Theresa May has confirmed that the UK will continue to fund the White Helmets, after the US withdrew £200 million ($271 million) in Syrian aid – including money that would go to the controversial group.
During PMQs Labour’s Matthew Pennycook, the Greenwich and Woolwich MP pushed the PM on whether or not she would continue to fund the The White Helmets, officially known as the Syria Civil Defence, a volunteer group that operates in areas controlled by jihadist and Al-Qaeda-linked groups in Syria.
“Despite the ever-present threat of death… the rescue workers of the White Helmets have never stopped saving the lives of their fellow Syrians,” Pennycook said. “Last week the Trump administration froze their US funding.
“With thousands of civilian lives at risk will the prime minister step up, pledge the government to plug the funding shortfall that now exists, and ensure these heroic rescue workers can continue their work?”
May did not hesitate in her response, praising the efforts of the non-governmental search-and-rescue organization.
“We recognise the very important and valuable work that the White Helmets are doing,” she said. “They are, as he says, doing this in horrendously difficult conditions. They are incredibly brave to be continuing with that work.”
The UK PM then pledged to review the current financial package for the White Helmets, hinting at further funding down the track. “We do support them, we will continue to support them, and my right honourable friend, the international development secretary will be looking at the level of that support in the future,” May said.
Although the White Helmets say they act solely as a makeshift emergency response team in a time of crisis, claiming to have heroically saved more than 70,000 lives in war-torn Syria, others question its motives. Footage from Syria has repeatedly appeared to show members of the White Helmets assisting jihadist groups, while multiple accounts from civilians suggested they only helped “their own” and use civilians caught up in conflict only for publicity.
Gina Haspel is almost certainly going to be the next director of the CIA. This shouldn’t happen, but it will.
For those unfamiliar: Haspel was deputy head of the Agency under now-secretary of state Mike Pompeo. But that wasn’t her first job. She also oversaw the CIA torture programme in a secret black-site in Thailand. In 2005 she was promoted (probably because she’s really good at torturing people), and was then in charge of the CIA’s global network of torture sites.
This makes her a terrible person, but probably quite a good CIA agent.
Just to be clear, this is not a theory a rumor or a smear. Nobody debates these facts. This was her job. She supervised torture camps.
The response in the press is pretty disheartening, to be honest. Or, at least would have been, before reading the news and being outraged became my full-time unpaid job.
This story, from CNBC, went with a beautifully disgusting headline:
Trump picks Gina Haspel as first female CIA director—her history with torture could hamper her confirmation
Her “history with torture” doesn’t mean she should be in prison, doesn’t mean she’s an inhuman monster, doesn’t even make her exempt from government office, no. It just might be a bit of a complication. Like a drunk-driving conviction or an affair with a porn star. Torturing people is an embarrassing faux pas.
… deciding to headline her genitalia rather than her long history of breaking international law. I would suggest “She could be the first torturer to ever run the CIA” as a better headline. It is, unfortunately, not true… but that’s never stopped CNN before.
The HuffPoat least has the sense to be seemingly undecided about it, just not in the way that you’d think:
Gina Haspel’s dark past makes her a complicated figure for feminists to support.
“Complicated” to support, is an interesting phrase. Some might have gone with “impossible” or “morally repugnant”. Trying to turn this into some kind of ethical quandary for feminists is offensive. Rather like the Guardian’s pitiful attempts to show the sympathetic side of the soldiers in the Abu Ghraib torture pictures.
Speaking of The Guardian… our trusty friend has a new story on Haspel today… its headline?
Gina Haspel must atone for her past to become CIA director
They don’t exactly say how one “atones” for a past as a professional torturer, but then this is The Guardian. There’s not to reason why, there’s just to puff out comfy certitude.
It refers to the detention and torture of people who were never charged or faced trial as “one of the darker chapters in modern US history”… which feels so much like simultaneous under and over statement, it’s actually hard to correct.
It’s NOT one of the darker chapters in US history, ancient or recent. But only because of everything else The Guardian refuses to report on. Torturing a few hundred people is nothing compared to starving 500,000 Iraqi children to death, when you think about it.
The Western press tend to talk about torture as if it was a temporary blip, an accident. A speed bump on our moral high-road. It is none of those things. The West LOVES torture, we have a long tradition of it. The CIA wrote handbooks on it in the 1960s. America tortured people for decades before they got caught. They claim to have stopped now, but they would have claimed they never started… before the leaks happened. It’s almost certainly still going on. Believing otherwise is just naive.
Our side tortures people. People who probably don’t know anything and never did anything.
… not that being guilty or having information justifies torture. That’s the rhetorical trap the media sets around torture. The debate about “effectiveness”.
We don’t ban torture because it doesn’t work, just like we don’t eat babies because it’s expensive and we don’t ban slavery because it’s really hard to find good chains. Even addressing the pragmatic angle is inappropriate. Torture is wrong, and a civilised society does not question that fact.
Of course, the “moral ambiguities” around torture are only for our side. The other side have no ambiguity. If they use torture – even only allegedly – then they are evil. Assad’s (thus far theoretical) torture prisons are one of the reasons we should invade Syria. (You remember, Amnesty International recreated one using echo-location). Unfounded accusations of torture have been levelled at Cuba and Venezuela over the years too.
It’s “torture” when they do it, you understand. Not “enhanced interrogation”. It’s “not who we are”, but it IS who THEY are.
For all that, Barack Obama remains the only modern leader to publicly admit to the use of torture. Remember that when the pronouncements about “our enemies” start flying around.
We have documented, and confessed, cases of using torture. Assad and Putin, Tehran and Beijing, Venezuela and Cuba, do not.
And the people who carried out this torture? They’re getting promoted.
Imagine Putin admitted the FSB tortured Chechens who had committed no crimes, and then appointed one of the torturers as head of the FSB. Would our press demand he “atone” for his dark past? Would we call him a “controversial” figure? Or would there be long editorials about Russia “thumbing their noses at international norms”?
Gina Haspel is a war criminal. The Hague was literally made for people like her. But she will never be charged, she will never be tried, she will never be hanged. Because she’s one of OUR monsters, doing dark deeds for our side. She will face no reckoning from us, instead we ask only that she “atone”, whatever that means.
It is so easy to forgive the crimes of the monsters you create.
The United States is so far doing virtually no trade with Iran anyway. In 2017 total US exports to Iran were just 138 million dollars, and total imports a mere 63 million dollars, figures entirely insignificant to the US economy. By contrast, for the EU as a whole imports and exports to Iran were each a very much more substantial 8 billion dollars in 2017 and projected to rise to over 10 billion dollars in 2018.
There is one very significant US deal in the pipeline, for sale of Boeing aircraft, worth $18 billion dollars. It will now be cancelled.
Which brings us to the crux of the argument. Can America make its will hold? Airbus also has orders from Iran of over US$20 billion, and it is assumed those orders will be stopped too, because Airbus planes contain parts and technology licensed from the US. It is possible, but unlikely, that the US could grant a waiver to Airbus – highly unlikely because Boeing would be furious.
Now even a $20 billion order is probably in itself not quite big enough for Airbus to redevelop aircraft to be built without the US parts or technology (which constitute about 8% of the cost of an airbus). But the loss of a $20 billion order on such capricious grounds is certainly big enough for Airbus to look to future long term R & D to develop aircraft not vulnerable to US content blocking. And if Iran were to dangle the Boeing order towards Airbus too, a $38 billion order is certainly big enough for Airbus to think about what adaptations may be possible on a timescale of years not decades.
Read across from aircraft to many other industries. In seeking to impose unilateral sanctions against the express wishes of its “old” European allies, the USA is betting that it has sufficient global economic power, in alliance with its “new” Israeli and Saudi allies, to force the Europeans to bend to its will. This is plainly a very rash act of global geopolitics. It is perhaps an even more rash economic gamble.
We are yet to see the detail, but by all precedent Trump’s Iran sanctions will also sanction third country companies which trade with Iran, at the least through attacking their transactions through US financial institutions and by sanctioning their US affiliates. But at a time when US share of the world economy and world trade is steadily shrinking, this encouragement to European and Asian companies to firewall and minimise contact with the US is most unlikely to be long term beneficial to the US. In particular, in a period where it is already obvious that the years of the US dollar’s undisputed dominance as the world currency of reference are drawing to a close, the incentive to employ non-US linked means of financial transaction will add to an already highly significant global trend.
In short, if the US fails to prevent Europe and Asia’s burgeoning trade with Iran – and I think they will fail – this moment will be seen by historians as a key marker in US decline as a world power.
I have chosen not to focus on the more startling short term dangers of war in the Middle East, and the folly of encouraging Saudi Arabia and Israel in their promotion of sustained violence against Iranian interests throughout the region, as I have written very extensively on that subject. But the feeling of empowerment Trump will have given to his fellow sociopaths Netanyahu and Mohammed Bin Salman bodes very ill indeed for the world at present.
I shall be most surprised if we do not see increased US/Israeli/Saudi sponsored jihadist attacks in Syria, and in Lebanon following Hezbollah’s new national electoral victory. Hezbollah’s democratic advance has stunned and infuriated the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia but been reported very sparsely in the MSM, as it very much goes against the neo-con narrative. It does not alter the positions of President or Prime Minister, constitutionally allocated by religion, but it does increase Hezbollah’s power in the Lebanese state, and thus Iranian influence.
Iran is a difficult country to predict. I hope they will stick to the agreement and wait to see how Europe is able to adapt, before taking any rash decisions. They face, however, not only the provocation of Trump but the probability of a renewed wave of anti-Shia violence from Pakistan to Lebanon, designed to provoke Iran into reaction. These will be a tense few weeks. I do not think even Netanyahu is crazy enough to launch an early air strike on Iran itself, but I would not willingly bet my life on it.
The problem is, with Russia committed to holding a military balance in the Middle East, all of us are betting our lives on it.
Against all common sense, moral considerations and international law, U.S. President Donald Trump tonight decided to place the United States outside the international so-called community and isolate itself, not Iran.
He withdrew the United States from what is one of the most important negotiated peace-oriented agreements that have ever been signed: the one that prevents Iran (if it has ever wanted to) from acquiring nuclear weapons: The Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, JCPOA, of July 2015 – all about this agreement and its text here).
Noteworthy is that the nuclear deal is incorporated into international law by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, even though the U.S. already at that point stated – as an exceptionalist state – that it did not consider the deal binding for it.
With the exception of Germany, the deal was negotiated – cynically, of course – by countries which have themselves thousands of nuclear weapons.
It never mentioned the only state in the region that possesses them, against international law in the form of UN resolutions and, additionally, has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). That state is Israel whose nuclear weapons Western politicians and their loyal, politically correct media omit mention of – as systematically and uniformly as if orchestrated by an invisible hand from above.
Back in 2014-15, many of us stated that the alternative to a negotiated deal would be war. I am still of the beliefthat President Trump’s announcement tonight will turn out to be a declaration of war on Iran. A series of developments since then in the Middle East point dangerously in the same direction.
Towards the end, his speech was extremely bellicose and one long systematic violation of the UN Charter’s Article 2.4 that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Without a doubt, both the decision itself, the way it was announced as well as the threats stated relating to the future was nothing but a series of indisputable violations of the UN Charter. For all practical purposes he seems also to question that Iran has the right to self-defence according to the UN Charter’s Article 51.
It cannot be deemed acceptable that the U.S. or Israel or any other country can deny Iran a right to have conventional missiles and other military equipment, at least not as long as other countries – including these two exceptionalist and nuclear-armed countries – have much more of such weapons themselves and there are no international agreements that prohibit such types of weapons.
Who has and who has not honoured the JCPOA?
It’s the United States that has never honoured its commitments according to the JCPOA: Old sanctions not lifted fully, new sanctions installed, and control by the US Treasury of all currency exchange that takes place via the dollar with the aim of punishing corporations and banks that trade and invest in Iran.
Towards the end, Trump declared his admiration for and non-conflict with the Iranian people.
But since 1979 his country has done everything in its power to cause troubles, economic in particular, to the Iranian people. He seems to now have a perverse joy in announcing new sanctions and – well, at the end of the long road kill people: Remember the 13 years of sanctions on Iraq that killed more innocent Iraqis than the military invasion and occupation did? Trump’s sanctions are open-ended.
In contrast to this, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and all other experts, Iran has fulfilled its side of the agreement in every detail.
CNN states on the page where the announcement was made: “Note: The Director of National Intelligence, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense have all said in last two months they are complying with the deal.” (“They” being the Iranians, JO).
Trump’s reference to Israeli PM Netanyauhu’s stand-up comedian-like speech a few days ago only shows how incredibly little evidence his administration has as that speech has been debunked completely by a series of independent experts, including Gareth Porter here. In addition, it was 1992 when Mr. Netanyahu first began talking about Iran attempting to go nuclear.
No wonder the West talks about fighting fake because others use fake. No wonder it blames others for international law violations. It’s called psycho-political projection of one’s own dark sides. And nuclear weapons and threats and lies belong to the dark sides.
Why Iran is not a threat
Unfortunately for the US militarist foreign policy circles, Iran is not a threat to the US or its allies. It pure nonsense.
For more than 250 years Iran has not invaded anyone – not exactly a record the West and Israel can match. Iran is in Syria fighting the terrorism which the U.S. allegedly fights too since 9/11 2001 (with the marvelous result that 17 years later 80 times more people worldwide are being killed in political terror actions than back then).
Iran is in Syria upon invitation by the legitimate government of Syria and, thus, in compliance with international law. So is, by the way, Russia. Whereas every other state or group – NATO allies, friends like Saudi Arabia and Israel on Syrian land, sea and air territory or through money, weapons and terrorism-support are involved through gross violation of international law, including the UN Charter.
The military expenditures of Iran with 80+ million people and a huge territory is US$ 15 billion. In the event of an attack on Iran, it may – may… – be supported by Russia or China but that is unlikely.
Who must Iran perceive as the likely coalition to attack it? It depends of course on who starts it – if Israel should start it, it would hardly do so without a prior green light by the U.S. and its commitment to help out. Saudi-Arabia is now the third largest military power in military expenditure terms, i.e. larger than Russia.
Israel’s military expenditures are US$ 16 billion – larger than Iran’s with a population about 1/10 of Iran. And, remember, Israel has nuclear weapons.
Saudi Arabia has been building up against Iran for a long time and built a coalition. Saudi military expenditures stand at US$ 69 billion. Oman’s are US$ 9 billion. Bahrain US$ 1 billion. So, a little dependent on one’s geo-political assumptions and hypotheses, we arrive at Iran US $ 15 billion against 16+69+9+1 = 95 or a 15:95 regional ratio.
It’s inconceivable that the U.S., France and the U.K. would not intervene. Indeed, the U.S. tonight declared war on Iran.
The military expenditures of the United States stand at US$ 610 billion, France at US$ 69 billion and the United Kingdom at US$ 47 billion.
So, is Iran a threat? Is Iran likely to start a war?
No matter what you might otherwise think of Iran, it is not a threat. It knows very well that it has 4 nuclear weapons states against it and a group of adversaries and Iran-hating leaderships whose combined military expenditures are, roughly speaking and according to the latest figures, a combined US$ 820 billion and way more technically sophisticated. And it knows that while its own military expenditures are US $ 16 billion – that the combined, thinkable international coalition that could get involved in a war in and around Iran is 55 times more resourceful in military terms.
So forget it. It’s exemplary fake foreign policy nonsense.
They are neither mentally ill nor suicidal in Tehran. In addition, in sharp contrast to almost all its potential military enemies, it is defensive in is military posture and foreign policy. Iran has gained strength in the region mostly because Western/NATO countries have produced one devastating, predictable war fiasco after the other.
Will the friends of the U.S. have the civil courage to speak up and take action now?
Will the NATO allies and EU friends – who have been woefully incapable of showing solidarity with Iran by standing up against the United States’ permanent non-commitment to and violation of the JCPOA – now be able to change course?
Why have they so submissively and leaderlessly avoided setting down their feet and saying to Washington: Dear friend, we will take action against you if you withdraw from the JCPOA because that step endangers all of us, could release a new round of violence, make the Second Cold War with Russia even colder and send millions of refugees our way. That will be our red line, a concept you surely understand!
Did NATO/EU really believe that President Macron’s and Chancellor Merkel’s pathetic appeasement attempts – such as talking in favour of a new agreement because the JCPOA “is not enough” – at the White House stage would charm and persuade Trump and his war-mongering, neo-con, militarist team with obsessed Iran-haters such as Trump, Bolton and Pompeo?
Of course: Neither NATO allies – or a country such as Sweden for that matter – will show the necessary civil courage to stand up against Donald Trump’s reckless de facto war declaration on Iran tonight. They will talk and express concern, in the best of cases.
For years, they have taken order from His Master’s Voice, their state-financed institutional researchers and military academy experts have had about the same freedom of creativity as their former colleagues had in the German Democratic Republic, at the time. Loud and clear criticism of U.S. foreign policy still a taboo?
For how long? With how much more pain brought down on innocent people in foreign lands?
And it is anyhow too late now. NATO/EU allies have not dared to speak truth to the Captain:
“The Titanic sails at dawn
And everybody’s shouting
“Which side are you on?”
-Bob Dylan, “Desolation Row” (1965)
The major ones likely to stand with Iran in this dark hour are Russia and China.
And Iran will need – and deserves – our sympathy. If there ever was a case for the need of standing with the Iranian people, this is it.
They have suffered more than enough over decades – yes due to the domestic corruption and economic mismanagement but in particular due to these suffocating sanctions. And it is the people – anywhere and therefore in Iran too – who will pay the highest price, as did – and still do – the Serbian people, the Afghan people, the Iraqi people, the Libyan people, the Syrian people and the Yemeni people, to mention a few.
Whether the – deceptively “soft” sanctions which over years turn into Weapons of Mass Destruction – or bombings, invasions, arms trade, splitting of sovereign states and other war crimes: the innocent citizens who never touched a gun are always and without exception those who suffer most.
Nobody believes a word of your statement about your respect and admiration of the Iranian people, Mr. Trump. With this step you obviously could not care less about their welfare and the peace of the region.
What should ideally be done now?
Just a few – non-violent – ideas that reflect what should be relevant to discuss objectively and in proportion to the violation of international law and ignorance of the common global good that the U.S. by its president’s statement is solely responsible for:
+ Allies and friends of the U.S. impose selected economic sanctions on the U.S. leadership to not only talk but show that they mean business.
+ Allies and friends of the U.S. summon the U.S. ambassadors to their countries for hard talk.
+ Allies and friends threaten to close U.S. military bases in their countries and demand withdrawal of U.S. troops (and secret forces) from them.
+ Everybody begin to practice civil disobedience against the U.S. by trading, investing and otherwise cooperating with Iran, its people and institutions. After all, the U.S. is now deliberately trying to bully everybody else in whose interest it is to cooperate in various ways with Iran. If enough countries, corporations and banks just ignore the U.S. threats, the U.S. legal system will not be able to handle all these cases.
+ More countries should now decide to trade oil in other currencies than the US dollar.
+ Citizens around the world go visiting Iran, see and hear for themselves what the well-educated, cultured, hospitable and discussion-happy Iranians are truly like – because the mainstream media and politicians have provided close to no information about the people, culture, history – and suffering – of the Iranian people but only conveyed negative perspectives and images conducive to confrontation and future warfare.
+ In addition: people-to-people exchanges below and above the state level is always peace-promoting and, secondly – it’s way more difficult to accept military activity against countries you know from your own experience and in which you have made friends. So, as much citizens diplomacy as possible! Now!
– All until the U.S. backs down from its new sanctions, stops violating international law also verbally in its dealings with Iran and, finally, accepts that other countries do what is in their interest vis-a-vis Iran without Washington’s intimidation, threats or other preventive actions. If you leave a deal because you think it is in your interest, you cannot also influence its outcome and legitimately prevent others from acting in their best interest. It’s as simple as that!
Wasthis a declaration of war?
I think: Yes. However, the U.S. doesn’t bother about declaring war, it just does them.
From now on the U.S. will invent reasons for confronting Iran, accusing Iran, threatening Iran. It will feel more free to do so being outside the deal. The only countries that are happy about the announced policy are those already ganging up against Iran.
The rest of the world will distance themselves or condemn this step – but it is not likely that the U.S. will listen. It’s constitutionally unable to, seeing itself as the Exceptionalist, Chosen Country, the global ruler. # 1 in a system tends to teach and not learn…
It doesn’t necessarily mean war on Iran tomorrow. I hope by all my heart that I’m wrong and it will never happen.
But given Trump’s decision andall the other events and trends and coalition-building against Iran since 2015, it is much much more difficult from today to ignore the risk of a US-led attack or war on Iran.
We must remember that the US conflict with Iran is not only about nuclear weapons but also about a long and very conflictual relationship since the CIA-led coup against Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953 (who had the cheek to believe that Iran’s oil belonged to the Iranians). It’s about today’s Syria, Israel, Saudi-Arabia and, since yesterday, Iran-supported Hezbollah in Lebanon.
And – perhaps less easy to grasp but perhaps most importantly – it’s about the decline of US Empire worldwide and, therefore, an ever-increasing reliance on that last power dimension where the U.S. is still second to none: the MIMAC, the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex.
The hammer will be used if it is the only tool in the toolbox no matter the problem to be fixed.
As a postscript, here is an interview with me on Iran’s international PressTV made nine hours before President Trump’s announcement. Another will follow that was made right after it and as a comment also on Iranian President Rouhani’s very balanced, moderate reaction to it.
The other day I learned that the British Zionist pressure group Campaign Against Antisemitsm, an organisation that cares about bigotry against one people only, has launched a new short course. They teach their supporters “how to build bridges with natural allies” so they can fight antisemitsm together. Someone should explain to these ultra Zionist campaigners that ‘natural allies’ do not need bridges to be built. Bridges are only required when is a need to span noticeable obstacles.
CAA’s unusual interpretation of the notion of ‘bridge building’ will help us to grasp today’s topic: Zionism and Africa or more precisely Jews and Blacks.
Jews often brag about their contributions to the Civil Rights Movement. According to some Jewish historians, a large amount of the funds for the NAACP came from Jewish sources – some experts estimate as much as 80%. Dr. King himself is regarded by many Zionists as their historic ally. Jewish sources often quote this defence of Zionism attributed to Dr. King. “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”
Howard Sachar begins his article Jews in the Civil Rights movement, by claiming that “nowhere did Jews identify themselves more forthrightly with the liberal avant-garde than in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. At the height of the anti-integration effort, in 1957, Rabbi Ira Sanders of Little Rock testified before the Arkansas Senate against pending segregationist bills.”
This would seem a positive moment in Jewish history until we remember that Judaism has sustained ‘segregation bills’ for two millennia. What are kosher dietary rules if not ‘segregation bills?’ I guess that we have all heard the Judaic and the Zionist attitude toward mixed marriage. Even within the Palestinian solidarity movement, many Jews choose to march within segregated racially oriented political cells (JVP, IJAN etc.)
I guess that CAA’s references to ‘bridge building with natural allies’ may help us to grasp the Jewish attitude to the Civil Rights Movement and solidarity movements. From a Jewish perspective the Blacks of the south were, to a certain extent, a ‘natural ally.’
Seemingly, some of the greatest voices of the Civil Rights Movement were Jews. Sachar writes “Jewish participation in the Civil Rights movement far transcended institutional associations. One black leader in Mississippi estimated that, in the 1960s, the critical decade of the voter-registration drives, ‘as many as 90 percent of the civil rights lawyers in Mississippi were Jewish.’… They worked around the clock analysing welfare standards, the bail system, arrest procedures, justice-of-the-peace rulings.”
Probably among the most famous Civil Rights heroes were the three young voter registration workers, Jewish New Yorkers, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman co worker, and James Chaney a Black man from Mississippi. The three were abducted and murdered by Klansmen and local law enforcement officers. This tragic event increased the nation’s awareness of the human crisis in the South.
But I am afraid that this is where the good story ends. Historically the Jewish attitude towards Blacks has been nothing short of a disaster. It is difficult to decide how to enter this colossal minefield.
In Jewish culture the word shvartze (Black, Yiddish) is an offensive term referring to a low being, specifically a Black person (“She’s dating a shvartze. Her grandmother is probably rolling over in her grave”). The reference to shvartze chaya is a direct reference to ‘black beast,’ meaning the lowest of the low. Shvartze chaya is also how Ashkenazi Jews often refer to Arab and Sephardi Jews. I guess that at least culturally some Ashkenazi Jews find it hard to deal with the colour black, especially when it comes on people. It is therefore slightly peculiar to witness white Ashkenazi Jews complain about white supremacy. If they are genuinely interested in combating white exceptionalism, maybe they should first uproot those vile symptoms from their own culture. I guess that kicking the racist ball into the goyim’s court is much easier.
We witness an anomaly — the same people who played a fundamental role in the civil rights movement, are themselves instrumental in an historic racist segregation project. The same people who supported the rights of Black Americans are implicated in deep cultural racism.
In order to grasp the Jewish institutional attitude toward Blacks we will review the ADL’s attitude to the Nation of Islam (NOI) in general and Louis Farrakhan in particular. The ADL claims that Farakhan is one of “America’s Leading Anti-Semite.(s)”
NOI according to the ADL, has “maintained a consistent record of anti-Semitism and racism since its founding in the 1930s.” The ADL’s site states that “under Louis Farrakhan, who has espoused and promoted anti-Semitism and racism throughout his 30-year tenure as NOI leader, the organization has used its programs, institutions, and media to disseminate its message of hate.”
“He (Farakhan) has repeatedly alleged that the Jewish people were responsible for the slave trade as well as the 9/11 attacks, and that they continue to conspire to control the government, the media, Hollywood, and various Black individuals and organizations.”
The question we want to ask at this stage is whether Farakhan’s criticism targets ‘The Jews’ as a people, race or ethnicity or does he actually target elements and sectors within the Jewish universe? A quick study of Farakhan’s cherry picked quotes provided by the ADL reveals that Farakhan doesn’t really refer to ‘the Jews’ as people. In most cases he refers to segments within the Jewish elite that are indeed politically dominant (AIPAC) and culturally corrosive or at least problematic.
But the question goes further. If the Jews do empathise with Blacks and their suffering why can’t they take a bit of criticism from the likes of Farakhan? If Jews care for the Other, as we are asked to believe, how come all this caring disappears once Farakhan appears on the scene? Unfortunately, the Jewish supporters of Palestine can operate like the ADL in this regard, occasionally acting as a thought police suppressing any reference to Jewishness as the driving force in Jewish history and Israeli criminality in particular.
Maybe the CAA’s peculiar understanding of the notion of bridge building is an accurate description of the Jewish political apparatus. What we see is a search for ‘natural allies’ that serve the Jewish cause rather than a humane empathic course towards peace, harmony and a better world. Jewish New Yorker Philip Weiss expressed this sentiment brilliantly in an interview with me. “I believe all people act out of self-interest. And Jews who define themselves at some level as Jews — like myself for instance — are concerned with a Jewish self-interest. Which in my case is: an end to Zionism.” Weiss supports Palestine because he believes it is good for the Jews. For him the Palestinians are natural allies. Similarly, Rabbi Joachim Prinz, who as a young German Zionist rabbi sought a potential collaboration with Nazi Germany, ended up as a leading Civil Rights figure marching alongside Dr. King supporting human rights. For the late Rabbi Prinz, Dr. King and the civil rights movement were natural allies, they were good for the Jews.
As you surely noticed, I have not mentioned the role of Jews in slavery. This horrendous chapter in human history is not within my field of study.* But I do see, like the rest of you, how the Jewish State treats Black refugees. I do see how Israel locks up Blacks for being Black. I grew up in a country that looked down at people with dark skin. When I left Israel in the 1990s, Ethiopian Jews couldn’t donate blood. Jews are probably split on their attitude to Blacks and this is good. But Jewish culture and politics have a lot of ground to cover before they can be considered ethical, universal or even empathetic.
* Those who seek answers to questions regarding the salve trade should consider reading Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism or tune themselves to the scholarship of Tony Martin and his writings on the Jews and their role in the salve trade.
A commentator believes the reason why President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal is because Israel which is “dictating” the policy of the United States is not “satisfied” with the agreement and is “sabre-rattling for war.”
“It was entirely predictable what Donald Trump was going to do. This was no kind of surprise. The bottom line is what they are doing is revealing themselves for who they are – by “they” I am talking about Israel and the United States establishments. What they are actually revealing is that they are out of step with the rest of the world. They have actually revealed that they have no sincerity and they are pursuing a policy which is hell-bent on causing conflict,” Seyyed Mohsen Abbas told Press TV in an interview on Wednesday.
He also maintained that Iran’s full compliance with its obligations under the nuclear deal over the last two years proved the Islamic Republic’s “sincerity”.
On Tuesday, Trump announced his decision to withdraw the United States from Iran’s nuclear deal with the world powers and re-impose sanctions against the Islamic Republic.
The announcement came despite massive efforts by the European allies of the US to convince Trump to stay in the 2015 deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), reached between Iran and the P5+1, five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the US, France, Britain, Russia and China, plus Germany.
Many are of the opinion that Trump has adopted the “Netanyahu Doctrine” wholesale and made it official American policy. His announcement to exit the Iran nuclear deal could have been scripted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu word for word. This, analysts believe, was not about improving or “fixing” the Iran deal. It was nixing and deep-sixing the JCPOA, and making sure it can never be resurrected. Without any pretense of setting up an alternative arms-control deal or a Plan B.
Before he joined the presidential race three years ago next month, Trump knew little about the Iran deal and cared even less, but for others, this is not just about pulling out of the JCPOA. It is part of a much wider campaign to confront Iran, one that always believed in a very different approach to that of the administration of former President Barack Obama and its European allies in striking the Iran deal. They have a broader philosophy of how to block Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. This is the “Netanyahu Doctrine.”
Meanwhile, in a separate interview, Alexander Azadegan, professor and editor-at-large with ImperialNews.com, told Press TV that Trumps’ withdrawal from the JCPOA has nothing to do with nuclear issues, adding that it is aimed at “regime change” in Iran.
“This discussion about the nuclear weapons or nuclear energy, this is all a red herring, it is all a distraction effort from what they really want to do, which is the entire collapse of the Iranian economy, in fact a declaration of war on Iran’s economy, which would lead to a regime change in Iran. That was their goal right from the outset,” he said.
The academic also said the United States was seeking to wage “psychological warfare” against Iran in an attempt to “manufacture consent for yet another war”.
He said Trump was deprioritizing the United States’ strategic goals and objectives by pursuing the foreign policy dictated by Israel.
Netanyahu believes the unspecified and tougher sanctions Trump spoke of could ultimately force Iran to negotiate and sign a much tougher arms control agreement, one with stricter inspection requirements, a more comprehensive dismantlement of the uranium enrichment program and no time limits on its implementation.
But there is a deeper desire, one that is rarely mentioned in public: In private, Netanyahu has been speaking hopefully in recent days of the deepening economic crisis in Iran and the prospect of renewed sanctions bringing the Islamic Republic to its knees, ultimately achieving regime change.
The dream scenario is a smaller-scale version of the Soviet Union’s disintegration in the early 1990s. Just as Netanyahu’s heroes Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher stood up to the Soviets and pushed them into an arms race that bankrupted Moscow and broke up the USSR, so he believes the sanctions can do likewise to Iran.
Last week’s “Iran lied” presentation in Tel Aviv, where Netanyahu put on show the Iranian nuclear archives Israel had seized in Tehran and spirited away, was staged for the benefit of one viewer in the Oval Office. It did the trick and sealed the Iran deal’s fate.
Netanyahu, in a televised address, unveiled what he called documents which show there is a “secret” side to the Iranian nuclear program.
Standing in front of a large screen at the Israeli ministry for military affairs, Netanyahu used props, video and slides to claim that Iran is lying about its nuclear program.
He showed documents and scores of CDs, which he said were “evidence” of Iran’s “secret” activities. The premier, however, did not go beyond making claims and refused to unveil the content of the materials he was presenting as alleged proof.
The US Treasury says licenses held by aerospace giants Boeing and Airbus to sell passenger jets to Iran will be revoked after Washington announced its withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal.
“The Boeing and (Airbus) licenses will be revoked,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Tuesday.
“Under the original deal there were waivers for commercial aircraft, parts and services and the existing licenses will be revoked,” he added.
The remarks came after US President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced that he was quitting the Iran nuclear agreement, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Trump also said that he would reinstate US nuclear sanctions on Iran and impose “the highest level” of economic bans on the Islamic Republic.
Trump’s decision came despite massive efforts by Washington’s European allies to convince the US president to stay in the JCPOA.
He had threatened US exit from the multilateral nuclear accord unless the European parties fixed what he has claimed “flaws” in the agreement.
In December 2016, France-based Airbus Group signed a deal to sell Iran 100 jetliners worth about $19 billion at list prices. It has delivered three planes so far.
In the same month, Chicago-based Boeing Co. announced a contract with Iran for 80 aircraft valued at $16.6 billion. It further announced another agreement in April 2017 to sell Iran 30 Boeing 737 MAX aircraft for $3 billion, with purchase rights for another 30 planes.
In remarks published on Tuesday before the Treasury’s announcement, Airbus had said it would study Trump’s decision on the JCPOA, noting that it would take some time.
Meanwhile, Boeing said the company would consult with the government on next steps.
“As we have throughout this process, we’ll continue to follow the US government’s lead,” said Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
Separately on Tuesday, US National Security Advisor John Bolton warned European companies that they would face immediate sanctions for new deals with Iran and that they have at most six months to wind down already existing agreements.
“No new contracts are permitted” he said. “For contracts that already exist, there is a wind-down period to allow an orderly termination of the contract,” he said.
Moreover, the new US ambassador to Berlin warned German companies to halt activities in Iran.
Richard Grenell issued the warning just hours after arriving in Berlin and presenting his credentials to the German president.
“US sanctions will target critical sectors of Iran’s economy,” he said. “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.”
This is while Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said following Trump’s announcement that Tehran would stay in the JCPOA with other signatories and stressed that from now on everything depends on the country’s national interests.
Rouhani noted that the US president has a history of undermining international treaties, stressing that Iran has always complied with its commitments to the deal, while the US has never lived up to its obligations.
Rouhani also noted that from now on the JCPOA is between Iran and the five remaining countries.
“Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is familiar with the decline of the world’s rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British protectorate of Rhodesia… before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies. There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire… Now an American citizen, Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage… the United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently… The U.S. political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction…”
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States claimed the mantle of the world’s first and only Unipower as well as its intention to crush any nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order foreseen just a few short years ago becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington. As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America’s claim to leadership, by the time Stanley Fischer’s interview appeared in the online version of the conservative German magazine Der Spiegel, he had already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve; eight months ahead of schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the “globalist” and former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of the British Empire as a young student in London, he actually assisted in the wholesale dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.
As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims, that makes Stanley Fischer not just empire’s Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.
Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei Shleifer, Anatoly Chubais and Jeffry Sachs, (the Harvard Project) Fischer helped to throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight – privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the robbery from beginning to end. As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book Shadow Elite, “Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them, this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial, even among communists… the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament.”
Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false narrative, she continues “The outcome rendered privatization ‘a de facto fraud,’ as one economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to ‘offer fertile ground for criminal activity’ was proven right.”
If Stanley Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire Americans to ask what role Stanley Fischer played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Unknown to Americans is the blunt force trauma Stanley Fischer and the “prestigious” Harvard Project delivered to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative’s James Carden “As the Center for Economic and Policy Research noted back in 2011… ‘the IMF’s intervention in Russia during Fischer’s tenure led to one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.’ Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF’s intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack.”
Neither do most Americans know that it was President Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that boomeranged back to terrorize Europe and America in the 21st century. Zbigniew Brzezinski spent much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the President’s top intelligence officer was that he couldn’t find Nicaragua on a map. If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following the Soviet Union’s collapse it was Zbigniew Brzezinski and if anyone could be said to represent the debt driven financial system that fueled America’s post-Vietnam Imperialism, it’s Stanley Fischer. His departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative’s spine. Their dream of a New World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.
Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. After emerging from their Marxist/Leninist cocoon after World War II their movement helped to establish the Cold War. And from the chaos created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists but directed by the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives’ goal was to deconstruct the nation-state through cultural cooptation and financial subversion and in that they have been overwhelmingly successful. From the end of World War II through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any and all opposition to their global dominion.
Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA’s founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987’s Hot Money and the Politics of Debt, described how “Pentagon Capitalism” had made the Vietnam War possible by selling the Pentagon’s debt to the rest of the world. “In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky’s couriers, and the European central banks arranged the ‘loan-back’” Naylor writes. “When the mechanism was explained to the late [neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era’s chief ‘think tank’ and a man who popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, ‘We’ve pulled off the biggest ripoff in history! We’ve run rings around the British Empire.’” In addition to their core of ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Zbigniew Brzezinski himself.
From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was known that their emergence could spell the end of democracy in America and yet Washington’s more moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight. Peter Steinfels’ 1979 classic The Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America’s politics begins with these fateful words. “THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First, that a distinct and powerful political outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American democracy.”
But long before Steinfels’ 1979 account, the neoconservative’s agenda of inserting their own interests ahead of America’s was well underway attenuating American democracy, undermining détente and angering America’s NATO partners that supported it. According to the distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces (led by Senator “Scoop” Jackson) from its inception. But America’s ownership of that policy underwent a shift following America’s intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente and Confrontation, “To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces in Europe was too much.”
In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, “The United States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of alliance unity.”
In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by Israel’s “politically significant supporters” in the U.S. to begin opposing any cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all. Garthoff writes, “The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez… Thus they [Israel’s politically significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem.”
Attempt to distance Russiagate investigation from discredited Trump Dossier fails on Papadopoulos’s inherent unreliability as a witness
By Alexander Mercouris | The Duran | January 1, 2018
As confidence in Robert Mueller’s investigation crumbles there have been the inevitable leaks intended to suggest that the Russiagate investigation is still on track and that despite the increasing appearances to the contrary there is actually some reality to the case it is investigating.
The leaks take the form of claims that Mueller is planning to issue a “supplemental indictment” of Paul Manafort supposedly fleshing out the tax evasion and money laundering claims he has brought against him, and more information about the strange case of George Papadopoulos. … 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.
Aletho News
Aletho News 