Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Syrian state YouTube channels ‘terminated’ amid fears of looming false flag chemical attack

RT | September 9, 2018

A number of Syrian state and media-linked YouTube accounts have gone dark, as the battle for Idlib looms, amid Russia’s warnings of an imminent false-flag chemical attack and Western preparations for retaliatory strikes.

On Saturday afternoon, the channels belonging to the Syrian Presidency, the country’s Ministry of Defense, and SANA news all showed a message saying: This account has been terminated due to a legal complaint” or “This account has been terminated for a violation of YouTube’s Terms of Service.”

The Damascus-based Sama TV channel on YouTube also appeared to be taken down, with a message reading: “This page isn’t available. Sorry about that. Try searching for something else.”

While YouTube has yet to issue a comment on the matter, it appears that Syrian channels went offline sometime on Saturday morning, just as Gen. Joseph Dunford warned that Pentagon is preparing and keeping Donald Trump informed about “military options” for retaliation in case “chemical weapons are used” in Syria.

The US has made it abundantly clear that it is ready to attack Syria, should chemical weapons come into play in the government Idlib operation to clear the remaining pockets of jihadists resistance in the province. Moscow believes that terrorists holed up in Idlib will try to stage a false flag attack to frame Damascus to justify further air strikes against Syria, and has warned the US against escalating the situation in the war-torn country.

On Saturday, the Russian military said it had obtained “irrefutable” data that terrorist groups, including Jabhat an-Nusra, and the infamous White Helmets, already met in Idlib province, and plotted the final scenarios for the false-flag chemical attacks in the cities of Jisr ash-Shugur, Serakab, Taftanaz and Sarmin.

The US and its allies have repeatedly stressed its readiness to strike Syria if any attack takes place, ignoring all Russia’s warnings. In late August, American forces deployed missile destroyer USS ‘Ross’ to the Mediterranean and USS ‘The Sullivans’ to the Persian Gulf. The preparation of US military forces was condemned by Russia, with its Defense Ministry describing the move as “the latest evidence of the US intention” to take advantage of a false-flag attack.

Read more:

  Terrorists & White Helmets met in Idlib to prep for final stage false flag chem attack – Russian MoD

September 8, 2018 Posted by | Full Spectrum Dominance | , , | 2 Comments

Pentagon to present its own plan of ‘effective war on terror’ in Syria – without Russia

RT | September 8, 2018

Washington has its own plan on how to “effectively” combat terrorism in Syria, the Pentagon has said, adding that the US is not planning to cooperate with Moscow on the issue.

The US military strategists have found what they call a “better, more focused way” to do counterterrorism operations in Idlib, the US Department of Defense said in statement on Saturday. The US military revealed almost no details of its plan as the statement said only that it would involve “using the US capabilities to spot the terrorists – even in an urban environment – and take them out with a minimum of civilian casualties.”

Washington also apparently plans to go at it alone, without working with other actors present in the area as the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, “was not talking about cooperating,” the statement added. He also said that he had not spoken with his Russian counterpart, Army General Valery Gerasimov, since the tensions around the Syrian northern militant-held Idlib province began to rise, adding that the two military officials are also “not scheduled” to talk in the near future.

Instead, the US military once again warned against a government offensive on the province, which is largely controlled by extremists, including the Al Qaeda affiliate known as Tahrir al-Sham (former Al Nusra Front), which it claimed would lead to a “humanitarian disaster.”

“The consequences of a major offensive operation in Idlib will almost certainly be the suffering of a large number of innocent civilians,” Dunford told journalists.

The head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff also slammed the results of the summit between the leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran on Syria, which was recently held in Tehran, by saying that the “meeting … failed” without going into further details.

Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Iran’s Hassan Rouhani discussed the situation in Syria and in the Idlib province in particular as part of the Astana peace process on Friday. All three nations agree that the threat of radical Islamists in Syria must be eliminated, but differed as to how this should be achieved.

While Iran advocated a strong-arm approach, Turkey objected to such an idea as it feared that a large-scale military operation could provoke a mass exodus of refugees to the neighboring Turkish regions. Eventually, a call for all armed groups in Idlib to lay down arms and seek a political transition was included in the final communique of the meeting. Both Turkey and Iran were, however, critical of the US presence in Syria.

Ankara was also persistent in its opposition to any potential offensive against extremists in Idlib. Turkey plans to stop any “anticipated attacks” on the militant-held province, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on Saturday, warning that any operation in Idlib could possibly lead to a “serious humanitarian tragedy.”

“Our aim is to stop airstrikes [in Syria’s Idlib]. We were anticipating attacks, which could have happened,” Cavusoglu said, adding that the clashes in the province “should stop” and the whole issue should be “resolved in line with the agreement and the spirit of Astana.”

September 8, 2018 Posted by | Illegal Occupation | , , | Leave a comment

International Relations Expert on UK Salisbury Assessment: ‘Accumulation of Fake News’

Sputnik – September 8, 2018

A meticulous decontaminating process is under way in the house in Salisbury where the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were attacked with a nerve agent. Sputnik spoke to Xavier Moreau, Journalist and Political Commentator, about this story.

Sputnik: The US, France, Germany and Canada have agreed with the UK’s assessment that Russia’s government “almost certainly” approved the Salisbury poisoning. What does this assessment mean for Russia?

Xavier: I think it won’t change anything because the relationship between the G6 and Russia is already very bad; so it is just a new accumulation of fake news and fake investigation on the Skirpal case.

Sputnik: Prosecutors in the UK believe there is sufficient evidence to charge the pair with offences including conspiracy to murder. Is there sufficient evidence to support Britain’s verdict

Xavier: Actually there is no evidence; it’s just pictures and some videos on the two men who were supposed to get a visa to come in the UK.  We do not even know if they are Russian. They [the UK] have said that they are from the GRU, but why the GRU? Why not a group like the FSB – how do they know that you know? There was an argument that was pronounced by Maria Zakharova, Russia’s Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman that you are supposed to give data to get a British visa. So why has London not published this data? I am very surprised. London has had 6 months to produce a reliable story but what they have said is a very poorly written story…

Sputnik: Looking to the future, what effect will this have on relations between Russia and the west?

Xavier: Relations between Russia and the West is already very bad, so it couldn’t be much worse. In my opinion until the midterm election in the United States all the Atlantic anti-Russian forces will be try to shield these anti-Russian fallacies; so they will use everything they can find and Skripal is one of these operations. You can also for instance the Syrian Crisis, they can find out another fake chemical from the Syrian Army… you will see. Until the 6th of November, you will not hear anything positive about Russia.

See also:

Skripal Skeptics: Which Countries Didn’t Agree With UK’s Assessment of Case at UN

September 8, 2018 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Saudi-backed delegates leave Yemen peace talks

Press TV – September 8, 2018

A delegation from Yemen’s former government has left UN-brokered talks in Geneva after representatives of the Houthi movement were prevented by Saudi Arabia from attending the negotiations.

“The government delegation is leaving today,” said an official from the Saudi-backed team on Saturday, referring to the former Yemeni administration. “There are no expectations the Houthis are coming,” he added.

UN envoy to Yemen Martin Griffiths told a news conference that the Houthis were “keen” to get to Geneva.

“They would have liked to get here. We didn’t make conditions sufficiently correct to get them here,” he said.

Ansarullah accused the Saudis of planning to strand the delegation in Djibouti, where their plane was to make a stop en route to Geneva.

The Saudis were “still refusing to give permission to an Omani plane” to land at the Yemeni capital Sana’a and take the delegation to Geneva, the movement said.

It posted a statement , saying the Houthis needed to “ensure the safety of the delegation” and require a guarantee that they would be allowed to return “smoothly” to Sana’a airport.

Yemenis took to the streets in Sana’a on Friday, blaming the United States, Britain, and Saudi Arabia for preventing the Houthis from joining the peace talks.

“The decision not to send an Omani plane (for the Houthi delegation) was made by the US and it is an American conspiracy with the help of Saudi Arabia,” senior Houthi official Abdulrahman al-Motawakel said.

“The US meant to delay the delegation from leaving, and the UN is helpless, and cannot do anything about it,” he added.

Loay al-Shamy, a senior Information Ministry official in Sana’a, said, “Regarding the peace talks, the delegation was formed and their names were announced and were ready to go but the UN, under pressure from the United States and Britain could not fulfill what was agreed on.”

The agreement was “to provide an Omani plane for the delegation that will participate in Geneva and offer the assurances required for the return of the delegation,” he said.

“We saw during the last talks that the delegation was stuck abroad and the UN could not bring them back home,” he added.

The two sides held their last UN-sponsored negotiations in Kuwait in 2016 in a bid to hammer out a “power-sharing” deal but they fell apart after the Saudi-backed side left the venue.

Yemen has been in turmoil since 2015 when former president Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi stepped down and then fled to Riyadh.

Hadi then asked Saudi Arabia to launch a military campaign against Yemen, leading to a crisis which has continued to this day.

Thousands have been killed in the Saudi-led invasion which has also pushed Yemen to the edge of famine.

A cholera outbreak, resulting from the devastation of Yemen’s health infrastructure, has also claimed more than 2,000 lives.

September 8, 2018 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

The New York Times Anonymous Op-Ed – A Neocon Generated Document?

By Philip Giraldi | American Herald Tribune | September 8, 2018

It seems that the entire world now knows that an Anonymous senior official on the White House staff has described an administration in chaos, headed by an “amoral” ignoramus, which only avoids disaster because a patriotic cabal within the West Wing that “puts country first” and constitutes a “resistance” has blocked or circumvented the president when he tries to do something unwise or dangerous. Or so the story goes.

My first admittedly quick reading of the op-edI am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration” that appeared in The New York Times a week  ago left me with the impression that it was a hoax, possibly concocted via the connivance of a lower level official in the national security apparatus who sold a dodgy package to the Times. The newspaper then cast aside all journalistic ethics to run with it in light of the near-simultaneous timing of the forthcoming Bob Woodward book Fear: Trump In the White House, which has a narrative that meshes nicely with the op-ed. The fact that the Times admits that it only had contact with the source, which may have been by phone, after dealing through intermediaries, suggests that they were hungry for the story and might not have carefully established the bona fides of the person claiming to be the author. And one has to wonder if the Times might have actively enabled a possible imposture to succeed or even engaged in some fabrication to delegitimize Donald Trump.

So it might just have been the latest symptom of Trump Derangement Syndrome, but then I read the piece through again and observed that the argument being made was logically consistent, i.e. that Donald Trump’s instincts and morals are so bad that he would end up destroying the American Republic but for the brave White House staffers who are taking steps to “box-in” the president on policies that those same staffers view as undesirable. Also, stylistically and syntactically, I noted how the writing and some on the contents reflect the worldview and linear thinking of someone who has been working in some aspect of national security. Indeed, it read like the sort of document that might have been produced by an intelligence agency.

Assuming that it actually was written by an individual in the Administration, one might profitably consider that many mid-level and even higher White House staffers are increasingly being drawn from the neocon ranks that infested the George W. Bush Administration. They hate their boss Trump and they also hate Russia, which features prominently (and somewhat oddly) in the op-ed.

In short, I now believe that the op-ed is serious, with intent to undermine the Trump Administration, written by someone or several someones in or close to the White House. The argument that the author should have gone public and resigned can be countered by two observations: first, the staffer might actually believe that he and his brethren staying in place and blocking Trump is for the good of the country. And second, if an increasingly paranoid Trump becomes consumed by searching through his staff for Anonymous “traitors,” he will become even more error and gaffe-prone, strengthening the case, if it should come to it, for impeachment.

The author’s possible neocon credentials surface in several places, starting with the reference to the “more robust military” before proceeding on to Russia. The op-ed describes how the good work of the dissidents in the White House, which he or she describes as “the Resistance,” have succeeded in “[calling out] countries like Russia… for meddling and [have them] punished accordingly” in spite of the president’s desire for détente. It then goes on to elaborate on Russia and Trump, describing how “… the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But the national security team knew better – such actions had to be taken to hold Moscow accountable.”

The op-ed is also notable for its praise of recently deceased neocon icon Senator John McCain, urging all Americans to “follow his example.” It notes “Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.” One might point out that the combination of citation of McCain with expressions like “robust” military, “punishing Russia,” “malign behavior” and holding Moscow “accountable” are straight out of the neoconservative playbook. They are also assertions that can be challenged. McCain was a flat-out warmonger. The “meddling” in any serious fashion in America’s 2016 election has yet to be demonstrated and the Skripal spy case in Britain is also based on questionable evidence, while “malign behavior” depends on which side of the fence one is standing on. To heighten tension with nuclear-armed and capable Russia is not necessarily in America’s interest. And Anonymous also forgets that Trump’s margin of victory in 2016 came from voters who found his calls for mending relations with Moscow appealing.

In passing, one other bizarre feature of the op-ed is the description of Trump as “amoral.” Compared to Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama that is quite an astonishing observation unless one considers rape, starting wars as a foreign policy option and assassinating American citizens to be just part of the job. And also the author might wonder about his or her own morality as he or she is betraying both his or her boss and plausibly the oath taken to uphold the Constitution.

But who wrote the op-ed and with what intention pales besides what the Times document appears to reveal. A cabal of senior officials who were not elected by the American people might be acting together and have possibly seen fit to circumvent the elected president by refusing to carry out his instructions as well as by actively and deliberately narrowing his options over policy issues to reflect what they think is best.

One might reasonably have problems with much of what Donald Trump does and how he does it, but our Constitution derives from the belief that the president and congressmen ought to be elected by popular vote and subject to the will of the people. Like it or not, the people spoke in November 2016. Nameless and faceless officials, many of whom are appointed purely on the basis of political connections, do not represent voters any more than they necessarily have any correct understanding about what is going on in the world. Their track record would suggest that they are wrong far more than they are right.

The Washington consensus has proven to be disastrous both for the American people and for many others worldwide. Anonymous represents the Establishment or Deep State or neoconservatism, call it what you will, striking back to bring down Trump. He or she is party to boxing in a president who, in his best moments, appears to be eager to bring change. Make no mistake, it all amounts to subversion of the intent of the Constitution of the United States and no one should regard “the Resistance,” if it truly exists, as patriotic or heroic.

September 8, 2018 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | 2 Comments

Despite History of Israeli Espionage, Bill Would Force NASA Cooperation with Israel Space Agency

By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | September 5, 2018

A bill that was passed by the U.S. Senate in early August and is currently under consideration by the House would mandate that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) work closely with the Israel Space Agency (ISA) despite the fact that such cooperation in the past was used by Israel to steal U.S. state secrets.

The provision is tucked within the bill titled the “United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018,” which would also provide Israel with $38 billion in U.S. military aid over a ten-year period, the largest military aid package in U.S. history. MintPress News previously reported that this massive aid package translates into approximately $23,000 every year for every Israeli family. However, the provision pertaining to NASA, which was first identified by the website If Americans Knewhas largely gone unreported.

According to the current text of the bill, NASA and the Israel Space Agency are mandated to work together “to identify and cooperatively pursue peaceful space exploration and science initiatives in areas of mutual interest, taking all appropriate measures to protect sensitive information, intellectual property, trade secrets, and economic interests of the United States.” The text also references past agreements established between NASA and the ISA such as the first mutual cooperation agreement, signed in 1996, and the 2015 “Framework Agreement for Cooperation in Aeronautics and the Exploration and Use of Airspace and Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes” as the basis for this “continuing cooperation.”

Absent, however, from the bill’s text is the fact that the ISA has used this cooperation in the past to steal classified U.S. information and to conduct espionage. For instance, a lawsuit filed in November 2014 by physicist Dr. Sandra Troian detailed how an Israeli postdoctoral student at Caltech, Amir Gat, blatantly violated U.S. law by illegally transmitting to Israel classified information on NASA technology.

According to court documents, the theft of classified information took place at Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, an important NASA research and development center. Gat now lives in Israel and works at ITT, an Israeli government institution.

Yet, instead of attempting to stop the espionage, Caltech administrators sought to silence Troian, in violation of the school’s whistleblower policy, and retaliated against her for speaking up, including engaging in efforts to have her fired.

Troian maintains that the school was afraid of taking her concerns seriously, as it would have put the university’s $8 billion contract with NASA at risk and cast the institution in a bad light. Also of note was the fact that the Obama administration showed no interest in the case despite its repeated use of the Espionage Act to target legitimate government whistleblowers.

Thus, the Caltech incident — and the lack of accountability and the effort to silence whistleblowers that ultimately ensued — greatly weaken the bill’s claim that “all appropriate measures to protect sensitive information, intellectual property, trade secrets, and economic interests of the United States” will be followed. Despite the gravity of this incident, the inclusion of this NASA-related provision in the pending bill leaves an open door for such espionage to again take place, to the detriment of U.S. “national security.”

However, as the Trump administration has shown, the “national security” of the U.S. and of Israel have become profoundly intertwined, as President Trump’s campaign promises of “America First” quickly devolved into “Israel First” — thanks largely to the influence of Trump’s largest donor, Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Thus, concerns about Israeli espionage seem to be of little import to the current administration as well as to many members of Congress — particularly those greatly influenced by powerful organizations of the Israel lobby, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

A long-standing double standard

Yet, failure to prevent or punish Israeli espionage in the United States has long been a common policy in Washington that significantly predates the Trump administration. With the notable exception of former U.S. government contractor and Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, the Israel lobby and pro-Israel billionaire donors have been largely successful in obtaining presidential pardons or lenient sentences for alleged Israeli spies.

A clear illustration of this double standard is the case of Colonel Lawrence Franklin, a case that clearly illustrates that espionage, when conducted by Israel, is not treated as seriously by the U.S. government as other cases of espionage. Franklin, a former employee at the U.S. Department of Defense, pled guilty to espionage in 2006 for giving classified information to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as well as directly to Israeli officials, in an attempt to pivot U.S. military forces engaged in Iraq towards Iran.

The Bush administration successfully pushed the Justice Department to pardon Franklin’s co-conspirators and then pushed Justice to reduce Franklin’s 13-year prison sentence to 10 months of house arrest. Subsequently, members of U.S. Congress asked Obama to pardon Franklin in 2016, asserting that “his [Franklin’s] intentions were to save lives and protect this great country” despite the fact that Franklin had sought to involve the U.S. in a war with Iran in order to benefit Israel.

Thus, the current NASA provision in the United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act of 2018 would ostensibly continue this practice of “turning a blind eye” to Israeli interference and espionage in the United States if the bill is passed in the coming weeks.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

September 8, 2018 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment

Gullible, Gutless and Gagged

Legal advice and common sense jettisoned as UK Labour Party leaders surrender to Zionist diktat

By Stuart Littlewood | Dissident Voice | September 7, 2018

Jeremy Corbyn, knifed by his senior lieutenants and failed by his media team, is on the danger list and now looks isolated.

At the fatal NEC (National Executive Committee) meeting this week to discuss whether the party should adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism in full, with all its examples, he prepared and presented a 500-word statement to water down the definition but this met with an angry reaction from most NEC members and he dropped it.

According to the Guardian the most controversial passage in Corbyn’s draft statement said:

It cannot be considered racist to treat Israel like any other state or assess its conduct against the standards of international law. Nor should it be regarded as antisemitic to describe Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact, or to support another settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

That these words caused such a rumpus tells us all we need to know about the mentality of the modern Labour Party. It is surely self-evident that the Israel project was racist from the start and confirmation, if any were needed, is provided by the discriminatory nation state laws, emphasising Jewish supremacy, recently passed by the Knesset. Why deny the glaring truth? And last time I checked there was no ‘settlement’ of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the two-state idea endlessly talked about but never energetically pursued was stone-dead.

At the  end of a stormy meeting the NEC accepted the IHRA definition and all its examples but added a statement “which ensures this will not in any way undermine freedom of expression on Israel or the rights of Palestinians.”

But the Israel lobby were still not satisfied and renewed their whinging. The Jewish Leadership Council’s chief executive, Simon Johnson, said Corbyn had “attempted shamefully to undermine the entire IHRA definition”, adding that the free speech caveat “drives a coach and horses” through that definition. “It is clearly more important to the Labour leader to protect the free speech of those who hate Israel than it is to protect the Jewish community from the real threats that it faces.”

A false dichotomy, of course. And if their case cannot withstand free speech it must have been bullsh*t in the first place.

Richard Angell, director of the centre-left Progress group, said:

The Jewish community made it clear and simple to Labour: pass the IHRA definition in full – no caveats, no compromises. Jeremy Corbyn and the Momentum-dominated NEC have just failed the most basic test. A ‘right to be racist’ protection when debating the Middle East is not just wrong, it harms the cause of peace but it will also continue a culture where Jewish people cannot feel at home in Labour.

Today’s decision is an insult. Labour does not know better than Jewish people about antisemitism.

He was backed up by another Progress director, Jennifer Gerber, who is also a director of Friends of Israel. She said:

It is appalling that the Labour party has once again ignored the view clearly and repeatedly stated by the Jewish community: that it should adopt the full IHRA definition without additions, omissions or caveats.

The IHRA definition has been adopted in full by 31 countries, including the UK, as well as over 130 UK local councils, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary. A ‘freedom of expression on Israel’ clause is unnecessary and totally undermines the other examples the party has supposedly just adopted.

The recurring message is that free speech is a threat and doesn’t seem to have a place in their world.

Re-frame anti-Semitism accurately – don’t accept the skewed version by the Israel lobby

So let’s get this straight: DNA research confirms that the great majority of those calling themselves Jews are not of Semitic blood. So does anti-Semitism mean what it says? Shouldn’t it mean that if we outlaw anti-Semitism we outlaw being nasty to the genuine Semites of the Holy Land; i.e. the indigenous people who include Palestinians whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish? And are they not terrorised and persecuted by the Israeli regime which is the chief perpetrator of anti-Semitism and which has oppressed, dispossessed, impoverished and slaughtered those people for 70 years?

Corbyn and his New Look Labour Party were in a position to lead a move to ‘unskew’ the definition of anti-Semitism and re-frame it accurately – with, of course, the help of the various campaign and BDS groups worldwide. But now they’ve effectively muzzled themselves.

And for some strange reason Corbyn and his team, throughout the unpleasant warfare in his party over anti-Semitism, completely ignored the warnings issued by legal experts Hugh Tomlinson QC, Geoffrey Robertson QC, Sir Stephen Sedley and others which explained how:

  • the IHRA definition is “too vague to be useful” and conduct contrary to it is not necessarily illegal. Public bodies are under no obligation to adopt or use it and, if they do, they must interpret it in a way that’s consistent with their statutory obligations and with the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
  • the right of free expression is now part of UK domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act;
  • Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights bestows on everyone “the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference…”;
  • the IHRA definition is open to manipulation. “What is needed now is a principled retreat on the part of Government from a stance which it has naively adopted,”says Sedley;
  • calling Israel an apartheid state or advocating BDS against Israel cannot properly be characterized as anti-Semitic. Furthermore, any public authority seeking to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or punish such activities “would be acting unlawfully”;
  • it is “not fit for any purpose that seeks to use it as an adjudicative standard. It is imprecise, confusing and open to misinterpretation and even manipulation”.

Robertson adds:

The Governments ‘adoption’ of the definition has no legal effect and does not oblige public bodies to take notice of it. The definition should not be adopted, and certainly should not be applied, by public bodies unless they are clear about Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is binding upon them, namely that they cannot ban speech or writing about Israel unless there is a real likelihood it will lead to violence or disorder or race hatred.

Crucially, freedom of expression applies not only to information or ideas that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, but also to those that “offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population” – unless they encourage violence, hatred or intolerance.

What’s more, the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee recommended adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism subject to the inclusion of these two caveats :

(1) It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

(2) It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.

The Government in adopting the IHRA definition dropped these caveats saying they weren’t necessary. But you’d expect that from an administration brazenly stuffed with members of the Zionist Tendency.

These top legal opinions are lethal ammunition. Had Corbyn and his media team deployed them to good effect the baying attack dogs would have been stopped in their tracks.

So the IHRA definition is not something a sane organisation would incorporate into its Code of Conduct – certainly not as it stands. It contravenes human rights and freedom of expression. But when did the admirers of apartheid Israel ever care about other people’s rights?

September 8, 2018 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance | , , , | 1 Comment

After 65 Years the US Considering a New Coup D’Etat in Tehran – Iranian Scholars

Sputnik – September 8, 2018

The lessons of the 1953 coup d’etat in Iran remain unlearned by the US leadership, Iranian scholars told Sputnik. Washington has adopted old methods of psychological warfare and economic pressure to manipulate Tehran into making concessions; however, over the past 65 years the Islamic Republic of Iran has dramatically changed, they said.

The Trump administration has adopted the methods Washington resorted to 65 years ago to carry out a coup d’etat in Iran, Professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi, an expert on American studies at the University of Tehran, told Sputnik Persian.

“In my opinion, now the situation in Iran is not very similar to that time,” he said. “But the methods used by the US are similar. This is an oil boycott and a psychological war. Then the Persian BBC radio service was engaged in this, now it is BBC television and social networks in Persian sponsored by the West, and thousands of people who conduct psychological cyberwar from Iran to the morning. But, I repeat, now the situation is completely different. The current leadership of Iran is very different from the government of Dr. Mossadegh.”

Marandi’s comment came on the heels of a statement made by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, who accused the US of carrying out “actions,” which could lead to yet another coup d’etat in the country.In 1953, the CIA-backed coup d’etat led to the ousting of the legitimately-elected cabinet headed by Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, replacing it with the government of General Fazlollah Zahedi.

According to Marandi, one of Mossadegh’s grave mistakes was that he was “naïve” and “trusted the United States.” At the same time, the former prime minister tried to preserve the pro-Western Iranian monarchy, he added. “In addition, Dr. Mossadegh could not stand being reprimanded, which led him to isolation within the country,” he noted, adding that the United States had used “these numerous internal contradictions.”

“Now the leaders of our country are not so naive and do not cherish illusions about the intentions of the United States,” the Iranian professor emphasized. “Even those who looked optimistically at the future of US-Iranian relations following the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) realized that they could not trust the US and its allies, witnessing [Barack] Obama’s complete inactivity with regard to the JCPOA and Trump’s aggressive policy towards Iran.”

Fuad Izadi, an Iranian researcher specializing in American affairs and a member of the scientific council of the department of US studies at the University of Tehran, shares Marandi’s stance.He stressed that a potential coup d’etat involving the Iranian military under the command of the United States, Britain or another country in Iran is absolutely impossible.

“The senior leadership of the Shah army was educated in America and the Shah himself was an American-British apprentice,” Izadi said. “Today, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other units of the Iranian army are trained in their country and belong to the people of Iran. Our army will never go against its people.”

He noted that although numerous US programs aimed at regime change in the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and other countries had never declared their genuine goals openly, their incentives and motivation were clear.

“For example, in the US budget for 2017 such actions were not called as a preparation for a coup, instead they were dubbed “democracy programs,” the researcher remarked, explaining that these endeavors were targeting the states not bowing before Washington, namely Iran, Russia and China.

According to Izadi, the Iranian people should keep in mind the events of 1953 and “closely monitor every step of American officials and their proteges.”Commenting on Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA in May 2018 and the resumption of anti-Iranian sanctions, he noted that the Trump administration’s primary aim is to trigger civil unrest in the country. However, these efforts will prove futile, the researcher foresees, as the people of the IRI know that the real “culprit” behind the sanctions is Trump, not Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

For his part, Marandi highlighted that Washington’s attempts to limit Iran’s access to the US dollar prompted Tehran and other countries to seek alternatives to the greenback.

“It seems that over the past 65 years the Americans have failed to understand how they should deal with the Iranian people,” Izadi concluded.

READ MORE:

Analyst: US, Israel Formed ‘Highly Professional Working Group’ Against Iran

September 8, 2018 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , , | Leave a comment