Early pre-“Israel” Jewish terrorism in Palestine against the British

Originally posted on Uprootedpalestinians's Blog:

The original link for this article has long gone due to Zionist control of the media and their attempts to re-write history. Unfortunately for them I have a copy of this and many other articles which have since disappeared from the internet, in a place they cannot find.

This was from the British Ex-Services Association highlighting early Jewish terrorism in Palestine
TERROR IN PALESTINE

ORIGINAL LINK http://www.nesa.org.uk/latest_issue/nov-dec-07.htm


Gary Cartwright revisits the campaign of terror and murder
in which British servicemen were the ‘target of choice’.

I loathe clichés. However the old one about one man’s terrorist being another man’s freedom fighter has a certain truth to it. Too often the freedom fighter’ is perceived that way as a result of romanticism or naiveté, such as in the case of the fool’s pin-up’ Che Guevara. Sometimes the passage of time blurs perception, particularly when for reasons of what we now call ~political…

View original 1,866 more words

John McCain the USA’s Ambassador to the Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria & Iraq

Everyone has noticed the contradiction of those who recently characterized the Islamic Emirate as “freedom fighters” in Syria and who are indignant today faced with its abuses in Iraq. But if that speech is incoherent in itself, it makes perfect sense in the strategic plan: the same individuals were to be presented as allies yesterday and must be as enemies today, even if they are still on orders from Washington. Thierry Meyssan reveals below US policy through the particular case of Senator John McCain, conductor of the “Arab Spring” and longtime partner of Caliph Ibrahim.

JPEG - 21.9 kb

Are Barack Obama and John McCain political opponents as they claim, or are they working together on the imperialist strategy of their country?

John McCain is known as the leader of the Republicans and unhappy 2008 US presidential candidate. This is, we will see, only the real part of his biography, which serves as a cover to conduct covert actions on behalf of his government.

When I was in Libya during the “Western”attack, I was able to view a report of the foreign intelligence services. It stated that, on February 4, 2011 in Cairo, NATO organized a meeting to launch the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Syria. According to this document, the meeting was chaired by John McCain. The report detailed the list of Libyan participants, whose delegation was led by the No. 2 man of the government of the day, Mahmoud Jibril, who abruptly switched sides at the entrance of the meeting to become the opposition leader in exile. I remember that, among the French delegates present, the report quoted Bernard-Henry Lévy, although officially he had never exercised functions within the French government. Many other personalities attended the symposium, including a large delegation of Syrians living abroad.

Emerging from the meeting, the mysterious Syrian Revolution 2011 Facebook account called for demonstrations outside the People’s Council (National Assembly) in Damascus on February 11. Although this Facebook account at the time claimed to have more than 40,000 followers, only a dozen people responded to its call before the flashes of photographers and hundreds of police. The demonstration dispersed peacefully and clashes only began more than a month later in Deraa. [1]

On February 16, 2011, a demonstration underway in Benghazi, in memory of members of the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya [2] massacred in 1996 in the Abu Selim prison, degenerated into shooting. The next day, a second event, this time in memory of those who died by attacking the Danish consulate during the Muhammad cartoons affair, also degenerated into shooting. At the same time, members of the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya ,coming from Egypt and coordinated by unidentified, hooded individuals, simultaneously attacked four military bases in four different cities. After three days of fighting and atrocities, the rebels launched the uprising of Cyrenaica against Tripolitania [3]; a terrorist attack that the western press falsely presented as a “democratic revolution” against “the regime” of Muammar el-Qaddafi.

On February 22nd, John McCain was in Lebanon. He met members of the Future Movement (the party of Saad Hariri) whom he charged to oversee the transfer of arms to Syria around the MP Okab Sakr [4]. Then, leaving Beirut, he inspected the Syrian border and the selected villages including Ersal, which were used as a basis to back mercenaries in the war to come.

The meetings chaired by John McCain were clearly the trigger point for a long-prepared Washington plan; the plan that would have the UK and France attack Libya and Syria simultaneously, following the doctrine of “leadership from behind” and the annex of the Treaty of Lancaster House of November 2010. [5]

The Illegal Trip to Syria, April 2013

In May 2013, Senator John McCain made his way illegally to near Idleb in Syria via Turkey to meet with leaders of the “armed opposition”. His trip was not made public until his return to Washington. [6]

This movement was organized by the Syrian Emergency Task Force, which, contrary to its title, is a Zionist Organization led by a Palestinian employee of AIPAC [7]

JPEG - 26.1 kb
John McCain in Syria. In the foreground at right is the director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force. In the doorway, center, Mohammad Nour.

In photographs released at that time, one noticed the presence of Mohammad Nour, a spokesman for the Northern Storm Brigade (of the Al-Nosra Front, that is to say, al-Qaeda in Syria), who kidnapped and held 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims in Azaz. [8] Asked about his proximity to al-Qaeda kidnappers, the Senator claimed not to know Mohammad Nour who would have invited himself into this photo.

The affair made a great noise and the families of the abducted pilgrims lodged a complaint before the Lebanese judiciary against Senator McCain for complicity in kidnapping. Ultimately, an agreement was reached and the pilgrims were released.

Let’s suppose that Senator McCain had told the truth and that he was abused by Mohammad Nour. The object of his illegal trip to Syria was to meet the chiefs of staff of the Free Syrian Army. According to him, the organization was composed “exclusively of Syrians” fighting for “their freedom” against the “Alouite dictatorship” (sic). The tour organizers published this photograph to attest to the meeting.

JPEG - 26.5 kb
John McCain and the heads of the Free Syrian Army. In the left foreground, Ibrahim al-Badri, with which the Senator is talking. Next, Brigadier General Salim Idris (with glasses).

If we can see Brigadier General Idriss Salem, head of the Free Syrian Army, one can also see Ibrahim al-Badri (foreground on the left) with whom the senator is talking. Back from the surprise trip, John McCain claimed that all those responsible for the Free Syrian Army were “moderates who can be trusted” (sic).

JPEG - 24.2 kb

However, since October 4, 2011, Ibrahim al-Badri (also known as Abu Du’a) was on the list of the five terrorists most wanted by the United States (Rewards for Justice). A premium of up to $ 10 million was offered to anyone who would assist in his capture. [9] The next day, October 5, 2011, Ibrahim al-Badri was included in the list of the Sanctions Committee of the UN as a member of Al Qaeda. [10]

In addition, a month before receiving Senator McCain, Ibrahim al-Badri, known under his nom de guerre as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, created the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ÉIIL) – all the while still belonging to the staff of the very “moderate” Free Syrian Army. He claimed as his own the attack on the Taj and Abu Ghraib prisons in Iraq, from which he helped between 500 and 1,000 jihadists escape who then joined his organization. This attack was coordinated with other almost simultaneous operations in eight other countries. Each time, the escapees joined the jihadist organizations fighting in Syria. This case is so strange that Interpol issued a note and requested the assistance of the 190 member countries. [11]

For my part, I have always said that there was no difference on the ground between the Free Syrian Army, Al-Nosra Front, the Islamic Emirate etc … All these organizations are composed of the same individuals who continuously change flag. When they pose as the Free Syrian Army, they fly the flag of French colonization and speak only of overthrowing the “dog Bashar.” When they say they belong to Al-Nosra Front, they carry the flag of al Qaeda and declare their intention to spread Islam in the world. Finally when they say they are the Islamic Emirate, they brandish the flag of the Caliphate and announce that they will clean the area of all infidels. But whatever the label, they proceed to the same abuses: rape, torture, beheadings, crucifixions.

Yet neither Senator McCain nor his companions of the Syrian Emergency Task Force provided the information in their possession on Ibrahim al-Badri to the State Department, nor have they asked for the reward. Nor have they informed the anti-terrorism Committee of the UN.

In no country in the world, regardless of their political system, would one accept that the opposition leader be in direct contact, and publicly friendly, with a very dangerous wanted terrorist.

Who Then is Senator McCain?

But John McCain is not just the leader of the political opposition to President Obama, he is also one of his senior officials!

He is in fact President of the International Republican Institute (IRI), the republican branch of NED / CIA [12], since January 1993. This so-called “NGO” was officially established by President Ronald Reagan to extend certain activities of the CIA, in connection with the British, Canadian and Australian secret services. Contrary to its claims, it is indeed an inter-governmental agency. Its budget is approved by Congress in a budget line dependent of the Secretary of State.

It is also because it is a joint agency of the Anglo-Saxon secret services that several states in the world prohibit it from any activity on their territory.

JPEG - 21.8 kb
Accused of plotting the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak for the Muslim Brotherhood, the two employees of the International Republican Institute (IRI) in Cairo, John Tomlaszewski (second right) and Sam LaHood (son of US-Lebanese, Ray LaHood, a democratic government Transportation Secretary) (second left) took refuge at the embassy of the United States. Here they are along with Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham at the preparatory meeting of the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Syria. They would be released by Brother Mohamed Morsi when he became President.

The list of interventions by John McCain on behalf of the State Department is impressive. He participated in all the color revolutions of the last twenty years.

To take only a few examples, ever in the name of “democracy”, he prepared the failed coup against constitutional president Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, [13] the overthrow of constitutionally elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti [14], the attempt to overthrow the constitutional President Mwai Kibaki in Kenya [15] and, more recently, the ousting of the constitutional president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.

In any state in the world, when a citizen takes initiative to topple the regime of another State, he may be appreciated if successful and the new regime proves an ally, but he will be severely condemned when his initiatives have negative consequences for his own country. Now, Senator McCain never was harassed because of his anti-democratic actions in states where it has failed and who have turned against Washington. In Venezuela, for example. That is because, for the United States, John McCain is not a traitor, but an agent.

And an agent that has the best coverage imaginable: he is the official opponent of Barack Obama. As such, he can travel anywhere in the world (he is the most traveled US senator) and meet whoever he wants without fear. If his interlocutors approve Washington policy, he promised them to continue it, if they fight it, he hands over the responsibility to President Obama.

John McCain is known to have been a prisoner of war in Vietnam for five years, where he was tortured. He was involved in a program designed not to extract information but to instill speech. This was to transform his personality in order that he make statements against his own country. This program, studied based on the Korean experience for the Rand Corporation by Professor Albert D. Biderman, served as the basis for research at Guantánamo and elsewhere by Dr. Martin Seligman [16]. Applied under George W. Bush to more than 80,000 prisoners, it has transformed many of them into real fighters serving Washington. John McCain, who had cracked in Vietnam, therefore understands. He knows how to unscrupulously manipulate jihadists.

What is the US strategy with the jihadists in the Levant?

In 1990, the United States decided to destroy its former Iraqi ally. Having suggested to President Saddam Hussein that they would consider the attack of Kuwait as an Iraqi internal affair, they used this attack as an excuse to mobilize a broad coalition against Iraq. However, because of the opposition of the USSR, they did not overthrow the regime, but were content to administer a no-fly zone.

In 2003, France’s opposition was not enough to offset the influence of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. The United States attacked the country again and this time overthrew President Hussein. Of course, John McCain was a major contributor to the Committee. After handing to a private company the care of plundering the country for a year [17], they tried to partition Iraq into three separate states, but had to give it up due to the resistance of the population. They tried again in 2007, around the Biden-Brownback resolution, but again failed. [18] Hence the current strategy that attempts to achieve this by means of a non-state actor: the Islamic Emirate.

JPEG - 11.2 kb

The operation was planned well in advance, even before the meeting between John McCain and Ibrahim al-Badri. For example, internal correspondence from the Qatari Ministry of Foreign Affairs, published by my friends James and Joanne Moriarty [19], shows that 5,000 jihadis were trained at the expense of Qatar in NATO’s Libya in 2012, and 2,5 million dollars was paid at the same time to the future Caliph.

In January of 2014, the Congress of the United States held a secret meeting at which it voted, in violation of international law, to approve funding for the Al-Nosra Front (Al-Qaeda) and the Islamic emirate in Iraq and the Levant until September 2014. [20] Although it is unclear precisely what was really agreed to during this meeting revealed by the British Reuters news agency [21], and no media US media dared bypass censorship, it is highly probable that the law includes a section on arming and training jihadists.

Proud of this US funding, Saudi Arabia has claimed on its public television channel, Al-Arabiya, that the Islamic Emirate was headed by Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, brother of Prince Saud al Faisal (Foreign Minister) and Prince Turki al-Faisal (Saudi ambassador to the United States and the United Kingdom) [22].

The Islamic Emirate represents a new step in the world of mercenaries. Unlike jihadi groups who fought in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Chechnya around Osama bin Laden, it does not constitute a residual force but actually an army in itself. Unlike previous groups in Iraq, Libya and Syria, around Prince Bandar bin Sultan, they have sophisticated communication services at their disposal for recruitment and civilian officials trained in large western schools capable of instantly taking over the administration of a territory.

Brand new Ukrainian weapons were purchased by Saudi Arabia and conveyed by the Turkish secret services who gave them to the Islamic Emirate. Final details were coordinated with the Barzani family at a meeting of jihadist groups in Amman on 1 June 2014. [23] The joint attack on Iraq by the Islamic Emirate and the Kurdistan Regional Government began four days later. The Islamic Emirate seized the Sunni part of the country, while the Kurdistan Regional Government increased its territory by over 40%. Fleeing the atrocities of jihadists, religious minorities left the Sunni area, paving the way for the three-way partition of the country.

Violating the Iraqi-US Defense agreement, the Pentagon did not intervene and allowed the Islamic Emirate to continue its conquest and massacres. A month later, while the Kurdish Peshmerga Regional Government had retreated without a fight, and when the emotions of world public opinion became too strong, President Obama gave the order to bomb some positions of the Islamic Emirate. However, according to General William Mayville, director of operations at the headquarters, “These bombings are unlikely to affect the overall capacity of the Islamic Emirate and its activities in other areas of Iraq or Syria “. [24] Obviously, they are not meant to destroy the jihadist army, but only to ensure that each player does not overlap the territory that has been assigned. Moreover, for the moment, they are symbolic and have destroyed only a handful of vehicles. It was ultimately the intervention of the Kurds of the Turkish and Syrian Kurdish PKK which halted the progress of the Islamic Emirate and opened a corridor to allow civilians to escape the massacre.

Much disinformation is circulating about the Islamic Emirate and its caliph. The Gulf Daily News newspaper claimed that Edward Snowden had made revelations about it. [25] However, after verification, the former US spy published nothing about it. Gulf Daily News is published in Bahrain, a state occupied by Saudi troops. The article aims to clear only Saudi Arabia and Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal of their responsibilities.

The Islamic Emirate is comparable to the mercenary armies of the European sixteenth century. They were conducting religious wars on behalf of the lords who paid them, sometimes in one camp, sometimes in another. Caliph Ibrahim is a modern condottiere. Although he is under the orders of Prince Abdul Rahman (Member of Sudeiris clan), it would not be surprising if he continued his epic in Saudi Arabia (after a brief detour in Lebanon or Kuwait) and determine the Royal succession favoring the Sudeiris clan over Prince Mithab (son, not brother of King Abdullah).

John McCain and the Caliph

JPEG - 8.8 kb
Ibrahim al-Badri, also known as Abu Du’a, also known as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, aka Caliph Ibrahim, mercenary of Prince Abdul Rahman al-Faisal, funded by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United States. He can commit all the horrors that are forbidden to states by the Geneva Conventions.

This controversy is there only to distract the gallery. One would like to believe it … if it were’t for this photograph from May 2013.In the latest issue of its magazine, the Islamic Emirate devoted two pages to denounce Senator John McCain as “the enemy” and “double-crosser”, recalling his support for the US invasion of Iraq. Lest this accusation remain unknown in the United States, Senator immediately issued a statement calling the Emirate the “most dangerous Islamist terrorist group in the world” [26].

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

EUGENE SCHULMAN: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

The following is a declaration by Eugene Schulman, an American Jew living in Switzerland. It is an interestng text. I was about to post it in early July but due to events in Gaza I decided to postpone publication until now.

Schulman is brave to admit that “not only Israel, but also the Jewish people who support it, are now the enemies of peace.” He renounces any support for Israel, but also any adherence to Judaism. However, Schulman fails to see that Israel, Zionism and even Judaism are just symptoms of Jewish tribalism and ideology (i.e. Jewishness). In fact Judaism is just one Jewish religion amongst many. Moral interventionism, Bolshevism, Atheism and Free Market have been popular Jewish religions. Similarly, the Holocaust religion is by far the most popular Jewish religion these days. Jewish religion is basically a precept that facilitates self love by means of choseness.

https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post-new.php”and as an atheist who does not accept the existence of a God or gods, it would be hypocritical to observe any religious practices, even in their ‘tribal form.'”

I would argue that for Eugene to fill his independence with meaning he may as well want to consider a deep scrutiny of Jewishness and Jewish ID polotics, for being a Godless Jew is hardly a revelation. In fact, the most horrid crimes against humanity were not committed by rabbinical Jews but by godless righthous Jews whether they were Zionists, ‘anti’ or Bolsheviks.

Declaration of Independence

The United States declared its independence from the British Empire in 1776, stating that it wished freedom from domination, claiming that all men are created equal and are entitled to unalienable rights such as those of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (We now know better.)

The state of Israel declared its independence in 1948, after the end of the British Mandate over Palestine.  Although the land was to be partitioned between the indigenous Arab population and the trespassing Jews, the Zionist led territory claimed a state for themselves, excluding the Arabs.  The declaration stated that the State of israel would “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex, and guaranteed freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture.”  (We now know better.)

My own declaration:

Like most people who are born into a religion, I had always accepted the fact that I was Jewish because my family assumed the Jewish religion as handed down through their own families.  Though ours was not very religious in practice, it considered itself a “member of the tribe”.

Jewish tradition was followed in our home for the sake of my maternal grandmother, who insisted that her children adhered.  Thus, we observed the usual Jewish holidays: Pesach, Hannukkah, etc., and my eldest brother was Bar Mitzvaed.  However, when my grandmother died, all such nonsense ceased in our family, and we lived very secular lives henceforth.  Neither I, nor my other two brothers, one older and one younger, underwent the rite of Bar Mitzva.  I have never attended a seder, nor attended synagogue.

From a young age, thanks to the atheist influence of my paternal grandfather, I have always denied the existence of God.  Religion or God was never an issue or a subject of discussion in our home.  However, during the years of my youth, prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, my mother, as a member of Haddassah, essentially as a social network, did support the immigration of Jews to the Holy Land, and collected funds for the planting of trees.  So I was aware of the Zionist movement.  WWII and the discovery of the Holocaust did make me aware of my Jewish roots, and like most Jews, was appalled at what the Nazis had done to “my people”.  Innocent as I was at the time, at the age of 18, I believed that Israel would be a solution to the problem of finding homes for the survivors of the death camps, and supported the creation of Israel in Palestine as a homeland for Jews.  The notion that Palestine was already populated with an indigenous people did not escape me.  But I had no idea that the Zionist plan was to create a Jewish state and drive out the existing population (ethnic cleansing).

Between the 1948 war and the 1967 war, i.e., the calm between Israeli independence and the aggression against the Palestinians, I had thought of Israel rather benignly as a place of refuge for the people who had suffered under Nazism and those in the Diaspora who wanted to find a home among their own.  The 1967 war, as was presented to the world, gave us in the West the idea that Jews could now be safe among their own, and henceforth would be able to protect themselves.  This, of course, is just what the Zionists wanted the world to believe.  But a reading of history since has shown that this is not the case.  We now know that the Zionist intention, then and now, was to expand its borders and to subsume all of Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan and perhaps beyond.  Books have shown that, despite their claim of victimhood, Israel has become an aggressor state, and claims hegemony over all the Middle East.  In so becoming, Israel has become for Muslims what Nazi Germany was for the Jews, not to speak of the millions of others who suffered equally.  Although they were not the only people who suffered, the Holocaust has been co-opted  by the Jews who use it as a weapon against all who would claim that Israel and Judaism are the cause of much trouble in the world.

I am one of those who believe that, not only Israel, but also the Jewish people who support it, are now the enemies of peace.  Thus, I hereby renounce any support for Israel, but also any adherence to Judaism.  Judaism is a religion, and as an atheist who does not accept the existence of a God or gods, it would be hypocritical to observe any religious practices, even in their “tribal form.”

Via this declaration of independence, I now feel free to criticize all who I believe are enemies of freedom and justice, whether political or religious entities, sans remorse!

Eugene Schulman

The Ukraine, Corrupted Journalism, and the Atlanticist Faith in the “Failed States”

EDITOR’S CHOICE | 16.08.2014 | 21:53
The European Union is not (anymore) guided by politicians with a grasp of history, a sober assessment of global reality, or simple common sense connected with the long term interests of what they are guiding. If any more evidence was needed, it has certainly been supplied by the sanctions they have agreed on last week aimed at punishing Russia.

One way to fathom their foolishness is to start with the media, since whatever understanding or concern these politicians may have personally they must be seen to be doing the right thing, which is taken care of by TV and newspapers.

In much of the European Union the general understanding of global reality since the horrible fate of the people on board the Malaysian Airliner comes from mainstream newspapers and TV which have copied the approach of Anglo-American mainstream media, and have presented ‘news’ in which insinuation and vilification substitute for proper reporting.

Respected publications, like the Financial Times or the once respected NRC Handelsblad of the Netherlands for which I worked sixteen years as East Asia Correspondent, not only joined in with this corrupted journalism but helped guide it to mad conclusions. The punditry and editorials that have grown out of this have gone further than anything among earlier examples of sustained media hysteria stoked for political purposes that I can remember. The most flagrant example I have come across, an anti-Putin leader in the (July 26) Economist Magazine, had the tone of Shakespeare’s Henry V exhorting his troops before the battle of Agincourt as he invaded France.

One should keep in mind that there are no European-wide newspapers or publications to sustain a European public sphere, in the sense of a means for politically interested Europeans to ponder and debate with each other big international developments. Because those interested in world affairs usually read the international edition of the New York Times or the Financial Times, questions and answers on geopolitical matters are routinely shaped or strongly influenced by what editors in New York and London have determined as being important.

Thinking that may deviate significantly as can now be found in Der Spiegel, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Zeit and Handelsblatt, does not travel across German borders. Hence we do not see anything like a European opinion evolving on global affairs, even when these have a direct impact on the interests of the European Union itself.

The Dutch population was rudely shaken out of a general complacency with respect to world events that could affect it, through the death of 193 fellow nationals (along with a 105 people of other nationalities) in the downed plane, and its media were hasty in following the American-initiated finger-pointing at Moscow. Explanations that did not in some way involve culpability of the Russian president seemed to be out of bounds.

This was at odds right away with statements of a sober Dutch prime minister, who was under considerable pressure to join the fingerpointing but who insisted on waiting for a thorough examination of what precisely had happened.

The TV news programs I saw in the days immediately afterwards had invited, among other anti–Russian expositors, American neocon-linked talking heads to do the disclosing to a puzzled and truly shaken up audience. A Dutch foreign policy specialist explained that the foreign minister or his deputy could not go to the site of the crash (as Malaysian officials did) to recover the remains of Dutch citizens, because that would amount to an implicit recognition of diplomatic status for the “separatists”. When the European Union en bloc recognizes a regime that has come into existence through an American initiated coup d’état, you are diplomatically stuck with it.

The inhabitants and anti-Kiev fighters at the crash site were portrayed, with images from youtube, as uncooperative criminals, which for many viewers amounted to a confirmation of their guilt. This changed when later reports from actual journalists showed shocked and deeply concerned villagers, but the discrepancy was not explained, and earlier assumptions of villainy did not make way for any objective analysis of why these people might be fighting at all.

Tendentious twitter and youtube ‘news’ had become the basis for official Dutch indignation with the East Ukrainians, and a general opinion arose that something had to be set straight, which was, again in general opinion, accomplished by a grand nationally televised reception of the human remains (released through Malaysian mediation) in a dignified sober martial ceremony.

Nothing that I have seen or read even intimated that the Ukraine crisis – which led to coup and civil war – was created by neoconservatives and a few R2P (“Responsibility to Protect”) fanatics in the State Department and the White House, apparently given a free hand by President Obama. The Dutch media also appeared unaware that the catastrophe was immediately turned into a political football for White House and State Department purposes. The likelihood that Putin was right when he said that the catastrophe would not have happened if his insistence on a cease-fire had been accepted, was not entertained.

As it was, Kiev broke the cease-fire – on the 10th of June – in its civil war against Russian speaking East Ukrainians who do not wish to be governed by a collection of thugs, progeny of Ukrainian nazis, and oligarchs enamored of the IMF and the European Union. The supposed ‘rebels’ have been responding to the beginnings of ethnic cleansing operations (systematic terror bombing and atrocities – 30 or more Ukrainians burned alive) committed by Kiev forces, of which little or nothing has penetrated into European news reports.

It is unlikely that the American NGOs, which by official admission spent 5 billion dollars in political destabilization efforts prior to the February putsch in Kiev, have suddenly disappeared from the Ukraine, or that America’s military advisors and specialized troops have sat idly by as Kiev’s military and militias mapped their civil war strategy; after all, the new thugs are as a regime on financial life-support provided by Washington, the European Union and IMF. What we know is that Washington is encouraging the ongoing killing in the civil war it helped trigger.

But Washington has constantly had the winning hand in a propaganda war against, entirely contrary to what mainstream media would have us believe, an essentially unwilling opponent. Waves of propaganda come from Washington and are made to fit assumptions of a Putin, driven and assisted by a nationalism heightened by the loss of the Soviet empire, who is trying to expand the Russian Federation up to the borders of that defunct empire. The more adventurous punditry, infected by neocon fever, has Russia threatening to envelop the West.

Hence Europeans are made to believe that Putin refuses diplomacy, while he has been urging this all along. Hence prevailing propaganda has had the effect that not Washington’s but Putin’s actions are seen as dangerous and extreme. Anyone with a personal story that places Putin or Russia in a bad light must move right now; Dutch editors seem insatiable at the moment.

There is no doubt that the frequently referred to Moscow propaganda exists. But there are ways for serious journalists to weigh competing propaganda and discern how much veracity or lies and bullshit they contain. Within my field of vision this has only taken place a bit in Germany. For the rest we must piece political reality together relying on the now more than ever indispensable American websites hospitable to whistleblowers and old-fashioned investigative journalism, which especially since the onset of the ‘war on terrorism’ and the Iraq invasion have formed a steady form of samizdatpublishing.

In the Netherlands almost anything that comes from the State Department is taken at face value. America’s history, since the demise of the Soviet Union, of truly breathtaking lies: on Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, Libya and North Korea; its record of overthrown governments; its black-op and false flag operations; and its stealthily garrisoning of the planet with some thousand military bases, is conveniently left out of consideration.

The near hysteria throughout a week following the downed airliner prevented people with some knowledge of relevant history from opening their mouths. Job security in the current world of journalism is quite shaky, and going against the tide would be almost akin to siding with the devil, as it would damage one’s journalistic ‘credibility’.

What strikes an older generation of serious journalists as questionable about the mainstream media’s credibility is editorial indifference to potential clues that would undermine or destroy the official story line; a story line that has already permeated popular culture as is evident in throwaway remarks embellishing book and film reviews along with much else. In the Netherlands the official story is already carved in stone, which is to be expected when it is repeated ten-thousand times. It cannot be discounted, of course, but it is based on not a shred of evidence.

The presence of two Ukrainian fighter planes near the Malaysian airliner on Russian radar would be a potential clue I would be very interested in if I were investigating either as journalist or member of the investigation team that the Netherlands officially leads. This appeared to be corroborated by a BBC Report with eyewitness accounts from the ground by villagers who clearly saw another plane, a fighter, close to the airliner, near the time of its crash, and heard explosions coming from the sky.

This report has recently drawn attention because it was removed from the BBC’s archive. I would want to talk with Michael Bociurkiw, one of the first inspectors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to reach the crash site who spent more than a week examining the wreckage and has described on CBC World News two or three “really pock-marked” pieces of fuselage. “It almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven’t seen anywhere else.”

I would certainly also want to have a look at the allegedly confiscated radar and voice records of the Kiev Air Control Tower to understand why the Malaysian pilot veered off course and rapidly descended shortly before his plane crashed, and find out whether foreign air controllers in Kiev were indeed sent packing immediately after the crash.

Like the “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity”, I would certainly urge the American authorities with access to satellite images to show the evidence they claim to have of BUK missile batteries in ‘rebel’ hands as well as of Russian involvement, and ask them why they have not done so already.

Until now Washington has acted like a driver who refuses a breathalyzer test. Since intelligence officials have leaked to some American newspapers their lesser certainty about the American certainties as brought to the world by the Secretary of State, my curiosity would be unrelenting.

To place European media loyalty to Washington in the Ukraine case as well as the slavish conduct of European politicians in perspective, we must know about and understand Atlanticism. It is a European faith. It has not given rise to an official doctrine, of course, but it functions like one. It is well summed up by the Dutch slogan at the time of the Iraq invasion: “zonder Amerika gaat het niet” (without the United States [things] [it] won’t work).

Needless to say, the Cold War gave birth to Atlanticism. Ironically, it gained strength as the threat from the Soviet Union became less persuasive for increasing numbers among European political elites. That probably was a matter of generational change: the farther away from World War II, the less European governments remembered what it means to have an independent foreign policy on global-sized issues. Current heads of government of the European Union are unfamiliar with practical strategic deliberations. Routine thought on international relations and global politics is deeply entrenched in Cold War epistemology.

This inevitably also informs ‘responsible’ editorial policies. Atlanticism is now a terrible affliction for Europe: it fosters historical amnesia, willful blindness and dangerously misconceived political anger. But it thrives on a mixture of lingering unquestioned Cold War era certainties about protection, Cold War loyalties embedded in popular culture, sheer European ignorance, and an understandable reluctance to concede that one has even for a little bit been brainwashed.

Washington can do outrageous things while leaving Atlanticism intact because of everyone’s forgetfulness, which the media do little or nothing to cure. I know Dutch people who have become disgusted with the villification of Putin, but the idea that in the context of Ukraine the fingerpointing should be toward Washington is well-nigh unacceptable.

Hence, Dutch publications, along with many others in Europe, cannot bring themselves to place the Ukraine crisis in proper perspective by acknowledging that Washington started it all, and that Washington rather than Putin has the key to its solution. It would impel a renunciation of Atlanticism.

Atlanticism derives much of its strength through NATO, its institutional embodiment. The reason for NATO’s existence, which disappeard with the demise of the Soviet Union, has been largely forgotten. Formed in 1949, it was based on the idea that transatlantic cooperation for security and defense had become necessary after World War II in the face of a communism, orchestrated by Moscow, intent on taking over the entire planet. Much less talked about was European internal distrust, as the Europeans set off on their first moves towards economic integration. NATO constituted a kind of American guarantee that no power in Europe would ever try to dominate the others.

NATO has for some time now been a liability for the European Union, as it prevents development of concerted European foreign and defense policies, and has forced the member states to become instruments serving American militarism. It is also a moral liability because the governments participating in the ‘coalition of the willing’ have had to sell the lie to their citizens that European soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan have been a necessary sacrifice to keep Europe safe from terrorists.

Governments that have supplied troops to areas occupied by the United States have generally done this with considerable reluctance, earning the reproach from a succession of American officials that Europeans do too little for the collective purpose of defending democracy and freedom.

As is the mark of an ideology, Atlanticism is ahistorical. As horse medicine against the torment of fundamental political ambiguity it supplies its own history: one that may be rewritten by American mainstream media as they assist in spreading the word from Washington.

There could hardly be a better demonstration of this than the Dutch experience at the moment. In conversations these past three weeks I have encountered genuine surprise when reminding friends that the Cold War ended through diplomacy with a deal made on Malta between Gorbachev and the elder Bush in December 1989, in which James Baker got Gorbachev to accept the reunification of Germany and withdrawal of Warsaw Pact troops with a promise that NATO would not be extended even one inch to the East.

Gorbachev pledged not to use force in Eastern Europe where the Russians had some 350,000 troops in East Germany alone, in return for Bush’s promise that Washington would not take advantage of a Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe. Bill Clinton reneged on those American promises when, for purely electoral reasons, he boasted about an enlargement of NATO and in 1999 made the Czech Republic and Hungary full members.

Ten years later another nine countries became members, at which point the number of NATO countries was double the number during the Cold War. The famous American specialist on Russia, Ambassador George Kennan, originator of Cold War containment policy, called Clinton’s move “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

Historical ignorance abetted by Atlanticism is poignantly on display in the contention that the ultimate proof in the case against Vladimir Putin is his invasion of Crimea. Again, political reality here was created by America’s mainstream media. There was no invasion, as the Russian sailors and soldiers were already there since it is home to the ‘warm water’ Black Sea base for the Russian navy.

Crimea has been a part of Russia for as long as the United States has existed. In 1954 Khrushchev, who himself came from the Ukraine, gave it to the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, which came down to moving a region to a different province, since Russia and Ukraine still belonged to the same country. The Russian speaking Crimean population was happy enough, as it voted in a referendum first for independence from the Kiev regime that resulted from the coup d’état, and subsequently for reunification with Russia.

Those who maintain that Putin had no right to do such a thing are unaware of another strand of history in which the United States has been moving (Star Wars) missile defense systems ever closer to Russian borders, supposedly to intercept hostile missiles from Iran, which do not exist. Sanctimonious talk about territorial integrity and sovereignty makes no sense under these circumstances, and coming from a Washington that has done away with the concept of sovereignty in its own foreign policy it is downright ludicrous.

A detestable Atlanticist move was the exclusion of Putin from the meetings and other events connected with the commemoration of the Normandy landings, for the first time in 17 years. The G8 became the G7 as a result. Amnesia and ignorance have made the Dutch blind to a history that directly concerned them, since the Soviet Union took the heart out of the Nazi war machine (that occupied the Netherlands) at a cost of incomparable and unimaginable numbers of military dead; without that there would not have been a Normandy invasion.

Not so long ago, the complete military disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan appeared to be moving NATO to a point where its inevitable demise could not to be too far off. But the Ukraine crisis and Putin’s decisiveness in preventing the Crimea with its Russian Navy base from possibly falling into the hands of the American-owned alliance, has been a godsend to this earlier faltering institution.

NATO leadership has already been moving troops to strengthen their presence in the Baltic states, sending missiles and attack aircraft to Poland and Lithuania, and since the downing of the Malaysian airliner it has been preparing further military moves that may turn into dangerous provocations of Russia. It has become clear that the Polish foreign minister together with the Baltic countries, none of which partook in NATO when its reason for being could still be defended, have become a strong driving force behind it.

A mood of mobilization has spread in the past week. The ventriloquist dummies Anders Fogh Rasmussen and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer can be relied upon to take to TV screens inveighing against NATO member-state backsliding. Rasmussen, the current Secretary General, declared on August 7 in Kiev that NATO’s “support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine is unwavering” and that he is looking to strengthen partnership with the country at the Alliance’s summit in Wales in September.

That partnership is already strong, so he said, “and in response to Russia’s aggression, NATO is working even more closely with Ukraine to reform its armed forces and defense institutions.”

In the meantime, in the American Congress 23 Senate Republicans have sponsored legislation, the “Russian Aggression Prevention Act”, which is meant to allow Washington to make the Ukraine a non-NATO ally and could set the stage for a direct military conflict with Russia. We will probably have to wait until after America’s midterm elections to see what will become of it, but it already helps provide a political excuse for those in Washington who want to take next steps in the Ukraine.

In September last year Putin helped Obama by making it possible for him to stop a bombing campaign against Syria pushed by the neocons, and had also helped in defusing the nuclear dispute with Iran, another neocon project. This led to a neocon commitment to break the Putin-Obama link. It is hardly a secret that the neoconservatives desire the overthrow of Putin and eventual dismemberment of the Russian Federation.

Less known in Europe is the existence of numerous NGOs at work in Russia, which will help them with this. Vladimir Putin could strike now or soon, to preempt NATO and the American Congress, by taking Eastern Ukraine, something he probably should have done right after the Crimean referendum. That would, of course, be proof of his evil intentions in European editorial eyes.

In the light of all this, one of the most fateful questions to ask in current global affairs is: what has to happen for Europeans to wake up to the fact that Washington is playing with fire and has ceased being the protector they counted on, and is instead now endangering their security? Will the moment come when it becomes clear that the Ukraine crisis is, most of all, about placing Star Wars missile batteries along an extensive stretch of Russian border, which gives Washington – in the insane lingo of nuclear strategists – ‘first strike’ capacity?

It is beginning to sink in among older Europeans that the United States has enemies who are not Europe’s enemies because it needs them for domestic political reasons; to keep an economically hugely important war industry going and to test by shorthand the political bona fides of contenders for public office.

But while using rogue states and terrorists as targets for ‘just wars’ has never been convincing, Putin’s Russia as demonized by a militaristic NATO could help prolong the transatlantic status quo. The truth behind the fate of the Malaysian airliner, I thought from the moment that I heard about it, would be politically determined. Its black boxes are in London. In NATO hands?

Other hindrances to an awakening remain huge; financialization and neoliberal policies have produced an intimate transatlantic entwining of plutocratic interests. Together with the Atlanticist faith these have helped stymie the political development of the European Union, and with that Europe’s ability to proceed with independent political decisions. Since Tony Blair, Great Britain has been in Washington’s pocket, and since Nicolas Sarkozy one can say more or less the same of France.

That leaves Germany. Angela Merkel was clearly unhappy with the sanctions, but in the end went along because she wants to remain on the good side of the American president, and the United States as the conqueror in World War II does still have leverage through a variety of agreements. Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, quoted in newspapers and appearing on TV, repudiated the sanctions and points at Iraq and Libya as examples of the results brought by escalation and ultimatums, yet he too swings round and in the end goes along with them.

Der Spiegel is one of the German publications that offer hope. One of its columnists, Jakob Augstein, attacks the “sleepwalkers” who have agreed to sanctions, and censures his colleagues’ finger-pointing at Moscow. Gabor Steingart, who publishes Handelsblatt, inveighs against the “American tendency to verbal and then to military escalation, the isolation, demonization, and attacking of enemies” and concludes that also German journalism “has switched from level-headed to agitated in a matter of weeks.

The spectrum of opinions has been narrowed to the field of vision of a sniper scope.” There must be more journalists in other parts of Europe who say things like this, but their voices do not carry through the din of vilification.

History is being made, once again. What may well determine Europe’s fate is that also outside the defenders of the Atlanticist faith, decent Europeans cannot bring themselves to believe in the dysfunction and utter irresponsibility of the American state.

Karel van Wolferen is a Dutch journalist and retired professor at the University of Amsterdam. Since 1969, he has published over twenty books on public policy issues, which have been translated into eleven languages and sold over a million copies worldwide. As a foreign correspondent for NRC Handelsblad , one of Holland’s leading newspapers, he received the highest Dutch award for journalism, and over the years his articles have appeared in The New York Times , The Washington Post , The New Republic , The National Interest , Le Monde , and numerous other newspapers and magazines.

unz.com

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

ISIS militants threaten Mosul’s female doctors

 

A displaced Iraqi girl looks into the camera as a health worker administers polio and tetanus vaccines to Iraqis who fled fighting between Islamic State (IS) militants and Iraqi Kurdish fighters in the Mosul and Anbar regions, at a mosque where they are taking refuge in Abu Sukheir, west of the southern Iraqi city of Basra, on August 19, 2014. (Photo: AFP-Mohammed Ali)
Published Tuesday, August 19, 2014
Female doctors in the Iraqi city of Mosul are witnessing the practices of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) firsthand, since they have to maintain a closer contact with them compared to school teachers and government employees who opted to stay at home, fearing they might be kidnapped or raped by foreigners.
Baghdad – About three years ago, the Iraqi civil movement raised the slogan “Baghdad is not Kandahar.” Soon, it spread to Mosul and signs reading “Ninawa is not Kandahar… save us” written in bright red covered the city’s walls.
These signs were in reference to the vicious campaign launched at the time by al-Qaeda militants who killed women for not wearing the veil, even if they were Christian or Yazidi.
Today, the nightmare of Mosul’s residents has become a reality; their city has been transformed into a new version of Afghanistan’s Kandahar. People here are being executed, archeological ruins dating back to [ancient] civilizations that existed thousands of years ago are being demolished, and religious groups that lived in peace for centuries are being wiped out.

 

Expelling Mosul residents to the mountains and deserts is only the tip of the iceberg, as scores of stories are being told about people dying for no reason. Many talk about the barbarism of the Islamic State (IS), fatwas concerning the conscription of children, taxes collected from merchants, and many other vicious practices that even the Mongols did not commit when they invaded Iraq in the 13th century B.C..
This includes female circumcision [a widely-spread rumor that has since been debunked] and holding women captive, according to two Mosul female doctors who spoke to Al-Akhbar.
The doctors have already posted a message on social media sites, explaining the gravity of the situation and urging people “with [a] living conscious” to save locals from the “claws” of the Islamic State.
Speaking to Al-Akhbar, Dr. Salwa Mohajer said, “They forced us to wear a burqa and a niqab. Usually men are not allowed in the delivery room, but they just enter with all their guns and their filth, claiming they are there for monitoring purposes and they molest women and doctors.”
Mohajer said she was subjected to various types of molestation, especially by Arab militants.
“A so-called Abu Mo’men made a pass on me, even though he knew I was married with children,” she said. “When I told my husband, he made some calls to people close to the militants, however, the situation turned against me because the next day Abu Mo’men threatened that he would cut my husband’s head off if I do not keep quiet.”
Mohajer explained that “militants treat women in Mosul as if they were slaves in al-Jahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic era),” revealing that some doctors and nurses were raped and threatened to be killed.
She spoke about her days in the city before ISIS took control, saying “if a man assaulted us in the street, which was very rare in Mosul, all hell would break loose on him, but today our honor is threatened and no one is saying a word about it.”
Dr. Ansam al-Hamadani, Mohajer’s colleague, also spoke to Al-Akhbar, saying “militants banned all female doctors and female staff who do not wear a veil over their faces and wear gloves to cover their hands from entering the hospital.”
Asked how a doctor can do her job and examine patients with her face and hands covered, Hamadani said “these are the rules of the state.”
“They are rude enough to ask a doctor is she is married or not, and some have gone as far as to ask the married ones to wear black and single women to wear white!”
“Did they really come here to liberate us as they claim after winning our confidence? Do they have real Islamic values?” Hamadani wondered.
Hamadani shared the story of a colleague specialized in obstetrics and gynecology who was denied access by IS militants to a hospital, where she was scheduled to do a surgery, because she did not wear a veil over her face. When she explained that she needed to examine patients, they replied, with a Mosuli accent, “let the patients die, it is not important, what matters is your veil.”
With increasing air raids by the Iraqi army and US forces, more doctors are fleeing the city and leaving their jobs. Health officials in Mosul are expecting darker days with more wounded flooding hospitals amid a sharp shortage of resources and medical staffs.
Recently, a letter signed by “Mosul Female Doctors” was circulated on social media sites, calling for a strike in local hospitals in protest of the IS violations. They said female doctors are still working because the humanitarian situation is very critical and urged the international community to save them from IS, warning of a humanitarian crisis due to the flight of female doctors.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

A GLIMPSE INTO JEWISH ‘ETHICS’ 

Reported by Gilad Atzmon

The BBC reported yesterday that London based newspaper The Jewish Chronicle has apologised to readers who complained after it ran an advert for the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Gaza crisis appeal (DEC).

The weekly newspaper said running the advert was “meant as a purely humanitarian gesture”.

When it launched the appeal, the DEC said the latest conflict had made half a million people in Gaza homeless and warned of a “humanitarian emergency”.

After the advert featured in this week’s Jewish Chronicle (JC), aFacebook page was set up calling on Jewish readers to boycott the title until it issued a “full apology”.

It accused the newspaper of “ignoring the sensitivity of this conflict which is having a day to day impact and effect on the Jewish community here”.

A message posted on the papers own Facebook page pointed out that the advert was “not an expression of the JC’s view”.

It added: “We have received complaints from readers angry at the decision. We apologise for the upset caused.”

It said it would give space in the next issue to readers wanting to object to the advert.

One reader replied: “Maybe you should donate the money you received from this diabolical advert to a pro Israel cause too. Utterly disgraceful.”

Someone should take the task and explain once and for all the clear contradiction between Jewish obsessive victimhood and the total dismissal of human suffering as conveyed by JC’s readers.

Israeli ship blockade continues in California

Published Tuesday, August 19, 2014

US activists blocked an Israeli cargo ship from unloading at a California port for the third day in a row in protest of the recent Israeli assault on Gaza, organizers of the action reported late Monday.

The vessel, owned and operated by Israeli company Zim Shipping Services, has been trying to unload Israeli cargo in the port of Oakland since Saturday.

Thousands of protesters prevented the ship from unloading on Saturday, with the cooperation of dock workers who refused to unload the boat.

The ship has failed to unload its cargo despite attempting various tactics, including delaying its arrival time until the early morning hours. About a dozen activists continued to hold off the ship early Monday morning, according to activist sources.

View image on Twitter

RT @PalAnonymous: This should give a better sense of the size of Oakland #blocktheboat action pic.twitter.com/sRgzwaD3Bu via @marg1nal

One activist who spoke to Al Jazeera said the organizers were thinking of making the block a regular action, as Israeli ships arrive in the port every Saturday.

The blockade is supported by the International Longshoremen and Warehousemen Unions, a group which also stood against the South African apartheid regime in 1984.

 

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 388 other followers