THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Sunday, November 25, 2012


In an article in National Review Online, the neoconservative Zionist propagandist Charles Krauthammer gave his summation of what he thought the recent confrontation between Hamas and Israel was all about. The Hasbara (propaganda) he uses is unusually very unsophisticated from a commentator who is held in so high esteem by his fellow neocons and Zionists, but is hardly surprising considering how desperate they have become after their failure to realise their war aims and the subsequent rise in stature of Hamas as an entity representing all Palestinians and not just those in the Gaza Strip.

Krauthammer begins his piece by reminding readers that;

Seven years ago, in front of the world, Israel pulled out of Gaza. It dismantled every settlement, withdrew every soldier, evacuated every Jew, leaving nothing and no one behind.

Krauthammer then claims that this left the Gaza Strip as an “independent Palestinian entity”. However, what Krauthammer deliberately ignores is the fact that Hamas does not regard the Gaza Strip as a separate Palestinian entity but rather simply a part of Palestine that has been cut off from the rest of Palestine by Israel while beyond the Gaza Strip lays the rest of Palestine which remains occupied by the Israelis and which Hamas and other Palestinians are continuing to fight for.

Krauthammer goes on to write;

Israel wanted nothing more than to live in peace with this independent Palestinian entity. After all, the world had incessantly demanded that Israel give up land for peace.

And adds;

It gave the land. It got no peace.

First off, of course, the land wasn’t Israel’s to give in the first place and, secondly, the so-called “independent Palestinian entity”, as Krauthammer earlier in his article concedes, was only unilaterally considered as such by the Israelis after the Israelis declared and defined its borders with the Gaza. Hamas had no say whatsoever in where the borders around the Gaza were to be.

After ‘giving the land’ back to them for what the Israelis hoped would be ‘peace’, Krauthammer writes;

The Gaza Palestinians did not reciprocate. They voted in Hamas, who then took over in a military putsch and turned their newly freed Palestine into an armed camp from which to war against Israel. It has been war ever since.

This is pure garbage – not to mention a blatant piece of deceit! Krauthammer is trying to infer that it was the Gazan Palestinians who voted in Hamas when, in fact, it was Palestinians from both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank who voted in Hamas. It was Israel and the US who rejected the legitimacy of Hamas’ win and who then attempted to use Fatah to overthrow Hamas from power in the Gaza Strip. If there was any ‘putsch’ at all, it was the attempt by Fatah with Israeli and US support to usurp the power of Hamas who had one it fairly and squarely in legitimate elections.

Krauthammer goes on to endorse the usual lie about who started the latest round of fighting by saying that Hamas had started it “with a barrage of about 150 rockets into Israel”, when in reality Israel had started it by breaking a truce when they murdered a Hamas leader on the street just as they had broken an earlier truce by assassinating two Palestinians riding a motorbike on 21 October 2012.

It’s good that someone like Krauthammer is reduced to writing such obvious trash if, for no other reason, it deprives the Zionists and their neocon supporters of all credibility.  


Anonymous said...

great article!

is that his real name?

charles kraut hammer?

c'mon what jew is named german hammer?

Anonymous said...


Thanks for these analyses' you forward here.
What about old Gillard in the news today getting bowled out by her back bence over the UN vote on the palestinians, an abstention I believe instead of voting no with the bloody yanks in support of bloody israel (as usual).
What are your thoughts on this matter?.

I think the public here are simply not on board the same ship as the pollies and the bloody yanks!.

hoo roo,

Nylon Shirt

Damian Lataan said...

G'day NS
Gillard was once quite Left wing but has now become a politician bowing to populism and the US. Fortunately, there are a few in the Labor Party - not many mind - that still hold on to a few humanitarian values causing the caucus to win the day at the risk of otherwise seeing support for Gillard's leadersship being cut from her and the possibility of a snap election if Carr and Gillard had decided to stick to their guns.

I think most people realise that the vote will go Palestine's way and that abstension is as good as a vote 'for' and was more about internal politics rather than anything else.

It's interesting to note that the politics and affairs of Palestine thousands of kilometers away had the potential to bring down the Australian government!