Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Homeland Terror

By Linh Dinh – July 27, 2016

Justifying the War on Terror, George Bush huffed, “We’re fighting them there, so we don’t have to fight them here.” Broke, gullible or crazed Americans must be sent overseas to combat Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, the Taliban and ISIS. Otherwise, endless terror would devastate the homeland.

Periodically, terror plots must be orchestrated by the FBI to keep domestic fear from flagging, however. Flags at half mast stiffen limp fighting spirit.

Though Washington makes a show of denying it, the War on Terror is understood by the media-drugged as a war against Muslims, Israel’s eternal enemy.

As this open-ended assault on Muslims generated millions of Muslim refugees, Benjamin Netanyahu declared in March of 2016, “A strong Israel prevents the passage of masses of refugees to Europe. The world would be different if we were not here.”

Bibi got the second part right. Israel is the prime reason why there are so many Muslim refugees, and this world would be much more peaceful if your terror state disappeared. As long as Israel exists, there will be Muslims massacred or fleeing in terror from their wrecked homes.

Neoconservatism birthed the War on Terror. Founded by Jews, this movement’s main aim is to conserve Israel, even if they have to wreck the entire Middle East, disfigure Europe and ruin the United States. Jacob Heilbrunn explains in They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons:

Neoconservatism was forged into an actual movement by [Irving] Kristol and Norman Podhoretz. Even today, the neoconservative movement is best described as an extended family based largely on the informal social networks patiently forged by these two patriarchs […] Not all of them were Jews—a fact that has been frequently pointed out by the neoconservatives themselves to refute the canard that neoconservatism is a Jewish movement. Fair enough. Yet the movement’s non-Jewish members were largely bound to the group by a shared commitment to the largest, most important Jewish cause: the survival of Israel.

Concocted by two rogue, undemocratic states, this War on Terror could be called off this very second, and the much ballyhooed terror threat would be instantly over. Many American lives would be saved, not just foreign Muslim ones.

Since the US and Israel need the War on Terror to terrorize, rape and degrade vast swaths of this earth, this farce must go on.

Like any growth industry, the US and Israel-backed Muslim Menace must conquer new markets. After skyscrapers, airports, train stations, stadia, government buildings, gay bars, marathons, flying shoes, sky high milk bottles and even airborne underwear, it was time to infiltrate European swimming pools, music festivals, shopping malls and fast food restaurants.

What better way to do this than to import millions of young Muslim men into Europe? Even if their homes haven’t been bombed by the US, Israel and NATO over the years, they might have other reasons to resent or despise the West.

Perfect. On top of all the individual shootings, knifings, gropings and rapes, the more spectacular terror events can be directed by the CIA and Mossad, those unmatched experts at exporting terror.

The Western public already know about mass sexual assaults in Egypt. These “circles of hell” have become increasingly common since 2005, with its most famous victim a 60 Minutes journalist, Lara Logan. Many Westerners also know about Pakistanis raping about 1,400 English girls, over 16 years, in Rotherham, England.

When I taught in Leipzig last year, two of my students, an Indian who had grown up in Qatar and a blonde, told me they were followed by Muslim men. The Indian student could speak Arabic, so she shouted at her stalkers. To shake off her stalker, the blonde went into a store and stayed there. Since these incidents happened after the Cologne mass sexual assault story, these young women were already leery of seeing Muslim men in public.

The architects of the War on Terror generate refugees, then expect Europe to absorb them. Speaking in Hanover on April 25th, 2016, Obama praised Merkel, “What’s happening with respect to her position on refugees here, in Europe, she’s on the right side of history on this […] She is giving a voice to the kinds of principles that bring people together rather than divide them.”

Hungary’s Viktor Orban has a different take, “This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by people smugglers, and on the other by those activists who support everything that weakens the nation-state. This Western mindset and this activist network is perhaps best represented by George Soros.”

Soros, “The benefits brought by migration far outweigh the costs of integrating immigrants. Skilled economic immigrants improve productivity, generate growth, and raise the absorptive capacity of the recipient country.”

Many progressive Jews support massive immigration in the West, but not in Israel. They criticize nationalism in the West, but not Israel. Though Jews may not be the Chosen People, Israel is certainly the Exempt Nation.

Soros is proud of his geopolitical flexing. To CNN, the man said, “Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now.”

The world has become habituated to hearing about Islamic barbarity in Europe. Yesterday, an 84-year-old French priest was forced to kneel, then had his throat slit by two men shouting, “Allahu Akbar!” Three days ago, a 27-year-old Syrian wounded twelve innocent people, three seriously, when he blew himself up in Germany. Sometimes the details surrounding these crimes are bizarre or inexplicable.

The same man, Richard Gutjahr, just happened to film the beginnings of the Nice truck attack (84 people killed, 303 injured) and Munich shooting (nine killed, with four others shot). He’s married to Israeli Einat Wilf, a former member of Knesset. Why did Gutjahr aim his camera at a McDonald’s entrance before anything happened? And how did the shooter appear out of nowhere, literally, for he didn’t walk out of any door? Study the footage.

Another video of the alleged shooter has him standing on top of a parking garage. Arguing with two Turks on a balcony across the street, Ali David Sonboly accused, “Because of you, I was ganged on for seven years,” and as they called him an asshole and a jerk-off, Sonboly explained, “I was born here. In a Hartz IV [welfare] area. Here in the Turkish section of Hasenbergl. I was in treatment. How is it my fault? I haven’t done anything.”

You are to conclude that Muslims can’t even stand each other, you see, so they’ll kill just about anybody.

A key aim of the War on Terror is to spread terror everywhere, so that the state, that master of terror, can be everywhere.

Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories, five of poems, and a novel, Love Like Hate.

July 28, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular, Wars for Israel | , | 3 Comments

The U.S. Tentacles Reach For Syrian Political Parties

By Afraa Dagher – Activist Post – July 27, 2016

On June 23, 2016, The Daily Star reported that the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party announced that it would hold a vote next month in order to choose a new leader after a party tribunal rejected the re-election of incumbent Asaad Hardan.

There is now a new movement inside the Syrian Socialist National Party (SSNP) which calls itself the Movement of July 8 which has worked to overthrow Hardan.

The opposition to the re-election of Assad Hardan has criticized him for his policy towards the leadership in Syria. In other words, he has been criticized for his support of Syria in its war for sovereignty and unity, an idea that is supposed to be a basic principle of the SSNP itself.

Under the SSNP’s own document and the section entitled “The Aim Of The Syrian Socialist National Party,” the SSNP clearly states:

I. THE BASIC PRINCIPLES

The eight basic principles of the SSNP embody the doctrine of Syrian nationalism. They proceed in a logical order from a declaration of the existence and nature of the Syrian nation (first principle), to an identification of the character of its cause (second and third principles), to a clarification of its genesis (the fourth principle) and its homeland (fifth principle). The basis of national unity (sixth principle), the sources of national character and consciousness (seventh principle), and the guiding principles of national militancy (eighth principle) are then defined.

First Basic Principle: Syria is for the Syrians and the Syrians are a complete nation.

Second Basic Principle: The Syrian cause is an integral national cause completely distinct from any other cause.

Third Basic Principle: The Syrian cause is the cause of the Syrian nation and the Syrian homeland.

Fourth Basic Principle: The Syrian nation is the product of the ethnic unity of the Syrian people which developed throughout history.

Fifth Basic Principle: The Syrian homeland is that geographic environment in which the Syrian nation evolved. It has distinct natural boundaries and extends from the Taurus range in the northwest and the Zagros mountains in the northeast to the Suez canal and the Red Sea in the south and includes the Sinai peninsula and the gulf of Aqaba, and from the Syrian sea in the west, including the island of Cyprus, to the arch of the Arabian desert and the Persian gulf in the east. (This region is also known as the Syrian Fertile Crescent).

Sixth Basic Principle: The Syrian nation is one society.

Seventh Basic Principle: The Syrian Social Nationalist movement derives its inspiration from the talents of the Syrian nation and its cultural political national history.

Eighth Basic Principle: Syria’s interest supersedes every other interest.

In order to make it appear as if they are being reasonable, the SSNP attempts to present Hardan as a “government agent” by saying “Assad Hardan is supporting the Syrian government,” and then going on to criticize the relationship saying that the SSNP is a secular socialist party, not a sectarian or Alawite party. Of course, using the words “Alawite” or “sectarian” is simply a sneaky way to abandon Syria and all of Syrians under a false pretext. The Syrian government is not “Alawite” or “Sectarian” and this has been proven time and time again. This specific use of language is that which has been used by the U.S.-backed rebels and the West itself. The idea is to present the Syrian government and Syrian society as being comprised of sects in order to misrepresent both and divide everyone amongst themselves in Syria.

Another tactic used by these critics is to claim that Hardan is too concerned with what is happening inside Syria and that he should focus on the war with Israel. This is a clear attempt to force the SSNP to stop fighting with the Syrian government against terrorists because who could ever separate the war on Syria from Israel? Even the most naïve people, those who may not belong to any party or have any education, should be able to recognize this. You do not have to be Syrian or Arab or know anything about Syria’s history to recognize this ploy.

Without a doubt, especially after over five years of war, it should be clear that this war is not against one sect. It is a war waged by deception, a proxy war against the unity of Syria and the whole region for Israel’s benefit and the creation of “Greater Israel.”

The critics of Hardan are nothing but tools of the United States. The U.S. has its own agenda which involves the shredding of Syria and creating another strange entity within the wider country called Rojava in Northern Syria, for one thing. But the opposition faction within the SSNP also supports this idea of a Kurdistan in Northern Syria.

At this point, I should mention a point about the Kurds and their Constitution.

As Al-Monitor reports,

The name Rojava-Northern Syria Democratic Federal System was chosen from among three proposed names, including Rojava-Kurdistan Democratic Federal System Marbo Beth Nahrin and Northern Syria Democratic Federal System. The regulatory committee members have indicated in previous statements that the Constituent Assembly is based upon the Swiss model.

According to some media analyses, the Kurds prepared and approved the draft constitution too soon. Article 5 specifies that the federation shall have an independent flag, and Article 66 paved the way for the establishment of diplomatic relations with foreign countries, despite the Syrians having yet to agree on the form of the future Syrian state. The majority of them fear that the declaration of the federation would be the beginning of a project to divide Syria, since it would be made by the Kurds and the Kurdish self-administration, which the Syrians view as enemies.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the Kurds forces are fighting along with the US backed forces, like the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces!

With all of this in mind, one can see why the U.S. is interested in working with the SSNP in order to manipulate it and further divide the Syrian opposition to Western aims. Of course, whenever the United States praises a party or attempts to work closely with it, it is never for a good reason. It is always so that it can use that party in its war or somehow at the negotiating table when it wants to wrest some type of “political solution” for the countries whom the United States is trying to destroy.

So here, in a nutshell, is the U.S. plan:

The United States is interested in using the SSNP against Syria and the Ba’ath party in the future but they cannot do so with a pro-Syria leader like Asaad Hardan. The opposition faction within the SSNP like Hardan’s critics, however, tend to support the “federalization” of Syria and the creation of a Kurdistan within Syrian territory. These individuals can indeed be useful to the United States.

As Andrew Korybko wrote in his article “The Democratic Partition Of Syria,” Additionally, the US establishment curiously seems to be on the verge of accepting the SSNP as a legitimate party in Syria, which is extraordinarily odd because it has hitherto only held out this “right” for the “moderate rebel” terrorists that it and its regime change coalition support.

The al-Ba’ath Party (Ba’ath meaning “renaissance” or “resurrection”), is a mixture of Arab nationalism, pan-Arabism, Arab socialism, and anti-imperialism. It calls for unification of the Arab world into a single state and its motto is “Unity, Liberty, Socialism” which refers to Arab unity and freedom from non-Arab interference and control.

Despite all of the U.S. treachery, the Ba’ath Party and the SSNP have a mutual interest – the unity and sovereignty of Syria. Hopefully, the opposition within the SSNP that is currently arrayed against Hardan and who are falling into the hands of the United States, will not succeed in assisting in the division of Syria and the Syrian people.

The United States has made many attempts to destroy Syria from the inside. Whether it is by the proxy terrorists known as the Syrian Democratic Forces, a plan for “federalization,” or by corrupting and infiltrating Syrian political parties like the SSNP, the U.S. has not given up on its attempt to destroy the secular government of our country.

The Syrian Constitution welcomes every political party and does not base recognition on religion. Syria needs all of its patriotic parties. If the SSNP is now working with the U.S., it needs to be revealed. Syria must never be divided.

Afraa Dagher is a political analyst currently residing in Syria. She has made numerous media appearances commenting on the current state of affairs inside Syria as well as the nature of the current crisis. She has appeared on RT, PRESS TV, and is a regular guest on Activist Post writer Brandon Turbeville’s Truth on the Tracks radio program.

July 28, 2016 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , | Leave a comment

“They destroyed the houses, they destroyed our dreams”

International Solidarity Movement | July 28, 2016

Qalandia village, Occupied Palestine – Late Monday evening, Israeli forces entered the village of Qalandia with 15 bulldozers and around 150 soldiers. In the village the Israeli military destroyed 11 new built houses, attacking the residents of the village with stun grenades, tear gas, rubber coated steel bullets and sponge bullets. 7 persons had to seek medical care for their injuries after the assaults from the military.

In 7 of the demolished houses, families had already moved in according to Yosef Awdalla, mayor of Qalandia. The demolition notices, claiming the houses had no permits, were left outside the houses on the ground only 24 hours before the army entered the village.

One of the homeowners, Fadi Awadallah describes how his friend was walking around the house the day before the demolitions, and found a piece of paper written in Hebrew on the ground. One hour after they had figured out what the document said and talked to their lawyer, the army was already entering the village to demolish their home. Fadi, who had applied and paid for an Israeli issued licence to build in area C, did not expect the demolition order since the Israeli authorities had accepted the money and the application. When he tried to explain this to the soldiers they answered him that “they were not there to talk, they were there to demolish the houses.”

The soldiers then pointed their guns to his head and told him that if he didn’t move away from the house they would shoot him.

“They didn’t deal with us as humans, they pushed us back with violence and force” says Fadi whose family had planned to move into their dream house the following week.

“Three years ago we started to build the houses. Why didn’t they come three years ago before we spent all our money on these houses? They destroyed the houses, they destroyed our dreams” says Fadi, explaining that most of the families not only spent all their savings on the buildings but now they are also left with loans that will take them years to pay.

“We came up with the idea about building a house here because we are not allowed to use our house on the other side of the wall.” says Fadi, whose father lives in a house on the other side of the apartheid wall surrounding the village. Without obtaining a permit every month from the Israeli occupation authorities, the family are not allowed to cross the wall that separates the West Bank from Jerusalem.

Since the signing of the Oslo agreement  in 1995 most of Qalandia village was classified as Area C, where israel has full control over security and civil administration. Only 2% of Qalandia is constituted as area B, where construction is permitted. Palestinian building in area C has to be permitted by the Israeli Civil Administration and since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank 1967, Israeli authorities regularly demolishe houses in area C, thus breaking international humanitarian law. According to a report released this Wednesday from Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, Israeli authorities have demolished more Palestinian homes in the West Bank in the first six months of 2016 than they did in any year over the past decade .

The Israeli demolition policies systematically implemented by the government and the lack of possibilities to build legally in the area constitutes the ethnic cleansing and forcible transfer of Palestinians.

As Fadi Awadallah points out, “Where are we supposed to be? In the sky? In the space? No, we are staying here.”

Sameeh Huseen holding a picture of his home that was ruined by the Israeli army.

Sameeh Huseen holding a picture of his home that was ruined by the Israeli army.
“How are we going to explain this to the next generation? How can we teach our kids about peace when this is what they see?” says Fadi Awadallah.

“How are we going to explain this to the next generation? How can we teach our kids about peace when this is what they see?” says Fadi Awadallah.

July 28, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | 1 Comment

Experts unite to say that it is an ‘abuse’ to invoke ‘self-defence’ in response to terrorism

MEMO | July 28, 2016

A collective open letter has been signed by many professors of international law and legal researchers. Entitled “A plea against the abusive invocation of self-defence as a response to terrorism” it has been circulating on the internet for a few weeks.

Among the signatories, of which there are more than 230 professors and almost 50 assistants/researchers (see the list available here as at 25 July; it is updated regularly by the Centre de Droit International de l´Université Libre de Bruxelles), there are distinguished members of the international law community as well younger practitioners. The objective of this collective initiative is to challenge the invocation of the legal argument of self-defence by several states in the context of the so called “war” against ISIS.

As is well known, the UN Charter has been extremely clear on the unique exception to the prohibition of the use of force since its adoption in 1945 — self-defence — and military operations authorised by Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter. However, since 9/11, interpretations made by the United States and its allies have been made to give legal support for unilateral military operations in the territory of a state without the previous consent of its authorities. In a recent note published on the website of the European Journal of International Law (EJIL), we read that: “Particularly since 9/11, several States have supported a broad reading of the right to use force in self-defence, as allowing them to intervene militarily against terrorists whenever and wherever they may be. A consequence of that conception is that any State could be targeted irrespective of whether that State has ‘sent’ the irregular (in this case terrorist) group to carry out a military action or has been ‘substantially involved’ in such an action.”

The use of force in self-defence must be exercised in conformity with the conditions laid down in international law, and particularly the UN Charter. On this very particular point, it must be recalled that France presented to the Security Council a quite surprising draft resolution after the Paris attacks of 13 November last year (see the full text here of the “blue version” circulated among UN delegations) which avoided any reference to the Charter in its operative paragraphs; it is possibly a great “première” of French diplomacy at the United Nations and was analysed in a short note. Resolution 2249 was used a few weeks later in a British parliamentary debate to justify air strikes in Syria, without major clarifications (see this modest note about this).

The text of the global open letter (available here in French, English, Portuguese, Spanish and Arabic) considers, among other arguments, that: “Thus, numerous military interventions have been conducted in the name of self-defence, including against Al Qaeda, ISIS or affiliated groups. While some have downplayed these precedents on account of their exceptional nature, there is a serious risk of self-defence becoming an alibi, used systematically to justify the unilateral launching of military operations around the world. Without opposing the use of force against terrorist groups as a matter of principle — particularly in the current context of the fight against ISIS — we, international law professors and scholars, consider this invocation of self-defence to be problematic. In fact, international law provides for a range of measures to fight terrorism. Priority should be given to these measures before invoking self-defence.”

Furthermore, the signatories of this collective letter state: “…we consider that terrorism raises above all the challenge of prosecution and trial of individuals who commit acts of terrorism. A variety of legal tools are available in this respect. They relate first and foremost to police and judicial cooperation (chiefly through agencies such as INTERPOL or EUROPOL), aiming both at punishing those responsible for the crimes committed and preventing future occurrence of such crimes. Although there is certainly room for improvement, this cooperation has often proved effective in dismantling networks, thwarting attacks, and arresting the perpetrators of such attacks. By embracing from the outset the ‘war against terrorism’ and ‘self-defence’ paradigms and declaring a state of emergency, there is a serious risk of trivialising, neglecting, or ignoring ordinary peacetime legal processes.”

It must be noted that international law scholars and researchers around the world can sign this document until 31 July. The text recalls a certain number of very clear rules that the diplomats in New York know better than anyone — despite the ambiguous interpretations made by some of their colleagues, in particular since the beginning of air strikes in Syria, without the consent of its de facto authorities — on the extremely vague notion of an ‘unwilling or unable’ State, justifying, for some diplomats, military operations on its territory without its previous consent. I refer to this very recent article published in The Netherlands.

The collective document also states that: “…the maintenance of international peace and security rests first and foremost with the Security Council. The Council has qualified international terrorism as a threat to the peace on numerous occasions. Therefore, aside from cases of emergency leaving no time to seize the UN, it must remain the Security Council’s primary responsibility to decide, coordinate and supervise acts of collective security. Confining the task of the Council to adopting ambiguous resolutions of an essentially diplomatic nature, as was the case with the passing of resolution 2249 (2015) relating to the fight against ISIS, is an unfortunate practice. Instead, the role of the Council must be enhanced in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Charter, thereby ensuring a multilateral approach to security  /…/  However, the mere fact that, despite its efforts, a State is unable to put an end to terrorist activities on its territory is insufficient to justify bombing that State’s territory without its consent. Such an argument finds no support either in existing legal instruments or in the case law of the International Court of Justice. Accepting this argument entails a risk of grave abuse in that military action may henceforth be conducted against the will of a great number of States under the sole pretext that, in the intervening State’s view, they were not sufficiently effective in fighting terrorism.”

It must be noted that, in February, Canada’s new government decided to cease air strikes in Syria and Iraq. We read in this official note produced by the Canadian Armed Forces that: “ In accordance with Government of Canada direction, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) ceased air strike operations in Iraq and Syria on 15 February 2016. From their first sortie on 30 October 2014 to 15 February 2016, the CF-188 Hornets conducted 1378 sorties resulting in 251 airstrikes (246 in Iraq and 5 in Syria), expended 606 munitions and achieved the following effects: 267 ISIL fighting positions, 102 ISIL equipment and vehicles, and, 30 ISIL Improvised Explosive Device (IED) factories and ISIL storage facilities.”

In 2015, a Canadian scholar concluded an extremely interesting article on air strikes in Syria and Iraq in the following terms: “However, there is a further legal hurdle for Canada to overcome. Unless Canada can attribute ISIS´ attacks in Iraq to Syria, then the question becomes whether Canada may lawfully target ISIS, as a non-state actor in Syria’s sovereign territory, using the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine to prevent ISIS’ extraterritoriality attacks against Iraq. This justification moves significantly away from the Nicaragua, Congo and Israeli Wall cases’ requirement for attribution. There appears to be a lack of consensus on whether opinion juris and state practice have accepted the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine as customary international law. There is no escaping the conclusion that Canada’s air strikes on Syria are on shaky, or at least shifting, legal ground.”

The signatories of the open letter, the number of whom is increasing daily, include scholars from different continents and of different ages; they conclude by reaffirming that: “The international legal order may not be reduced to an interventionist logic similar to that prevailing before the adoption of the United Nations Charter. The purpose of the Charter was to substitute a multilateral system grounded in cooperation and the enhanced role of law and institutions for unilateral military action. It would be tragic if, acting on emotion in the face of terrorism (understandable as this emotion may be), that purpose were lost.”

July 28, 2016 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Leaked EU report reveals indirect approval of colonial Israel

746469887

By Ramona Wadi | MEMO |July 27, 2016

Once again, Israel is exerting a great deal of effort in order to prevent discussion of an EU paper among European institutions. The internal report, which was drafted in December 2015 and then endorsed by all EU member states, attributes the development of the Jerusalem Intifada (Uprising) to “Israel’s occupation”. It included reference to the living conditions of Palestinian citizens and the failure to implement the two-state paradigm.

The EU Observer, which has seen the 39-page report, has stated that the document is intended as a reference for EU foreign ministers and “for proposals put forward by the EU Foreign Service.”

While having a dearth of facts, the report is not lacking in the kind of contradictions that mark the constant cycle of condemnation and appeasement of Israel at the expense of withholding Palestinian narratives. The Jerusalem Post has deemed the EU document to be veering away from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that Israel and the rest of the world are facing the same terror threats. Rhetorically, the EU has distanced itself from Netanyahu’s sweeping statements that generalise every terrorist incident in order to normalise state violence against Palestinian resistance. Nevertheless, as on other occasions, the EU has devised its own strategies which uphold Israel’s narrative at a regional and international level.

The report is ambiguous in the extreme. “Some Palestinian perpetrators of individual attacks,” it explains, “have apparently been shot and killed in situations where they no longer pose a threat.” Despite Netanyahu himself publicly endorsing such extrajudicial killings, the EU has preferred to subjugate the facts to hypotheses through the use of terminology like “apparently”, “appeared” and “possibly amounting in certain cases to unlawful killings.” By not condemning such unlawful killing explicitly, the discourse suggests the EU’s tacit approval of Israeli state and settler violence. This is illustrated further in the report’s standard equivalence clause that “both sides” have indulged in “inflammatory rhetoric”, thus negating the fact that Palestinian resistance is a legitimate response to illegal Israeli colonial violence.

EU Foreign Relations chief Federica Mogherini has opposed the proposal that “known violent settlers and those calling for acts of violence” should be placed under EU visa bans. According to Mogherini: “There’s currently no question of sanctioning anybody. The question is rather how to motivate people to… restart peace talks.” Such leniency works in concordance with Israeli policy towards settler terrorists who are mostly shielded by the colonial state, enabling them to act with impunity.

Perhaps the most incriminating evidence of support for Israeli colonisation is the recommendation that the EU develops “further guidelines that differentiate between Israel and its illegal settlements,” according to the EU Observer. This distinction has been of interminable benefit to Israel and its implications are many, including the refusal to recognise the fact that Israel is a colonial entity and that its manifestation is contrary to the principles enshrined in international law. Referring to Israel as the “occupying power” without any reference to colonisation in effect absolves both Israel and the international community of accountability when it comes to recognising the Palestinian right to resistance and liberation. Unless this anomaly is rectified, all reports issued by the EU will be inherently biased towards Israel, regardless of the content. To treat colonial expansion as a recent phenomenon is a transgression of truth and an impediment to Palestinian struggle, although that is, after all, the apparent international intent behind such blatant deception.

July 28, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Meet Fethullah Gulen, Deep State Plotter

https://youtu.be/mqrN540Zvf0

corbettreport –  July 27, 2016

TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=19364

Since the failed coup attempt in Turkey on July 15th, the name of exiled Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen is on everyone’s lips. So who is Fethullah Gulen? Well, that depends who you ask…

July 27, 2016 Posted by | Timeless or most popular, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel announces new resettlement plan for Negev Bedouins

Ma’an – July 26, 2016

BETHLEHEM – Israeli authorities Monday announced the approval of plans to build a new township for Israel’s Bedouin community in the Negev desert, according to Israeli media, in a continuation of what rights groups have said is Israel’s discriminatory policy of forcibly transferring Bedouins to Israeli-zoned townships to make room for Jewish communities.

The planned township is expected to be built just south of Segev Shalom, another Bedouin township, and would transfer at least 7,000 Bedouins from the unrecognized village of Wadi al-Naam, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

The approved village would comprise of an area of approximately 9,000 dunams (2,224 acres), while providing housing to some 9,000 residents, The Times of Israel reported.

The proposal to expand the area of Segev Shalom was challenged in Israel’s Supreme Court last year, as the Association of Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), who assisted in the court proceedings, argued that any expansion of the town would be followed by the forcible removal of Bedouins from unrecognized villages, particularly from Wadi al-Naam.

Wadi al-Naam residents and Israeli human rights groups presented an alternative planning proposal to the Supreme Court in April last year, which presented 15,000 dunams of land for a town separate from the densely populated neighborhoods of Segev Shalom.

According to Haaretz, Israel’s National Planning and Building Council recommended to the court the construction of the township in January in cooperation with village residents. However, residents of Wadi al-Naam have reportedly not been consulted about the approved plans.

Wadi al-Naam is one of 35 Bedouin villages considered “unrecognized” by the Israeli state. According to ACRI, more than half of the approximately 160,000 Negev Bedouins reside in unrecognized villages.

While Bedouins of the Negev are Israeli citizens, the villages unrecognized by the government have faced relentless efforts by the Israeli authorities to expel them from their lands in order to make room for Jewish Israeli homes.

The classification of their villages as “unrecognized” prevents Bedouins from developing or expanding their communities, as their villages are considered illegal by Israeli authorities. According to ACRI, entire Bedouin communities have been issued demolition orders in the past, while the village of al-Araqib has been demolished at least 100 times by Israeli forces in the past six years.

Israeli authorities have also refused to connect unrecognized Bedouin villages to the national water and electricity grids, while excluding the communities from access to health and educational services, and basic infrastructure.

Bedouins are considered a semi-nomadic group, as their way of life is dependent on access to wide areas of grazing land for their animals. Rights groups have argued that the relocation of Bedouins to permanent Israeli townships, oftentimes located in already stressed environments, severely disrupts their traditional lifestyles.

The Wadi al-Naam village was established in the 1950s soon after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war that established the state of Israel. Military officials forcibly transferred the Negev Bedouins to the site during the 17 year period when Palestinians inside Israel were governed under Israeli military law, which ended shortly before Israel’s military takeover of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in 1967.

Now more than 60 years later, the village has yet to be recognized by Israel.

According to Israeli human rights group Bimkom, Wadi al-Naam, much like other unrecognized villages in the Negev, are “not connected to the water, electricity, sewage, telephone or road networks, and its inhabitants suffer from a severe lack of education, welfare and sanitation services.”

The group also pointed out that Israeli authorities have created hazardous conditions in the villages by establishing industrial zones near their vicinities. The Ramat Hovav Industrial Zone, for instance, was established near Wadi al-Naam, which residents have said releases bad odors into the air and pollutes the air, soil, and water, while a site purposed with burying explosive materials was also established near the village.

However, rather than working to remove the source of pollution from their communities, Israeli authorities have instead pushed for their eviction from the area.

Meanwhile, Israeli Jewish settlements in the Negev continuously expand, with five new settlements approved last year. According to an investigation undertaken by ACRI and Bimkom, two of the approved settlements are located in areas where unrecognized Bedouin villages already exist.

The plan would see the displacement of at least 7,500 Bedouins from the unrecognized villages of Katamat and Beer Hadaj.

July 27, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | 1 Comment

Ukraine regime seizes on provocations by right-wing extremists to ban pro-peace religious procession from entering Kyiv

New Cold War – July 26, 2016

Photo of July 2016 religious procession for peace in Ukraine (photo on Donbass ! blog)

July 2016 procession for peace in Ukraine

A paramilitary force of the right-wing Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, headed by Nikolai Kokhanivskiy, has put up a picket on Zhytomyr highway near Kyiv to block the mass religious procession for peace which began several weeks ago from entering Kyiv. They are prepared to stop the “‘Moscow popy” (pejorative term for Orthodox Church priests). A report in Ukrinform is here.

“They must understand that Kyiv is Ukraine, so they have to turn around and march to Donetsk and Moscow, not Kyiv”, said Kokhanivsky.

When asked what his force will do with women and children marching in the procession, he answered that they will deal only with the “popy”.

The title of the news article in Ukrinform, the Ukrainian state news agency, calls the Orthodox Church procession a “Moscow procession” while OUN men in military uniforms are called “activists”. The procession has been harassed and threatened by right-wing nationalists along its two routes, which began in western Ukraine and in eastern Ukraine in early July.

The procession is ignoring the authorities’ ban from entering Kyiv and continues marching. Pilgrims are also refusing to board buses offered by authorities, reports Ukrinform.

A July 26 news report is published in French on the procession; it is here.

July 27, 2016 Posted by | Militarism, Solidarity and Activism | | Leave a comment

Putin to receive Erdogan in hometown

By M K Bhadrakumar | Indian Punchline | July 27, 2016

The developments in Turkey are taking a dramatic turn. All Indications are that the Turkish government is in possession of definite information that the attempted military coup was orchestrated by the United States. (Anadolu )

The Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag made an open allegation in a television interview,

  • The US knows that Fethullah Gülen (the cleric who lives in Pennsylvania) carried out this coup. Mr. Obama knows this just as well as he knows his own name. I am convinced that American intelligence knows it too.

Bozdag is known to be one of the closest and trusted political associates of President Recep Erdogan. The well-informed Turkish political commentator Semih Idiz wrote that “This belief (Bozdag’s allegation) goes all the way to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  It implies that Washington knew what was coming and did nothing to warn Ankara. The pro-government Islamist media has even claimed that the U.S. tried to kill Erdoğan with this coup attempt.”

The government has taken into confidence Turkey’s two main opposition parties – the Kemalist party CHP (Republican Party) and the nationalist party MHP (Nationalist Movement Party). The ruling AKP (Justice & Development Party) and the CHP and MHP have set aside their political differences and have voiced support for Ankara’s demand to Washington for the extradition of the Islamist cleric Fetullah Gulen. No doubt, this grand reconciliation could have implications in the downstream for the fractured Turkish political landscape. (VOA)

The MHP leader Davlut Bahceli has spoken publicly about a possible deep-rooted US conspiracy to trigger civil war conditions in Turkey. Bahceli also hinted that the coup plot was likely masterminded from the Incirlik air base used by the US forces, under the supervision of the US commander in Afghanistan. Two Turkish generals serving in Afghanistan have been detained by the Turkish intelligence at Dubai airport.

Bahceli has tabled a motion in the parliament seeking clarification on “rumours” that the CIA was behind the coup plot. A falshpoint arises if the government makes the details available. The Turkish media reported that Ankara has warned the authorities in Pakistan regarding the elite schools run by Gulen’s organization in that country. (See the Deutsche Welle report Secular Pakistanis resist Turkey’s ‘authoritarian demands.)

The Obama administration is unlikely to extradite Gulen, given his key role in US intelligence operations in the Central Asian region, while Turkey has made this the litmus test of US’ goodwill and sincerity as ally. Significantly, the New York Times featured an article over the weekend authored by Gulen where he urged Washington not to extradite him. Gulen wrote,

  • His (Erdogan’s) goal: To ensure my extradition, despite a lack of credible evidence and virtually no prospect for a fair trial. The temptation to give Mr. Erdogan whatever he wants is understandable. But the United States must resist it.

Washington probably anticipates that a showdown with Ankara may become unavoidable in a very near future over the Gulen issue. The US State Department has advised dependents and families of US diplomatic personnel posted in Turkey to leave the country. Another travel advisory on Monday counselled US nationals to “reconsider travel to Turkey at this time”. (here)

It becomes extremely significant that amidst all this, President Erdogan will be traveling to St. Petersburg, Russia, to meet President Vladimir Putin on August 9. This will be Erdogan’s first trip abroad after the coup and he is signalling that restoring friendly ties with Russia is his topmost priority. Of course, Erdogan will be keenly interested in close cooperation between the intelligence agencies of Turkey and Russia. The prominent Turkish columnist Murat Yetkin wrote today,

  • The question lingers in the air about whether Russia, whose intelligence services have been accused by the Democratic Party in the U.S. of intercepting their electronic communications, would provide any material to Erdoğan linking Gülen to the coup plotters. It certainly seems there is a lot of exchange of information going on nowadays, as was revealed by Çavuşoğlu, who said that Turkey has warned a number of countries, including the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, about a possible coup plot by Gülenists who infiltrated the state apparatus there through their school network. Moscow has already closed Gülen’s school network in Russia, accusing it of cooperating with the CIA.

The meeting between Putin and Erdogan promises to be a defining moment in Russia’s relations with the West in the post-cold war era. If a major NATO country such as Turkey crosses the ‘red line’ by forging ties with Russia at the present juncture that will be in strategic defiance of the US’ containment strategy against Russia. It can turn out to be a far bigger setback to the US regional strategies than the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, because it weakens the entire western alliance system.

Europe, in particular, will be holding its breath over the fate of its moribund ‘one in, one out’ deal with Turkey over the refugee flow. Erdogan said on German TV on Tuesday that Europe is not a ‘sincere’ interlocutor. The issue is hugely controversial in Europe, given the lengthening shadows of terrorism. German Chancellor Angela Merkel faces growing public demand to quit. (BBC, AFP )

July 27, 2016 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NATO’s War on Russia: Someone Is Playing Us

By Christopher Black – New Eastern Outlook – 27.07.2016

For 17 months, since the Minsk Agreements were signed in February 2015 to try to bring peace to the eastern Ukraine the Kiev regime, and its neo-Nazi and NATO allies, have been preparing for a new offensive against the east Ukraine republics. On July 22nd the Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin stated in a letter to the UN Security Council that “a relapse of large-scale military operations in eastern Ukraine may bury the process of peace settlement there.” He then called on Kiev’s allies to pressure Kiev to back off its war preparations which include the continuous shelling of civilian areas by Ukraine heavy and medium artillery and constant probing attacks by Ukraine and foreign units over the past spring and summer months.

The commander of the Donetsk Republic forces stated in a communiqué on July 22 that the region along the contact line between the two sides was shelled 3,566 times in one week alone ending on the date of the communiqué and confirmed the information set out in Churkin’s letter and reports of the Organisation For Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) that the Kiev regime had transferred more heavy artillery, mortars, tanks, multiple rocket launchers to the front.

The shelling has destroyed civilian housing, a water treatment plant and other infrastructure with the clear objective of forcing out the residents and to prepare the ground for a large scale offensive. Ambassador Churkin added that not only were regular Kiev forces massing in the east but they had also deployed the new-Nazi Azov and Donbas “volunteer” battalions, and that Kiev has begun a wide ranging seizure of land in the neutral zone and the towns located there.

Of course the blame for all these criminal actions by NATO and its marionettes in Kiev is placed on Russia as we have seen set out in both the Atlantic Council Report earlier this year and in the NATO Warsaw Communiqué on July 9th in which NATO put the ultimatum to Russia, “do what we say or you will see what we will do”. The day before Ambassador Churkin sent his letter to the Security Council, the French Foreign Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, in a speech at the Centre of Strategic and International Studies stated that the “sanctions”, that is, the economic war being carried out against Russia by the NATO countries, would only stop if Russia did what it was told.

The Germans have also made noises about being prepared to halt this economic warfare against Russia, about how much they regret it and how they desire only peace and harmony, but, again, only if Russia adheres to their demands.

The attacks on the Donbas republic civilian areas are of course war crimes and crimes against humanity to which the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court responds with her practiced silence despite the fact she has accepted two letters from the Kiev regime providing the ICC with jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes committed there. But, of course, neither Kiev, nor their NATO bosses that control the prosecutor of the ICC have any intention of laying war crimes charges against themselves.

The Russian fear of a renewed offensive against the Donbas republics is a real one since the Warsaw Communiqué issued by NATO on July 9th stated emphatically that NATO does not recognise the republics, that Ukraine needs to be reunited by force if necessary, and that Crimea must be returned to Ukraine. The increased military activity in eastern Ukraine is taking place at the same time that there is increased activity in the Baltic centred on the Russian base at Kaliningrad, a strategic objective for NATO in order to control the Baltic sea lanes and air space and the approaches to St. Petersburg. Crimea is an objective because of the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, the seizure of which was one of the primary objectives of the NATO coup that overthrew the government of President Yanukovich. It is the main objective in the on going NATO “Sea Breeze” naval exercise in the Black Sea.

The situation has become increasingly dangerous as the war against Russia is conducted without limits, that is, across all sectors of life from the military and economic to sports. The International Olympic Committee has now banned the core of the Russian Olympic track and field team from competing at the Games, plus any others who have faced doping allegations in the past, an act of collective punishment that is totally unjustified since it is based on the dubious statements of a wanted man in Russia, Grigory Rodchenkov, who is singing for his supper in the United States, and will sing any song they want him to. The whole scandal is motivated not by problems with doping, but by an attempt to further isolate Russia from the world and slander its leadership and people. The result is that the Olympic Games will be a farce both as a sports event and as a symbol of peace in the world and should be cancelled or boycotted.

On top of all this, compelling evidence is daily coming out that the attempted coup against the government of Turkey was instigated by the Americans and its partners in other NATO countries in order to stop President Erdogan from a rapprochement with Russia. The timing alone of the coup indicates that; for it took place just a few days after Erdogan apologised to President Putin regarding the shoot down of the Russian plane, and just after rumours circulated that he would kick the US out of their base at Incirlik and give it to Russia.

The Turkish government has accused the US of being involved at least indirectly by supporting Turkish Islamist émigré elements led by the cleric, Fethullah Gulen, an arch enemy of President Erdogan, who resides in the US and appears, to Erdogan, to be linked to the coup. Stories have also appeared in the Turkish press of the arrest of the two pilots that shot down the Russian plane over Syria, who happen to be, according to the accusations, the same two pilots that attempted to shoot down Erdogan’s plane the night of the coup. It is stated, though not confirmed, in the Turkish press that these two men worked for the CIA.

On Monday July 25th, it was reported in the Turkish press that American General John Campbell, former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan was central to the planning of the coup and that it was financed with CIA money through meetings at the US base at Incirlik. If these accusations are correct then the attempted coup constitutes act of aggression by the United States and its allies against Turkey, an attack by NATO on a NATO member.

The British on the same day floated a story in the Daily Express that their special forces, the SAS, are ready to go into to Turkey to “rescue UK citizens” in the event of a second coup attempt and predicted civil war in Turkey of there is a second coup attempt. They stated,

“With fears rebels could be about to try to overthrow the government for a second time, which is likely to result in a Turkish civil war, troops have moved into neighbouring Cyprus and are preparing a rescue mission to save stranded Britons.

Defence chiefs have drawn up emergency plans and fully armed soldiers, together with members of the Special Forces Support Group, are ready to fly into areas popular with tourists and help families get home safely.

Hundreds of jets, helicopters and other aircraft will be drafted in to help the estimated 50,000 Brits flee the danger.”

This means that Britain as well as the US are prepared to help a second coup attempt against Erdogan and further confirms their involvement in the first coup attempt, as does the reported refusal of the Germans to allow Erdogan’s plane to enter German air space to seek refuge when it appeared he had been overthrown. That decision turned out to be a mistake as he quickly recovered his wits, returned to Turkey and broke the coup.

However this turns out, the principal target remains Russia. Erdogan’s rapprochement with Russia and falling out with NATO weakens NATO in its war against Russia and provides Russia with another card to play, even if it may be the Joker.

Meanwhile in the United States the war against Russia has become a dangerous internal political issue as the Clinton camp accuses Donald Trump of being a Russian agent and his campaign financed by Russian money, essentially accusing Trump of treason. Trump laughs all this off but the fact that these absurdities can even get the attention of the news media shows how desperate things are. New York Times columnist Andrew Rosenthal wrote a column on the 25th of July with the title “Is Donald Trump Putin’s Puppet” then proceeded to state that he was Putin’s pet poodle at the least.

But things get even more curious as the FBI states it is investigating whether emails “leaked” by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks organisation, were provided to him by Russia after Russia hacked into the email system of the Democratic National Convention. The Russians deny this absurd charge but so far I have not seen Julian Assange deny that they are his source and we must wonder what his true motivations are if the effect of his “leak” is to have Russia accused of hacking into US government and political party email systems thereby supporting the NATO propaganda against Russia.

It also begs the question as to why Assange would get involved in American party politics at all by publishing emails that would supposedly damage the Clinton campaign for the benefit of the Trump campaign. Is he working for Trump? Is he working for Clinton trying to make it look like Trump works for Russia, or, as is more likely, is he working for those who want to bring down both Trump and Russia? Andrew Rosenthal for the Times, quipped, “it’s eerie, at best, that Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks chose this moment to release the stolen emails…”

But it is not so “eerie” if the exercise is meant to smear Russia and a candidate for President who is willing to at least talk with the Russians. Perhaps his supporters can ask him and report back what his answer is because his actions raise serious questions as to his motivations, his intentions, and his connections. Someone is playing us. It’s about time we found out who.

July 27, 2016 Posted by | Deception, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray church massacre and the Israeli State

By Gearóid Ó Colmáin | July 26, 2016

“Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him?” – St. Stephen.

The terrorist attack today on a church in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray where a Catholic priest was murdered and several hostages taken and killed, is part of the ‘Islamic State’s (Da’esh) attempt to spread their war on ‘Western civilisation’ from the metropolis to the provincial town. This now generalises the heightened fear experienced by the French public in the wake of the Nice attack.

Reports indicate that the attackers have been ‘neutralised’. Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy has taken the opportunity to show his political prowess. “Legal quibbles and precautions and pretexts for incomplete actions are now not admissible”, he said. French President Francois Hollande said, “Da’esh has declared war on us”. The rule of law will soon be suspended and people will be imprisoned or worse without trial, this is what the statements of Sarkozy and Hollande mean. Once again, we see that the terrorists have been shot dead before they could be interrogated. It seems taser-guns and highly sophisticated non-lethal weapons are of no use when it comes to Da’esh. Adel Kermiche, one of the terrorists shot dead, was known to police and he had reportedly attempted to join Da’esh in Syria twice. He had been released from prison in March 2016 and wore an electronic surveillance bracelet. Father Jacques Hamel, was known among the local community for his efforts at inter-religious dialogue.

Da’esh is an army of mercenaries which was formed in US prison Camp Bucca in 2006 under the supervision of the US military. The group has been used as a proxy force against the reconstituted Iraqi state allied to Iran and the Syrian Arab Republic, also a close ally of Russia. Troops for the Islamic State are recruited in Europe with the approval of Brussels, according to Israeli intelligence sources. The public are being told that the Islamic State is the enemy of the West. The facts show, however, that the Islamic State is a fake enemy created to destroy countries resisting subservience to global financial, corporate and military agencies of imperial power or, in short, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

As terrorist attacks now become a daily occurrence in Europe with the Nice and Munich atrocities followed by minor assaults such as the machete attack in Germany a few days ago, the descent into civilisational suicide is accelerating. The attack on a Catholic church may be significant. The attack occurred in the church of Saint Stephen. One of the proto-martyrs of the church, Saint Stephen, is famous for his damning critique of the Jews in the Acts of the Apostles. The Jewish Sanhedrin court sentenced him to death by lapidation (stoning). St. Stephen is considered ‘anti-Semitic’ by some scholars. The Sanhedrin Courts were re-established in Israel. In 2015, the Sandedrin Court in Jerusalem declared it would put Pope Francis on trial for the Vatican’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. He has also been criticised by the self-declared Jewish court of being too friendly with the Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Muhammed Hussein.

Although the Catholic church is currently more subordinate to Judaism than at any point in its history, the Vatican’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state is a thorn in the side of hard-line Zionists. We have shown before that the Islamic State is a proxy army of Israel, which is being used to pave the way for a Greater Middle East or, in other words, a Greater Israel. Tel Aviv has not disguised its support for the Islamic State in Syria. Former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren has said that he would prefer Da’esh in Syria, to Assad.

The same terrorists who attacked today have been beheading and torturing priests and nuns in Syria for years, yet the Vatican has been obmutescent. The Vatican is a key actor in the Western/Zionist empire but it has not yet been completely taken over. Christendom, or what is left of it, is another target of the Zionist New World Order. The creation of a right-wing Christian Zionist movement in France would drive religious and ethnic divisions further, thus sabotaging efforts to awaken working-class consciousness and solidarity – the only hope we have of winning the war on terror, which is, and always has been, both a class war and a spiritual war.

July 27, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , | 2 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »