious extremism then they would act to prevent the proliferation of radical Islam in Europe. Similarly, if they were serious about ending racism then they would crack down on the only form of racism in Europe today that still kills people: Islamic Jew-hatred.

Tom Watson on Commentary




4international does not just observe and write. Today I broke connection with the Martin Sherman Facebook page. Not because of any difference with Sherman. But it is a con…the whole Facebook thing is a con. Yesterday I placed a post on BDS in Ireland…important really important stuff for all Jews and all of us…Result NOT ONE comment. Now that is farcical!


I am not interested, really not interested, in going through the forms…4international is going to intervene in order to challenge these Fascist BDS types in Ireland and the 5000 friends of Sherman WERE NOT INTERESTED!!!