The US is still reluctant to take measures to force rebels under its control to implement the Syrian ceasefire, Russia’s Defense Ministry said, adding that if things do not change, Washington will be the sole side responsible for the failure of the truce.
“After five days of the ceasefire, it has to be noted that only the Russian and Syrian sides have been fully implementing their commitments. On its own initiative, Russia prolonged the cessation of hostilities for 48 hours, and yesterday it was extended for another 72 hours,” senior Russian General Staff official, Viktor Poznikhir, said at a briefing in Moscow.
But, according to Poznikhir, it is very different on the American side as “the US and the so-called moderate groups under their control didn’t fulfill a single commitment undertaken in the framework of the Geneva arrangements.”
The Russian official pointed out that “the main priority of the Russian-American agreements of September was the division of territories controlled by IS (Islamic State, formerly ISIS/ISIL), Jabhat al-Nusra, and the areas controlled by the ‘moderate opposition,’ as well the separation of the ‘moderate opposition’ from Jabhat al-Nusra.”
Such a division is essential for the implementation of the ceasefire in Syria because “without it, the hands of the government forces are tied. They can’t fight the terrorists without knowing which of them joined the truce and who didn’t,” he explained.
Numerous Russian appeals to the American side remain unanswered, which “raises doubts over the US’s ability to influence opposition groups under their control and their willingness to further ensure the implementation of the Geneva agreements.
“Russia is making every possible effort to hold off government troops from the use of force in return [to opposition attacks]. If the US does not implement the necessary measures to fulfill their obligations under the September 9 agreements, the responsibility for the failure of the ceasefire will be solely America’s,” Poznikhir said.
The inaction of the American side has already led to a worsening of the situation in Syria, the General Staff official stressed.
“Tensions are rising in Syria, especially in the provinces of Aleppo and Hama, where opposition groups are using the cessation of hostilities to regroup forces, refill their stocks of ammunition and weapons and are preparing an offensive in order to capture new territories,” he said.
“In the past 24 hours, the number of attacks has increased drastically. The positions of government troops, the people’s militia, and civilians were fired at on 55 occasions,” Poznikhir added.
Last week, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, and US Secretary of State, John Kerry, agreed to influence the Syrian government and the so-called moderate rebel forces respectively in order to establish a ceasefire in the country.
Since then, Russia has repeatedly complained that the US is failing to keep its part of the bargain. While the US, on its part, blamed Russia for not pressuring Damascus enough to facilitate humanitarian access to Syria.
Lavrov talked to Kerry on the phone Saturday, urging Washington to start influencing the opposition in Syria in order to expand humanitarian access in the country, the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
The FM also called on the American side to actively participate in monitoring the Syrian ceasefire instead of merely accusing Syrian government forces of violations.
“Due to Washington’s continuing claims of ceasefire violations by the Syrian government forces, the Russian Foreign Minister urged them to go beyond accusations and to ensure the US military’s full-fledged participation in the ceasefire control mechanism created as far back as February and March and to take action against violations,” the ministry said in a statement.
Lavrov also stressed that “as result of Russia’s efforts, the issues of putting on track cooperation between the Syrian authorities and the United Nations in the area of broader humanitarian access are being solved, though not without difficulty.”
Insulting Barack Obama made the headlines, but Rodrigo Duterte’s remarks referred to a long and dark history of US interference in the Philippines. Narendra Shresthma, Mast Irham/EPA
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has taken his “bad manners” – having gained global notoriety with his election campaign insults earlier this year – to a new level.
If that were all there was to it, we could rightly roll our eyes and move on. After all, Duterte’s language is vulgar; his slander of people and groups is liable to incite violence; and his determination to kill drug pushers (to fight “crime with crime”) an abuse of power. He should not be defended for any of this.
But as someone who has spent a long time studying US-Philippine relations, I think there’s something more for us to see here. And if we want to judge the Philippine president (and, by default, the nation for electing him) from high moral ground, I think we have a responsibility to pay attention to it.
Restoring an invisible history
Who is he to question me about human rights and extrajudicial killings?
So asked Duterte on Monday. It’s actually a very good question, and one long overdue from a Philippine president. The extent to which the violence of US relations with the Philippines has been made invisible by a history written predominantly by Americans themselves cannot be overstated.
It began with a three-year war (1899-1902) that most Americans have never heard of. The war overthrew a newly independent Philippine republic and cost between 250,000 and a million Filipino lives – only to be called “a great misunderstanding” by American colonial writers.
After all, the US had chosen the Philippines to be its great Asian “showcase of democracy”. The invasion was a benevolent act. Hence the complete erasure of acts of American violence from the Philippine national story.
The 20th Kansas Volunteers march through Caloocan after the battle of February 10, 1899, early in the war that toppled the first Philippine republic.G.W. Peters/Internet Archive
You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to smell something rotten. Since the 1950s Philippine writers, academics, journalists and so on have been trying to reframe the historical narrative to point out this fact: to be invaded by a military power, told you don’t possess the character or capability for self-government, and then controlled by another nation for four decades, to the occupier’s lucrative commercial benefit, was not to be the recipient of a benevolent act.
Even at the time the war was taking place, one of America’s best-loved authors was writing just as much. Mark Twain was prolific in writing about the paradox of the “democratising mission” to the Philippines.
The Person Sitting in Darkness is almost sure to say: ‘There is something curious about this – curious and unaccountable. There must be two Americas: one that sets the captive free, and one that takes a once-captive’s new freedom away from him, and picks a quarrel with him with nothing to found it on; then kills him to get his land.’
In America, these remain Twain’s least-known works.
Before his (now regretted) distasteful remark, Duterte had much to say in response to the question about being confronted over human rights in an upcoming meeting with Obama. He was responding to murmurs from critics that, if he wouldn’t listen to anyone else about the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines, just wait until he meets the US president.
No-one seems to have listened to or cared much about the other six minutes of Duterte’s reply. So let me tell you something about it. It was a reclaiming of the historical narrative of Philippine-US relations, a holding up to the US of the hidden “looking glass” Mark Twain had written about 100 years earlier.
The Macabebe Scouts were a native Filipino force of the US Army during the Spanish–American War.The Ardvaark/Wikipedia Commons
An assertion of independence
Calling out the hidden insinuations, as Duterte did, that the US continues to have authority over the politics of the Philippines, is bold and brazen, but reasonable. Consider his statement:
I am a president of a sovereign state. And we have long ceased to be a colony. I do not have any master but the Filipino people.
These words are less evidence of his demagoguery or an intention to personally disparage Obama than a reference to history, and are more accurately read as such.
After the second world war, colonies of any sort, even the so-called “democratic” US one in the Philippines, were on the nose. But this didn’t stop Washington officialdom from continuing to claim the right of access to the Philippines’ political and economic realms.
When the US finally granted the Philippines its (second) independence in 1946, it required the new republic to amend its constitution so a bill could be passed that, as well as legislating preferential trade conditions for the US, would grant American citizens equal rights with Filipinos to Philippine natural resources. It was the beginning of a new phase: neocolonialism.
It was not just a matter of political interference and the power to make or break Philippine presidents with endorsement and strategic financial support. In a visceral sense, the nation was always being watched and judged by its democratic “teacher”.
School Begins: Uncle Sam lectures his class in Civilisation (the pupils are labelled Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and Cuba).Puck Magazine 1899
Asked about being confronted with human rights concerns by Obama, Duterte said:
You must be kidding. Who is he to confront me? America has one too many to answer for the misdeeds in this country … As a matter of fact, we inherited this problem from the United States. Why? Because they invaded this country and made us their subjugated people … Can I explain the extrajudicial killing? Can they explain the 600,000 Moro massacred in this island [Mindanao]? Do you want to see the pictures? Maybe you ask him. And make it public.
I’m reminded of a comment by Alicia Garza, a founder of the Black Lives Matter movement ignited by police killings of black Americans. Speaking in Sydney last weekend at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, she related how, when civil rights protests get uncomfortably heated, she is often asked: “Why are they so angry?” She paused. Then softly giggled, giving the audience time for the ludicrousness of the question to sink in.
Why is the Philippines president so angry about the prospect of the US president confronting him about human rights abuses? History. As Duterte said himself on Monday, violent acts of the past don’t stay in the past. They get passed on from generation to generation, especially when the injustice goes unacknowledged and unaddressed.
It is difficult to stomach Duterte’s style. It certainly is difficult to look past the serious issues raised by his administration’s “war on drugs”. We should condemn his misuse of power.
But if we condemn the president for his recent remarks because we claim to be concerned about the rights of Filipinos while showing no interest in acknowledging the past crimes and injustices against the Philippines, we fall into our own sort of hypocrisy.
Let’s be honest, if Duterte didn’t curse and swear and offend our sensibilities, would we be paying so much attention to the Philippines? For once, I heard a Philippine president holding the US to account for all its doublespeak and hypocrisy in US-Philippine relations. And I couldn’t help but appreciate that.
Adele Webb, PhD Researcher, Department of Government and International Relations / Sydney Democracy Network, University of Sydney
Disclosure statement
Adele Webb does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.
Two boats with all-women crews set sail Wednesday for the Gaza Strip from Barcelona, Spain. They are planning to travel across the Mediterranean and break the Israeli blockade on Gaza by delivering much-needed medical supplies to the people of Gaza.
The participants in the siege-breaking boat hail from fifteen different countries and include members of Parliament and other dignitaries.
From Barcelona, the boats will travel to France, and one other port before heading to Gaza. This is just the latest of a series of boats that have tried to break the blockade on Gaza since Israel imposed the air, sea and land blockade in 2006.
The mayor of Barcelona, Ada Colau, arrived at the port on Wednesday along with hundreds of supporters, to offer her support for the mission of the Women’s Boat to Gaza trip.
The two boats have been named the “Amal”, which means ‘hope’ in Arabic, and “Zaytouna”, which means ‘olive’ in Arabic.
The list of passengers includes Tunisian MP Latifa Habashi; Malin Björk, a Member of European Parliament from Sweden; Ann Wright, a retired U.S. Army Colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the invasion of Iraq; and Dr. Fauziah Modh Hasan, a Malaysian physician who has participated in many humanitarian missions with the Malaysian Medical Relief Society.
The Chairman of the Popular Committee to Support Gaza, Essam Youssef, said in a statement that the Women’s Boat to Gaza is “a humanitarian cry in the face of an illegitimate siege imposed on an innocent people that has been calling for years on the international community for help.”
He added, “Palestine will remain the axis of struggle not just in the Middle East but also in the world. Achieving justice for Palestine is the key to stability in the region and the world.”
Wednesday’s launch of the Women’s Boat to Gaza came just as the U.S. Congress authorized an unprecedented $38.5 billion aid package to Israel, despite acknowledging in the same session that Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank has violated all signed agreements and international law.
A new report examining widespread corruption and waste in Afghanistan found that the practice blossomed following the US invasion in 2001. The problem was fed by its slowness to recognize the problem and exacerbated by the injection of tens of billions dollars into the economy with very little oversight.
“Corruption in Conflict: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan” examined how from 2001 to 2014 the US government, through the Department of Defense, State, Treasury and Justice and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) understood the risks of corruption in Afghanistan, how the US evolved its understanding, and the effectiveness of that response.
SIGAR was created by Congress to provide independent and objective oversight of Afghan reconstruction projects and activities.
The report released on Wednesday had five main findings: 1) corruption undermined the US mission in Afghanistan by fueling grievances against the Afghan government and channeling material support to the Taliban; 2) the injection of tens of billions of dollars into the Afghan economy was governed by flawed oversight and contracting practices and “partnering with malign powerbrokers”; 3) the US was slow to recognize the problem; 4) when it did recognize the depth of corruption “security and political goals” trumped anti-corruption efforts; 5) in areas where it was successful it was only “in the absence of sustained Afghan and US political commitment.”
The report defined corruption as “the abuse of entrusted authority for private gain,” and placed in the context of Afghanistan’s kinship-based society where the gains from corruption often benefited not just an individual but a family, clan, tribe or ethnic group.
Corruption is the system of governance
According to SIGAR about $113.1 billion has been appropriated for Afghanistan relief and reconstruction since 2002. The funds were used by the Afghan National Security Forces to promote good governance, conduct development assistance, and engage in counter-narcotics and anti-corruption efforts.
In a 2010 US Embassy Kabul report on a meeting with senior US officials and the Afghan National Security Adviser, Dr. Rangin Dadfar Spanta said “corruption is not just a problem for the system of governance in Afghanistan; it is the system of governance.”
The report referred to a 2015 UK research that showed there was weak separation of the private and public spheres which resulted in widespread private appropriation of public resources, vertical- and identity-based relationships had primacy over horizontal, i.e. citizen-to-citizen relationships, and politics was centered around a centralization of power and patron-client relations replicated throughout society.
Opportunities for corruption expanded after 2001 as the amount of money in the economy grew from millions to billions of dollars with the Department of Defense budget at time equivalent to the entire Afghan economy and sometimes quadruple the amount.
“Many of the funds were licit, arriving via civilian and military contracts. At their peak in fiscal year 2012, DOD contract obligations for services in Afghanistan including transportation, construction, base support, translation/interpretation, an private security total approximately $19 billion, just under the Afghanistan’s 2012 gross domestic product of $20,5 billion,” stated the report. “From 2007 to 2014 those contract obligation totaled more than 89 billion.”
Billions worth scandals
During the years of the Obama administration, Afghanistan was rocked by two corruption scandals: The Salehi arrest and the Kabul Bank losing $1 billion.
Salehi was involved in the New Ansari Money Exchange, a money transfer firm that moved money into and out of Afghanistan. The exchange was suspected of moving billions of dollars out of Afghanistan for Afghan government officials, drug traffickers and insurgents. US law enforcement and intelligence investigators estimated that as much as $2.78 billion was taken out of Afghanistan between 2007 and 2010.
“A wiretap recorded an aide to Karzai, Mohammad Zia Salehi, soliciting a bribe in exchange for obstructing the investigation into New Ansari. Reportedly, after US officials played some of the wiretaps for an adviser to Karzai, the adviser approved Salehi’s arrest,” stated the report.
Salehi was arrested in July 2010, but was released within hours on the orders of President Karzai and the case was dropped. The New York Times reported Salehi had once worked for notorious warlord Rashid Dostum and was also “being paid by the CIA.”
“If true, this would suggest a US intelligence agency was paying an individual as an intelligence asset even as US law enforcement agencies were building a major corruption case against him,” stated the report.
The other corruption scandal involved the Kabul Bank, which was used among other things to pay the salaries of the Afghan military and police, was found in 2010 to have lost nearly $1 billion of US taxpayer’s funded foreign assistance to Afghanistan. The bank’s deposits had seemingly vanished into Dubai and off-shore locations and unknown offshore bank accounts and tax havens, through Ponzi schemes, fraudulent loans, mass looting and insider loans to fake and bogus companies by less than 12 people who were apparently linked to President Karzai.
Lack of oversight and slow response
Against this the DOD and USAID vetted contractors and implemented contracting guidance to reduce opportunities for corruption and while they were somewhat successful, “they were not unified by an overarching strategy or backed by sustained, high-level US political commitment,” stated the report.
During this time, from mid-2011 to March 2012, the US also sought to explore political reconciliation with the Taliban and to do so the US had to preserve a working relationship with President Karzai to ensure an Afghan government buy-in.
“The US government showed a lack of political commitment. When it became clear the Afghan government was not willing to undertake true reform – because it involved taking action against people connected to the highest levels of political power – the US government failed to use all of its available tools to incentivize steps towards resolution,” stated the report.
Another weakness in tackling corruption was the high turnover of US civilian and military staff “meant US institutional memory was weak and efforts were not always informed by previous experience.”
“One Afghan anticorruption expert noted that US agencies often hosted workshops and training that lasted only a few days, with limited follow-up. He suggested that a more fruitful approach might have been to establish a standing institute to train auditors, attorneys, investigative police and others for year, rather than days,” stated the report.
SIGAR’s report quoted Ryan Crocker, who re-opened the US Embassy in Kabul soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks and served again as ambassador in 2011-2012 as saying that “the ultimate point of failure for our efforts wasn’t an insurgency. It was the weight of endemic corruption.”
The report comes with recommendations for addressing corruption risks to US strategic objectives for future missions. It recommended that Congress pass legislation to make clear “that anticorruption is a national security priority in a contingency operation” and required strategies, benchmarks and “annual reporting on implementation.” It also recommended that Congress consider sanctions and the DOD, State and USAID should establish a joint vetting unit to better vet contractors and subcontractors in the field.
The recommendations for the executive branch level are that interagency task force should formulate policy and lead strategy on anticorruption during an operation and the intelligence community should analyze links between host government officials, corruption, criminality, trafficking and terrorism and provide regular updates.
“In Afghanistan today, corruption remains an enormous challenge to security, political stability, and development,” SIGAR said.
Italy has been packed full of NATO and US military bases across the country, which serve as testing grounds for the US and the alliance; Sputnik Italy talked to Fulvio Grimaldi, Italian journalist, war correspondent and documentarian on the everyday damage these military facilities cause to the country.
“We fell victim to the self-restrictions contrary to our own interests. Europe is tormenting itself,” Grimaldi told Sputnik while commenting on the issue.
“It is in the interests of the US that Italy has imposed sanctions on Russia which have harmed Moscow less than Italian farmers and the country’s industry, which have subsequently found themselves in grave economic conditions,” he noted.
The journalist further acknowledged that his home country has been forcefully militarized. There are around 90 US bases in the country, let alone a lot more NATO bases on its territory, which are at the US disposal.
“We are a country overflowing with military bases, and this is a serious burden for our economy to the detriment of construction, maintenance of medical facilities, schools and land improvement,” the journalist said. These military facilities also put Italy at risk of becoming a potential target for those countries who will decide one day to stand up to NATO aggression.
The correspondent cites as an example the American Mobile User Objective System (MUOS), a modern satellite communications system located in Sicily, the largest Mediterranean island, which is capable of reaching out to Africa and the Middle East.
“It is a huge social and industrial burden for the island,” he said.
Another example is the US military facility on another large Italian island in the Mediterranean Sea, Sardinia, which serves as a testing range for the newly released weaponry which pollutes the environment and threatens the health of local residents.
The economic damage is also substantial. NATO military operations around the globe cost the Italian defense ministry 55 million euro ($61.7mln) per day. If you take into account the expenses of other related ministries, the daily cost rises to 80 million ($89.7mln).
“This is the contribution of the country which has no interest in the military operation in any country of the world, because it is facing no threats,” Grimaldi said.
The US military and political control over the Italian territory comes as the aftermath of the Second World War which deprived Italy of its sovereignty. “I see no reasons for optimism in such a situation.
What I actually see is the acknowledgment of similar subordination in other countries of the EU, and this aggressive strategy of NATO is leading us towards an epic failure,” the journalist said.
However he added that he is certain that one day the authorities will finally come to their senses and change their stance towards the alliance.
BETHLEHEM – Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman compared the illegal Israeli Amona outpost to the indigenous Palestinian Bedouin village of Susiya and Palestinian land in Jerusalem on Monday in a speech at Ariel University in the occupied West Bank, according to Israeli media.
The Amona outpost was slated for demolition following a 2008 Israeli Supreme Court decision after eight Palestinians from neighboring villages — with the support of Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din — successfully petitioned the court to remove the outpost on grounds that the construction was carried out on privately-owned Palestinian land.
“There is no way that Amona can be left as it is built today, because most of the houses are built on private Palestinian land,” Lieberman reportedly said on Monday, referring to Amona, which was built in 1996.
After years of appeals from right-wing Israeli government officials, and attempts by Amona settlers to prove they had legally purchased the land, an Israeli police investigation in May 2014 found the entirety of the outpost to have been built on Private Palestinian lands, and that the documents used by Amona residents to try claim their “purchases” were in fact forged.
In December 2014, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered again that the outpost be demolished by December 2016.
According to Haaretz, Lieberman followed up on his comments about Amona on Monday with the stipulation that “all the rules that apply to Amona apply to every other place as well.”
Claiming that “there is only one law for both Israelis and Palestinians,” Lieberman reportedly told the audience that it was unacceptable that such rulings — as in the case of Amona, which along with every other settlement and outpost in the occupied West Bank is internationally recognized as being illegal — are unfairly enforced against Israelis but not against “other trespassers.”
The “trespassers” Lieberman was referring to were the Palestinian residents of Susiya in the southern West Bank, and the Palestinians of the area known as the “E1 corridor,” a contentious zone that the Israeli government has set up to link annexed East Jerusalem with the mega settlement of Maale Adumim, which would virtually cut the occupied West Bank in half, making the creation of a contiguous Palestinian State impossible.
“We are a nation based on law and we will honor court decisions in all circumstances,” Lieberman said, saying that “when it comes to enforcing rulings against other trespassers everyone stands up on their hind legs,” seemingly complaining about the international community’s harsh reactions to Israeli government attempts to demolish Susiya and replace it with an illegal Jewish settlement of the exact same name.
Susiya’s residents have been embroiled in a decades-long legal battle to legalize the village and have endured multiple demolitions enforced by Israeli authorities over the years, who say Palestinians lack the proper building permits to live on the land that lies between an Israeli settlement and Israel-controlled archaeological site.
The privately owned Palestinian land is located in Area C — the more than 60 percent of the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control — where building permits for Palestinians are nearly impossible to obtain.
Many of the villagers have ties to the land that predate the creation of the state of Israel, and Ottoman-era land documents to prove it.
Most recently, in mid-July, authorities from Israel’s Civil Administration abruptly halted months of dialog with Susiya’s residents over the possibility of legalizing the village, telling them that a future agreement on the village would now be the responsibility of Lieberman.
Lieberman postponed the announcement of his decision twice, first until November 2016, and then until December.
According to spokesperson for Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) Yariv Mohar, who is assisting in Susiya’s legal battle, Lieberman’s decision on whether or not to continue the dialogue between the residents of Susiya and the Civil Administration is set to be announced on December 15, 2016.
Lieberman will be responsible for deciding whether to accept the state of Israel’s request to immediately and without prior notice demolish some 40 percent of the southern occupied West Bank village, where half of the some 200 village residents live according to RHR.
The lawyers of RHR have affirmed that there is no question as to whether the residents own the land they are on, also noting that “basic (Jewish) morality dictates it is wrong to demolish part of a village which has previously demolished without any plan or solution for the residents, while international law prohibits the forcible transfer of populations,” Mohar told Ma’an in August.
Though Lieberman has yet to formally announce a decision, his comments on Monday indicate that in his opinion, the residents of Susiya should be subject to the same treatment as the illegal settlers occupying privately owned Palestinian land in Amona.
Lieberman has previously advocated policies ranging from the overthrow of the Palestinian Authority to the deportation of Palestinian citizens of Israel into the occupied Palestinian territory, while promoting the transfer of towns in Israel that are heavily populated by Palestinians to a future Palestinian state in exchange for illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Lieberman himself lives in the southern occupied West Bank Israeli settlement of Nokdim, in contravention of international law.
Since appointed as defense minister by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in May, the two have teamed up to approve hundreds of new housing units in illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
MAJDAL SHAMS, GOLAN HEIGHTS – Israel, for the first time, demolished on Wednesday a home in the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights claiming it was built without a permit, a Golan-based human rights group said on Thursday.
Al Marsad, the only human rights group operating in the Golan Heights, said in a statement that hundreds of Israeli police accompanied bulldozers as they proceeded to demolish the home of Bassam Ibrahim in Majdal Shams, the largest town in the occupied Syrian Golan, under the pretext it was built without a permit.
“This is the first time that the Israeli authorities have demolished a home in Majdal Shams,” said Al Marsad. “The destruction of this home marks the adoption of a new systematic policy of home demolitions by the Israeli authorities in the remaining Syrian villages in the Occupied Syrian Golan. The Syrian owners of dozens of other homes have been threatened with similar action,” it said.
Al Marsad accused Israel of preventing the Syrian population from building in their cities while encouraging and facilitating the construction and expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights.
“As a result of the severe restrictions imposed by Israeli planning and construction committees, it is close to impossible for the Syrian population to obtain the necessary building permits. Therefore, the Syrian population is forced to build homes without building permits, as this is the only way to meet their housing needs given unprecedented levels of overcrowding,’ said Al Marsad.
Israel occupied the Golan Heights in the June 1967 war.
Howard Schultz, the founder and CEO of Starbucks, announces support for US Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
In an interview with CNN, Schultz let slip which way he was voting, saying, “I’m hopeful that after the election – and hopefully Hillary Clinton will be elected president – that we will begin to see a level of unity and people coming together.”
When asked if he had officially backed Clinton with that statement, the CEO responded “I guess I just did. I think it’s obvious Hillary Clinton needs to be the next president.”
Starbucks, which has over 22,500 coffee stores, is one of the companies anti-Israel activists boycott.
Throughout her campaign for the 2016 US presidential race, Clinton has advocated herself as a champion for Israel. Zionist voters have in turn showed their support to her.
Howard Shultz, the chairman of Starbucks is an active Zionist.
In 1998 he was honoured by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah with “The Israel 50th Anniversary Friend of Zion Tribute Award” for his services to the zionist state in “playing a key role in promoting close alliance between the United States and Israel”. The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah funds Israeli arms fairs chaired by the butcher of Jenin – General Shaul Mofaz, and the Zionist propaganda website honestreporting.com.[1]
His work as a propagandist for Israel has been praised by the Israeli Foreign Ministry as being key to Israel’s long-term PR success [2].
Recently whilst the Israeli army was slaughtering Palestinians in Jenin, Nabulus and Bethlehem he made a provocative speech blaming the Palestinians of terrorism, suggesting the intifada was a manifestation of anti- Semitism, and asked people to unite behind Israel [3].
At a time when other businesses were desperately pulling out of Israel, Starbucks decided to help Israel’s floundering economy and invest in Israel – a joint venture with Israeli conglomerate Delek Group for Starbucks outlets in Israel (Shalom Coffee Co).[4][5][6]. A bad business decision – Starbucks had heavy losses and in April 2003 Starbucks were forced to announced that all 6 Starbucks cafes in Israel will be shut down and its partnership with Delek end.[14]
It has been revealed that Starbucks still continues to support Israel by sponsoring fundraisers for Israel.[15]
Starbucks fully supports Bush’s war of terror and has opened a Starbucks in Afghanistan for the US invaders – they like to do their bit to help the occupation.[17]
ADDITIONAL INFO & REFs :
[1]
Israel 50th Anniversary Friend of Zion Tribute Award
Howard Schultz was presented with “The Israel 50th Anniversary Friend of Zion Tribute Award” by the The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah in August 27, 1998. [a][e]
According to the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah “The Friends of Zion award salutes leaders who have played key roles in promoting close alliance between the United States and Israel”[e]
Awards Page Mystery
Its interesting that the Israel 50th Anniversary Award given to Howard Schultz was once displayed with pride on the Starbucks website on the company’s “Awards and Accolades” page but since the boycott started biting it has mysteriously disappeared from the page![a]
Original page(above) listing Howard Shultz Israel Award as an award for Starbucks can still be seen at www.archive.org. The new page is shown below with no mention of the Israeli connection.
The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah
1. The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah sponsors Israeli military arms fairs chaired by the butcher of Jenin – General Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s Minister of Defense. It aims to “strengthen the special connection between the American, European and Israeli defense industries” and “to showcase the newest Israeli innovations in defense”.[f]
2. The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah also sponsors the Zionist propaganda website “honestreporting.com“.[g]
3. The Aish HaTorah, the main beneficiary of The Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah, whilst described as an apolitical international network of Jewish education centres, produces propaganda material for Israel.
One video they produce by Rabbi Ken Spiro titled “The Islamic Connection to Jerusalem” starts “The Islamic connection begins in the 7th century, thousands of years after the original Jewish connection.” and continues to belittle Jerusalem’s Islamic heritage – propaganda to justify Israeli occupation of Jerusalem.[b]
Also featured on their site is “The Occupied Territories – A Primer” which denies the status of the West Bank and Gaza as “occupied” and argues that they be called “disputed territories”.[c]
No wonder they were praised by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu:
“I congratulate Aish HaTorah for what they’re doing, where they’re doing it, and for whom they’re doing it.”[d]
“… The key to Israel’s long-term PR success, Meir(*) believes, is on the campuses of North America and Europe. Wealthy Jews like Howard Schultz, the owner of the Starbucks chain, are helping with student projects, including seminars held in both Israel and North America, in which students hear Israeli presentations on the crisis…”
(*) Gideon Meir, the official in charge of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s PR effort.
[3]
Starbucks CEO says anti-Semitism on the rise
Howard Shultz warns American Jews against complacency
SEATTLE – Divisions within the Jewish community were on display Thursday in Seattle as Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz criticized Palestinian inaction in the Middle East while others protested the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.
“If you leave this synagogue tonight and go back to your home and ignore this, then shame on us,” Howard Schultz told a crowded temple of Jewish Americans on Seattle’s Capitol Hill.
Schultz warned other Jews against sitting back and doing nothing.
“What is going on in the Middle East is not an isolated part of the world. The rise of anti-Semitism is at an all time high since the 1930’s,” he said.
“The Palestinians aren’t doing their job they’re not stopping terrorism.”
While reaction inside the temple to Schultz’s remarks grew from a warm reception to a standing ovation, the mood outside the temple was different.
A handful of Jews gathered there to protest the Israeli government’s actions of late and their occupation of Palestinian lands.
There were similar sentiments Thursday at Seattle’s Westlake center.
“We only get the side that talks about Palestinians as terrorists. As if all the civilians right now living in a state of siege and terror are terrorists and they’re not,” said protestor Alethea Mundy, whose younger brother is in Bethlehem doing relief work for Palestinian refugees.
She’s worried about her brother, but realizes that everything is relative.
“This is what the Palestinians live with every day, two weeks is nothing for my brother,”
[4]
American-Israel Chamber of Commerce, Southeast Region e-Newsletter
JULY-AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 2001
Starbucks will open its first two cafes in Tel Aviv during the first week of September and plans to open another three branches in the area by the end of the year with 15 more throughout Israel by the end of 2002. Israel-based Delek, which recently purchased a chain of US convenience stores and established its US headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee, will be the majority shareholder in Starbucks Israel.
see [13] for more on Delek’s US connection.
[5]
Starbucks next market: Israel
Starbucks Coffee Co. chairman Howard Schultz loves a challenge. He opened the Japanese market during the depths of that country’s spectacular recession, and now he’s set his sights on conflict-ridden Israel.
The stores will be built through a joint venture company, Shalom Coffee Co., which will be owned by publicly traded Israeli conglomerate Delek Group and Starbucks Coffee International, Starbucks’ internationally focused wholly-owned subsidiary. No word yet on how many Starbucks stores are planned for the tiny Middle Eastern nation, which has been plagued by escalating violence between Palestinians and the Israeli military since last fall. … http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2001/04/16/daily31.html
Starbucks to open here later in year
By Sharon Berger
JERUSALEM (April 20) – The Delek Group and Starbucks Coffee International, a wholly owned subsidiary of Starbucks Coffee Company, said yesterday that they had reached an agreement to form a joint venture to open Starbucks here. The costs involved in the joint venture were not disclosed.
According to the agreement, which is expected to be signed in the next few weeks, Delek will hold 80.5 percent of the coffee chain, while Starbucks Coffee International will hold the remaining 19.5%. Starbucks will have the option to increase its share to 50% at a later date. Originally Delek and Burger King co-owner Yair Hason were negotiating for a 40% share each in a venture with Starbucks, but a few months ago the deal was cancelled.
The announcement that Starbucks will be coming is expected to be welcomed by local coffee lovers who have long been awaiting the rumored arrival of the chain which has with 3,600 stores in the US. According to the Delek Group the plan is “to open dozens of stores.” The first stores are expected to open late this year.
“We expect Israel to be an excellent market for Starbucks, with great growth opportunities,” said Peter Masien, president of Starbucks Coffee International.
Delek’s investment in the coffee chain is part of its strategy to expand into new areas, said Giora Sarig, president of Delek’s Israel Fuel Corporation, one of the three subsidiaries of the Delek Group. “We are delighted to become partners with such a world-class brand as Starbucks,” he said.
The coffee shops will not be connected to the Delek gas stations.
The local competition is not overly concerned about the entrance of the well known chain. Aroma’s operating manager Ben Balbinder told The Jerusalem Post that “more coffee stores will raise the awareness of coffee drinking.”
He added that according to his personal experience in the US, Starbucks coffee is not on the same level as that of Aroma.
Aroma, which sells one and half tonnes of coffee a month, currently has eight cafes with another three are to be opened in the next two months. Balbinder said that the local coffee market is continuing to grow and has contributed to a decision to expand aggressively in the next year and a half.
Starbucks , which has been traded on Nasdaq since 1992, has a current market capitalization of $7.8 billion, with more than 4,500 retail locations in the US, Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim. It is well represented in the Middle East with stores in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
The company was founded in 1971 and also sells tea, pastries, ice creams, other food and beverages, and coffee accessories. The company also has an on-line store as well as selling directly to restaurants, businesses, airlines, and hotels.
The Delek Group, which was founded in 1951, has three major subsidiaries: Israel Fuel Corporation, Delek Real Estate, and Delek Investments & Properties, a holding company for activities in automotive distribution and retailing, oil and gas exploration, biochemical manufacturing, convenience stores, and other retail operations. Delek is traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange at a value of NIS 2.8b.
[7]
Two “Standard replies” activists are receiving from Starbucks when they complaint about the recent speech Howard Schultz made:
First:
Thank you for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.
Howard Schultz recently spoke at his local synagogue and shared his concern over the rise of anti-Semitism, which is linked to the growing crisis in the Middle East. Howard’s position is pro-peace and for two nations to co-exist peacefully. His comments were not intended to be anti-Palestinian in any way. As part of his comments, Howard addressed the rising concern over terrorist acts overseas, specifically relating to the bombing of a synagogue in France. Howard does not believe the terrorism is representative of the Palestinian people. Howard was speaking as a private citizen and did not interview with the media regarding this subject, however several local media outlets did run portions of his speech.
Thank you again for contacting Starbucks. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact us at info@starbucks.com or call (800) 23-LATTE to speak with a customer relations representative.
Sincerely,
Customer Relations Starbucks Coffee Company
Second:
Thank you for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.
Please find below the company statement regarding Howard Schultz’s speech on April 4, 2002. It is followed by Howard Schultz’s personal statement in which he is speaking as a private citizen.
April 17, 2002 – Company Statement re: Howard Schultz Speech on April 4, 2002
Starbucks Coffee Company is deeply saddened by the current events in the Middle East.
As a company working with business partners around the world, we believe it is important for us to embrace diversity as an essential component in the way we do business and treat each other with respect and dignity. Starbucks, as a commercial organization, does not get involved in international or local
politics on principle.
We are aware that our chairman, Howard Schultz, recently spoke at a private gathering and commented on the current Middle East situation. However, we are unable to comment on his speech as he was speaking as a private citizen.
April 17, 2002 – Howard Schultz Personal Statement
“I deeply regret that my speech in Seattle was misinterpreted to be anti-Palestinian,” said Howard Schultz. “My position has always been pro-peace and for the two nations to co-exist peacefully. I am deeply saddened by the current events in the Middle East.”
Attribution: Howard Schultz
If you have any additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us at info@starbucks.com or call us at 1-800-235-2883 to speak directly with a customer relations representative.
Sincerely,
Customer Relations
[8]
Starbucks Coffee have partnerships with:
Hotels with Starbucks:Hyatt Hotels
Marriott Hotels
Starwood Hotels (Sheraton)
Special relationship with NY Times :Starbucks Coffee Company and The New York Times announced a strategic alliance in August 2000. Under this agreement, The New York Times is using its national advertising resources to promote Starbucks products and retail locations as a destination for readers. Although other local, daily newspapers will still be offered at Starbucks, The New York Times will be the only national newspaper sold across Starbucks extensive network of company-owned locations in the United States.
Starbucks Coffee has 4,709 locations around the world in the following countries (Mulsim countries are shown in bold)
Australia
Austria Bahrain
Canada
Germany
Greece
Hawaii
Hong Kong S.A.R. Palestine (Israel )
Japan Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand Oman
People`s Republic of China (Beijing)
People`s Republic of China (Shanghai)
Philippines Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
South Korea
Spain
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Some activists have mentioned that Starbucks provide a glossy pamphlet “We’d love to hear your thoughts” for people to write their comments on.
If the pamphlet includes free postage then we would urge all activists to use it for voicing their disgust at Starbucks CEO and at Starbucks policy to invest in apartheid Israel. Remember to provide your name and address and ask them to reply to you in writing otherwise your effort will simply be ignored.
Please read their standard response[7] before composing your complaint.
[12]
According to Yahoo Finance :
Howard Shultz’s annual pay as Chairman of Starbucks is $2.2 Million, and last year he received an additional $22.6 Million from the value on options excercised in the fiscal year.[a]
Howard Shultz also has interests in the following companies:
Drugstore.com – Director with 1,592,246 shares (indirect) [b]
eBay Inc. – Director with 112,500 shares (indirect) [c]
Boycott Mapco Express & East Coast store-gas stations
An activist has pointed out that Delek (Starbucks Israeli partners) owns Mapco Express filling stations and convenience stores in Tennessee (198 stores) and East Coast convenience store-gas stations in Virginia (36 stores). These should be boycotted.
Delek completes acquisition of Mepco Express filling stations
[31-05-01] Delek Group said that it has completed its acquisition of 234 gas stations and convenience stores in the US for $ 234.5 mm. The acquisition consists of 198 Mapco Express filling stations and convenience stores in Tennessee in consideration for $ 147 mm and 36 East Coast convenience store-gas stations in Virginia for $ 36.5 mm The concerns will continue to carry their respective brands names following the transaction. Delek also announced that it is in the process of establishing Delek USA, a wholly owned US-based subsidiary which will conduct the company’s American operations. The investment marks the Netanya-based company’s first entrance into the overseas retail gasoline markets. Company president Avinoam Finkelman said that the decision to enter international markets is mostly due to eroding returns in the domestic market, a product, he believes of increased competition and government regulatory activity.
[14]
Starbucks Exits Israel
April 2, 2003
All six Starbucks cafes in Israel will be shut down at the end of the week, Starbucks Coffee International and the Delek Group said as they announced the end of their brief partnership. All 120 of the coffee chain’s employees in Israel will be laid off.
According to Israel’s Haaretz, poor sales and Delek’s failure to find an investor to bail it out of a losing venture caused the decision to shut down the expensive coffeehouses. Starbucks Corp., the parent of Starbucks Coffee International, told Haaretz that its decision to dissolve the joint venture was driven by “market challenges,” an allusion, the newspaper said, to “Israel’s severe recession and security problems.”
Starbucks sponsors “bowl 4 Israel”, one of the fund raisers for Israel organised by Elie Haller. Her last fund raiser was a barbecue that “raised $15,000 for a paratrooper unit in the Israel Defense Forces”.[a] This time the money raised – some $50,000 was to be distributed to families of “Israeli terror victims” by the Israel Emergency Solidarity Fund (OneFamily).[a] [d] Innocent enough you may think, but you’d be wrong – apparently their definition of “terror victim” includes Israeli soldiers who were killed whilst they were butchering Palestinian women and children during the Jenin massacre (April 2002). For April 2002, their spending record includes the following entry:
“P. W. lost his brother S. in an anti-terror operation in Jenin April 8, 2002. The family is left with eight children, of whom P. is the first to get married. OneFamily (Israel Emergency Solidarity Fund) gave them $1000 toward the wedding.”[c]
So the fund rewards the families of war criminals for a job well done!
Perverted reality – provocative advert for the Israel Emergency Solidarity Fund.
In reality its this fund that rewards war criminals – the money they raise goes to,
among others, Israeli soldiers who were wounded or killed whilst they were
butchering Palestinian women and children during the Jenin massacre
No wonder the page on the web-site for bowl4israel which showed Starbucks as the sole sponsor is now mysteriously showing a blank space where Starbucks appeared.[b] A peek at the html code for the page reveals that Starbucks name and logo are still there but have been hidden – commented out – no doubt to protect it from the boycott.
Original page showing Starbucks as the sponsor
New page shows an empty space for “Event Sponsor”,
the html however reveals that the sole sponsor
Starbucks has been commented out
After Starbucks closed down its cafes in Israel[14], many Zionists were upset and accused Starbucks of succumbing to the boycott. Some even suggested boycotting Starbucks:
It is time for all Americans to boycott Starbucks Coffee. Spread the word on this. They are stopping business relations with Israel, because like so many companies, people, and leaders in the world, they do not have the moral values or courage needed to do otherwise. Add this to the fact that Starbucks does tons of business in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, as well as other radical Arab countries who are working to destroy America. Where they will not pull out of and it makes it clear their stand is with the enemies of Israel and of America. Standing is something that takes moral value and courage today.And their stand indicates the lack of quality of their product. Starbucks has chosen. NOW is the time for us to choose to boycott. Let’s call on everyone we can to boycott Starbucks.. [a]
Its interesting to observe that it was the ultra-Zionist Anti-Defamation League (ADL) that came to Starbucks rescue[b] and put down the Zionist backlash against it. (For those unaware of the activities of the ADL see http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-news-0313.html ). As the New York Times put it:
“Perhaps the most effective of the company’s weapons used to combat the rumor, experts said, came from the Anti-Defamation League, which lent its support. Starbucks, which is based in Seattle, did not place any messages refuting the rumor on its Web site. But the Anti-Defamation League contacted the company to investigate the matter and later circulated the company’s message to interested parties on its Web site and in telephone calls.”
It also quoted Starbucks chairman Howard Shultz, describing him as “a Jewish American who has long been supportive of Jewish organizations and causes in the United States and in Israel”, saying that the company will return to Israel in due course.[a]
See also [17] for another Zionist defence of Starbucks.
Many other Zionist groups also came to Starbucks defence including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs whose alert[d] states:
“The chairman of Starbucks is an avid Zionist who opened the stores in Israel despite the ongoing violence. Coffee is serious business in Israel, and Starbucks was unable to penetrate the market.”
Starbucks has donated a store to the US army to help in the occupation of Afghanistan. See photos below from Afghanistan of US troops thanking Starbucks for their donation:
NB: Boycott Watch is a Zionist organisation[a] which provides the above photos as part of their campaign to support Starbucks from any possible Zionist boycott for closing its stores in Israel.
[a] “Boycott Watch and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) are
leading the fight against divestment and boycott campaigns against
Israel.”
Also according to the American Forces Press Service Nov.9 2004:
Starbucks Chief Executive Officer Jim Donald said during a Capitol Hill press conference today in the office of U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks that his company would provide 50,000 pounds of free, whole-bean coffee that will be brewed and distributed by Red Cross workers to troops serving in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.
“It’s important that we show the support – and we have shown support — for our troops overseas,” Donald explained. In fact, he said, Starbucks, headquartered in Seattle, has 80 employees in the military now deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And many of Starbuck’s 85,000 employees, Donald pointed out, have friends and family members serving overseas in the military. Starbuck’s partnership with the Red Cross, he noted, “is just a way of reaching into the community and supporting troops from all over the U.S.”
Source: Starbucks, Red Cross ‘Bring a Bit of Home’ to Overseas Troops, by Gerry J. Gilmore, American Forces Press Service, Nov. 9, 2004
Please note that we cannot take responsibility for the contents of the leaflet as we did not produce it, it does however seem to be based on the research above (thanks NEdo Sul)
Part two of the theater play that began with the Turkish military’s occupation of Jarablus ten days ago continued today in the small border town of Al-Rai to the west.
Twelve Turkish tanks and a number of armored vehicles led a staged military offensive that began at around 13:30 local time on the afternoon of Saturday, September 3. Ground forces of the Turkish army crossed the border into Syria from Salahan village in Elbeyli district of Kilis province.
Local sources report that there has been no fighting in the town since the beginning of the military operation and that militants of Al-Qaeda affiliated groups also entered the town.
As the Turkish army pretends to be engaged in clashes with ISIS, rockets were earlier fired from the Al-Rai area into the Turkish city of Kilis, located northwest of Al-Rai five km from the Syrian border. Some reports say the rocket attack wounded some civilians [AnadoluAgency’s report on the rockets is here].
A larger target of the Turkish operation is the small city of Al-Bab, to the south of al-Rai. This is part of Turkey’s aim of separating the Kurdish-populated and controlled cantons east of the Euphrates River from the Afrin region in the west.
In mid-August, the Syrian Democratic Forces announced the formation of a military council of Al-Bab in anticipation of a drive to liberate the city from ISIS control. This was to follow the success of the hard battle in July and early August to liberate Manbij from ISIS. Manbij lies halfway between Jarablus and Al-Bab.
Syrian opposition groups allied with Turkey and supported by Ankara’s forces, on Sunday drove Kurdish fighters from three settlements near the northern Syrian town of Jarabulus, a Kurdish source told Sputnik.
On Wednesday, Ankara announced that Turkish forces, backed by US-led coalition aircraft, had begun a military operation dubbed Euphrates Shield to clear Jarabulus of militants from the Islamic State jihadist group.
“Armed groups supported by Turkey have established control over the villages of Balaban, Amarna and Dabas, south of Jarabulus,” the source said.
The source added that Syrian opposition fighters supported by Ankara were fighting in the vicinity of the Bir Qusa village, with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the number of casualties already surpassing 40 people.
Syria has been mired in civil war since 2011, with government forces loyal to President Bashar Assad fighting a number of opposition factions and extremist groups.
Turkey has been shelling Kurdish militias in northern Syria along the Turkish border for months. Ankara has claimed that the Syrian Kurds have links to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is considered a terrorist organization by the Turkish authorities.
As recently acknowledged by The Washington Post, US Special Forces are directly involved in military operations in Libya, «coordinating American airstrikes and providing intelligence information» to local forces battling the Islamic State (IS) for Sirte, 450 kilometres to the east of Tripoli.
British special forces have also been active in Libya for several months, providing direct military support to brigades from Misurata (Libya’s third largest city situated in the northwest of the country), which are also attacking Sirte. Paradoxically, the British and Americans are supporting irreconcilable enemies in the Libyan conflict as allies.
France is also involved in the intervention in Libya. On 26 July, in Libya a helicopter containing three French soldiers was shot down. French special forces are supporting the forces of General Khalifa Haftar, commander of the armed forces of the Libyan Parliament (the House of Representatives) located in Tobruk in the west of the country. The French soldiers were killed by militants from the Benghazi Defence Brigades – an armed group formed by radicals from Misurata. The group is led by Ismail al-Sallabi, the brother of Libyan Muslim Brotherhood leader Ali al-Sallabi. Its aim is to prevent General Khalifa Haftar gaining control of Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city, and the oil fields in Cyrenaica.
It has to be said that the battle between the militants from Misurata and the Islamic State is rather conditional in nature. The Islamic State in Libya is an experiment by the Qatari intelligence agencies, and an unsuccessful one at that. Unlike Syria and Iraq, there are no prerequisites for the expansion of the Islamic State in Libya. In Iraq, the emergence of the IS was largely due to the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict, which does not exist in Libya. In addition, the ideology of the Islamic State involves the unification of Islamists regardless of tribal affiliation. This is possible in Syria and Iraq, but is out of the question in Libya, where the tribal factor determines the structure of society. Realising that its experiment had failed, Qatar began strengthening the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood with the Misurata tribe and the fighting in Sirte is an attempt to use one group of Islamists to remove another.
After learning of the downed French helicopter, Fayez al-Sarraj, the prime minister of Libya’s national unity government, which has little real power over the country, condemned the actions of Paris, calling them an intervention. It is interesting, however, that al-Sarraj’s government is taking a completely different line with regard to America’s intervention in Libya, which does not just consist of special forces operations, but also the bombing of IS positions by US F-16 fighter jets. In an interview with the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera on 9 August, the Libyan prime minister said that there are no US ground troops in Libya, only the US Air Force, which is carrying out surgical strikes on terrorist targets. In doing so, Fayez al-Sarraj deliberately misled the reading public just as Mustafa Abdul Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council that overthrew the Gaddafi government, misled the public in the summer of 2011. Nobody mentions Abdul Jalil today, he has disappeared from the radar screens. Will the political biography of al-Sarraj, whose government has become a fig leaf covering up Western intervention, turn out to be just as short? Especially as his government is not the only one in Libya. Besides the National Unity Government, there is also the previously-mentioned House of Representatives in Tobruk, which is based on an elected parliament, and a government in Tripoli. However, these two governments together control only a small part of the country. As well as these, there are hundreds of armed groups that, strictly speaking, are the real masters of the situation.
The National Unity Government (a name that actually sounds comical given the current situation in Libya) was formed under the mediation of the UN and the West and from April to July this year was even too afraid to appear in Tripoli, its headquarters located at the Bu Sitta naval base on an island not far from the Libyan capital (similar to the ‘Green Zone’ in Baghdad set up by US occupying forces). One of the first steps taken by the new government was to begin talks on the merger of two oil companies operating independently of each other in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. Upon hearing this, the ears of al-Sarraj’s Western sponsors pricked up, since their first and primary interest is Libyan oil. As a consequence, fighting for the control of territory is mostly taking place in Sirte and Ajdabiya, where Libya’s main oil terminals are located. The second interest of those involved in NATO’s Libyan intervention is to safeguard Europe’s southern flank from Libya’s coastline, which stretches for 1800 kilometres.
NATO justified its first Libyan intervention in 2011 with concerns for the establishment of democracy in the country following the overthrow of Gaddafi’s «tyrannical regime». This time, the intervention is being justified by the need to combat Islamic extremism. Something has changed in the five years between 2011 and 2016, however: while the anti-Gaddafi opposition held meeting after meeting in Benghazi in 2011 calling for NATO troops to be deployed in the country, now, after the French helicopter was shot down, meetings are being held in Libya against Western intervention.
Over the past five years, Libyans have learned a lot from their bitter experience: they have realised that ‘help’ from the West in establishing ‘democracy’ and in the ‘fight against extremism’ brings nothing but destruction, death and the displacement of those still alive. Today, three million Libyans, which is half of the country’s population, are forced to live outside of their homeland.
In a column mocking the political ignorance of the “dumbed-down” American people and lamenting the death of “objective fact,” New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma’am mainstream media.
Egan states as flat fact, “If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it — two years after they had, in fact, invaded it.”
But it is not a “fact” that Russia “invaded” Ukraine – and it’s especially not the case if you also don’t state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched “special forces.” Yet, the Times doesn’t describe those military operations as “invasions.”
Nor does the newspaper of record condemn the U.S. government for violating international law, although in every instance in which U.S. forces cross into another country’s sovereign territory without permission from that government or the United Nations Security Council, that is technically an act of illegal aggression.
In other words, the Times applies a conscious double standard when reporting on the actions of the United States or one of its allies (note how Turkey’s recent invasion of Syria was just an “intervention”) as compared to how the Times deals with actions by U.S. adversaries, such as Russia.
Biased on Ukraine
The Times’ reporting on Ukraine has been particularly dishonest and hypocritical. The Times ignores the substantial evidence that the U.S. government encouraged and supported a violent coup that overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, including a pre-coup intercepted phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should lead the new government and how to “midwife this thing.”
The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes from the Times’ coverage, you’d have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis.
While leaving out the context, the Times has repeatedly claimed that Russia “invaded” Crimea, although curiously without showing any photographs of an amphibious landing on Crimea’s coast or Russian tanks crashing across Ukraine’s border en route to Crimea or troops parachuting from the sky to seize strategic Crimean targets.
The reason such evidence of an “invasion” was lacking is that Russian troops were already stationed in Crimea as part of a basing agreement for the port of Sevastopol. So, it was a very curious “invasion” indeed, since the Russian troops were on scene before the “invasion” and their involvement after the coup was peaceful in protecting the Crimean population from the depredations of the new regime’s neo-Nazis. The presence of a small number of Russian troops also allowed the Crimeans to vote on whether to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which they did with a 96 percent majority.
In the eastern provinces, which represented Yanukovych’s political base and where many Ukrainians opposed the coup, you can fault, if you wish, the Russian decision to provide some military equipment and possibly some special forces so ethnic Russian and other anti-coup Ukrainians could defend themselves from the assaults by the neo-Nazi Azov brigade and from the tanks and artillery of the coup-controlled Ukrainian army.
But an honest newspaper and honest columnists would insist on including this context. They also would resist pejorative phrases such as “invasion” and “aggression” – unless, of course, they applied the same terminology objectively to actions by the U.S. government and its “allies.”
That sort of nuance and balance is not what you get from The New York Times and its “group thinking” writers, people like Timothy Egan. When it comes to reporting on Russia, it’s Cold War-style propaganda, day in and day out.
And this has not been a one-off problem. The unrelenting bias of the Times and, indeed, the rest of the mainstream U.S. news media on the Ukraine crisis represents a lack of professionalism that was also apparent in the pro-war coverage of the Iraq crisis in 2002-03 and other catastrophic U.S. foreign policy decisions.
A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population has tuned out supposedly “objective” news (because it is anything but objective).
Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they’re not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it.
As the 13th anniversary of the crimes of September, 2001 approaches, the neoconservatives are shrieking from the rooftops – and effectively confessing that they were the real perpetrators of the 9/11-Anthrax false flag operation. (The neocons, you may recall, openly called for a “new Pearl Harbor” in September, 2000 – and got one exactly one year later.)
Every year at this time, the neocons orchestrate and hype a series of public relations stunts designed to magnify fears of “radical Islam” and reinforce their crumbling 9/11-Anthrax cover story. But this year’s propaganda campaign is so extreme that it represents a tacit confession: The neocons know that the truth about the 9/11-Anthrax operation is slowly closing in on them; so they are over-reacting by desperately trying to stoke the dying embers of the so-called War on Terror, in order to maintain the myth that Muslims (rather than neoconservative Zionists) attacked America in the autumn of 2001.
When a hysterical person exhibits guilty demeanor by trying too hard to blame a crime on someone else, that person is almost certainly the real perpetrator. As the neocons try much too hard to blame Islam for 9/11 and “terrorism” in general, their hysteria inadvertently reveals their own culpability. Like Shakespeare’s Lady MacBeth, the neoconservative movement has blood on its hands and “doth protest too much.” … 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.