BETHLEHEM – Israeli forces have blocked the main entrances to a southern West Bank village since Saturday night, locals said, impeding villagers’ ability to travel freely.
Locals in the village of Beit Fajjar south of Bethlehem told Ma’an on Tuesday that Israeli forces had shut the roads in and out of the village by constructing large earth mounds on them.
Locals said that they were unsure of the reasons behind what they called the “collective punishment” of the village, highlighting that the Israeli authorities had cited security reasons without giving any explanation.
As a result of the closure, residents need to take bypass routes through the nearby al-Arrub refugee camp or Tuqu village. However, these routes are bumpy mountainous paths unqualified as roads.
The town has a population of about 15,000 many of whom leave every day to work outside. In addition, the town does not have a hospital or a major medical center, and so access to Bethlehem, about 10 kilometers to the north, is important for healthcare and emergencies.
The town is also known for stone factories and quarries, and the closure of the main road creates a serious problem for truck drivers who need to travel back and forth every day.
Furthermore, dozens of teachers who work at several public schools in the town come from other cities and village in Bethlehem district every day.
Zionism is a system that chafes against the world. With its idea of a chosen people and its privileged control of states and institutions, where one whisper behind the scenes can outweigh the voice of millions, it offends us as an injustice. That injustice continues day in and day out for all the world to see in Palestine as occupation soldiers arrest even small children and shoot young demonstrators with impunity, as settlers burn olive trees and go on rampages of theft and harassment, and as settlers and soldiers together increase their attacks on the sacred buildings and grounds of the al-Aqsa mosque.
The idea that nothing is sacred seems to be at the front of Zionist ideology. This may be the motive for the terror we associate with it. We are stupefied by the brazenness of the repeated attacks on Lebanon, the bombings of Gaza, the rocket assassinations of Palestinian leaders, bulldozer and tear gas rifle murders of solidarity activists, the massacre of humanitarian volunteers on the Mavi Marmara, home demolitions, the killing of Palestinians in their own streets and on their own farmland. Perhaps this is the point — brazenness inspires fear, and fear inspires obedience. They seem to think that if you can sufficiently shock your enemy and the rest of the world, you have control. For people in the US, 9/11 would be the paradigm of this. Zionist planners Michael Ledeen and Philip Zelikow have defined covert US foreign policy by promoting the ideas of “creative chaos” and the power of “the searing event,” respectively, to establish a “new world order.”
But fear is not effective in the long run. We may immediately see through the act that tried to impose it, or, when we have had time to think, instead of being mystified, we are disgusted. As they say, the truth comes out; lies are hard to maintain. In the end perhaps this is because some things have remained sacred — human dignity, the right to live, the right to have a place to live, the innocence of children, the beauty of nature — and we remember that. Our feeling for these things is of a spiritual nature, and can’t ultimately be taken away by the aggressive and predatory weapons used by those who have power in the world.
Zionism chafes because each of the several million people it has expelled remember that they had a home in Palestine, and they know that to have that home back is their right. It is a constant irritant to the Arab people who have not yet been forced out, each of whom have a story to tell of wrongs committed against them during the nightmare occupation. After 67 years of attack and dispossession, Zionism has built up a long list of souls who have been wrongly treated and who have not forgotten.
This is the context in which one might understand the case of a Palestinian activist named Amer Jubran. The facts of Amer’s life are comprised of a number of wrongs attributable to Zionism. His family was forced to leave the area of al-Khalil in Palestine before he was born. They went into exile in Jordan. Amer’s grandfather was shot by an Israeli soldier in Palestine and left to bleed to death in the middle of a road. His relatives who remained in Palestine live under occupation and undergo each day the harassment and mistreatment which we all know now are the Israelis’ method of making all the rest of the indigenous people leave. At college age Amer chose a second country of exile – the United States. He may not have known then but he soon learned that he had moved to a country which Zionism had made its principal host (in the biological sense). He brought the cause of Palestine with him. In 2000 he was arrested for protesting an “Israel Day” celebration in a wealthy suburb of Boston. A long court struggle followed, and he was found not guilty. He was arrested again in 2002 during the Ashcroft-inspired attack on all Arabs and Muslims in the US, which Ashcroft waged through immigration authorities. This arrest followed two days after a march for Palestinian rights in the streets of downtown Boston which Amer helped to organize, and which had wide support. But one person whispered, and the deed was done. Another long court struggle followed. In 2004, unable to stand up against the stacked deck which is the US judicial system, he was forced to leave the US and return to Jordan.
In Jordan Amer began working at his family’s business and started a family, but continued to raise the cause of Palestine. In 2006 he was beaten and arrested at a protest at the Zionist embassy in Amman. In 2010 he gave a lecture at the American University in Beirut and was under noticeable surveillance both leaving and returning to Amman. Just a few days ago, May 5, 2014 he was arrested at his home in Amman by the Jordanian secret police, the Mukhabarat, and has since been held in an unknown location with no charges and no representation by a lawyer. No one is able to reach him. His most recent arrest is due to his being a supporter of the resistance to the Zionist project in the entire region. Where Zionism is concerned, it is no different in Jordan than in the United States. Zionism is indeed a world movement. Politically motivated police and judicial harassment of critics of Zionism can be found on every continent.
It is amazing that so many power structures in so many parts of the world have been so thoroughly invaded that a relatively few people could steal the relatively small piece of land which is historic Palestine. But there it is. And there is the constant irritation which this theft has brought about in the world. The irritation will not go away until the injustice is addressed. It will chafe and spring up in odd places forever until the truth is able to come out.
About 400 elite mercenaries from the notorious US private security firm Academi (formerly Blackwater) are taking part in the Ukrainian military operation against anti-government protesters in southeastern regions of the country, German media reports.
The Bild am Sonntag newspaper, citing a source in intelligence circles, wrote Sunday that Academi employees are involved in the Kiev military crackdown on pro-autonomy activists near the town of Slavyansk, in the Donetsk region.
On April 29, German Intelligence Service (BND) informed Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government about the mercenaries’ participation in the operation, the paper said, RIA Novosti reported. It is not clear who commands the private military contractors and pays for their services, however.
In March, media reports appeared suggesting that the coup-imposed government in Kiev could have employed up to 300 mercenaries. That was before the new government launched a military operation against anti-Maidan activists, or “terrorists” as Kiev put it, in southeast Ukraine.
At the time, the Russian Foreign Ministry said then that reports claiming Kiev was planning to “involve staff from foreign military companies to ‘ensure the rule of law,” could suggest that it wanted “to suppress civil protests and dissatisfaction.”
In particular, Greystone Limited, which is currently registered in Barbados and is a part of Academi Corporation, is a candidate for such a gendarme role. It is a similar and probably an affiliated structure of the Blackwater private army, whose staff have been accused of cruel and systematic violations of human rights in various trouble spots on many occasions.
“Among the candidates for the role of gendarme is the Barbados-registered company Greystone Limited, which is integrated with the Academi corporation,” the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. “It is an analogue, and, probably and affiliated body of the Blackwater private army, whose employees have repeatedly been accused of committing grievous and systematic human rights abuses in different troubled regions.”
Allegations increased further after unverified videos appeared on YouTube of unidentified armed men in the streets of Donetsk, the capital of the country’s industrial and coal mining region. In those videos, onlookers can be heard shouting “Mercenaries!”“Blackwater!,” and “Who are you going to shoot at?”
Academi denied its involvement in Ukraine, claiming on its website that “rumors” were posted by “some irresponsible bloggers and online reporters.”
“Such unfounded statements combined with the lack of factual reporting to support them and the lack of context about the company, are nothing more than sensationalistic efforts to create hysteria and headlines in times of genuine crisis,” the US firm stated.
The American security company Blackwater gained worldwide notoriety for the substantial role it played in the Iraq war as a contractor for the US government. In recent years it has changed its name twice – in 2009 it was renamed Xe Services and in 2011 it got its current name, Academi.
The firm became infamous for the alleged September 16, 2007 killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad. The attack, which saw 20 others wounded, was allegedly without justification and in violation of deadly-force rules that pertained to American security contractors in Iraq at the time. Between 2005 and September 2007, Blackwater security guards were involved in at least 195 shooting incidents in Iraq and fired first in 163 of those cases, a Congressional report said at the time.
The message is simple: DON’T EVER VOTE FOR A FRIEND OF ISRAEL.
Please distribute this video as widely as possible. It is one of the few chances that the Un-chosen People have of fighting back.
But be careful who you ask for advice. If I were a Friend of Israel (perish the thought) I would try to infiltrate as many anti-Israel organisations that I could, including websites that purported to be pro-Palestinian.
Remember Mossad’s motto: “By way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War.”
The BBC/Panorama programme Death in the Med. It is best to search the web for a version that can be watched where you are.
BBC Bias: The Gaza Freedom Flotilla (Anthony Lawson) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afBr10…
In the context of a Canadian popular imagination still permeated by myths about heroic voyageurs, intrepid Mounties, and an inexorable yet ostensibly “peaceful” and “lawful” acquisition of other peoples’ lands, James Daschuk’s Clearing the Plains is a vital intervention. Described by historian Elizabeth A. Fenn as a “tour de force that dismantles and destroys the view that Canada has a special claim to humanity in its treatment of Indigenous peoples,” Daschuk’s study of Indigenous health and disease on the Canadian Prairies draws on decades of research to recount Canada’s policies of forced starvation and ethnic cleansing. More broadly, it’s a good introduction to the history of Canadian expansion into the northwest and the nature and evolution of Canadian Indian policy in the 19th century.
Research for Clearing the Plains began some 20 years ago as part of Daschuk’s doctoral program in history at the University of Manitoba under the supervision of D.N. Sprague. Sprague was himself a scholar of Canadian and Métis history, perhaps best known for his lengthy feud with Tom Flanagan over interpretations about Louis Riel, presumptions of government “benevolence,” and the causes of Métis dispossession in the Red River valley. Like Sprague’s own work, Canada and the Métis (1988), Clearing the Plains finds little evidence of Dominion “benevolence” in its annexation of the Canadian northwest or in its post-Confederation dealings with First Nations.
However, Daschuk’s is also a work of environmental and epidemiological history. As such, he argues that human agency, greed, and colonial power are “only half of the story.” In his view, the field of biology is equally important to understanding Indigenous history, not just in present-day Canada but also throughout the hemisphere. Much of what follows is an attempt to strike a balance between these two sides of causation, with Daschuk see-sawing between a portrait of epidemic disease as an inexorable, objective, even organic force, and a counter-portrait that emphasizes the social determinants and policy-induced nature of compromised immunity, disease outbreaks, and death.
The historical scope of Clearing the Plains is sweeping. The book opens with an assessment of pre-European health and well-being on the northern Great Plains, then concentrates on the impact of the fur trade era and nascent European settlement, and ends with the post-Confederation treaty era and the “nadir of indigenous health” in the wake of the Northwest Resistance of 1885. Throughout the book, Daschuk emphasizes the relationships between Indigenous health, outbreaks of epidemic diseases, and environmental factors, as well as settlement expansion, settler ideology, and most crucially, Indian policy. In this regard, Clearing the Plains joins a growing body of historical work examining the social determinants of health and, in particular, the relationship between Indigenous health and Canadian policy.
Overall, Daschuk’s book is important less for unearthing new and surprising historical facts than for expanding upon, reinterpreting, and publicizing them. For example, one of the central theses of Clearing the Plains is that famine was a deliberate policy weapon used to coerce “unco-operative Indians” onto reserves and remove them from lands coveted by white settlers. This isn’t a revelation for anyone familiar with existing scholarship. In his influential 1983 article, “Canada’s Subjugation of the Plains Cree,” John Tobias persuasively demonstrated that starvation was a weapon used to impose the reservation system, bring “recalcitrant” leaders such as Big Bear to heel, and force the Cree to capitulate to treaty terms. Clearing the Plains not only expands on such themes, bringing to light further evidence and examples, but its publication has made them accessible to a much wider public.
Daschuk’s interpretive framework sheds the congratulatory and smug self-image that still dominates in much Canadian historical writing. He is unafraid, for example, to label the settler-colonial process in southern Saskatchewan “ethnic cleansing,” and elsewhere he has described the foundation of modern Canada as resting upon the twin truths of “ethnic cleansing and genocide.” Those wanting a crash course in Prairie colonial history would do well to read Daschuk’s book alongside Sarah Carter’s Aboriginal People and Colonizers of Western Canada to 1900 (University of Toronto Press, 1999). Both books are carefully empirical but rooted in a deep commitment to social justice. Together, they serve as excellent points of departure for further research into colonial policy in the Canadian Prairie provinces.
Paul Burrows is a Winnipeg-based writer, researcher, and parent. A lifelong activist, he co-founded the Winnipeg A-Zone (Emma Goldman Building) in 1995 and is currently finishing a PhD in history related to Treaty 1 Territory and settler-colonialism.
The village of Novoaydar in the Lugansk region is being attacked by Ukrainian troops, according to the local self-defense leader.
“Around 15 APCs have come near Novoaydar,” Aleksey Chmilenko said. “Our self-defense guards are trying to stop the attack and prevent the vehicles moving farther in the direction of Lugansk.”
Meanwhile, representatives of another Lugansk region self-defense group, based in Krasny Luch, told RT that they have seen APCs in the region, but have not heard any fighting yet.
Reports of sightings of Ukrainian APCs in various towns and villages in the Lugansk region have been coming in throughout the day. One report said that as many as 45 APCs were moving from the Kharkov region in the direction of Lugansk.
Novoaydar election commission was reportedly evacuated by self-defense activists, after it had been attacked by National Guard troops.
Earlier in the day, shooting and artillery fire was heard on the outskirts of Slavyansk, in southeast Ukraine’s Donetsk region, RIA Novosti reported, citing its correspondent in the area.
There have also been reports of a military operation going on in the town of Krasny Liman, Donetsk region. Those emerged after communication was lost with two territorial self-determination referendum committees there, according to the head of the Central Election Commission of the self-proclaimed “Donetsk People’s Republic,” Roman Lyagin.
On Sunday, Donetsk and Lugansk regions opened polling stations for a referendum seeking autonomy from the central government. Local self-defense forces boosted security, fearing that Kiev could stage provocations to disrupt the self-determination vote.
Voting in four towns across Lugansk region has been disrupted, as military vehicles block passage to polling stations, representatives of referendum coordination council told Interfax.
“In four districts – Belokurakinsky, Svatovsky, Troitsky and Melovsky – APCs of the Ukrainian National Guard do not let residents pass to the referendum polling stations,” the sources said.
In total, two helicopters, 10 APCs and 100 National Guard troops are currently engaged in attempts at disrupting the referendum in the Lugansk region, according to deputy head of the Krasnoluchsky district referendum commission, Elena Khryapina. She says that turn-out is high despite the tense situation.
Meanwhile, the acting head of Ukraine’s presidential administration, Sergey Pashinsky, said Kiev’s military operation in the Donetsk region towns of Krasny Liman, Slavyansk and Kramatorsk was in its its final stage, adding that “a lot of separatists have been eliminated during the operation.” He would not provide any figures though.
The referendum is in full swing in Ukraine’s Donetsk and Lugansk regions, seeking independence from the central government. Local self-defense forces boosted security, fearing that Kiev could stage provocations to disrupt the self-determination vote.
Turnout at the referendum is exceptionally high, the head of the Central Election Commission of the self-proclaimed “Donetsk People’s Republic,” Roman Lyagin, told Interfax.
“The turnout is not just high, it’s off the charts,” Lyagin said. “People are queuing up at polling stations, and election commissions are working at full capacity.”
In Lugansk, 22 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots two hours after the polls opened, a leader of the city’s self-defense forces, Vasily Nikitin, told RIA Novosti.
In Mariupol, recovering from Friday’s deadly clashes, only eight polling stations have been opened, according to the coordinator of the central election commission of the “Donetsk People’s Republic”, Boris Litvinov. Those willing to vote have to wait for their turn in huge queues.
Almost simultaneously with the opening of polling stations, sounds of shooting and artillery fire were heard on the outskirts of Slavyansk, in southeast Ukraine’s Donetsk region, RIA Novosti reported, citing its correspondent in the area.
Slavyansk already witnessed mortar shelling of its outskirts by Ukrainian forces on the eve of the referendum. In the embattled city the stations will close at 15:00 GMT for security reasons.
Some 1,471 polling stations in Lugansk region and around 1,500 in Donetsk region opened their doors for voters at 8:00 local time (5:00 GMT) and will close at 22:00 (19:00 GMT). Security has been tightened around them.
“We sent additional self-defense units to polling stations and also to the most important social institutions,” a Lugansk self-defense leader, Aleksey Chmilenko, told Interfax. “So far everything is normal, there are no incidents.”
RT’s Paula Slier, currently in Donetsk, reports that Roman Lyagin, chair of the central election commission in the region, believes that a provocation has been planned and says that anti-government activists are ready for it.
An attempt at provocation was registered in Lugansk, where a group of people tried to take away ballot papers from voters, a representative of the city’s self-defense forces, Vasily Nikitin, told RIA Novosti. He said the attempt to disrupt voting was foiled and the incident is being investigated.
Citizens of the two southeastern regions of Ukraine are being asked if they “support the Act of state self-rule” of Donetsk People’s Republic or Lugansk People’s Republic. The election commission officials explained that the people are not choosing between staying within Ukraine and joining Russia, as widely reported, but instead are asked to support regions’ right for political self-determination.
Over 3 million ballot papers were printed for Donetsk region. All in all, the organizers spent about 20,000 hryvnas preparing for the vote in Ukraine’s industrial region, the heart of the country’s coal-mining. “The referendum will be considered valid whatever voter turnout will be,” Roman Lyagin, the head Donetsk election commission told reporters on Saturday.
In Donetsk, western observers are not present at the polling stations, commission officials said, as nobody expressed willingness to oversee the vote in the turbulent region. “We did not refuse anyone, there were no applications,” Lyagin said, adding though that over 470 international journalists are accredited in Donetsk.
Some 30 international observers are monitoring the voting in Lugansk region, where some 1.8 million are expected to take part in the referendum. “According to a survey, 83% of Lugansk residents are ready to support the Act of state self-rule of the People’s Republic of Lugansk,” said Igor Shakhov, the head of the local election commission.
Security measures have been increased on the day of the historic vote with self-defense units in both regions preparing to thwart any attempt by Kiev’s military and paramilitary forces to disrupt the vote and prevent provocations by radicals at the polling stations.
The referendums, announced back in March, are going ahead as planned despite Russian President Putin’s call on pro-federalization activists to postpone them due to the deteriorating and unpredictable security situation in Ukraine.
The Kiev government as well as many western countries, including the US, France and Germany are calling the referendums “illegal” and urge dialogue between all conflicting parties in Ukraine, at the same time showing no readiness to stop the punitive military operation in the east of the country.
If a majority of voters answer “yes” on Sunday the regions will gain full moral right to officially state they do not accept what is happening in the country, anti-coup protesters say. The combined population of Donetsk and Lugansk industrial regions, rejecting the legitimacy of the coup-installed Kiev authorities, stands at about 6.7 million in a country of 45 million.
A solemn ceremony was held in Rwanda last month to mark the 20thanniversary of the mass killings in that country in 1994. Corporate media from the United States and the rest of the world covered the event in some depth, underscoring the horrible deaths of hundreds of thousands killed by the state and Hutu civilians. Dignitaries and politicians from around the world, including several from the United States, attended a commemorative event that included an emotional reenactment of the bloodletting.
Entirely uncommented on was the sickening spectacle of Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame overseeing the event. Kagame, a long-time servant of US business interests and a mass killer in his own right, set in motion fighting that culminated in the terrible events of 1994 by invading Rwanda from neighboring Uganda in 1990. A Tutsi, Kagame was one of the elite class that went into exile rather than live under a government of the majority Hutus. Information published by a wide spectrum of researchers, most notably from the United Nations, has determined that Kagame’s Rwandan Patriotic Front killed tens of thousands of people from 1990-94 and several hundred thousand more during the period that has become known as the Rwandan Genocide. Because Kagame is supported by the United States, however, those crimes have been buried with the dead and no public ceremony has been held in the last 24 years to honor those killed by the RPF.
Kagame’s goal from the outset of his 1990 invasion was the overthrow of the government of Rwanda, and he continually violated ceasefire agreements to that end. In fact, it was the shooting down in April 1994 of a plane on which Rwandan dictator Juvenal Habyarimana was a passenger, with a preponderance of the evidence pointing to the RPF as the responsible party, that set in motion the 100 days of mass killings. Habyarimana was killed, as was fellow passenger Cyprien Ntaryamira, the president of Burundi, and ten others.
Much has been made since of the Clinton administration and the international community’s failure to act. In reality, the US was proactive in preventing the UN and anyone else from taking measures that might have prevented much of the killing. Former United Nations Secretary General Boutros Boutros Gali, for one, has put the entire blame for what happened in Rwanda in the 1990’s on the United States. And even though Kagame continues to claim, as he did in 1994, that his Tutsi ethnic group was targeted in a pre-planned act of the Rwandan government, he also successfully opposed international efforts that might have curtailed the bloodshed. Further puncturing Kagame’s claims is the fact that Rwanda and France, its primary international ally, supported international action to stop the killing. We can only surmise that the mass killing of Kagame’s fellow Tutsis was acceptable to him and the US so long as the end result was his complete victory in the fighting and ascension to power. In addition, it’s been well-documented that many of the Tutsis killed were killed not by Hutus or the Rwandan government but by Kagame’s forces because Kagame considered fellow Tutsis who had remained in Rwanda as untrustworthy or collaborators.
Researchers Christian Davenport and Allan Stam are among those who have investigated the events of 1994. Under the auspices of USAID’s International Criminal Tribune for Rwanda, Davenport and Stam, like many investigators from the West, began their project assuming that the Rwandan government and rampaging Hutu civilians were responsible for virtually all of the killing. As their investigation progressed, however, they discovered more and more evidence indicating the RPF was also responsible for a great deal of killing. When, during their investigation, they presented some of that evidence to a meeting that included high-ranking members of Kagame’s government and military, some in the audience became enraged and one military man cut off their presentation and ordered Davenport and Stam removed by force. Kagame subsequently barred them from ever returning to Rwanda. (see http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/what-really-happened-in-rwanda-3432/
More instructive for how the US was determined to spin the story of exclusive Hutu responsibility and Kagame as the savior of the day was USAID’s termination of Davenport and Stam’s research project and refusal to publish or in any way make known their findings. UN investigations that produced similar results were likewise suppressed by the United States. As with the wars that ravaged Yugoslavia in the 1990’s and their aftermath, to cite just one concurrent example, the West and the US in particular were determined that no findings that reflected the responsibility of anyone but the designated bad guys would see the light of day. In both instances, mass killings and other crimes committed by US clients Kagame, Franjo Tudjman of Croatia, Alija Izetbgovic and Atif Dudakovic of Bosnia, the Kosovo Liberation Army and the United States itself were whitewashed. Crucial to the Rwandan story is the lie that April 1994 marks the beginning of the terrible events, as if Kagame’s 1990 invasion and the intervening deaths of many thousands never happened.
For its part, the US was looking to supplant France, its chief imperial rival in Central Africa, and increase corporate investment in the area, especially in the bordering Congo, one of the world’s most resource-rich nations. To that end, Kagame twice invaded the Congo not long after taking over Rwanda, launching what Edward Herman has described as his second act of genocide. As with the invasion of Rwanda, the invasions of the Congo came with crucial US military training, armaments and diplomatic support.
Western plunder of the Congo dates to the 19th century and the murderous rule of Belgian King Leopold II, whose insatiable lust for wealth was responsible for the deaths of up to 15 million Congolese. Revolutionary forces finally achieved independence in 1960 but it took Congolese reactionaries and their Belgian and CIA helpers all of three months to overthrow and eventually murder Patrice Lumumba, the nation’s first elected Prime Minister. When US puppet Mobutu Sese Soko was put in power, all semblance of independence vanished as Western investors once again took control, and they made Mobutu a multibillionaire for his efforts on their behalf. By the time Kagame invaded the Congo the first time, Mobutu had fallen out of favor. His dictatorial ways had become an international embarrassment, plus the US didn’t like that he was keeping too much of the swag for himself. In addition, they had Kagame who, in his eagerness to be the US’s new client, was as pliant as Mobutu had ever been.
US support of Kagame’s invasions of the Congo has proven a remarkable success, as his wars of terror paved the way to a massive increase in American investments (and profits) in copper, cobalt, coltan and diamonds. During that time, the number of Congolese who have been killed in the fighting or died because of starvation, disease and other causes traced directly to Kagame’s invasions is perhaps ten times as many as died during the Rwandan Genocide, and the dying goes on and on right up to this moment. Yet Kagame has been hailed again and again by Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, George Bush II, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and other flacks for US imperialism as a hero and “the man who ended the Rwandan Genocide.”
The ruling class and their media stenographers have brought us through the looking class big-time: war is peace, lies are truth, and genocidists are liberators. They cannot entirely erase the truth, however, and information about what really happened in Rwanda as documented by Davenport, Stam and many others has become available. Kagame, meanwhile, is hard at work sending hit squads around the world to assassinate exiled opponents of his regime, his job of laying the groundwork for increased US corporate plunder done, and done very well. That is why he was allowed to oversee last month’s ceremony and why virtually nothing was said in the mainstream about those who died by his hand to make Central Africa safe for US imperialism. It will be up to those who live in a future world free of Empire to honor them in the manner they deserve.
Andy Piascik, a long-time activist and award-winning author, can be reached at andypiascik@yahoo.com
A California school district has come under fire from Zionist groups for giving students an assignment asking them to examine both sides of the “holocaust” story, draw their own conclusions based on the documentation provided as well as their own research and then write an essay about it.
The Rialto Unified School District near Los Angeles gave out the 18-page assignment to eighth grade students to encourage critical thinking, but the Zionists have unleashed their fury upon the school district’s administrators for daring to allow any debate on the sacred Shoah. Only one side of the holocaust story will be allowed to enter into the curriculum of learning institutions, says the Zionists.
The assignment’s introduction explained: “When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence. For example, some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual historical event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.” The assignment then instructs students to “read and discuss multiple, credible articles on this issue, and write an argumentative essay, based upon cited textual evidence, in which you explain whether or not you believe the Holocaust was an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain wealth.”
According to the Zionist self-appointed arbiters of all historical truth, there is no “debate” about the realities of the holocaust because it is an event etched in stone that cannot be altered even slightly. This dogmatic approach to learning about history flies in the face of basic principles of logic, discernment and academic freedom.
The sycophantic dolt Chris Matthews addressed the controversy on his boring MSNBC show “Hardball,” bringing on a spokesman of the Zionist Simon Wiesenthal Center to feign outrage about the “monstrosity” of allowing students to decide for themselves what really happened in Germany’s concentration camps during the Second World War.
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, the Simon Wiesenthal Center mouthpiece, told Matthews that the assignment “elevated hate with historic fact.” What one might discern from the rabbi’s incoherent statement is that historical facts are “hateful” in nature and even though they are true should be discarded or suppressed to avoid upsetting Jewish sensibilities.
Rabbi Cooper went on to assure MSNBC’s viewership that all of the eighth graders of the school district in question would be brow beaten into accepting the Zionist version of WW2. All 2,200 eighth grade students of Rialto, said the rabbi, will be forced to attend the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s “Museum of Tolerance” to get a good dousing of “holocaust” propaganda sure to pacify any doubts that they may have gleaned from the assignment.
What the students won’t be told is that the “Museum of Tolerance” was caught peddling an out-and-out hoax in the 1990s. Revisionist researcher David Cole recently exposed how the museum had set up a display purporting to showcase the function of the dubious “gas vans” that Zionists claim were used by the Germans to kill Jews in Eastern Europe during the war.
A looped video was presented to impressionable and gullible observers showing a re-enactment of the alleged killing procedure of the mystical “gas vans.” In a video published on YouTube, Cole explains that the museum’s video display claimed to be a selected segment from a “documentary” but was actually lifted from a 1962 fictional Polish film called “The Ambulance,” directed by Janusz Morgenstern.
On the MSNBC show, Rabbi Cooper suggests that there are only two types of people who would doubt the holocaust: 1) people who would like a chance to “finish the job,” and 2) “sophisticated bigots” who are more comfortable not having to deal with the reality of what happened.
Irrespective of Cooper’s delusions, the fact is that most holocaust skeptics are normal citizens who have decided to approach the subject from a scientific standpoint, not an emotional or ideological one. Chemists and experts like Germar Rudolf and Fred Leuchter did not begin their inquiries into the gas chamber claims with preconceived judgments or notions — they went into their investigations believing fully the official stories about mass gassings. After extensively observing the facilities claimed to be the gas chambers, these two qualified analysts came out as disbelievers.
Pointing out that in 1990 the Auschwitz State Museum reduced the death total there from 4 to 1 million, and that the real death total at that camp is probably still much lower than the latter figure, is not an “anti-Semitic” gesture, it is an honest one. Likewise, observing that the Majdanek and Mauthausen camps that were once said by establishment sources to harbour the remains of 3.5 million murdered Jews but are now said to be the resting places of less than 100,000 Jews, is not an act of malice but one of accuracy.
Delineating that the wartime atrocity stories of “human soap” and “skin lampshades” supposedly manufactured from Jewish corpses are patently false is not “elevating hate,” it is actually decreasing hate against the German people.
Emphasizing the discernable pattern of Zionist propaganda dating back to the late 1800s showing the repetitive dissemination of Jewish persecution stories, oftentimes invoking the mystical “six million” number, is not an exercise in “racism” but rather empirical observation.
The cartoonish “evil Nazi” archetype was created by the winners of WW2 in order to facilitate the cover up of massive Allied war crimes and to accelerate the Zionist agenda to invade and colonize Palestine under a facade of victimhood. Nazi Germany was no more evil than the Allied powers, no more racist than Britain or America or Zionist Jews themselves, and no more murderous than the countries that won that war and the nation born out of that war: Zionist Israel.
Someone wise once said that the truth is the first victim of war. Governments keen to justify their actions in a time of conflict and conflagration will stoop to any level of deceit and use every underhanded trick in the book to malign their adversaries.
Governments tell falsehoods with impunity when the people fail to think critically about what they are being told and the agenda that may lie behind it.
If we are to ever fully be free, we must cast aside the myths of the past that are currently being used to mentally enslave the masses of the present.
Santa Elena de Uairen – A Human Rights bill proposed by Florida Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, which includes sanctions on the Venezuelan government, cleared its first legislative hurdle this morning after passing the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Individual Sanctions
The bill, known as the Venezuelan Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, will sanction individuals responsible for “serious human rights abuses” against those participating in the anti-government protests that have received widespread media attention since February. It also includes those individuals who have supported those acts, whether financially or otherwise, and those officials who called for the arrest of those “legitimately exercising their freedom of expression and assembly.”
The most recent draft presented to the Committee listed asset blocking and inadmissibility to the US as types of individual sanctions. It also included the possibility of a presidential waiver of the application of sanctions, if the U.S. president should consider national security interests call for it, or conditions in Venezuela have improved.
Democracy Promotion
Section 7 of the bill outlines a “Comprehensive Strategy to Promote Internet Freedom and Access to Information,” including the expansion of activities to “train HR, civil society, and democracy activists” and the expansion of proxy servers for said activists, as well as access to “uncensored news sources.”
Section 8 asks that US Secretary of State, John Kerry, submit a “comprehensive strategy outlining how the US is supporting the citizens of Venezuela” in seeking basic civil liberties, development of an independent civil society, and free and transparent elections.
Section 9 offers refugee status or political asylum in the US to Venezuelan political dissidents if requested, and a direct effort on behalf of the US state department to identify cases of “prisoners of conscience and HR abuses in Venezuela.”
The bill ends with Section 10, the Authorization of Appropriations for Assistance to Support Civil Society in Venezuela, which pledges a minimum of $5 million through USAID, and finally, a Sunset Clause of two years after the date of enactment of the legislation.
Response
Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro has accused possible sanctions of being “encouragement to extremist groups,” those protestors who he believes have sparked violence in their widespread call for regime change. Members of the Venezuelan opposition coalition, the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), have also expressed their misgivings at the prospect of sanctions.
This morning Roberta Jacobson, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, heard testimonies from Venezuelan opposition representatives regarding the alleged use of extreme force on behalf of Venezuelan security forces. She admitted to hearing a “diversity of opinions,” from “different oppositional factions” but that the majority asked that the U.S. not impose sanctions “yet.”
“They have asked us not to introduce sanctions at this time,” Jacobson said.
A caravan of Venezuelans, residents of South Florida, traveled to Washington D.C. yesterday to show support for the bill.
Only two committee representatives, Gregory Meeks and Karen Bass, voted against the bill this morning. In recent weeks, many Latin American leaders have expressed their distaste for the possibility of US interference in Venezuela.
Uruguayan president Pepe Mujica said, “When the entire world asks the U.S. to shelve its economic blockade policy against Cuba, voices emerge from within that government threatening sanctions against Venezuela. Are the lessons of history never learned? (…) the first thing that Venezuela and all of Latin America need is to be respected.”
Many sources believe the bill will reach the House floor the week of May 12th, and will likely be approved with little resistance. A number of organizations, including the Alliance for Global Justice, have organized petitions in attempts to prevent this from taking place.
Santa Elena de Uairen – In the early hours of Thursday morning, Jorge Tovar, 24, a Venezuelan national police officer was shot dead in the neck by a sniper, according to official sources. The shooting occurred as police attempted to clear an encampment that blocked traffic set up by hardline anti-government protestors, or guarimberos, in the upperclass neighborhood of Los Palos Grandes, in eastern Caracas.
Injuries were sustained on both sides as protestors clashed with security forces. Two other police officers suffered bullet wounds, albeit nonfatal, allegedly by the same sniper. Justice Minister Miguel Rodriguez Torres reported that police have evidence of where the shots were fired shot from, but the shooter’s identity remains unknown, while a full investigation is being launched.
The police and national guard had organized that morning with the intention of clearing out the four remaining barricades in the Eastern area of Caracas.
Minister Torres said it was imperative these four guarimba camps be eliminated, “given the evidence that it was from these places that the most violent terrorist acts were committed: the torching of Metro trains and police vehicles, confrontations with molotovs and weapons against security forces.”
Some 243 barricaders were apprehended for questioning, although 12 were released hours later due to their juvenile status. A variety of weapons, including guns and homemade bombs, as well as illegal drugs, were found among protestors.
Among the arrested was a young man responsible for the burning of a National Guard vehicle, according to Rodriguez.
Later that day, near the scene of Tovar’s death, more hardline protestors attacked the Public Fund for Micro Finance Development (Fondemi) with explosives and stones.
Yesterday Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro pledged a medal of bravery to the bus driver, Jonathon Jimenez, whose bus was assaulted by protestors wielding molotov cocktails last week. Jimenez still remains in the hospital with severe burns.
“Can it be called protest to throw a molotov at a worker? That’s something we should reflect on,” said Maduro yesterday afternoon.
Another worker, Victor Yajure, of the United Socialist Party (PSUV), was kidnapped by unknown assailants in front of his home in Iribarren, Lara state. According to those who reported the crime, Yajure was previously aware of a plot designed by anti-government student protestors to frame him for arson of the local university.
Colleagues of Yajure are convinced the kidnapping had political motives, and condemn oppositional governor Henry Falcon of “abetting violent acts” by permitting the protestors to “control the area” for three months, under the alleged protection of local police.
At first glance, he appears like a model of high-caliber, professional journalism. The German reporter heads to the Syrian city of Aleppo, the scene of fierce battles between the two sides of the conflict, documenting everything with photos and videos on his way. Thirty seconds into his televised report, the reporter, who is wearing an ordinary jacket, says, “It’s better to wear an additional ordinary jacket over the bulletproof vest to conceal the press label. We are told the soldiers on the other side take pleasure in shooting journalists.”
Thus, the reporter showed his political, journalistic, and moral bias to one side at the outset, as he alluded to an unverifiable “fact” and a psychological state among the other side that cannot be measured, that is “taking pleasure in shooting journalists.” In truth, this is a common mistake that goes against the principles that Western journalism schools teach their students, including that professional journalists should not be biased in favor of any cause, no matter how “just” it may be. This mistake has marked nearly all Western media coverage of the Syrian crisis for at least two years, and only in the third year of the conflict did this begin to change somewhat.
The German reporter then made his second mistake when he said, “The rebels will escort us today to the battlefronts.” But he forgot to say that the “rebels” had not only escorted him to the front, as he claimed, but had been escorting him since he entered Syria and would escort him until he leaves. The reporter was therefore under the influence of those fighters, to whom he was indebted for protecting him. We can even apply the label “embedded journalist” to his case, bearing in mind that embedded journalism, apart from all the fundamental objections against it, has become a necessity in covering certain complex conflicts. Let us also bear in mind that the journalists accompanying the Syrian army can be said to be embedded too. But journalists who meet all the requirements of being embedded, for all intents and purposes, must disclose this fact.
The German reporter then made a third mistake, by not attributing information to sources; he said, “The victims are mainly civilians who were killed in Syrian army airstrikes or shelling, or after being captured by regime forces.” But he failed to mention that this information came from rebel sources. This is not to doubt the validity of the information, but information should be sourced properly in the interest of accuracy and for the sake of a history that will one day be written based on the archives of the press and the media.
It would be easy to accuse the Western reporter mentioned above of being part of a global media war on the Syrian regime. But – away from accusations and speculations – how can serious professional errors in a report by a supposedly professional reporter working for a reputable media outlet be explained? How and why do such errors take place, and what are the political and non-political climates that facilitate these slips?
In the following paragraphs, we will attempt to answer these questions by applying the ideas of Systems Theory, which holds that everything consists of systems, and that analysis should address systems as a whole not just their individual parts. According to this theory, separate analyses of journalists, recipients, or the press are incomplete. The press – including reporters, recipients, and mediums – is a system consisting of smaller standalone systems, such as the newsroom for example. But this system is not isolated from other complex systems, such as the economy, politics, culture, ideology, and religion, not to mention the linguistic and technical systems, and other systems. Together, these form a larger system, which in turn is part of even larger systems.
So beyond the person and biases of the individual journalists, their often-vague understanding of their role, and editorial or public opinion pressures on them – all possible causes for errors – there is another hidden source for blunders that cannot be determined without analyzing the systems that prevail in a given moment. This can be clarified in the context of the German reporter in Syria, by changing some variable related to the “system” surrounding him.
Let us imagine the same correspondent was escorted by a group of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan in the same manner, instead of Syrian fighters in Aleppo, and that the German reporter relayed their ideas, statements, and sentiments. It’s hard to imagine this happening, but why? What is the difference between Afghanistan and Syria? Should professional journalism not maintain a professional distance from the issues it covers, with standards that apply regardless of the place and the affiliations of the reporters? The answer is yes on the surface, but not if we adopt the approach of Systems Theory.
Journalists, applying this theory, regardless of how professional they may or may not be, are part of a system; they are not extraterrestrial beings completely detached from the world. If these journalists are producers of information, opinions, and sentiments, then they are also their recipients. In order for a German reporter to propose escorting a group of Taliban fighters to the editorial board in his or her institution, he or she would have had to spent the period between 2000 and 2014 in hibernation, not hearing about the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, or the subsequent war on terror that brought German soldiers all the way to Afghanistan. In other words, the reporter would have to be detached from political, ideological, and historical systems to which he or she belongs, and which define the Taliban as an enemy, and the invasion of Afghanistan as an operation to promote democracy.
The two cases of Afghanistan and Syria appear different on the surface, but they are not in the standards of Systems Theory. The prevailing political and ideological – and by extension, journalistic – system in the West put forward definitions and shaped attitudes at a very early stage in both Afghanistan and Syria, bearing in mind that the media is not only a system that can be influenced, but is also a system that can equally influence other systems. In the fall of 2001, then-German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said that the attacks on New York and Washington were an assault on civilization. In the summer of 2011, French President Francois Hollande said that Assad should step down, repeating the same mantra spoken by other Western leaders that Assad was a ruler killing his own people. In between the two events, the Western cultural system concluded that the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean were witnessing an “Arab Spring,” seeking to achieve democracy and promote human rights.
The Western media absorbed all this information and then recycled it. The validity or invalidity of the narrative above is not important in the context of Systems Theory, because the latter belongs to a critical-analytical approach that does not recognize the existence of reality or fact to begin with, as much as it addresses the perceptions of this supposed reality, its representations in the consciousness of observers, and its influence, consequently, on their direct and indirect behavior at a given moment.
Therefore, Western reporters cannot accept to be escorted by a group of Taliban fighters. By the same token, according to the systems influencing their attitudes and work, they cannot accept to escort “our valiant soldiers,” as the opposing political and ideological System designates the soldiers of the Syrian regime army. This army, after all, according to the prevailing system in the West, is the army of the “dictator Assad,” and those fighting it are “revolutionaries” or “rebels.”
Let us assume the following scenario: a Western reporter overcomes the prevailing systems and succeeds in convincing the editorial board at his or her institution of allowing him or her to escort a unit of the Syrian army in combat. The Syrian army command, which does not know the features of the reporter’s System, agrees. The reporter then returns safely from his or her trip, with a full report. (For the sake of political balance, we can similarly imagine a scenario where a Syrian state television reporter escorts a group of Free Syrian Army fighters). How professional would the report of the Western journalist in question be?
Most likely, the report will stick to the letter to the rules of professional journalism. Opinions will be separated from facts, and facts will be properly sourced, with full disclosure about the circumstances of being embedded with a Syrian army unit. It is unlikely that the reporter would conjecture about what goes on in the head of unseen fighters from the other side, such as that “they take pleasure in shooting journalists,” or to endorse wholesale claims made by Syrian soldiers about the “civilian victims of terrorist gangs.”
In conclusion, we have to say in the context of answering the original question of the article about the source of journalistic blunders and professional slips, away from the political characterization of all of the above, that reporters in general tend to pursue accuracy and a cautious approach, and a higher degree of professionalism, whenever they feel they are “swimming against the current.” By contrast, reporters who feel they are swimming in “friendly waters,” culturally, politically, and ideologically speaking, like the German reporter mentioned in the beginning, will tend to make more blunders as long as their work will be accepted in advance by the editorial System first, and the prevailing cultural system second, and then the political and ideological Systems at higher levels.
We must also note – away from the behavior of a journalist and the quality of his or her work – another no less important result: Influencing the press in today’s world no longer involves simple methods as was the case in the previous century. Rather, this plays out in other places and through systems that, at first glance, appear far removed from the media, before the influence slowly reaches the media that believes itself to be independent and free, when the reality is far different.
Aktham Suliman is a Syrian journalist and researcher based in Germany.
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 15, 2019
When Washington announced a few weeks ago the formation of a maritime “international coalition” to “protect shipping” in the Persian Gulf, many observers were skeptical. Now skepticism has rightly turned to alarm, as the proposed US-led “coalition” transpires to comprise a grand total of just three nations: the US, Britain and Israel.
The term “coalition” has always been a weasel word used by Washington to give its military operations around the world a veneer of international consensus and moral authority. If the US goes ahead with deploying forces in the Persian Gulf the guise of “coalition” is threadbare. It will be seen for what it is: naked aggression.
Iran promptly warned that if the US, Britain and Israel move on their intention to deploy in the Persian Gulf, it will not hesitate to defend itself from a “clear threat”. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.