Netanyahu heads to US to tell Obama ‘truth’ about Iran (That’s his version of course)

Netanyahu heads to US to tell Obama ‘truth’ about Iran

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with Barack Obama to discuss the “smokescreen” the Iranian president used to fool Western powers. The White House meeting will take place before Netanyahu addresses the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.

“I intend to tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and  charm offensive of Iran,” Netanyahu said before  boarding the plane to New York.

“Telling the truth at this time is essential for world peace  and security and, of course, for Israel’s security,” AFP  cites him as saying.

After Iranian President Hassan Rouhani addressed the United Nations  General Assembly last week, Netanyahu called the speech   “cynical” and “full of hypocrisy,” saying it was  aimed at fooling the Western powers while Iran continues  advancing towards a nuclear weapons capability

Following the historic conversation between the leaders of Iran  and US on Friday – the first such talk in more than three decades  – Netanyahu instructed his ministers and senior officials to keep  silent and not comment on the development.

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani addresses the 68th United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters in New York, September 24, 2013. (Reuters / Ray Stubblebine)

http://t.co/HLCkf2k1Ng

Following the phone call, Iranian hard-liners hurled shoes and eggs at  Rouhani’s car chanting “Death to America” and “Death to  Israel” as he arrived in Tehran.

Netanyahu will speak with Obama on Monday during a two-hour long  meeting in Washington, where the two leaders are also expected to  discuss Syria and Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

On Tuesday, the Israeli PM will be the last speaker to address  the 68th UN General Assembly in New York.

WHAT IS GOOD FOR PALESTINE IS GOOD FOR ALL

Syria is not alone in this endeavor to do as pleases Syria , Syria is part of the axis of the Resistance and this victory over the world order has been achieved by this axis who joint efforts on the ground , this victory was that of Syria and that of Hizbullah and of Iran also and Russia also could use this victory positively to promote itself in the region . And this victory is that of Palestine above all and this the direction and this the central cause , not only the for Arabs and Muslims but it is universally speaking so . This war is for Palestine and Palestine will remain the Qibla for all committed people . Those committed to religion or to their national feeling or to their feeling for humanity in general . If one does not give priority to the Palestinian cause then one has lost his compass . What is good for Palestine and Palestinians is good for all . Syria has paid a price but Syria does not gain anything in providing a cover for what is happening against Gaza and against HAMAS precisely on behalf of the Egyptian Army who is by no way a National Army and has stopped being so since the shameful agreements that have recognized Israel and normalized with it .

The Egyptian Army -until further notice- is still coordinating with Israelis and still cooperating with Israelis and instead of fighting the Israeli entity they are fighting the MB -who are a natural constituent of the Egyptian Society – and rallying against them and tightening the siege on Gaza in a way that is worse than what Mubarak did .There is no logic in betting on this army before this army goes over its choices and its ties with Israel. The wisest path to follow is the path of Hizbullah who has never severed his ties with the military faction of HAMAS , the leaders of HAMAS should be exposed for what they did and replaced but we should still bet on the Palestinian armed Resistance of HAMAS as Hizbullah is doing and bring it back to the resistance bosom .Hizbullah has acted previously inspired by wisdom and is still acting this way and everyone has everything to gain from trusting the wisdom of the Resistance and follow the light of the Resistance in these times where darkness prevails .

On Blood Rituals

By Gilad Atzmon

Haaretz reported today that a couple of weeks ago, New York City Councilman David G. Greenfield introduced a bill that would bar the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene from requiring informed consent for metzitzah b’peh.

Metzitzah b’peh (blood sucking) is a Jewish blood ritual where a circumciser (mohel), “sucks out blood from a baby’s penis after circumcision.”

The N.Y. health department has linked several infant deaths to Metzitzah b’peh. Needless to say that the American health authorities’ concerns are more than reasonable. However, not many people are familiar with the history of the political and medical discussion over that particular Jewish blood ritual.

In Medicine and The German Jews, John M. Ephron elaborates on the evolvement of the opposition to Jewish blood rituals in Germany.

“Jewish circumcision was the subject of a wide-ranging debate in nineteenth-century Germany.Circumcision had long been regarded as the most distinctive and separatist of all Jewish rituals, and the discourse surrounding it went to the heart of the ‘willingness’ of the Jews to fully participate in the ‘act’ of being German. The ritual was interpreted as a signal of the Jews’ refusal to rid themselves of their differences, imprinting on their own male bodies, as an aboriginal would his tribal markings, an ineradicable expression of national identity. “

“Critics of ritual circumcision were particularly hostile to the act of metsitsah. For many Jews, primarily those who had joined the German middle class and had come to share the culture and aesthetic sensibilities of that group, metsitsah appeared to be an atavistic, sexually deviant act. Part of the traditional circumcision ceremony, the practice of metsitsah was widely condemned throughout the nineteenth century by medical and lay authorities, Jews and Gentiles alike. Charging that the practice promoted the spread of a host of sexual and infectious diseases, the arguments made against the practice were not confined to Western Europe but made their way east as well. “

I guess that as far as the Jews are concerned, the take home message here is plain and simple. When, the ‘Goyim’ start to complain about Jewish blood rituals is when they are willing to admit to themselves that something is distinctively different and wrong with Jewish culture.

Such a transition is indeed a sign of growing resentment towards Jewish culture and politics. In America this transition takes place at a time when the wide public gathers that it is Israel and the Jewish lobby that are relentlessly pushing the west into wars. George Soros, a liberal Zionist who funds the pro-Israeli lobby group J-Street and the rabid Zionist NGO Human Rights Watch is also funding the so-called American progressive network and many Palestinian NGOs.  Mondoweiss,  the leading Jewish anti-Zionist outlet banned any discussion to do with Jewish culture or more precisely, the Jewishness of the Jewish State and its Lobby (1)

I am convinced that the wide public is not really concerned with the rituals Jews perform on their new-born male babies.  Yet, complaining about Jewish blood rituals should be grasped as a clear expression of growing fatigue with Jewish politics and power. People out there are saying, “Enough is enough.”

I really don’t think that I can save the situation, but I still see a duty to air my concerns. I believe that Jews had better beware and be alarmed. If Jewish history reveals anything, it warns that Jews are clearly getting themselves into trouble once again. If Jewish history teaches us anything, it also predicts that my call will be dismissed by Jews.  And this is exactly what the Jewish tragedy is all about.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics, available on Amazon.com  & Amazon.co.uk

(1) “From here on out, the Mondoweiss comment section will no longer serve as a forum to pillory Jewish culture and religion as the driving factors in Israeli and US policy.” (http://mondoweiss.net/)

Lavrov: Insurgents Have Chemical Weapons

US Labeling Terrorists

by Stephen Lendman
It’s no secret. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov affirmed what he said many times before. Russia has clear evidence.

It proves Western-enlisted death squads have CWs. It proves they use them.
On Saturday, Russia’s Channel One interviewed Lavrov. He said Moscow intercepted a phone call between two insurgents. They discussed using chemical weapons.

Russia informed Washington and other anti-Assad governments. It called on them “to make sure that their ‘charges’ kept their hands off any chemical weapons or their components, to say nothing of using them.”

According to Lavrov:
“We are certain that militants have more than once attempted such provocations.”

“Therefore, the direct sponsors of opposition forces who offer them support must also see to it that they give up on further provocations.”

Syria must play the lead role in its own security.

“The main idea is to let OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) experts play the first fiddle, while the UN plays a supporting role by providing additional personnel if needed and, first and foremost, by protecting watchdogs that are to inspect Syrian chemical arms depots as listed by the country’s government.”

“Of course, we are still to agree on the details of this plan.”

“In this sense, the UN Security Council’s resolution will entitle the UN secretary general to come forth with his recommendations during consultations with the OPCW’s chief.”

Assad and opposition forces are obligated to observe Security Council provisions to eliminate all chemical weapons in Syria.

UN member states must not let insurgents with chemical weapons use their territories.

Security Council Resolution 2118 “stresses chemical weapons must not fall into the hands of non-governmental entities, which the opposition is,” said Lavrov.

“It also emphasizes that all UN member states, primarily Syria’s neighbors, must take comprehensive measures to prevent the use of their territories for the provision of the opposition with chemical weapons and their components,” he added.

Insurgents used chemical weapons numerous times. Clear evidence proves it. Previous articles discussed it in detail.

It bears repeating. It’s vital to do. It’s to point fingers the right way. It’s to assign blame where it belongs. It’s to set the record straight. It’s to absolve Assad of crimes he didn’t commit.

On March 19, insurgents attacked Khan-al Assal with chemical toxins. It’s a suburban Aleppo town. Syrian forces control it.

Anti-Assad forces fired a homemade rocket. Shell fragments proved it wasn’t factory made. It contained RDX nitroamine. It wasn’t industrial grade. It’s not what Syria has. Insurgents produced it.

A previous article quoted Syria’s UN envoy Bashar Jaafari saying:
“The Syrian authorities have discovered yesterday in the city of Banias 281 barrels filled with dangerous, hazardous chemical materials.”

Amounts found were “capable of destroying a whole city, if not the whole country,” he added.
Toxic substances include 79 barrels of polyethylene glycol (PEG), 67 barrels of mono ethylene glycol, 25 barrels of mono ethanol (or ethanolamine), 68 barrels of diethanolamine (DEA), and 42 barrels of triethanolamine (TEA).

Jaafari said chemicals found were “in a secret storage (area) controlled and monitored by the armed terrorist groups.”

On August 23, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined “Two phone calls affirm the use of chemical weapons in Homs by terrorists,” saying:
“A phone call between a terrorist affiliated to the so-called ‘Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion’ in Homs and his boss who was called Adulbasit from Saudi Arabia uncovered that terrorists used the chemical weapons in Deir Ballba in Homs countryside.”

“During a phone call broadcast on the Syrian TV Channel, the terrorist said that his group which comprises 200 terrorists escaped from al-Bayadah to al-Daar al-Kabera through a tunnel, adding that they needed to buy weapons to attack the City of Homs.”

“The Saudi financier who was present in Cairo asked the Syrian terrorists about details on his group and the way they will receive the money, admitting his support to terrorists in Daraa and Damascus Countryside, in turn the Syria terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his ‘Battalion’ was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.”

“In the same context, another phone call reveled the cooperation between tow terrorist groups to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus.”
Washington, key NATO partners, Israel and rogue Arab states are waging war on Syria. Weapons and munitions are supplied. So are toxic agents.

Previous articles explained in detail. Information discussed bears repeating. Pentagon contractors are involved. They provide insurgents with CW training.

Syrian forces seized a warehouse. It contained barrels marked “Made in KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).” Protective masks were found. So were drugs used when inhaling chemicals.

No evidence links Syrian forces to CW use any time throughout months of conflict. Plenty proves insurgents used sarin and other toxic agents.

They did numerous times. They’ve been caught red-handed. Initial reports were buried and ignored. Assad’s wrongfully blamed.

He had nothing to do with attacking Ghouta. Western-enlisted death squads bear full responsibility.
In March, insurgents fired homemade rockets containing CL 17. It’s a form of chlorine. It induces vomiting, fainting, suffocation and seizures.

In late May, Turkish police arrested 12 suspected Al Nusra fighters. They were seized in southern Turkey. They were caught red-handed with a two gm cylinder of sarin nerve gas.

Last December, an insurgent video showed them testing chemical weapons on lab rabbits. Threats to use them against Assad loyalists followed.

 FSA showcases its chemical weapons lab

Lab equipment and chemical containers were shown. Some bore the Turkish chemical company Tekkim name.

An Arabic text wall poster read, “The Almighty Wind Brigade (Kateebat A Reeh Al Sarsar).”
A man was shown mixing chemicals in a beaker. It emits gas. Rabbits in a glass box had convulsions. They collapsed and died.

A previous article discussed a no longer accessible January 29, 2013 UK Daily Mail report headlined “US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime,’ ” saying:
“Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.”

“A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.”

Another previous article cited Mint Press News headlining “Exclusive: Syrians in Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack,” saying:
“Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.”

Insurgents had “tube-like” weapons. Others were in a “huge gas bottle.”

The same article quoted UN human rights investigator Carla del Ponte. Last May, she said:
“According to the testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas.”

“We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas.”

Russia knows all of the above and more. So do other UN member states. It bears repeating. Extremist anti-Assad elements alone used chemical weapons.

They’ve done so numerous times. Clear evidence proves it. They bear full responsibility for attacking Ghouta. Blaming Assad doesn’t wash.

Syria’s fully committed to eliminating its CWs. On September 28, Lebanon’s al-Manar TV interviewed Syrian Prime Minister Wael al-Halqi.

He welcomed Security Council Resolution 2118. He said Damascus fully intends to comply with all its provisions. It’ll work cooperatively with OPCW inspectors.

“Syria’s decision on joining the CWC came from the state’s commitment to protect its people through avoiding a US-western military aggression and to prevent more killing of innocents and protecting the establishments and national and economic infrastructure,” he said.

Damascus is going all out to resolve conflict conditions diplomatically, he stressed. It’ll participate in Geneva II. It’ll do so with no preconditions.

It’ll engage all involved nations in constructive dialogue. It’ll do so with “all national people, inside and outside Syria, who believe that the solution to the crisis is a national solution far from any foreign interference or violation of the national sovereignty, but we will not talk with terrorists,” he added.
He condemned Saudi Arabia for continuing to supply funding, weapons, and political support. Washington, Britain, France, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan and Israeli do the same thing.

Obama calls the shots. Syria is his war. He launched it. He wants Assad toppled. Security Council Resolution 2118 changes nothing. An uneasy calm may not last long.

It’s a convenient illusion. It ignores continued Syrian army/insurgent clashes. It turns a blind eye to dozens more daily deaths. One bloody day follows others.

Believing Syria’s conflict can be resolved diplomatically requires blind faith. Escalated conflict looms. Pretexts will be invented to do so.

Cruise missile diplomacy may follow. Bombs away awaits Obama’s order. He wants another imperial trophy. He’s hell bent on getting it.

Syria may end up as ravaged, destroyed, dysfunctional, anarchical, and dystopian as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya before he’s through. Rogue leaders operate that way. Obama’s by far the worst.

PRESIDENT ASSAD’S INTERVIEW WITH RAI 24 TV, SEPTEMBER 29, 2013

• Assad Stresses: “I Won’t Leave My Country in The Middle of The Storm”
• الرئيس الأسد لتلفزيون إيطالي : سنجعل من سورية أفضل بكثير مما كانت عليه قبل الأزمة
• إطلالات الأسد الإعلامية زادت من إحباط معسكر العدوان …نور الدين الجمال

PRESIDENT ASSAD’S INTERVIEW WITH RAI 24 TV, SEPTEMBER 29, 2013

Posted on September 29, 2013 by Alexandra Valiente

President al-Assad: We focus today on getting rid of terrorists and their ideology…We can make Syria much better than before the crisis

Sep 29, 2013

Damascus, (SANA)- President Bashar al-Assad has given an interview to the Italian Rai News 24 TV channel in which he stressed Syria’s commitment to the international agreement on the prohibition of chemical weapons and its determination to go ahead with the political solution and halting violence.

The following is the full text of the interview:

We comply with every treaty we sign

Rai News: Mr. President, thanks for having us here. It’s a very important moment, because the UN Security Council just approved with unanimity a resolution asking Syria to eliminate completely its chemical weapons. Are you going to comply with this?

President al-Assad: Actually, we joined the international agreement for preventing the use and acquirement of chemical weapons before that resolution came to light. The main part of the Russian initiative is based on our will to do so. So, it’s not the resolution. Actually, it’s about our will. Of course, we have the will, because in 2003 we had a proposal in the United Nations Security Council, to get rid of those weapons in the Middle East, to have a chemical weapons free zone in the Middle East. So, of course we have to comply; this is our history: to comply with every treaty we sign.

Rai News: So, with no limit to any extent?

President al-Assad: According to every chapter in the agreement. We don’t have any reservations. That’s why we decided to join the agreement.

Rai News: How do you think you will organize this kind of dismantling, which is very complicated?

President al-Assad: This question should be directed to the organization itself. Of course our role is to offer the data and to facilitate their procedures, which is available so far. But I think it’s about the technical side or aspect of the implementation, about how to reach those places, especially when you have terrorists who could put any obstacle, and about how to dismantle and get rid of those materials.

Rai News: Let me just speculate on this. It means you’re going to help them and protect them. Because now security is a very important issue here in Syria.

President al-Assad: Of course. That’s self-evident, yes.

Rai News: Let’s go forward, Mr. President, trying to understand what’s going on in Syria in the next few days, weeks and months, because now the attack which was very close a few weeks ago looks to be a little more distant. How are you going to work in this time? What is your personal roadmap?

President al-Assad: I’m sorry, for what?

Rai News: For political activities. I mean, how do you think you’re going to use this time?

President al-Assad: Since the beginning of the crisis, we said political activity or solution, whatever you call it, is a very important part of the crisis. But when you have terrorism, you cannot expect the political solution to solve everything. In spite of that, you have to continue the political action, but there’s no process yet. It’s about the Syrians meeting around the table, discussing the political system that they want, the future of Syria, and whatever they agree upon, you’ll have a referendum in order to have the endorsement of the Syrian people regarding whatever part of the future of Syria, whether it’s the constitution, or laws, or whatever. That’s what we’ve been doing since the beginning of the crisis, and this is the same action that we’re going to continue with in the meantime.

We discuss with every party of opposition but not armed groups

Rai News: We’ll go back later to the beginning of the crisis, but let us stay for a second on this. It means you’re going to discuss with the opposition as well? Even with the armed opposition?

President al-Assad: No, when they are armed you don’t call them opposition, you call them terrorists. Opposition is a political entity, is a political program, is a political vision; this is opposition. If you have arms and destroy and kill and assassinate, this is not opposition. This is what you call terrorism all over the world and in every other country. So, we can discuss with every party in the opposition. Regarding the militants, if they give up their arms, we’ll be ready to discuss with them anything like any other citizen.

Rai News: So, we arrive close to Geneva 2, the peace talks, because Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the UN, said that it’s very likely in November there will be a second Geneva meeting. Are you planning to attend it personally?

President al-Assad: That depends on the framework of the Geneva meeting. So far, that conference is not clear: what kind of conference, who’s going to attend, what the criteria are for this conference. So, we have to be ready as government, but we cannot decide who’s going to head the delegation until we have, let’s say, the framework, the clear framework and the criteria.

Rai News: So, let me just ask you: which kind of framework would convince you to go there?

President al-Assad: As I said, any political party could attend that conference, but we cannot discuss, for example, al-Qaeda and its offshoots and organizations that are affiliated to al-Qaeda, for example, terrorists. We cannot negotiate with the people who ask for foreign intervention and military intervention in Syria.

Rai News: May I just name Qatar and Saudi Arabia?

President al-Assad: Let me be frank with you; they are client states, so I’m talking about states now. If you want to talk about states, they are client states; their master is the United States. We all know that. So, if the United States is attending, this is the main partner, and the others are accessories. If you want to talk about Syrian parties, regardless of their names, I’m talking about their behavior during the crisis. That’s what we can discuss – their behavior.

Rai News: Since the situation on the ground is very complicated, could you also accept the idea of some international forces, like interposition on the ground, to try to stabilize in a way the situation?

President al-Assad: It doesn’t work, because we’re not talking about two countries fighting each other, like, for example, Syria and Israel, where you have a frontline, a clear frontline, where you can have the United Nations forces on both sides of the borders or the frontier, let’s say, or the armistice line. It’s completely different. You are talking about gangs; they could exist everywhere in Syria, within any city, where you don’t have a frontier or clear lines. So, even if you want to suppose that you can accept that idea – which is not acceptable for us – but if you want to accept it, where can you position those troops? No-one can draw a map. You need a clear map. There is no clear map. There are gangs coming from everywhere, and they are terrorists who should be fought, not isolated from the Syrian troops.

We support any country that would like to help the Syrians

Rai News:We were talking about Geneva 2, and I was thinking about Europe and the role of Italy in this kind of process. Do you see any role for Italy in this?

President al-Assad: Again, let me be very bold here, very blunt. If we want to discuss the role of Italy, we should see it in the light of the European role. Is Italy independent from the European role? If not, who’s leading the European role? And, we have to discuss the relation between the European role and the American. Is Europe independent from the American policies today? I heard from many European officials that they are convinced about what we are saying, but they cannot announce it. This is not the first time, not only during this crisis. So, any role should be looked at in the light of two things: the credibility of that role, and second, the relation between the individual or the country or the government, let’s say, with the different parties. Now, our reality today is that most of the European countries adopted the American, let’s say, practice in dealing with different countries since George Bush came to his position more than ten years ago. When they have a problem or disagreement with any other country, they cut off all kinds of relations. So, if you want to play a role, how can you play a role where you don’t have relations? How can you build credibility when you don’t have relations? Regarding the credibility, how can you talk about the credibility of any European country now when they talk about humanitarian aid and at the same time they establish the worst embargo we’ve ever seen since the existence of Syria after the independence? Many things have to be discussed before asking for a role. We welcome any role. We support any country that would like to help the Syrians in their endeavor, but we cannot just ask for a role without having the foundation of that role. So, to be frank, most of the European countries today, they don’t have the ability to play that role because they don’t have the different factors that could make them succeed and could make them efficient and effective in playing that role.

We trust the Iranians and they, like the Syrians and many other countries, don’t trust the Americans

Rai News: But things look to change quite quickly these days, because just this phone call between President Obama and Iranian President Rouhani, and so it looks like the balance in the region in some way is changing. Isn’t it going to affect in some way what is happening in Syria?

President al-Assad: I think it’s going to affect positively for many reasons. First of all, Iran is our ally. Second, because we trust the Iranians. Third, because the Iranians, like the Syrians, like many countries in the world, don’t trust the Americans, and I think many of the American allies don’t trust the American administrations. So, for the Iranians to move closer to the Americans is not just a naïve move; it’s a well-studied step that’s based on the experience of the Iranians with the United States since the revolution in 1979. But if the Americans are honest about this rapprochement, I think the results will be positive regarding the different issues, not only the Syrian crisis, including every problem in the region.

Rai News: You know that in the day of the crisis and I mentioned the attack was so close. An important action was taken by Papa Francesco, Pope Francis, against the war. And now, speaking to the Christian minority here, they are all very scared. What is going to be your attitude towards minorities like Christians in the next few years?

The crisis is not only a regional issue but should be international issue especially for Italy and the Vatican

President al-Assad: Syria is a melting pot. It existed like this, like it is today because it is a melting pot with multifarious cultures for centuries, before Christianity and after Christianity, before Islam and after Islam. If you have any change, dramatic change, in the demographic and social fabric of the Syrian society, you’re going to have a big problem in the future regarding the future of Syria. I don’t know what kind of problem, because it’s more complicated than anyone would think, and that will affect the other countries in the region. So, Syria is a secular country and the Syrian society is a secular society. Secular means to deal with every citizen, regardless of their religion, sect and ethnicity. So, I think technically these minorities in Syria, especially Christians, in light of what is happening recently – burning churches, attacking Christian villages, expelling Christians form their houses and homes – in light of this, dealing with this crisis is not a Syrian issue, it’s not only a regional issue, it should be an international issue, especially for Italy and for the Vatican.

Syrian Army didn’t use chemical weapons at all, we have every evidence that the armed groups have used them

Rai News: So, Mr. President, these have been very complicated weeks. The escalation has started with the infamous 21st August attack. Can we go back to that allegation about the chemical attack; which is your version, because you were speaking about having different evidence. UN inspectors are here working, can you help us understanding your version about this?

President al-Assad: Let me tell in you in brief. First, let’s start by saying the Syrian Army didn’t use it at all. It never arranged to use chemical weapons during the crisis, and we have every evidence that the gangs have used this.

Now, why the Syrian Army didn’t use it? Logically and realistically, you don’t use it when you’re in advancement. The army was advancing. Why to use it? You didn’t use it for two and a half years while you had many difficult situations in different areas in Syria, you had much more terrorists facing you in other places more than Damascus. Why didn’t we use it? Why only in that place?

Second, the story now, or the American narrative; we invited the delegation to come to Syria, which is responsible for investigating the use of chemical weapons, before that incident, and the day they arrived, the second day, the Syrian Army used chemical weapons. Is that plausible? You cannot believe this story. Why, when we invited the delegation to come in March, why did the Americans put obstacles, and why did they accept that recently before the incident, and when they arrived, the attack happened? You cannot use it in a city where you can have tens of thousands of casualties including the army. The most important thing is that nobody verified the veracity of the videos and the photos, no-one, because in many places, the same pictures of the same children were used in different photos in different places, and you can find those pictures on the internet, they’ve been circulating on the internet.

On the other side, we have complete evidence, like the materials, containers that the terrorists used, we have the confessions of some of the terrorists that conveyed chemical materials from neighboring countries, and you have the indication that the interest of whoever committed this crime wasn’t the Syrian Army; it was the terrorists. So, that’s the whole story.

Rai News:Is there even the slightest chance or possibility that someone inside your circle or the army did it against your permission, against you, and then maybe see him defect in a few months? It’s a very complicated crisis, so we’re allowed to use speculations.

President al-Assad: It’s a weapon of mass destruction, it’s chemical. It’s like if you say that somebody in a nuclear country wanted to use nuclear weapons without the authority of his master. You cannot believe this. This is a very naïve story. This could be a children’s story. It’s not a grenade ;you put it in your pocket and throw it on everyone. The process of using the chemical weapons if you have a war with any enemy and if you want to use it is very complicated, it’s under strict procedure because it’s complicated technically first of all to activate the material itself. This is first. Second, not a single unit in the Syrian Army has chemical weapons anyway; you have specialized units, and if you want to use it, these specialized units should join the army in order to use the chemical weapons. So, again, this is a children’s narrative.

We dealt with the situation from the beginning according to the constitution

Rai News: So, since we’re going back in time, let’s go to the beginning of the crisis. At the time, you acted in a tough way against any sign of opposition. Do you have any kind of regret of the way everything began?

President al-Assad: We have to define the word “tough” because we dealt with the situation according to the constitution. It’s like, if you say, the Americans sent the army to Los Angeles in 1995. Do you call it tough, or do you call it that they sent the army to fight the rebels? So, according to the constitution we should have fought the terrorists, because from the very first week, we had many victims from the army and the police, from the very first few weeks. So, that’s normal, what we did, according to the constitution. This is the job of the government. If you talk about mistakes committed on the ground that could happen anywhere in the world. In the UK a few years ago, they shot a Brazilian guy by mistake, so that could happen anywhere. So, policy is different from the practice in many places in the world.

Rai News: But, just remaining on the political field, don’t you think that you had the chance to do something more at the time? Like doing something more, maybe change, even politicians sometimes can admit some mistakes.

President al-Assad: Even if you want to look at your mistakes when you do it, and every human will do mistakes every day, that’s normal, but how can you judge your mistake? After the end of the event, not during the event. So, we are still in the middle of the crisis. You can judge that at the end of the crisis. This is where we can revise our action, this is where the people can criticize us on, let’s say, objective and methodical basis, not in an arbitrary way.

Rai News: Did you ever think to leave the power for the sake of your country? Did you ever consider the chance to leave your country just if the exchange was peace and stability for your people?

President al-Assad: It depends on the “if.” If my quitting of my position would make the situation better, the answer would be very simply, without reluctance, yes. But there is the other question; would the situation be better? So, for me as president, so far, I have to be in my position because when you have a storm, you don’t give up your position. You don’t quit your position and leave your country in the middle of the storm. Your mission is to take your country to the shore, not to abandon the ship and the Syrian people.

Rai News: What would be the scenario in which you could decide that it’s the right way for your ship to go to the shore, and then you decide to do something else?

I should obey whatever the Syrian people want

President al-Assad: The first part, two things. As I said earlier, the political dialogue is very important to discuss the future of Syria and the political system. The second one is to stop the violence by stopping the smuggling and sending the terrorist form outside Syria, stopping the financial support, stopping sending them armaments and every logistical support, because if we don’t succeed here, we cannot in the political part of solving the problem. Second, after solving this problem, regarding me, my position, the only way is the ballot box, because this is where the Syrian people can tell whoever they want. And for me, I should obey whatever the Syrian people want. There’s no other way in any country. I mean, it’s not the decision of any group in Syria; it’s the decision of every Syrian citizen.

Rai News: Are you going to be in the elections of 2014?

President al-Assad: Before the elections right away, if I feel that the Syrian people want me to be in that position, I will run. If not, I will not.

Bad ideologies invaded the region, including Syria

Rai News: Mr. President, I do remember the beginning of your presidency, and you were looked to as a symbol of hope for Syria, because everybody knew that you knew the world, and you came here to give it a more modern and open society. Young people, intellectuals were looking at you in this way. Then, something happened in between. Do you think there’s a chance you could do something so dramatically different to be seen again in that position, and not in the one in which you’re seen in the very last days?

President al-Assad: You have to talk about the internal factors and the external factors, because you are part of a very complicated region in the world, so we’ll be affected, and there’s daily interaction with our periphery. The internal factor which is that when you talk about reform, it’s not the reform of the president or the government; the government and the president should lead the reform, because it’s about the whole society, because it’s a matter of culture. It’s not only laws and constitution. The laws and constitution are means for change, but the real change happens by the people themselves. So, according to our reality, when you talk about thousands of years of civilization, you are talking about mores, and customs, and traditions, and ethos, and folkways, and different things that are related to every society, and our society is very complicated because of this multifarious culture that we’ve had. So, it was moving forward. You cannot say that we didn’t say anything. Some people say that it was false, some people say that it was too slow; this is subjective. Each one sees it in his own way. But in the end, no-one can say that we are in our position, because we moved forward, could be slowly, but surely. This is the first part.

Second, you have to talk about external obstacles. When I became president, two months later, the Intifada in Palestine started that influenced every country in the Arab world. The peace process actually had failed just a few months before I became president, and there was a stalemate. Third, eleventh of September happened, and we had to pay the price, one of the countries that had to pay the price. They invaded Afghanistan; we were against. They invaded Iraq; we were against. And after 2003, after the invasion of Iraq, Syria had to pay the price, and there was an embargo by the Europeans and the West, and so on. There was only an artificial period of conciliation, let’s say between Syria – which could be not the very precise word – but kind of rapprochement between Syria and the West and especially Europeans between 2008 and 2011. Why artificial? Because it was under the supervision of the Americans; it wasn’t genuine, because they weren’t independent. And now we have the crisis. When we talk about reform, especially when we talk about dramatic reform, you need a different atmosphere. You have to be comfortable economically, politically and ideologically. Don’t forget in that regard one of the external and internal factors at the same time is the invasion of the bad ideologies to the region, including Syria, and I mean the ideology of al-Qaeda that invaded many communities in our region, including part of the Syrian society. You cannot talk about reform and democracy while the ideologies are single-minded ideologies that don’t accept any other one, because democracy, real democracy, is about accepting the others. Start by accepting the other, first of all, especially in a diverse society. So, I can say that we are still having the same will to move forward in that regard according to our reality. So, the scope of the reform will be limited by our reality.

The only option that’s left for us is to defend our country

Rai News: Very last question; if now the major threat looks to be over or a little lessened, what would you tell your people in terms of promise and pattern?

President al-Assad: I think the only thing that I can say now is one option that’s left for us; which is to defend our country. So, first of all, we have to focus on getting rid of the terrorists, their terrorism and their ideology. Second, even if we get over this crisis, we have so many things to manage after the crisis, the leftover of this crisis, especially the ideological, the psychological and the social consequences on thissociety, so we have a lot of work. But, I can say with confidence that we can make Syria much better than before the crisis.

Rai News: Even with reforms?

President al-Assad: Yeah, of course. We need the reform. Without reform, we cannot. The reform is a very part of what I’m talking about. Actually, it’s the major axis of making Syria better, that’s for sure, but doesn’t mean to be the hope in that regard of foreign countries or foreign people; I could be the hope of the Syrians, not any other one.

Rai News: I wish you all the best. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you for your time and for hosting us here.

President al-Assad: Thank you for coming to Syria.

Iran shows truth is winning out

By Finian Cunningham

Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:36PM GMT

The saying goes that a week is a long time in politics – meaning that big changes can surprisingly occur in a short period.

This week, at the 68th Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations was one such watershed event.

The engine for this dramatic change was Iran’s diplomatic thrust. Iranian President Dr. Hassan Rouhani delivered a speech to the assembly that enthralled those willing to listen while leaving detractors reeling from their own inadequacy.

Rouhani’s address was a paragon of rational argument that reinforced humane values of respect and equality.

Yet he laid blame firmly on the causes and protagonists of conflict, whether in Palestine, Iraq or Syria. In sum, the Iranian president rejected militarism and warmongering as an archaic blunt and immoral instrument, and he offered a hopeful way forward from conflict based unequivocally on equality and respect.

“Militarism and the recourse to violent and military means to subjugate others are failed examples of the perpetuation of old ways in new circumstances,” said Rouhani.

The bottom-line was that he successfully conveyed Iran is a peaceful nation that threatens no one, and is willing to join with others in creating a peaceful world, including the removal of all weapons of mass destruction.

American and Israeli warmongers were left grappling vainly for detractions.

“Iran has come here to cheat the world,” said an Israeli official, whose grudging sounded paranoid and fatuous.

The trouble for these American and Israeli warmongers and hate-filled psychopath politicians is that we now live in a world of instant global communications where ordinary people can hear the words of others without them being warped and poisoned.

Even the American mainstream media had to give the Iranian leader a fair hearing because, with many alternative sources of information to serve as verification, to not give a fair hearing would expose such media as disreputable agents of disinformation. With the traditional Western media’s credibility at an all-time low among the public, they can’t afford to lose any more respect.

But it was Rouhani’s personal style of calm reason and erudition that won the day. Any one with an open mind had to be impressed by his cogent appeal for peace and a better world free of conflict.

“People all over the world are tired of war, violence and extremism. They hope for a change in the status quo,” he said, adding, “In recent years, a dominant voice has been repeatedly heard: ‘The military option is on the table.’ Against the backdrop of this illegal and ineffective contention, let me say loud and clear that ‘peace is within reach.’”

The only way to counter such reasonable politics is to resort to calumny and propaganda. But Rouhani had that covered too when he warned against those who create “imaginary enemies” and the fictitious “Iranian threat.”

The case for Iran to be treated with respect, without aggression, and to be allowed to avail of its national rights, including peaceful nuclear technology, resonates with world public opinion. People, and the American people in particular, are fed up with baseless aggression whether in the form of militarism abroad or, significantly, economic austerity at home. The significance is that people have made the structural connection between these two aberrations. People are realizing that their personal suffering is related to the way the rest of the world is suffering. It is the common condition of the bankrupt capitalist system and all its predations.

The days when the public could be misled by a warmongering elite are rapidly waning. People can see through the self-serving lies and fabrications and are intolerant of this obnoxious mindset. The people want a totally new arrangement of doing things, to overturn an economy based on exploitation and oppression and warmongering, to be replaced by a more ethical, efficient and equitable system, one that is democratic, not despotic.

In this past week, there was a profound sense of common ground for change, where Iran’s appeal was in synchronicity with international public opinion.

The contrast between Rouhani’s speech to the UN and US President Barack Obama’s was telling. The Iranian leader’s sentiments and aspirations seemed on the crest of a wave – the wider feelings of ordinary people all over the planet – while Obama sounded like someone left behind, thrashing around in a bygone era.

Rouhani listened to the other intently; whereas Obama cleared off from the assembly hall.

Obama’s speech was full of American self-importance and self-justification. It was a subjective parody of history and conflict in which the US is always portrayed as the “good guy.” Unlike Rouhani, Obama did not present supporting facts and objective rationale. It was a propaganda stunt to cover US militarism and illegal wars with a veneer of legitimacy.

Out of Obama’s mouth came not an appeal from the heart for absolute human equality and peace, but rather hackneyed propaganda to excuse US aggression and superiority towards the rest of the world.

“We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people,” said Obama with earnest fakery that is so obvious now it is pathetic.

“Wherever possible, we will build the [terrorist] capacity of our partners, [dis] respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address [promote] the root causes of terror. But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against [imaginary] terrorist attack, we will take direct action [mass murder].” (Words/letters in brackets added.)

All that and more from Obama is so anachronistic, old school now. What American people and the rest of the world realize more than ever is that the US under its bankrupt economic system does not have international relations. It has predatory, hegemonic instincts that fuel relentless massive violence – all for the enrichment of its banking and corporate elite.

And, what’s more, people realize the inextricable link between the US elite’s aggression abroad and its economic and police-state aggression at home.

The US president declared to the UN delegates, “The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force [state terrorism], to secure our [ruling elite’s] core interests [obscene capitalist profit].” (Words/letters in brackets added.)

In the past, such American blandishments and bluster may have been possible – but not any more. People everywhere across the globe can read what’s inside the parenthesis when official America speaks now.

And the people know the latter is a twisted mouthpiece to disguise destructive interests.

The appeal for reason by Iran is very much chiming with the people of the world. The American elite and their warmongering allies in Britain, France and Israel, among others, know that they are up against a powerful wave of reason and noble sentiment. That is why Obama had to abruptly swerve from the US war plan towards Syria and why the warmonger instincts have been tempered to try the diplomatic route.

US military power is still a dangerous force, especially at this historical juncture of economic collapse. War is therefore always a danger, and diplomacy, peace and justice are far from assured. But the people of Iran are finding a new ally – the rest of the world.

That is because the enemy is one and the same, destructive elitist system, and because the truth is winning out.

Jack Berenstein: Zionists and Their Lies

Saturday, September 28, 2013 at 10:53PM Gilad Atzmon

Jack Bernstein was a Jewish critic of Zionism. Here he exposes the Zionist tactics to silence criticism.

 

Passing the Torch to a New Generation of Syrians

Postwar Reconstruction Looms…

by FRANKLIN LAMB

Damascus
Almanar

Few, one imagines, in the Syrian Arab Republic these days  question the urgency and enormity of the task of  reconstruction of their ancient country from war inflicted destruction caused by a carnage  already more than half as long as World War I and approaching half as long as World War II.

For this ten millennium civilization and its thousands of priceless treasures, many partially destroyed, emergency efforts are needed today to preserve and protect the structures from thieves and war damage. Not many here would disagree with this priority of the Syrian government.

Historic sites damages or  in danger  include several  among those listed on the UNESCO’s World Heritage List registry including:

Ancient City of Aleppo (1986),

Ancient City of Bosra (1980

Ancient City of Damascus(1979),

Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (2011)

Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (2006)

Site of Palmyra (1980).

And Centuries-old markets and archaeological treasures have already been gutted by flames and gunfire in places like Aleppo and Homs. Examining and discussing in Syria and Lebanon, some of the assessments of damage now being painstakingly documented,  as well as  pursuing some summaries of the  data and analysis from on-the-scene government investigators,  it is clear that plans for reconstruction at the earliest possible opportunity are being readied. Taking the lead, and poised to help, is the Syrian population as well as officials exhibiting pent up kinesis waiting to be released at the first sign of a credible cease fire so as to begin to rebuild their country.Reconstruction of Syria will be aided by three regime reshuffles since the beginning of the March 2011 uprising, which has infused much ‘new blood’ into the Syrian government. This process includes more than 20 changes at the ministerial level in recent months, in some cases replacing well entrenched and influential, if slightly fossilized, political operatives with overboard government roles from decades past. The bold reformist initiative is designed to reshuffle the corridors of power and have one claimed goal: To push and achieve reform.

More than a few officials have advised this observer of their deep convictions and their commitments for reforms which they note are spreading inside as well as outside government.  “God knows we made serious mistakes and misjudgments and we will be judged by God for our failures. But in the meantime we need to reform for our people, families and for our own self-respect.  And we are constructing massive reforms here in Syria which are not yet apparent but that will surprise many and please more.  We are Syrians! We know what is right and that changes and reforms are overdue and what our duty is!”

Last month’s most recent infusion of  7 Minsters, known for their competence  not  political pedigree,  include several ‘independents’  intended, according to one adviser to Syria’s President Assad,  to bring much needed new blood and energy to the leadership. Their mandate is to face the current challenges straight on while eschewing entangling perceived political obligations from the past.  These ‘best and the brightest’  are being empowered here to help rebuild Syria, it was explained to this observer  by two university professors as being a government priority but without the American best and brightest noblesse oblige arrogance  and fascist tendencies of the Bundy brothers and McNamara’s ‘whiz kids’ from the 1960’s.

The most recent changes have included bringing in the following gentlemen (why no women!) who are known for their competence rather than simply as stalwarts of the ruling Baath party.

Qadri Jamil: Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs
– Malek Ali: Minister of Higher Education
– Khodr Orfali: Minister of Economy and Foreign Trade
– Kamal Eddin Tu’ma: Minister of Industry
– Samir Izzat Qadi Amin: Minister of Internal Trade and Consumer Protection
– Bishr Riyad Yazigi: Minister of Tourism
– Hassib Elias Shammas: Minister of State, replacing Najm Eddin Khreit.

One of the “new breed” of Syrian public servants is Bishr Riyad Yazigi, a non-Baathist, independent Member of Parliament, who appears  beholden only to his vision of restoring Syria and its vital tourism industry, as part of rebuilding his country, and  for which he was appointed  Minister on 8/22/13.

 

Minister Yazigi, who I first met up on Mount Quisoun several weeks ago, is distinctively Kennedyesque in his good looks, charm, vigor, progressive ideas and charisma.

A businessman, born in Aleppo in 1972, is currently the youngest member of the Assad Cabinet, land like others, is not a Baath Party member. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Informatics Engineering from Aleppo University (1995) and is an independent member of the People’s Assembly (Syrian Parliament) for Aleppo city. He is married and has three children.

Yazigi is reputed to spend these days often working around the clock to rebuild Syria’s tourist industry.  “Not just to help our economy, even though tourism brought in more than $8 billion annually before the crisis two and one half years ago,” one official who admires Yazigi explained, “But the Tourism Ministry is working to reconnect to the World  the way we Syrians used to reach out.  Syria’s treasures, from the cradle of civilization that we are, fundamentally belong to all of humanity and please accept our promise that we will do our best to repair all damage to the antiquities and will welcome every assistance as we shall welcome every visitor again before long, enshallah (God willing).”

Earlier this month, Minister Yaziqui stressed to a gathering of “Loyalty to Syria” members anxious to start rebuilding their country, the importance of NGO’s in revealing the reality of events in Syria to global public opinion and pledged to work with them to present the image of Syria as a tourist destination given its richness with historical and religious monuments. Meeting members of “Loyalty to Syria” Initiative, he pointed out that the Tourism Ministry is working to show the image of Syria as a tourist destination of unparalleled richness of historical and religious monuments and that all Syrian must redouble their efforts to achieve their goals of “boosting the social values and developing national capacity to serve the best interest of Syria.”

The Syrian reformers tasks  are daunting.  Yet so were those, admittedly on a smaller scale, that faced Lebanon following 33 days of near carpeting bombing by the Israeli government employing, as they have done for more than three decades, a vast array of American weapons gifted by American taxpayers with neither their knowledge, consent nor opportunity to object.

The cost of rebuilding Syria is perhaps incalculable. The Syrian government announced this week that it has earmarked 50 billion Syrian pounds ($250 million) for reconstruction next year in the war-torn country. For 2013, the figure was 300 billion Syrian pounds. ($ 1.2 billion).

But these sums are a drop in the bucket.

According to Syrian real estate experts, including Ammar Yussef, if the war in Syria suddenly stopped and reconstruction began today, around $73 billion would be needed to put the country back on track. Yussef, insists that the bombings, fighting and sabotage of infrastructure during the conflict has as of August 30, 2013, partially or completely destroyed 1.5 million dwellings. If the rebuilding were to start today, led by the new ‘reform team’ it would include rebuilding more than 11,000   sites, some being full blocks, requiring 15,000 trucks, 10,000 cement mixers and more than six million skilled workers.

A  U.S.-educated economist, Abdullah al-Dardari, now working with Beirut-based UN development agency, claims that more than two years of fighting have cost Syria at least $60 billion and caused the vital oil industry to crumble. A quarter of all homes have been destroyed or severely damaged, and much of the medical system is in ruins.

Al Dardari’s team estimates the overall damage to Syria’s economy, three years into the conflict, at $60-$80 billion. Syria’s economy has shrunk by about 35 percent, compared to the 6 percent annual growth Syria marked in the five years before the conflict began in March 2011. The economy has lost nearly 40 percent of its GDP, and foreign reserves have been extensively depleted.  As noted above, unemployment has shot up from 500,000 before the crisis to at least 2.5 million this year. The fighting has destroyed or damaged 1.2 million homes nationwide, a quarter of all Syrian houses, al-Dardari claims. In addition, around 3,000 schools and 2,000 factories have been destroyed, and almost half of the medical system — including hospitals and health centers — is in ruins. Before the uprising, the oil sector was a pillar of Syria’s economy, with the country producing about 380,000 barrels a day and exports — mostly to Europe — bringing in more than $3 billion in 2010. But the vital industry has buckled as rebels captured many of the country’s oil fields, setting wells aflame and looters scooping up crude. Exports have ground practically to a standstill as production has dwindled.

Syria does have vital labor resource to perform high quality reconstruction and her workers are ready to begin today given that the current unemployment in Syria noted above, according to this observers’ interlocutors at the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Industry. Syrian workers are perhaps the best and most reliable in the world.  Well known for building and maintaining Lebanon and the Levant, even though currently paid one half to one third what less productive nationals receive.

Despite the enormous challenges, there appears some light on the horizon if those governments involving themselves in the Syria crisis and wringing their hands at the toll of human misery and destruction, will achieve a permanent ceasefire during the current thaw in serious communications.

The new generation of officials entrusted with Syria’s salvation and reconstruction appear to be in place and are anxious to be allowed into the war zones. The politician’s duties are to open their paths without further delays

Franklin Lamb volunteers with the Sabra-Shatila Scholarship Program (SSSP) in Shatila Camp (www.sssp-lb.com) and is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

Source: Al-Manar Website	28-09-2013 – 14:52 Last updated 28-09-2013 – 14:52

Me, Gilad Atzmon and the ‘Truth’

Friday, September 27, 2013 at 11:16AM Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon: Roy Bard is a known figure within Britain’s far left, anti-war and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. He is a member of the Indymedia UK collective, a leading British anti-capitalist media outlet. I first encountered Bard five years ago.  At the time the site was subjected to an international Jewish ‘anti’-Zionist campaign: a cabal of ethnic activists demanded that Indymedia deleted my articles.  Being a principled man, Bard didn’t bow to their pressure. Bard has been subjected to a malicious slanderous campaign ever since.

The article below is about sadness – if the personal is political, as some progressives insist, this article is an intimate insight into the medium in which such a transition takes place. It reveals the measures of brutality and intolerance that are unfortunately intrinsic to the Jewish Left. I was really moved when I read this article.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/

By Freethepeeps aka Roy Bard

Roy Bard and Gilad Atzmon – London 25/9/13

“Were you tortured by your own thirst
In those pleasures that you seek
That made you Tom the curious
That makes you James the weak?”
Rodriguez (Searching for Sugarman)- Crucify Your Mind

Me:

I was born in Johannesburg, Apartheid South Africa in 1960. My mom was a trainee nurse and she met my dad while he was recovering from an accident in which he had lost a leg. She was 19, him 28 (I think). Before he left the hospital she was pregnant – with me. They tried to build a life together but it didn’t work out. When I was two and a half, he took a car out and put a hosepipe from the exhaust to the window. An aunt tells me she talked him out of taking me with him. It would have saved me much pain if she hadn’t – conversely it would have caused others even more pain. Life is so complicated.

My dad’s suicide led to me being put into the care system and being moved from pillar to post until shortly before I was 5 when I was adopted by a dysfunctional couple, as a substitute for the children they thought they couldn’t have. By this time, I was a very disturbed little boy and my adoptive father, who was an immigrant from the UK, thought he could beat the disturbance out of me. My mother egged him on – and I learnt to dislike her even more than I hated him…

The more he beat me, the more disturbed I became,
The more disturbed I became, the more he beat me
– how’s that for a vicious circle?

Here are two defining moments that spring out from the time I spent with them. (By the time I was 11 I was mainly back in institutions, and back to moving from pillar to post).

When I was around 8 or 9 I had cause to go to our maid’s room, which was about 15 yards from the adoptive folks’ very comfortable and large suburban house outside of Durban. Her room was cramped, and blackened by candle smoke because she didn’t have electricity – it was furnished with cheap furniture and very little of it. I asked my adoptive Mother why our maid lived in such terrible conditions, and she replied:

“They have different needs to us.”

Even at that age I knew that was a blatant lie and thus I learned to question what was going on around me and came to an understanding that none of us should be treated as a lesser being, nor judged, nor subjected to abuse and poverty or even death because of who brought us into this world ………. Perhaps because of my own disturbance I was unable to muster the supremacist ego of the racists around me – and I was further marginalised for not being one of them…… It is one of the greatest tragedies of my life, that my birth brother, from whom I was separated in my toddler-hood, and only found again a quarter of a century later, did become one of them, and still is. I love him so dearly – but our political differences prevent us from enjoying each other.

A year or so later I had done something else ‘naughty’ and my father was punching and kicking me around my room.

Him: “What are you?”
Me: “I don’t know.” (He beats me for not knowing).
Him: “You’re a yellow liver bellied snake.” (He beats me for being this).
Him: “What are you?”
Me: “I’m a yellow liver bellied snake.”* (He beats me worse than before)…
Him: “No child of mine ever talks about themselves like that…”
(*This is why I don’t believe torture can ever do any good whatsoever)

This may help those of you who know me to understand more about the tortured, disturbed, sometimes shy, sometimes outrageous, difficult individual that I have grown to be. It may help you understand why I have problems forming attachments, building relationships, accepting authority and believing that the world is an okay place….. why I have spent the last decade mired in a deep depression from which I am still struggling (so far without any success whatsoever) to emerge.

“Smile they said, things could be worse, so I did and they were….”
One of my mantras

My experiences have led to me search for ways to build a better world – I was a liberal until I knew better – I believed that I could be part of changing the world into a better place – but the harder I tried the worse it seemed to become. I thought I had found a ‘spiritual home’ and a group I belonged to when I discovered Anarchism and Direct Action, but like all my relationships it became problematic as I discovered that this group too was riddled with hypocrisies, double standards and, as it turned out, a rather distorted sense of what freedom means……. The systemic problems of the society and system I live in were mirrored in the very group that was trying to free itself from them. As I think Kurt Vonnegut might say, “How do you like them apples?”

Gilad Atzmon and the ‘Truth’

Gilad was a key part of accelerating that disenchantment – he has taught me so much and cost me so much…… I love him like the birth brother I am prevented from loving – although I have only met him a few times and we are in no sense close friends….. we too have political differences but at least we can try talking about them – and sometimes we even resolve them. Sometimes we tackle issues together – for most of the time I remain connected to him through his writings, which I read often – I must have read most of what he has written by now, and there is lots of it.

I understand that truth too is myth – even what we have seen with our own eyes, and experienced with our own lives, and which seems blatantly true to us, changes when we come to understand the motivations and reasons for the parts that other actors played in the event. It shifts as we learn more, and as we realise that our own issues have clouded our interpretation. Our culture, our upbringing and our personal pain all affect how we experience the world, and how we perceive it. I know this but Ali Abunimah, it seems, has yet to learn it….. as have others.

So, this is how I see Gilad and understand his work. It is part of an evolving view and it is possible that in time I may see it all completely differently. Gilad himself may identify with parts of it, and disagree with other parts. He may even help to change my view of him…… and maybe I can help change his view of him – all things are possible.

Like me, Gilad was born in an Apartheid society – in his case Israel. I should tell you that one of our key differences is around whether or not Israel is an Apartheid state – I am an Aye – he is a Nay. Unlike me, he bought into it as a kid. It was only when he was coming to the end of his time in the misleadingly named Israeli Defence Force, where he was a medic and musician, that he had cause to go to Lebanon and see the conditions that Palestinian prisoners were kept in. This led him to start questioning all that he had learnt and the society in which he grew up.

He left Israel and moved to Europe where he developed his music and also studied philosophy and did some training in psychotherapy. He found himself profoundly influenced by Otto Weineger, a disturbed and brilliant soul who wrote some disgusting stuff and killed himself at a very young age.
Influenced by Weineger, Gilad began examining himself – a process of looking into the mirror, and examining what he didn’t like about himself in minute detail. He came to think that Jewish identity was a part of his problem, and his study of this aspect of himself was further developed when he expanded his navel gazing to include a small but influential group of Jewish anti-Zionists, centred mainly in London where he also lives, and whom he publicly attacked after they (JAZ) started attacking a group whom he discovered were also critically exploring the issue of Jewish ideology, often in an very offensive and unpleasant way. The group included Paul Eisen and Israel Shamir. I am not very clear on how close they were, or the interactions between them, but it does seem that they were all influenced by each other, and learnt from each other.

Unsurprisingly, it didn’t take long for accusations of anti-Semitism to start flying around – and for destruction to occur. The more the group developed their critique of Jewish Power, it seems the more Jewish Power was unleashed in an attempt to marginalise and destroy them. Gilad chose to face the onslaught full on, and despite serious attempts to marginalise and destroy him, he continues to develop his critique of them, their ideology and their power. He still works as an accomplished and popular Jazz musician and his writings are widely read – Erdogan even quoted him once which caused a major furore, and some respectable and respected individuals such as Richard Falk and Mearsheimer have been seriously attacked for coming out in support of his work. I too have been under sustained attack by Jewish anti-Zionists and Zionists alike.

The attempts to silence Gilad have been sustained and brutal, and it is difficult to read him if your introduction is the out of context snippets circulated with the intention of destroying him.
An example of this: I went to the launch of his book – and was met with the spectacle of folk I have been involved in BDS actions with, picketing the meeting and handing out a leaflet, written by arch rival Tony Greenstein which claimed to be snippets of the book (The wandering who says ….) They were not from the book at all. In order to attend the launch, I had to cross a picket line of people I have previously faced arrest with, and that pretty much ended my involvement as an activist who had been intensely involved in BDS Direct Actions. I now share many of Gilad’s reservations about, and critiques of BDS… although I continue to believe that every attempt should be made to isolate Israel as a brutal, Apartheid state.

Indymedia UK, a project I have a long association with, has been profoundly damaged by an insistence that it ban Atzmon, which didn’t happen, partly because I opposed the demand. It seems to me that if Indymedia UK lived up to its own aims and intentions it would be a good forum for the debate he is trying to launch – but it proved to be moribund by its own inconsistencies, and has so far not been able to stand up to the attacks on it by Atzmon’s opponents.

Recently my attention has been mainly focused on the brutal attack on the poor in the UK, currently being orchestrated by the nasties in the coalition, and their dismantling of all that made Britain a bearable place to live for those like me who feel unable to cope in the countries of their birth. I haven’t been writing on Palestine, and haven’t been involved in activism around it. I avoid demos because of the intense victimisation I have suffered at the hands of the police – who have helped me understand that the police are the enemy of freedom, and that for as long as we have police we cannot be free.

I have been horrified by how muted the so-called radical Left’s response has been to these brutal attacks on our own society’s most vulnerable. At times it has seemed as if I am back in an Apartheid state, with much of the left being in the position that Liberal white South Africans found themselves in – they knew it was wrong, but they were benefiting enough from it not to want seriously to destroy it. I have personally been affected by the cuts to services that have hindered my own attempts to free myself enough from my own disturbances and depression so that I can find a way of being in this world that allows to me function in a better way than I am able to now… In order that I don’t spend much of my time wishing I could go to sleep and never wake up, or fighting strong suicidal impulses.
I am wondering if it is even possible to be well-adjusted in a maladjusted world. If being well-adjusted means accepting inequality and injustice and allowing it to flourish, then I guess my project is doomed to failure.

If you believe the hype about Atzmon, as represented by his rivals, then he aims to turn us all into jack-booted racists. I know enough about him to think this is preposterous, and I am beginning to believe that part of what makes them most uncomfortable and angry about him – all that he hates most about the way that his Jewish upbringing has affected him – makes them profoundly uncomfortable about themselves too because, when we are confronted with parts of ourselves that repulse us, we often lash out.

I do believe that Gilad is part of a much wider struggle towards a world where we can live in dignity, and at peace with one another – for a while he ended all his performances with “What a wonderful World”. In any case, any new and improved society will have to include all, including those who offend us, disturb us or are from the far Right, regardless of whether we like them or not.

At the least Atzmon opens a debate that I think needs to be had – and which has been censored at a major cost to many – but he has chipped away at it and it seems to me that the debate is beginning to open up.

Despite all the time I have spent reading Atzmon, and listening to him, and recording him, I still don’t hate anyone on the basis that their mother or father happened to be Jewish. In fact, some of the most influential and loved people in my life fall into that category. So if his opponents are right about his project then it appears to be a failed project.

If his project is the deJudaization of Atzmon, it too is doomed to failure because his upbringing is central to who he is now. But his argument that people need to find a way of understanding and reducing the influence of the environments we grew up in and relinquishing the identities foisted upon us by them, has some validity in it, and it does seem that an increasing number of Jews are starting to explore the path.

I am out of energy – follow the links if you want to know more – and read Atzmon if you are able to open your mind enough to hear what he has to say, or perhaps start by listening to his music. If you insist on judging him solely on what his opponents say, then you aren’t going to be able to do it. And if you insist that you will only relate to me if I denounce him and stop reading his writings, then farewell until such time that you are ready to allow me the freedom to follow my own instincts and respect my right to live a life with as much integrity as I can muster.

I will end with one more part of my truth.

When I arrived at my adoptive home – having been stripped of my mother, my father, my brother, my home and my culture – they tried to rename me. Even at 5 I was stubborn enough to refuse to answer to the new name they wanted to foist onto me.

In my essence I am still that stubborn kid, who insists on being himself and I still thirst for a world which is propelled by a desire to meet need, not greed – where we do our utmost to ensure the dignity of all, and where we do not have states and corporations that rob so many of so much.

Maybe we’re part of the same struggle – but I have to do it my way – and that may sometimes make you uncomfortable. It certainly causes me great personal discomfort and costs me much.

If you read this far, I hope it has helped you understand some of the things I have done – and dispelled some of the preposterous myths about me (and, co-incidentally, Atzmon).
I thank you.

freethepeeps aka Roy Bard

Russia Made Sure UN Syria Resolution Leaves no Loopholes for Use of Force

Russian FM Sergei Lavrov said Russia reached its aim of making sure professionals from the international chemical weapons watchdog are the main actors regarding the UN resolution on Syria, and that there are no loopholes for military action. Speaking in an interview with the Russian Channel One, Lavrov admitted the Russian-American compromise on the UNSC resolution “did not come easy.” But the Russian side has “achieved its goal” in that the resolution on Syria, supporting another document by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), “remains within the framework of the Geneva Communiqué.” The resolution’s main principle holds that the leading role in taking under international control and destroying Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal belongs to OPCW professionals, an aim which will be achieved with the UN’s assistance and protection, Lavrov said according to Russia Today. The document states that both the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition bear responsibility for any violation of the inspectors’ security, Lavrov stressed. The minister reiterated that the UNSC resolution rules out any military action against Syria prior to a new resolution, which could be drafted if one of the sides – either the Syrian government, or the opposition – does not comply. Moreover, Russia made sure there are “no pretexts or loopholes” for the use of force in the resolution on Syria, bearing in mind the Libyan experience and “the capabilities of our partners to interpret the UNSC resolutions,” Lavrov said. As the USNC resolution does not allow any use of force under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, the possibility of any state launching a strike against Syria and citing the resolution is “out of question,” the minister said. Lavrov also stressed that the states sponsoring the Syrian opposition bear a particular responsibility for making sure their “fosterlings” would not try and carry out any future provocations. According to Lavrov, Russia has demanded that “any option of further attempts [by the Syrian opposition] to get their hands on chemical weapons and its components, let alone using chemical weapons in the future, is ruled out.” The Russian report, which provides proof “in a professional manner” that the sarin gas used in March 19 attack near Aleppo was crudely handcrafted, has been distributed among the UNSC member states and is now publicly available, Lavrov said. He added that Russia has “intelligence” that the substance used in August 21 attack in Ghouta was the same chemical used in a larger concentration.

Source: Websites 29-09-2013 – 15:41 Last updated 29-09-2013 – 15:41

New UNSC Resolution on Syria – Hypocrisy

US Weapon of Mass Terror

A new United Nations Security Council, UNSC binding resolution has been unanimously issued for the first time since the crisis in Syria began 2.5 years ago, the winners of the WWII were excited, even China was.

Yes, the resolution is binding and it is against Syrian government and it made the western ‘humanitarian bastards’ excited, but no, it’s not about human rights, nor about democracy, and has nothing to do with the suffering of the Syrian people from the influx of tens of thousands of Wahhabi Sex Cannibal Jihadists on the US & its stooges payroll which the resolution doesn’t bind their patrons to stop the manufacture of bads, which again raises the suspicions towards the Russian ‘diplomacy’ and next steps to be taken?

The resolution simply addresses the way to rid the Syrian state from its deterrent chemical weapons arsenal against the nuclear, biological and chemical weapons threat possessed by the ever wanting to expand Zionist Settlers Ghettos known as Israel.

Resolution 2116 dated 27 September 2013 can only be described as the ugly face saving resolution to bring the monkeys down the trees they climbed fast and move their focus to another country in the region hoping to come back to Syria when the SAA becomes more weaker with the continuous smuggling of terrorists into Syria, then they can come back barking about something else or unleash their pit bull Israel with all their might behind its futuristic expansion plans.

Westerns whine the resolution lacks the mechanism or enforcing ability, but that’s their last concern, they got the backing of China and Russia and the approval of the Syrian government which has a long record of abiding by international laws, maybe the only country abides voluntarily among all others and we can challenge who claims otherwise.

A UN Revolution against sovereignty of member states or a Resolution?

Guess what? Sudan is facing a ‘spontaneous public uprising’ out of nowhere and they formed their ‘coordination committees’ copying the same tactics they used in other ‘Arab Spring’ infected countries..!

Meanwhile, Syrians can choose their future now: Iraq style, Libya style or Somalia style? Well, unless those inflicting the crisis on Syria start paying for their bad deeds, with no delay.

• UN SECURITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS SYRIA RESOLUTION
• OPCW ADOPTS HISTORIC DECISION REGARDING THE DESTRUCTION OF SYRIA’S CHEMICAL WEAPONS
• UN CHEMICAL WEAPONS INSPECTORS RESUME INVESTIGATIONS IN SYRIA

Shahram Vahdany: King of the Jews

Source
                       

Sunday, September 11, 2011 at 6:48AM 
                  

The magical and yet extremely subtle gift that Gilad Atzmon offers through his personal journeys in The Wandering Who? is the wisdom of disillusionment; the gift of not floating above water, but having to take an insightful dive into a shrouded underworld of appearances and disappearances.

The Wandering Who?: intelligent, bold, unapologetic.

At a certain stage, around 2005, I thought to myself that I might be King of the Jews. I have achieved the unachievable, accomplished the impossible. I have managed to unite them all: Right, Left, and Centre. The entirety of the primarily-Jewish British political groups: the Zionists, the anti-Zionists, Jewish Socialists, Tribal Marxists, The Board of Deputies, Jewish Trotskyites, Jews for this and Jews for that, for the first time in history all spoke in one single voice. They all hated Gilad Atzmon equally.

 Gilad begins his book, The Wandering Who? with a brief story of his childhood and the tremendous influence of his grandfather on his adolescence. He writes “my grandfather was a charismatic, poetic, veteran zionist terrorist. A former prominent commander in the right-wing Irgun terrorist organization …” He writes about his attraction to jazz, his enlistment in the IDF (Israel Defense Force), and finally being sent to the first Lebanon war.  He writes of his experience in Lebanon saying:

I studied the detainees. The looked very different to the Palestinians in Jerusalem. The ones I saw in Ansar were angry. They were not defeated, they were freedom fighters and they were numerous. As we continued past the barbed wire I continued gazing at the inmates, and arrived at an unbearable truth: I was walking on the other side, in Israeli military uniform. The place was a concentration camp. The inmates were the ‘Jews’, and I was nothing but a ‘Nazi’. It took me years to admit to myself that even the binary opposition Jew/Nazi was in itself as result of my Judeo-centric indoctrination.

 This becomes the focal point of the transformation in Gilad’s young character. He writes “This was enough for me. I realized that my affair with the Israeli state and with Zionism was over.” In TheWandering Who?, Gilad divides Jews into three main categories: (1), those who follow Judaism; (2), those who regard themselves as human beings who happen to be of Jewish origin; and (3), those who put their Jewishness over and above all of their other traits. He regards the first two categories as harmless and innocent groups of people. Gilad is not so kind to the third category, however. This group is the primary focus in his book. He goes beyond the what to the how and why. Like a forensic scientist, he dissects them piece by piece historically, economically, philosophically, psychologically, and politically.

Zionism: A Global Network

Israel is not a colonial power and does not function as such. Colonial powers form an equilibrium with the indigenous peoples whose land they occupy. They have a parasitic nature that knows their survival is based on cooperation with and even helping the indigenous peoples, albeit on a very minimum level. We have seen this with the colonization of India by the British, Algeria and Morocco by the French, and South Africa by Afrikana apartheid. Israel’s function is more that of a cancer that consumes its host resources until there is nothing left, consequently destroying itself as a result. As Farid Esack, a South African scholar, writer and political activist, known for his opposition to apartheid, says in his open letter to the Palestinian people, “Israel is not an apartheid, it’s worse.”

Gilad also writes:

Zionism is not a colonial movement with an interest in Palestine, as some scholars suggest. Zionism is actually a global movement that is fuelled by a unique tribal solidarity of third category members.

Zionism: Realm of Hungry Ghosts and Animals

By referring to hungry ghosts and animals the intention is not to dehumanize Zionists but is a reference, from a Buddhist teaching, to two of the six realms of existence, describing states of mind that human beings inhabit at any given time. The hungry ghost realm applies to those who are never satisfied, perpetually discontented no matter what they have. The animal realm refers to those without reason, who function solely by instinct and are incapable of identification with others. As Gilad put it:

Also, considering the racist, expansionist Judeo-centric nature of the Jewish State, the Diaspora Jew finds himself or herself intrinsically associated with a bigoted, enthnocentric ideology and an endless list of crimes against humanity.

Israel is the only country recognized by the United Nations without any roots in the land it occupies. In 1947, the newly formed United Nations brought a group of people from the four corners of the planet and located them in one place and called this ‘chicken soup’ the State of Israel. But more was needed in order to legitimize this newly made nation. They needed national history, which they conveniently borrowed from the Bible. It did not matter how fictional the Biblical story of Jews are. As Gilad put it, “the Jewish people is a made-up notion consisting of an imaginary past with very little to back it up forensically, historically, or textually.”

Zionists’ claim of Jewish ancestral homeland is echoed by the Christian right and Christian Zionists primarily in the historically ignorant United States population, 20% of whom still believe the earth is flat, and 55% regard evolution as a hoax. Furthermore, the majority of people in the U.S. accept the Bible as a historical and factual book.

The magical and yet extremely subtle gift that Gilad Atzmon offers through his personal journeys in The Wandering Who? is the wisdom of disillusionment; the gift of not floating above water, but having to take an insightful dive into a shrouded underworld of appearances and disappearances. He disarms his critics beforehand by saying: “I am a proud self-hating Jew”.

Although Gilad discusses an extremely sensitive phenomenon in every sense of its meaning and implications, nothing is taboo for him; even those subjects which have been expressly forbidden to explore lest one be labeled anti-Semitic or worse. Gilad recalls: “While in the past an anti-Semite was someone who hates Jews, nowadays it is the other way around, an anti-Semite is someone the Jews hate.”

Further on he writes about Holocaust as a religion:

To a certain extent, the Holocaust religion signals the final Jewish departure from monotheism, for every Jew is potentially a little God or Goddess. Abe Foxman is the God of anti-defamation, Alan Greenspan the God of ‘good economy’, Milton Friedman is the God of ‘free markets’, Lord Goldsmith the God of the ‘green light’, Lord Levy the God of fundraising, Paul Wolfowitz the God of US ‘moral interventionism’. AIPAC (the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) is the American Olympus, where mortals elected in the US come to beg for mercy, forgiveness for being Goyim and for a bit of cash.

Whether or not one agrees with Atzmon’s views, his book would propel Jews and non-Jews equally toward a better understanding of Israel, Zionism, and Jewish identity, beyond news headlines or state propaganda. This book is the odyssey of one man’s transformation within transformation, the end of which is yet to be written.

 

You can now pre-order Gilad Atzmon’s New Book on Amazon.com  or Amazon.co.uk

 Source: http://www.mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/13317-king-of-the-jews.html

Abdul Hakim Gamal Abdel Nasser: On Syria, Egypt, Hamas and Resistance

عبد الحكيم الناصر _ نجل الزعيم الراحل جمال عبد الناصر

Mearsheimer responds to Goldberg’s latest smear

Source
                        

Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 2:07AM

 Gilad Atzmon: Dear friends, this may well be one of the greatest days of my life.

Just a few minutes ago, I saw this piece expressing unequivocal support from Professor John J.  Mearsheimer clearly one of the most distinguished scholars in our discourse and beyond.

For years I have been subjected to smear campaigns. I obviously survived them all because those who read me grasped the humanist intent in my work. In the following article, professor  Mearsheimer exposes the banality and crudeness of the Zionist tactics. He shows how Goldberg & Co forge sentences, take words out of context and attribute misleading meanings.

I am afraid to advise my detractors that I am not alone at all. The Tide Has Changed.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/

 Introduction by Stephen M. Walt  

Ever since John Mearsheimer and I began writing about the Israel lobby, some of our critics have leveled various personal charges against us. These attacks rarely addressed the substance of what we wrote — a tacit concession that both facts and logic were on our side — but instead accused us of being anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. They used these false charges to try to discredit and/or marginalize us, and to distract people from the important issues of U.S. Middle East policy that we had raised.

The latest example of this tactic is a recent blog post from Jeffrey Goldberg, where he accused my co-author of endorsing a book by an alleged Holocaust denier and Nazi sympathizer. Goldberg has well-established record of making things up about us, and this latest episode is consistent with his usual approach. I asked Professor Mearsheimer if he wanted to respond to Goldberg’s sally, and he sent the following reply.

John Mearsheimer writes:

In a certain sense, it is hard not to be impressed by the energy and imagination that Jeffrey Goldberg devotes to smearing Steve Walt and me. Although he clearly disagrees with our views about U.S.-Israel relations and the role of the Israel lobby, he does not bother to engage what we actually wrote in any meaningful way. Indeed, given what he writes about us, I am not even sure he has read our book or related articles. Instead of challenging the arguments and evidence that we presented, his modus operandi is to misrepresent and distort our views, in a transparent attempt to portray us as rabid anti-Semites.

His latest effort along these lines comes in a recent blog post, where he seizes on a dust jacket blurb I wrote for a new book by Gilad Atzmon titled The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics. Here is what I said in my blurb:

Gilad Atzmon has written a fascinating and provocative book on Jewish identity in the modern world. He shows how assimilation and liberalism are making it increasingly difficult for Jews in the Diaspora to maintain a powerful sense of their ‘Jewishness.’ Panicked Jewish leaders, he argues, have turned to Zionism (blind loyalty to Israel) and scaremongering (the threat of another Holocaust) to keep the tribe united and distinct from the surrounding goyim. As Atzmon’s own case demonstrates, this strategy is not working and is causing many Jews great anguish. The Wandering Who? should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike. 

 The book, as my blurb makes clear, is an extended meditation on Jewish identity in the Diaspora and how it relates to the Holocaust, Israel, and Zionism. There is no question that the book is provocative, both in terms of its central argument and the overly hot language that Atzmon sometimes uses. But it is also filled with interesting insights that make the reader think long and hard about an important subject. Of course, I do not agree with everything that he says in the book — what blurber does? — but I found it thought provoking and likely to be of considerable interest to Jews and non-Jews, which is what I said in my brief comment.

Goldberg maintains that Atzmon is a categorically reprehensible person, and accuses him of being a Holocaust denier and an apologist for Hitler. These are two of the most devastating charges that can be leveled against anyone. According to Goldberg, the mere fact that I blurbed Atzmon’s book is decisive evidence that I share Atzmon’s supposedly odious views. This indictment of me is captured in the title of Goldberg’s piece: “John Mearsheimer Endorses a Hitler Apologist and Holocaust Revisionist.”

This charge is so ludicrous that it is hard to know where to start my response. But let me begin by noting that I have taught countless University of Chicago students over the years about the Holocaust and about Hitler’s role in it. Nobody who has been in my classes would ever accuse me of being sympathetic to Holocaust deniers or making excuses for what Hitler did to European Jews. Not surprisingly, those loathsome charges have never been leveled against me until Goldberg did so last week.

Equally important, Gilad Atzmon is neither a Holocaust denier nor an apologist for Hitler. Consider the following excerpt from The Wandering Who?

As much as I was a sceptic youngster, I was also horrified by the Holocaust. In the 1970s Holocaust survivors were part of our social landscape. They were our neighbours, we met them in our family gatherings, in the classroom, in politics, in the corner shop. The dark numbers tattooed on their white arms never faded away. It always had a chilling effect. . . . It was actually the internalization of the meaning of the Holocaust that transformed me into a strong opponent of Israel and Jewish-ness. It is the Holocaust that eventually made me a devoted supporter of Palestinian rights, resistance and the Palestinian right of return” (pp. 185-186).

It seems unequivocally clear to me from those sentences that Atzmon firmly believes that the Holocaust occurred and was a horrific tragedy. I cannot find evidence in his book or in his other writings that indicate he “traffics in Holocaust denial.”

The real issue for Atzmon — and this is reflected in the excerpt from his blog post that Goldberg quotes from — is how the Holocaust is interpreted and used by the Jewish establishment. Atzmon has three complaints. He believes that it is used to justify Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians and to fend off criticism of Israel. This is an argument made by many other writers, including former Knesset speaker Avraham Burg, historian Peter Novick, and political scientist Norman Finkelstein. Atzmon also rejects the claim that the Holocaust is exceptional, which is a position that other respected scholars have held. There have been other genocides in world history, after all, and this whole issue was actively debated in the negotiations that led to the building of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Whatever one thinks of Atzmon’s position on this subject, it is hardly beyond the pale.

Finally, Atzmon is angry about the fact that it is difficult to raise certain questions about the causes and the conduct of the Holocaust without being personally attacked. These are all defensible if controversial positions to hold, which is not to say one has to agree with any of them. But in no way is he questioning that the Holocaust happened or denying its importance. In fact, his view is clear from one of Atzmon’s sentences that Goldberg quotes: “We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place.” Note that Atzmon is talking about “the holocaust” in a way that makes it clear he has no doubts about its occurrence, and the passage from The Wandering Who? cited above makes it clear that he has no doubts about its importance or its tragic dimensions; he merely believes it should be seen in a different way. Again, one need not agree with Atzmon to recognize that Goldberg has badly misrepresented his position.

There is also no evidence that I could find in The Wandering Who? to support Goldberg’s claim that Atzmon is an apologist for Hitler or that he believes “Jews persecuted Hitler” and in so doing helped trigger the Holocaust. There is actually little discussion of Hitler in Atzmon’s book, and the only discussion of interactions between Hitler and the Jews concerns the efforts of German Zionists to work out a modus vivendi with the Nazis. (pp. 162-165) This is why Goldberg is forced to go to one of Atzmon’s blog posts to make the case that he is an apologist for Hitler.

Before I examine the substance of that charge, there is an important issue that needs to be addressed directly. Goldberg’s indictment of Atzmon does not rely on anything that he wrote in The Wandering Who? Indeed, Goldberg’s blog post is silent on whether he has actually read the book. If he did read it, he apparently could not find any evidence to support his indictment of Atzmon. Instead, he relied exclusively on evidence culled from Atzmon’s own blog postings. That is why Goldberg’s assault on me steers clear of criticizing Atzmon’s book, which is what I blurbed. In short, he falsely accuses me of lending support to a Holocaust denier and defender of Hitler on the basis of writings that I did not read and did not comment upon.

This tactic puts me in a difficult position. I was asked to review Atzmon’s book and see whether I would be willing to blurb it. This is something I do frequently, and in every case I focus on the book at hand and not on the personality of the author or their other writings. In other words, I did not read any of Atzmon’s blog postings before I wrote my blurb. And just for the record, I have not met him and did not communicate with him before I was asked to review The Wandering Who? I read only the book and wrote a blurb that deals with it alone.

Goldberg, however, has shifted the focus onto what Atzmon has written on his blog. I discuss a couple of examples below, but I will not defend his blog output in detail for two reasons. First, I do not know what Atzmon may have said in all of his past blog posts and other writings or in the various talks that he has given over the years. Second, what he says in those places is not relevant to what I did, which was simply to read and react to his book.

Let me now turn to the specific claim that Atzmon is an “apologist for Hitler.” Again, I am somewhat reluctant to do this, because this charge forces me to defend what Atzmon said in one of his blog posts. But given the prominence of the charge in Goldberg’s indictment of Atzmon (and me), I cannot let it pass.

Plus, I see that Walter Russell Mead, who is also fond of smearing Steve Walt and me, has put this charge up in bright lights on his own blog. Picking up on Goldberg’s original post, Mead describes Atzmon’s argument this way: “poor Adolf Hitler’s actions against German Jews only came after US Jews called a boycott on German goods following Hitler’s appointment as German Chancellor. Gosh — if it weren’t for those pushy, aggressive Jews and their annoying boycotts, the Holocaust might not have happened!”

It is hard to imagine any sane person making such an argument, and Atzmon never does. Goldberg refers to a blog post that Atzmon wrote on March 25, 2010, written in response to news at the time that AIPAC had “decided to mount pressure” on President Obama. After describing what was happening with Obama, Atzmon notes that this kind of behavior is hardly unprecedented. In his words, “Jewish lobbies certainly do not hold back when it comes to pressuring states, world leaders and even superpowers.” There is no question that this statement is accurate and not even all that controversial; Tom Friedman said as much in the New York Times a couple of weeks ago.

In the second half of this post, Atzmon says that AIPAC’s behavior reminds him of the March 1933 Jewish boycott of German goods, which preceded Hitler’s decision on March 28, 1933 to boycott Jewish stores and goods. His basic point is that the Jewish boycott had negative consequences, which it did. In Atzmon’s narrative — and this is a very important theme in his book — Jews are not simply passive victims of other people’s actions. On the contrary, he believes Jews have considerable agency and their actions are not always wise. One can agree or disagree with his views about the wisdom of the Jewish boycott — and I happen to think he’s wrong about it — but he is not arguing that the Jews were “persecuting Hitler” and that this alleged “persecution” led to the Holocaust. In fact, he says nothing about the Holocaust in his post and he certainly does not justify in any way the murder of six million Jews.

Let me make one additional point about Goldberg’s mining of Atzmon’s blog posts. Goldberg ends his attack on me with the following quotation from a Feb. 19 blog post by Atzmon: “I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany.” That quotation certainly makes Atzmon look like he has lost his mind and that nothing he has written could be trusted. But Goldberg has misrepresented what Atzmon really said, which is one of his standard tactics. Specifically, he quotes only part of a sentence from Atzmon’s blog post; but when you look at the entire sentence, you see that Atzmon is making a different, and far more nuanced point. The entire sentence reads: “Indeed, I believe that from [a] certain ideological perspective, Israel is actually far worse than Nazi Germany, for unlike Nazi Germany, Israel is a democracy and that implies that Israeli citizens are complicit in Israeli atrocities.” This is not an argument I would make, but what Atzmon is saying is quite different from the way Goldberg portrays it.

Finally, let me address the charge that Atzmon himself is an anti-Semite and a self-hating Jew. The implication of this accusation, of course, is that I must be an anti-Semite too (I can’t be a self-hating Jew) because I agreed to blurb Atzmon’s book. I do not believe that Atzmon is an anti-Semite, although that charge is thrown around so carelessly these days that it has regrettably lost much of its meaning. If one believes that anyone who criticizes Israel is an anti-Semite, then Atzmon clearly fits in that category. But that definition is foolish — no country is perfect or above criticism-and not worth taking seriously.

The more important and interesting issue is whether Atzmon is a self-hating Jew. Here the answer is unequivocally yes. He openly describes himself in this way and he sees himself as part of a long dissident tradition that includes famous figures such as Marx and Spinoza. What is going on here?
The key to understanding Atzmon is that he rejects the claim that Jews are the “Chosen People.” His main target, as he makes clear at the start of the book, is not with Judaism per se or with people who “happen to be of Jewish origin.” Rather, his problem is with “those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.” Or to use other words of his: “I will present a harsh criticism of Jewish politics and identity … This book doesn’t deal with Jews as a people or ethnicity.” (pp. 15-16)
In other words, Atzmon is a universalist who does not like the particularism that characterizes Zionism and which has a rich tradition among Jews and any number of other groups. He is the kind of person who intensely dislikes nationalism of any sort. Princeton professor Richard Falk captures this point nicely in his own blurb for the book, where he writes: “Atzmon has written an absorbing and moving account of his journey from hard-core Israeli nationalist to a de-Zionized patriot of humanity.”

Atzmon’s basic point is that Jews often talk in universalistic terms, but many of them think and act in particularistic terms. One might say they talk like liberals but act like nationalists. Atzmon will have none of this, which is why he labels himself a self-hating Jew. He fervently believes that Jews are not the “Chosen People” and that they should not privilege their “Jewish-ness” over their other human traits. Moreover, he believes that one must choose between Athens and Jerusalem, as they “can never be blended together into a lucid and coherent worldview.” (p. 86) One can argue that his perspective is dead wrong, or maintain that it is a lovely idea in principle but just not the way the real world works. But it is hardly an illegitimate or ignoble way of thinking about humanity.

To take this matter a step further, Atzmon’s book is really all about Jewish identity. He notes that “the disappearance of the ghetto and its maternal qualities” in the wake of the French Revolution caused “an identity crisis within the largely assimilated Jewish society.” (p. 104) He believes that this crisis, about which there is an extensive literature, is still at the center of Jewish life today. In effect,
Atzmon is telling the story of how he wrestled with his own identity over time and what he thinks is wrong with how most Jews self-identify today. It is in this context that he discusses what he calls the “Holocaust religion,” Zionism, and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Again, to be perfectly clear, he has no animus toward Judaism as a religion or with individuals who are Jewish by birth. Rather, his target is the tribalism that he believes is common to most Jews, and I might add, to most other peoples as well. Atzmon focuses on Jews for the obvious reason that he is Jewish and is trying to make sense of his own identity.

In sum, Goldberg’s charge that Atzman is a Holocaust denier or an apologist for Hitler is baseless. Nor is Atzmon an anti-Semite. He has controversial views for sure and he sometimes employs overly provocative language. But there is no question in my mind that he has written a fascinating book that, as I said in my blurb, “should be widely read by Jews and non-Jews alike.” Regarding Goldberg’s insinuation that I have any sympathy for Holocaust denial and am an anti-Semite, it is just another attempt in his longstanding effort to smear Steve Walt and me.

Reader Comments (1)

Thanks Gilad for at last publiching this book. I must admit that I have been waiting some years for it to come. The first time I met your writings (on the webb) was I think in 2003, when I was making research on the roots of Zionism, writing on my first article on the subject about Moses Hess and Karl Marx. I was then a member of a jewish peacegroup in Sweden, and most of us were marxists from 68 or some younger leftish. A few of us also recognized us as anti-zionists.

At that time I thought that the best way to confront the politics of Israel and Zionism would be “from within”, because it would develop the debate inside the jewish group and at the same time get more credibility to the arguments outside the jewish group. But I was wrong. In a big debate at the university of Stockholm, I claimed that when it comes to the borders of Israel, I personally would not mind if they are the UN participation plan, the 67 line, the river Jordan, the river Eufrat or for that case the whole world, if only all inhabitants will have the same rights.

That statement became the end of my membership in the jewish peacegroup, and the beginning of my travel from jewish tribalism (and maxism) to humanism. (And later to be an official “anti-semite”, “Holocaust denier” and “conspiracy-theorist”).

At that time I thought I was alone with my identity problems. Sweden is a small country. When I realized I was not alone, I got the energy to start writing, which I almost never had done before (I simply and humbly want to thank you Gilad for that, and I guess I am not alone in this). But at the same time I felt there was something more than just leaving the jewish tribal thinking, as it includes so many tabous and unspeakable matters that have a grip on the open discurse of today. Tribal thinking is by no means only jewish, but it just happens to be the case that jewish ideology today is “on the top of the foodchain”, when gipsy tribal ideologi is not. At this point I realized what it is all about: The liberation of human thoughts. I remember that was one of the first comment I wrote to you, So let this be a comment to the readers of your book. It is not just about “The wandering who?”, it is about the liberation of human thinking, and I want to beleave that it is in this way the book will be remembered by genreations to come.
Peace
Lasse

Coalition of Cyber-Activists Call for Defending Al-Aqsa

A coalition of Palestinian cyber-activists have called for week-long activists against repeated violations by the Israeli occupation against Al-Aqsa Mosque in the occupied city of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and against the new Israeli settlement plans.

The Coalition of Intifada Youth in Palestine, a self-styled group of Palestinians lobbying for the protection of Islamic sites in the occupied Palestinian territories, dubbed the campaign as the “Al-Quds Week”.

It said next Monday would be “a day of anger” against Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, according to the World Bulletin website.

The coalition, which groups together a host of non-partisan Palestinian cyber-activists, invited Palestinian youths and university and school students to block all the roads leading up to the Israeli settlements and protest in front of “humiliating” Israeli barricades.

The coalition also called on student unions in the universities of the West Bank to suspend study on Monday.

The group invited Palestinian youths to flock to Al-Aqsa Mosque and prevent the Israeli army and settlers from storming its compound.

In recent weeks, groups of extremist Jewish settlers, often accompanied by Israeli occupation forces, have been entering the complex of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, on an almost daily basis.

Source: Websites	29-09-2013 – 13:01 Last updated 29-09-2013 – 13:01

Thou shalt not blame Israel for Syrian mess’

Posted on September 27, 2013 |

Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Dafamation League (ADL), one of America’s top Israel lobby groups, issued a statement on September 18, 2013, claiming that people who blame Israel or Jews for the bloodshed in Syria or America’s military threats against Syria – are conspiracy theorists and Jew-haters, and therefore, antisemites.

“There is a disturbing cottage industry of antisemitic conspiracy theories surrounding Syria, and unfortunately, Jews and Israel are in the crossfire. Those promoting these conspiracy theories range from traditional antisemites and Holocaust deniers, to Israel bashers, and even the official Iranian news media,” said Abbe Foxman.

While Foxman forgot to blame Hizbullah Al-Manar TV and Syrian news media – he did name columnist J. Bruce Campbell (Veterans Today), blogger John Friend, Dr. Michael Hoffman, Minister Farrakhan, leader of Nation of Islam (watch video below) and Dr. Kevin MacDonald, an Islamophobe, as Jew-haters and Israel bashers.

It’s no big deal for a ‘political aware’ person to prove that Abbe Foxman is a ‘professional liar’.

1. On July 4, 2011, a conference of Syrian anti-regime groups was held in Saint-Germain in France. The meeting was attended by 200 people representing none of the Syrian groups calling for reforms in Syria – the ‘Democratic change in Syria’. The meeting was organized by La Regle du Jeu (The Rule of the Game) magazine and website which is headed by Zionist Jew Bernard-Henri Levy. The other Zionist Jews who attended the meeting included Bernard Kouchner, former French foreign minister, Frederik Ansel, a member of Israel’s ruling Likud Party, Alex Goldfarb, former Knesset member and adviser to Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak and Andre Glucksmann, an Islamophobe French writer.

2. In July 2012, Gabriel M. Scheinmann, a visiting Fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), admitted that the Zionist entity is in fact the winner of the so-called “Arab Spring”. The ‘Arab Spring’ is the brainchild of Zionist Jewish Lobby in the United States.

3. On August 27, 2013, The Times of Israel claimed that US case on Syrian forces using chemical weapons on civilians is based on Israeli intelligence.

4. On September 16, 2013, Israeli-born Jewish author, Gilad Atzmon, in an Op-Ed at Al-Jazeerah, claimed that Israel and its American Jewish allies are behind ‘US War on Syria’.
“The Jewish Lobby was pushing for a war the American people didn’t agree with. Obama and his administration were hanging in the middle. The president was left with one simple option. He told his paymasters, If you really want a war, make sure you fight for it; if the congress says No, you have yourself to blame. If the congress says Yes, and we once again end up with a military blunder, the Lobby would have to take the heat,” said Atzmon.

5. On March 2, 2012, French Jewish website, Israel Hayom, published an interview with a key figure in the Free Syrian Army, saying that Israel and Jewish lobby groups should help the rebels to overthrow president Bashar al-Assad from power – as Israel would benefit the MOST from the new regime.

6. On September 7, 2013, The Bilzerian Report claimed “Syria is just another war for Israel”.

Ezz Al Zanoon, Son of Palestine

Your breathtaking images move my soul to tears

.

Thunderous beauty

.

Most articulate silence

.

Painfully mesmerizing eloquence

.

Thank you for telling the story in stillness

.

Without words

 

On the 43rd anniversary of Nasser’s Death:

Sisi and Abdulhakim Abdulnasser

Egypt Observes Abdul Nasser’s Death Anniversary

Local Editor

The Egyptians Observed the forty-third death anniversary of President Jamal Abdul Nasser. Nasser, who led the 23 July, 1952 revolution that toppled the British-backed monarchy in Egypt, passed away on 28 September, 1970.  His funeral, which was attended by millions of mourners, is still considered one of the biggest funerals in history. “Many Egyptians and other Arabs mourn Nasser as a father figure, saying their dreams of building a just and progressive society died along with him,” says author Margaret Litivin in her book Hamlet’s Arab Journey: Shakespeare’s Prince and Nasser’s Ghost. Ruling Egypt from 1954 until his death in 1970, Nasser remains a symbol of dignity, anti-Zionism, anti- colonialism, pan-Arabism, and above all social justice for many.  He lingers in the consciousness of those who still dream of fulfilling the hopes of the late president. In a different context, around 500 of the ousted president Mohammad Mursi supporters rallied at Dome Square in Cairo and distributed leaflets that denounce the “coup,” according to Russia Today. The Egyptian security forces blocked all the roads that lead to al-Etahadeyya Palace after they learned that Mursi supporters were marching to it. Another pro-Mursi rally set off from al-Rayan bil-Maadi, according to media reports.

Source: Websites 28-09-2013 – 18:16 Last updated 28-09-2013 – 18:16

قال الفريق أول عبد الفتاح السيسي، النائب الأول لرئيس مجلس الوزراء والقائد العام للقوات المسلحة وزير الدفاع والإنتاج الحربي، السبت، إن «ذكرى الزعيم جمال عبد الناصر ستظل نموذجًا يحتذى به للأجيال القادمة في الكفاح والتضحية من أجل تحقيق العدالة الاجتماعية، وتلبية طموحات وتطلعات الشعب المصرى العظيم».

وأشار «السيسي» خلال لقائه بأسرة عبد الناصر أثناء زيارته ضريحه لإحياء ذكرى رحيله الـ43، إلى اعتزاز الشعب المصري وقواتة المسلحة بما حققه الرئيس الراحل لمصر من إنجازات اقتصادية واجتماعية غير مسبوقة، وما قدمه من خدمات جليلة لدعم القضايا العربية والإقليمية، ومساندة الشعوب الأفريقية والآسيوية في نضالها من أجل الاستقلال والسلام والحرية، حسبما نشر المتحدث العسكري في صفحته على «فيس بوك».

ورافق «السيسي» في زيارته ضريح عبد الناصر عدد من كبار قادة القوات المسلحة، وسط أجواء احتفالية وشعبية حاشدة من الجماهير، التي حرصت على إحياء الذكرى الخالدة للزعيم الراحل، بحسب تعبير المتحدث العسكري، كما وضع إكليلًا من الزهور على ضريح عبد الناصر وقرأ الفاتحة على روحه.

بالصور.. الاحتفال بذكرى «23 يوليو» أمام ضريح «عبد الناصر»

One year ago:

On the 42nd anniversary of Nasser’s Death: 4 Nasserist Parties merge to stop selling out Egypt

 

Hundreds of Egyptians gathered at former President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s mausoleum on Friday to commemorate the 42 anniversary of his death and declare merge.

“The king is dead!,” as the French say, “long live the king!”

“Will this be the case in Egypt, where one monarch, the ousted Husni Mubarak, will be replaced by another general or military junta led by Field Marshall Mohammed Tantawi?”asked Eric Margolis after the fall of Mubarak and before the brothers od America highjacked the revolution.

“I met poor, sad King Farouk in Geneva in 1958. He spoke to me of his love for Egypt and even praised the leader of the coup that overthrew him, Col. Gamal Abdel Nasser.”

Col. Nasser and his fellow officers -that included a would-be actor, Anwar Sadat – were the first native Egyptians to rule Egypt since the days of Alexander the Great. The fiery, charismatic Nasser electrified Egypt (literally and figuratively) and turned it into a leader of the Third World…”

“President Nasser was adored by most Egyptians for his simple life, love of country, his craggy looks and powerful masculinity. My mother, a journalist and Mideast specialist, interviewed both Nasser and Sadat. Always sharp-tongued and direct, she told me Nasser was “a real man, with guts and a true heart.” She dismissed Sadat as a “clown.”

“I lived in Egypt in 1957 and remember ecstatic crowds chanting, “Ya Gamal! Ya Gamal.”

A year earlier, Nasser had nationalized the Suez Canal and withstood attacks by Israel, Britain and France.

To Egyptians, he was simply the “rais,” the boss.”

“As I watch Egypt’s slow-motion revolution, I wonder if somewhere among the 465,000-man armed forces is another young colonel who loves his people even more than he loves real estate.”

“Egypt’s younger officers must be thinking about the example of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Perhaps there is a young colonel or even major who may try to seize power and emulate the “rais.”

If Egyptians feel cheated by the change of power in Cairo, as many will, and violent demonstrations begin, what will happen if the junta orders a battalion commanded by a colonel to open fire on protestors?

The first young officer who refuses and orders his men to join the demonstrators will be Egypt’s new hero. Nasser’s ghost haunts Cairo.

—-

The USA put Egyptians in between two bitter choices, two slaves, Mursi or Shafiq, and they elected the first.

Ten months ago, commenting on Sectarian Hamayreh’s article:“We can’t take people’s support for granted.”, I wrote:

I Agree with Mr. Hamayreh,Islamists can’t can’t take people’s support for granted….but I would assure him, that Islamist betting on pleasing American Administration, the real enermy, shall lose people’s support.

I, also, Agree with Mr. Hamayreh “The Islamists in Egypt and elsewhere in the Arab world must not fall prey to the illusion that the West, especially the US, is undergoing a moral conversion and will soon come to terms with the will of the people.” but I would add that his hope that the US may come to terms is another illusion, a sixy years old illusion. Arab regimes, failing to realize who is the real enemy, lost 60 years betting on the next American President, or his next term.

Mubarak lost because his U.S.- armed, US-trained and US-financed Army was ordered to dump him. In Egypt, all Egyptians, not only “The Islamists”, as Mr. Hamayreh claimed, have suffered so much and waited so long..”

Let us remember the military councel’s legitimacy comes from Tahrir,” thereforeas long as People remain steadfast and hold their ground in Tahrir, It not Over Till It’s Over.

Obama just changed the horse, just replaced the Moderate Arabs with Moderate Islamists.

The result of the Egyptian elections are “very disturbing” for the Israelis because Obama whosell-out Mubarak, may sell-out the military councel. But, Obama who celebrated the result of the Egyptian elections as a victory for “democracy.” made it clear to Istrael and its Lobby: “We don’t compromise when it comes to Israel’s security … and that will continue,”

Acccording to Mr. Hamayreh and his brothers, the “Islamist reality” should come to terms. “It is is not the moment to open a front against Israel,” “that might rock their boat at such a crucial juncture.” its the moment for “constructive relations between an Islamist-dominated or Islamist-influenced regime in Cairo” and the USA

Coinciding with today’s anniversary, four Nasserist parties to officially declare they merge into one political party. Abdel Hakim Abdel Nasser, the son of the late president, read the party’s statement in front of his father’s grave.

Abulhakim Abd Al-Nasser

The agreement to unite forces was signed earlier this month by the head of the Arab Democratic Nasserist Party, Sameh Ashour; head of the Karama Party, Mohamed Sami; head of the National Conciliation Party, Mahmoud Refaat; and head of the Popular Congress Nasserist Party, Salah al-Desouki.

The parties’ intention in signing the statement was not to form an alliance for the upcoming parliamentary elections, Suleiman told Al-Masry Al-Youm, because the process of merging the parties together will likely not be completed by then. Leaders agreed that each party would run in the election independently.”

In his speech at cairo university, Mursi, the handpicked Slave send “LOVE” messages to all concerned, starting with the junta, the great people of Egypt and the Revolution’s Martyrs. He came in peace and promosed to preserve all international treaties and charters” and Vowed to Back Palestinians until Getting Rights, and to support the Syrian people.

To please the USREALI master, and secure the US ecconmy assistance, MURSI, the handpicked (by America) president ahead of his visit to Newyork and after destroying 90% of Gaza life-line tunnels declared that Rafah crossing will not be opened until his Sinai mission is acomplished (Only God knows when). Only ten percent of Gaza life-line tunnels still operating

 

His boy, Hisham Qandil, told Ismael Haneyi there would be no free trade zone with Gaza.

 

Official Palestinian sources have confirmed that Egypt has formally rejected proposals for the establishment of a free trade zone on its border with the Gaza Strip as a means of solving Gaza’s economic problems. The sources state that during Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh’s visit to Cairo last week, he was informed by the Egyptian authorities that their decision was based on the fact that such a move would isolate the Gaza Strip from the rest of the Palestinian territories as an independent entity.

The sources also pointed to Egyptian fears that a Gaza Strip made economically independent through the establishment of a free trade zone with Egypt would be exploited by Israel. It would be forcibly annexed to Egypt as a means of solving the demographic problem in the sector, at Egypt’s expense. Gaza would then be used to accommodate Palestinians returning from abroad, such as Palestinians fleeing the Syrian conflict and those returning from Lebanon.

 

In his talks with Clinton, Mursi outlined his government’s plans to enact economic reforms as part of a broader push to win a $4.8 billion loan package from the International Monetary Fund, which the United States supports.

“What he heard from the secretary is that she is committed to following through on what she has said we will do,” a senior State Department official said following the 45-minute meeting.

So the aid is not without conditions

“The Egyptians have a lot of tough road in front of them to take the budget reforms that will be necessary and to do it in a way that helps them to move their democratic process forward,” the official said.

Clinton and Mursi also discussed security issues including a rising militant threat in the Sinai Peninsula, (AND OFF COURSE TIGHTENING THE SIEGE ON GAZA)a region critical to relations with neighboring Israel.

Mursi is no Nasser

In 1952, the interim Revolutionary Council government of Egypt decided to build a High Dam at Aswan, about four miles upstream of the old dam. In 1954, Egypt requested loans from the World Bank to help pay for the cost of the dam (which eventually added up to one billion dollars).

Initially, the United States and British agreed to loan Egypt money, but in July 1956 both canceled the offer after learning of a secret Egyptian arms agreement with the USSR.”

The Nile is Egypt and Egypt is The Nile, that’s why we had to build the Aswan High Dam

The Nile is Egypt and Egypt is The Nile, that’s why Nasser had to build the Aswan High Dam

In response, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal to help pay for the damn. This act precipitated the Suez Canal Crisis, in which Israel, Britain, and France attacked Egypt.

“The Suez Canal was occupied, but Soviet, U.S., and U.N. forced Israel, Britain, and France to withdraw, and the Suez Canal was left in Egyptian hands in 1957…

The Aswan High Dam brought the Nile’s devastating floods to an end, reclaimed more than 100,000 acres of desert land for cultivation, and made additional crops possible on some 800,000 other acres. The dam’s 12 giant Soviet-built turbines produce as much as 10 billion kilowatt-hours annually, providing a tremendous boost to the Egyptian economy and introducing 20th-century life into many villages. The water stored in Lake Nasser, several trillion cubic feet, is shared by Egypt and the Sudan and was crucial during the African drought years of 1984 to 1988.”

Mursi: “Egypt will remain secular”

Clinton reassures Egypt’s Morsi on US assistance. Clinton and Mursi also discussed security issues including a rising militant threat in the Sinai Peninsula, a region critical to relations with neighboring Israel.

Published Wednesday, September 26, 2012

The rights of non-Muslims and women are safe in Egypt, Prime Minister Mohamed Mursi said Tuesday, repeatedly telling a US audience that the newly democratic country will remain a secular state.“All Egyptians represent the majority, all Egyptians — men, women, Muslims, and Christians… regardless of their beliefs, their gender, their color,” Mursi said at the Clinton Global Initiative forum in New York.

Mursi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood movement who was elected following Egypt’s revolution against US-backed strongman Hosni Mubarak, told the forum led by former president Bill Clinton that Egypt will remain pluralistic and secular.

“We have really a new democratic state and a new real civilian state in Egypt: non-theocratic, not military,” he said.

Mursi dismissed worries by some outside Egypt that civil and religious rights, including for the Coptic Christian minority, are likely to decline with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood. He said the real problem in Egypt was Mubarak-era corruption.

“We don’t have a real problem in terms of the rights of women,” he said. “However, the corruption is something everybody suffered from.”(AFP)

• Egyptian National Alliance: A Liberal First Step
• Anti-Hamas protests erupt after death of young boy
• Nasser and American brothers (Must see)
• VIDEOS: Click here to watch videos of Gamal Abdel Nasser

Obama Calls Rouhani

mmmm

Local Editor

US President Barack Obama and Iran’s President Hasan Rouhani spoke by phone Friday as the latter was wrapping up his visit to New York. Rouhani received the call from Obama on Friday as he was in a car heading to the John F. Kennedy International Airport to fly back to Tehran, IRNA reported. The Iranian and US presidents underlined the need for a political will for expediting resolution of West’s standoff with Iran over the latter’s nuclear program. President Rouhani and President Obama stressed the necessity for mutual cooperation on different regional issues. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and his American counterpart John Kerry have been commissioned to follow up talks between the two countries. “Just now, I spoke on the phone with President Rouhani of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The two of us discussed our ongoing efforts to reach an agreement over Iran’s nuclear program,” Obama announced. “I’ve made clear that we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy in the context of Iran meeting its obligations. So the test will be meaningful, transparent and verifiable actions, which can also bring relief from the comprehensive international sanctions that are currently in place,” he added.

Source: Agencies 28-09-2013 – 02:02 Last updated 28-09-2013 – 02:57

• Rouhani: Iran Ready for Geneva II, Wants Total Elimination of N-Arms

Turkey Augments AlQaeda in Syria with 1,300 Terrorists

Embattled Turkish Prime Minister and anti-Islamic Islamist Caliph NATO-style wannabe Erdogan augments Al-Qaeda terrorists in Syria with additional 1,300 from his followers.

 

It’s not a secret that the Muslim Brotherhood government in Turkey serves all enemies of Islam by importing, training, financing, arming and smuggling thousands of terrorists into its southern neighbor Syria through over 850 kilometers of borders separating the two countries.

We have reported earlier on how the Islamist fanatics ruling Turkey, the trio Gül, Erdoğan and Davutoğlu, have invested heavily in planting the seeds of sectarianism in Turkey among the Sunni community against Alawites and even against Sunni Kurds. The group that Erdoğan nourishes is called Nurjia spreading the anti-Islamic teaching of Badei’alzaman Saeed AlNursi, a scholar who lived at the times of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and vowed to revive it.

 

Our previous article: Shocking Facts Exposed, A Syrian Spy Behind Enemy’s Lines, would give you an idea about the sick mentality of the Turkish Islamist government and their dream of ruling over the bodies and suffering of hundreds of thousands of their own people and people in the neighboring countries.

 

Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict and Turkish Muslim Brotherhood government was more than vocal in its attempts to destroy the last secular state in the entire region, Syria, especially after the Syrian president Dr. Bashar Al-Assad refused, multiple times, the Turkish offer of ‘mediation’ to install members of the outlaw criminal Muslim Brotherhood – Syria wing organization into the Syrian government in the months March to July 2011, before all hatred and enmity couldn’t be hidden anymore by the fanatics ruling Turkey.

 

Turkish involvement was more than clear in the sectarian killing, fueling the raging fire in Syria and sponsoring terrorists after the infamous Jisr Shoghour massacre beginning of June 2011, when more than 120 Syrian security members were slaughtered and lynched by herds of hundreds, more than 700 per some estimates, were smuggled over night by Turkish intelligence thugs who report directly to the Turkish prime minister, into the border town.

 

The following report by the banned by US and Europe Syrian Ikhbariya TV in their quest to promote ‘free speech’ and ‘democracy’ in the world, sheds some light on the latest attempt by the devil trio Gül, Erdoğan and Davutoğlu to survive in their seats before the Turkish people wake up, some day.

 

The biggest monkey insists not to come down the tree he climbed so fast and still thinks he can gain more by staying up there despite the very expensive ladder offered to him for free and instead is jumping from a branch to another and recently jumped onto the Iranian branch and made a breakthrough telephone call, but Turkish prime minister has a better way to get down, it seems: