9/11 Was USA’s & NATO’s License to Expand Globally

 http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/10/30/9-11-was-nato-license-expand-globally.html
The 9/11 attacks on the United States undoubtedly benefited a number of actors, including the American military-intelligence complex, Israel, and most definitely, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Cold War-era, the area of responsibility for which had long been confined to Europe and North America, used the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Charter – which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all – to extend NATO’s power deep into Eurasia, particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kyrgyzstan.

After engaging in out-of-area invasions and occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and Syria and, again in Iraq, against the «Islamic State,» the «North Atlantic» military bloc has transformed itself from a Cold War defensive alliance into a global offensive axis of nations that acts with or without United Nations authorization.

NATO has also become an instrument of neo-colonialism. Under its umbrella or the European Union, NATO established quasi-colonial governments in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan, and Libya, as well as a Syrian government-in-exile in Turkey. Political advisers from NATO nations have acted as virtual viceroys, exercising veto authority over the governments installed with Western military might.

The first nation to come under NATO occupation was Bosnia-Herzegovina, created from the ashes of the former Yugoslavia. After NATO’s «Stabilization Force» (SFOR) was dissolved, the European Force (EUFOR) was created. EUFOR’s «OPERATION ALTHEA» authorizes 1600 troops from mostly NATO nations, including France, Italy, Turkey, and Germany, to occupy Bosnia-Herzegovina. EUFOR’s main base is at Camp Butmir, a former Yugoslav air base outside of Sarajevo. Additional troops can be deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina from NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR) in neighboring Kosovo, carved by NATO out of Serbia. Camp Butmir also permits troops from non-NATO members of the EU, particularly Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden, to interface with NATO troops assigned to the base.

EUFOR is also supplemented by a European Police Mission (EUPM), comprising police forces from mostly NATO nations. The European Union Special Representative (EUSR) acts as a political viceroy with effective control over the government in Sarajevo.

NATO exercises political and military control over Kosovo through NATO’s KFOR, which is based at Camp Film City in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo, a nation which remains unrecognized by UN Security permanent members Russia and China. While most NATO nations are opposed to UN membership for Palestine, they wholeheartedly support UN membership for Kosovo, a nation governed by remnants of the Kosovo Liberation Army, once recognized as a terrorist group by the United States and which has been accused of running a number of criminal enterprises, including human organ, narcotics, cigarette, nuclear material, weapons, and stolen automobile smuggling.

KFOR mainly comprises troops from NATO countries Germany, France, the United States, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Romania, and Turkey. Under NATO KFOR command are troops from Ukraine, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Morocco, Armenia, Finland, and Ireland. There is little doubt that NATO’s integration of non-NATO troops in theaters like Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Libya is an attempt to integrate through the back door the armed forces of neutral and non-European nations, yet another indication of NATO’s global expansion. NATO is on a fast track to becoming a worldwide military force for a de facto one-world, largely unelected, government.

KFOR’s commander reports to the NATO Commander of Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy. KFOR’s political adviser exercises de facto veto authority over the «independent» government of Kosovo. The U.S. Army’s main base in Kosovo is at Camp Bondsteel in Ferizaj. The base, built by former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, Kellogg, Brown and Root, is a mini-city complete with American fast-food restaurants like Burger King and Taco Bell, as well as a «Cool Beans Coffee Shop.» In other words, Camp Bondsteel is a virtual U.S. colony in the middle of the Balkans putting on display all of the excesses of America’s «trash culture.»

KFOR troops are engaged in asserting Kosovo control over majority Serbian communes in northern Kosovo and the troops have used «non-lethal» force, including rubber bullets, on Serbs who want to be integrated with Serbia. The plight of the Serbs in northern Kosovo in dealing with Kosovo government criminal syndicates in Pristina is just as dire as the fate of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine who are under threat from neo-Nazi and Ukrainian Jewish oligarch militia forces intent on retaliatory carnage and ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region. NATO has adopted the recalcitrant regimes in Pristina and Kiev as virtual vanguards against Serbia and Russia, respectively.

Although NATO’s presence in Iraq ended with the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces in 2011, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, housed in America’s largest embassy, continues to play a major political role in Iraq. The most recent example was forcing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, accused of being too pro-Iranian and an «anti-Semite,» to step down from his office in favor of the more pro-Western Haider al-Abadi. Thousands of U.S. military personnel and contractors continue to be based at the Baghdad embassy and U.S. consulates in Basra, Erbil, and Kirkuk. The advance of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) from Syria into Iraq has permitted NATO to restore its presence in Iraq with U.S., Canadian, British, and French aircraft taking part in offensive operations against ISIL forces in the country. U.S. forces have ordered civilians to evacuate the Herir airport in Iraqi Kurdistan so the facility can be transformed into an airbase for U.S. and NATO forces. U.S. and NATO forces are also using Erbil International Airport as a base from which to launch attacks on ISIL forces.

 

NATO, through the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), maintains de facto control over the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia via the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), which consists mostly of troops from Uganda and Burundi. In addition, the TFG is supported by Ethiopian military forces and CIA operatives. The CIA operates from a secret base at Mogadishu’s Aden Adde International Airport. CIA officers direct the activities of AMISOM’s Ugandan and Burundian forces in Somalia and conduct drone attacks against suspected Islamist guerrillas in the country. The CIA base in Mogadishu also coordinates drone attacks throughout the Horn of Africa and Yemen with other CIA drone facilities in Djibouti, Seychelles, and Oman.

NATO’s Counter-Piracy Task Force 508 (CTF-508), which, ostensibly, operates in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean to counter Somali-based pirates, is also involved in counter-insurgency operations in Yemen directed against Shi’a Houthi rebels and South Yemen independence restoration forces. Such NATO operations are thinly veiled as «anti-Al Qaeda» operations. However, NATO sees Yemeni instability as a reason for it to turn the country into yet another NATO occupied nation. And NATO and its Pentagon masters have long yearned to turn the Yemeni strategic island of Socotra into an Indian Ocean version of Hawaii, a massive U.S. military base in the region that would dwarf the smaller base at Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory far to the south.

 

The NATO political adviser in Libya, a post pushed by the CIA-backed American Libyan Council, coordinates NATO’s military operations in Libya with Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Morocco. NATO’s military training role in Libya is handled by an «advisory team» based in Brussels but which makes frequent visits to Libya. NATO’s outreach to Arab monarchies in the Gulf, Jordan, and Morocco to become de facto «associate members» of NATO are conducted through the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. NATO’s outreach to Jordan and Morocco, as well as Egypt, Israel, Algeria, Mauritania, Tunisia, and now, Libya, is conducted through the Mediterranean Dialogue.

NATO is also expanding into the Southern Hemisphere. NATO and Colombia have signed a partnership agreement, the first such agreement with a Latin American nation. Colombia reportedly agreed to facilitate the stationing of additional NATO troops in Central America and the Caribbean, including European colonies and ex-colonies such as Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, St. Maarten, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Belize. NATO controls over 400 islands as «overseas territories» in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean alone, many inhabited with several uninhabited, but all of which could be transformed into military bases.

NATO is no longer a European or North Atlantic entity. However, its supporters prefer to retain the bogus acronym in order to mask NATO’s actual intentions of global military domination and occupation.

Cartoon goes some way in explaining who was behind Sept.11th, which was used to justify wars for israel

The cartoon shows Netanyahu was the pilot of an airplane that hit the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.

The cartoon shows Netanyahu was the pilot of an airplane that hit the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.

A new cartoon showing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was behind the 9/11 attacks has heightened the recent tensions between the United States and Israel.

Israeli artist Amos Biderman drew the cartoon that shows Netanyahu was the pilot of an airplane that hit the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001.

Israel’s newspaper Haaretz published the controversial cartoon on Thursday.

“The message is that Bibi [Netanyahu] is arrogantly and want only destroying Israel’s ties with the US and leading us to a disaster on the scale of 9/11,” Biderman said in a tweet in Hebrew.

“It was certainly not my intention to insult or upset anyone,” he told Haaretz. “I wasn’t sufficiently aware of the great sensitivity that 9/11 holds for Americans.”

The publication of the cartoon came a few days after a senior Obama administration official described Netanyahu as a “chickenshit.”

“The thing about Bibi [Netanyahu] is, he’s a chickenshit,” the unnamed official told the Atlantic when asked about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate President Barack Obama the most.

In a strong reaction to the cartoon, National Director of the pro-Israeli Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Abraham Foxman said it was offensive on many levels.

“Not only does it completely misrepresent any tensions which may current exist between the US government and Mr. Netanyahu, it disrespects the memories of thousands of innocent Americans and others who tragically perished on 9/11,” he said in a statement.

Foxman also argued that the cartoon feeds conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks.

“Furthermore, as anti-Semitic conspiracy theories charging that Israel and/or Jews were behind the attacks are still believed by large swaths of the Muslim world, it is particularly jarring and incredibility irresponsible that an Israeli newspaper, especially one whose journalistic standards are widely respected, would resort to publishing such a highly offensive stereotype in the name of political satire,” he said.

Chickenshit Netanyahu, the self proclaimed leader of the entire Jewish world

Israeli economics minister Naftali Bennett was reported in The Guardian as proclaiming Benyamin Netanyahu the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world. “Really?” replied Criag Murray in his blog . “Netanyahu is the leader of all the Jews in London, or California, or Ethiopia, who may never have set foot in his state?

 

by Stuart Littlewood

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2014/10/palestiniansdirty-dozen-mps-want-prolong-palestinians-misery-common-humanity/

In the local newspaper where I used to live somebody wrote in demanding to know why local MP Jonathan Djanogly was one of the 12 who voted to deny Palestinians their statehood and right to self-determination in the recent House of Commons debate.

The answer, of course, is that Mr Djanogly waves the flag for the illegal occupier, Israel. Earlier this year he attended the AIPAC/US-Europe-Israel National Security Forum in Washington. AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is an immensely powerful lobby group that aggressively promotes Israel’s interests in the US Congress using methods that don’t bear examination. The US-Europe-Israel National Security Forum is concerned with locking Israel into US and British military know-how and ensuring Israel’s military superiority over its neighbours — a collaboration guaranteed to keep the Middle East in turmoil and Britain a target for reprisals.

On its website AIPAC “urges all members of Congress to support Israel through… the  promotion of a negotiated two-state solution… A Jewish state of Israel living in peace with a demilitarized Palestinian state – with an end to all claims is the clear path to resolving this generations-old conflict.

“Only direct talks between the parties can lead to a real and lasting peace. The Palestinians must not attempt to achieve their goals by attempting to use international organizations such as the United Nations to impose their will on Israel.” In other words, we mustn’t let law and justice get in the way of a shameless stitch-up. And the Palestine state, when it’s allowed to emerge, must be unarmed and helpless to defend itself, as if any self-rerspecting nation would agree to such nonsense.

Mr Djanogly’s visit was paid for by the Henry Jackson Society which, along with AIPAC, is populated by the sort of people who brought us the Iraq war, for which Mr Djanogly voted “very strongly” (according to theyworkforyou.com).

Britain, as the mandated occupying power in Palestine from the end of WW1 up to 1948 (when we walked away), is largely responsible for the plight of Christians and Muslims of the Holy Land today. A few years ago I went to see Mr Djanogly after returning from Palestine sickened by Israel’s human rights abuses. No need to tell you how the meeting went.

The Foreign Office says “we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time of our choosing, when we think it can best bring about peace” and, just like AIPAC, insists that a negotiated end to the occupation is the only way forward. They know full well there’s no shred of evidence from the last 50 years that Israel has ever intended to reach a peaceful negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.

Justice would be best served by a solution based on international law and the umpteen UN resolutions waiting to be enforced, not by a resumption of the ‘peace talks’ charade with a gun to the Palestinians’ head, brokered by corrupt US politicians, while Israel continues to steal more Palestinian land and water and create enough ‘facts on the ground’ to make the occupation permanent. A respected Israeli source (B’Tselem) puts the killings since the first Intifada (September 2000) at 8.588 Palestinians and 593 Israelis dead, a ratio of 14 to 1. The slaughter includes 2,289 Palestinian women and children compared with 106 Israeli women and children. Add to these the tens of thousands of Palestinians horribly injured and the hundreds of thousands made homeless.

Meanwhile, we taxpayers continue to subsidise — directly and through the EU — Israel’s brutal occupation and pay for the wanton destruction inflicted by its military, while our government stupidly rewards the criminal regime with trading privileges.

Mr Djanogly’s parliamentary colleague Sir Edward Leigh was surely speaking for the entire British nation when he said in the debate: “We are part of a common humanity, whether we are Christian, Jew or Arab. When we vote tonight — and I will vote for the motion — we will be making a gesture in favour of that common humanity, and we should be proud of that.”

Mr Djanogly was parachuted from London into the ultra-safe Conservative seat vacated by John Major. He has enjoyed a very soft ride so far. But by voting the way he did, he effectively condemns more Palestinian children to die in their parents’ endless struggle for freedom and creates the distinct impression that he is not in tune with British values of decency and compassion.

Israel “a vicious racist construct”

Meanwhile, Israeli economics minister Naftali Bennett was reported in The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/29/binyamin-netanyahu-a-chickenshit-say-us-officials-in-explosive-interview as proclaiming Benyamin Netanyahu the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world. “Really?” replied Criag Murray in his blog http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2014/10/the-racist-concept-of-israel/ . “Netanyahu is the leader of all the Jews in London, or California, or Ethiopia, who may never have set foot in his state? This extraordinary remark by Bennett lays bare the fundamental flaw in the very concept of Israel. It is not a modern state, defined as a territory and comprising all the various citizens of whatever descent who live within it. It is rather a vicious racist construct, defined absolutely by race, refusing territorial limits, and with an aggressive theocratic overlay that claims tribal superiority over the entire rest of the world…. By their increasingly hardline racialist approach, their unceasing encroachment on Palestinian land and their rigorous adoption of all the racist mechanisms of an apartheid state internally, I fear that the window of opportunity for a peaceful future for those Jewish people living in what is currently Israel is closing fast.”

That’s as good a summation as I’ve heard. Craig Murray is the straight-talking former British ambassador to Uzbekistan.

But as spooky Hallowe’en draws near Netanhayu, far from resembling the leader of the Jewish world, looks to me increasingly like one of the Undead, and loving it. Is it my imagination, or is ‘Nosferatu’ Netanyahu – sounds like the title for a new rap song – actually a corpse re-animated by the life forces of a steady local supply of dead and dying?

 

Stuart Littlewood

Jewish terrorists destroy Palestinian property under the protection of Israeli soldiers

http://palsolidarity.org/2014/10/settlers-destroy-palestinian-property-under-the-protection-of-israeli-soldiers/

Today at approximately 1:30 PM in the Tel Rumeida neighborhood of occupied al-Khalil (Hebron), the head of security for the illegal settlements in the area attempted to destroy the property of a Palestinian man named Muhammad Knebi. Settlers have been destroying the newly built fence owned by Muhammad Knebi since October. The fence was built to protect the Knebi family’s olive trees.  Settlers have made several attempts to cut and break down the fence.

1

2

This afternoon, the head of settler security arrived on Muhammad’s land with a small tractor. He was accompanied by several soldiers from the Israeli army in addition to another settler from a nearby illegal settlement. They came in order to remove the large stones that were put behind the fence poles for added support. The settlers also cut the fence with scissors. Jawad Abu Aisha, an activist from the Palestinian group Youth Against Settlements that helped Muhammad build the fence, sat on a stone to prevent the settlers from moving it. Jawad was detained for his actions for around half an hour. The previous day the owner, Muhammad Knebi, had filed a complaint against the constant destruction of his fence and was then told by the Israeli police that if the settlers tried to take down his fence again he should call the Israeli army and they would stop the settlers.

3

4

Earlier today, neither the Israeli police nor the Israeli army made any attempts to stop or arrest the settlers for trespassing on private property and for the destruction of Muhammad’s fence. The Israeli soldiers had already received orders to prevent the settlers from destroying and cutting the fence but they did nothing to stop them.

5

Why Israel Won’t Attack Iran, they generally prefer easier victims

 

Daniel Larison — The American Conservative Oct 28, 2014

Netanyahu appearing before the UN General Assembly to warn of the threat posed by Iran. Click to enlarge

Buried in this Jeffrey Goldberg report on the state of U.S.-Israel relations is a somewhat encouraging piece of news:

This official agreed that Netanyahu is a “chickenshit” on matters related to the comatose peace process, but added that he’s also a “coward” on the issue of Iran’s nuclear threat. The official said that Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal [bold mine-DL]. “It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

Two years ago, Daniel Levy made the case that Netanyahu was too risk-averse as a politician to do anything as hazardous and potentially disastrous as starting a war with Iran. That seemed very plausible at the time, and I still find it persuasive. It has never made much sense that the Israeli government would launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if Netanyahu were inclined to do this, which he reportedly isn’t, starting a preventive war against Iran wouldn’t prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

On the contrary, a foreign attack would probably make the acquisition of such weapons a priority for the Iranian government. Especially if one believes the worst about the Iranian government’s intentions, it would be the height of folly to take action that would practically guarantee that Iran gets a nuclear arsenal, and that is what an Israeli or U.S. attack would do. The more important reason why such an attack didn’t make much sense is that it isn’t necessary for Israeli security. Even if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, Israel would have a much larger nuclear arsenal with which it would deter unconventional attacks. If Netanyahu is also risk-averse enough that he doesn’t want to take reckless military action against Iran, so much the better for all involved.

Source

Isis, Jabhat al-Nusra and Other Islamist Groups Are One And The Same. There are no “moderate” terrorists

 by Robert Fisk

October 30, 2014 “ICH” – “The Independent” – Phones were ringing through the army headquarters in central Damascus and a veteran of Syria’s 1982 war with Israel in Lebanon was explaining how all wars involved victories and defeats – that Syria’s forces also suffered setbacks in their war against “terrorism” – when the news arrived at his own desk. A flurry of calls established that Jabhat al-Nusra rebels had stormed into the centre of Idlib, the surrounded but still government-held city west of Aleppo; that they had captured the governor’s office and were beheading senior Syrian officers. Our interview was not intended to have gone quite like this. It was a good day to see the general. Which means it was a bad day.   

The leading Syrian army officer, who requested anonymity, takes a shrewd view of events – and history – and clearly had no objection to America’s air strikes on Isis targets in his country, although he viewed them dispassionately. “Our army doesn’t know where or when these strikes are going to happen,” he said. “We see aircraft on our radar – we can see everything – but if our checkpoints (on the front) see the strikes, it is only by chance. We and the Americans are not sharing information with each other. The Americans just do it. It’s natural. They decide in the UN that they are going to do these strikes. Syria says ‘yes’. We are fighting ‘Daesh’ (Isis) and the other terrorist groups. But America never asked us about their targets.”

Isis, Jabhat al-Nusra and other Islamist groups are one and the same – he dismisses the Free Syrian Army (FSA) so beloved of President Barack Obama and US Republicans as more of a fantasy army than a reality – and insists that the strategy of Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra is the same wherever the Syrian army fights them. “It’s the same plan, the same orders, and we are using the same tactics in fighting them. There is a priority for the Syrian army – to know where they have to fight. I can’t say that in all the military operations that the Syrian army is taking the upper hand. War is not just about victory. There are winners and losers. That is the nature of war.”

That’s when the phones started ringing. Other officers arrived in the general’s office. He walked into another room to take a call. His right-hand fingers tapped on his desk. Was the army to announce the events in Idlib? But he returned to our interview, remembering exactly where he had broken off. “Yes, there are places where the Syrian army loses and there are some setbacks, we can’t deny that. We don’t pretend that we always have victories. But our victories are bigger than our losses. Three days ago a town called Moraq – strategic between Idlib and Aleppo was recaptured by our army – the main road from Damascus to Aleppo is now completely safe.”

But not Idlib. The phones rang again. “Nusra tried to infiltrate into the city, but we foiled them,” he said triumphantly. True. But the general didn’t mention – perhaps did not even then know – that his own comrades were being beheaded, even as the army was about to recapture the governor’s office. By chance, I had been asking the general about Raqqa province, whose last military fortress and airbase was captured by Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra this year. Videos showed hundreds of Syrian soldiers being executed beside mass graves, one even showed two fighter jets being towed through the streets by rebels. And within days, reports from outside Syria spoke of Isis being trained on Mig-21s by former Iraqi pilots.

He knew about the jets. “This is cheap propaganda – these were old, unflyable jets that stood near the airbase gates. If they could have been flown, we would have taken them away. They were very old Mig-17s, junk jets without radar or control. We couldn’t rebuild them – and nor can they. Even the Russians can’t rebuild them. We know everything that is flying over Syria – even the American planes – but these old Migs can never leave the ground.”

As for Raqqa and its citizens and the fate of his soldiers, he was visibly angry. “Isis is reactionary, trying to represent the past – the medieval era. There are executions, torture, they are telling people they are practising sharia. And they are teaching children how to behead people….” The general would not speculate on how many of Syria’s soldiers had been murdered in Raqqa. “I can’t give you exact numbers – some are still missing, videos can be doctored. We don’t take Isis’s word for anything. There are soldiers who have been captured. We don’t know how many.” Unknown to the general, up to 70 soldiers had just been beheaded in Idlib.

I was surprised, I said, that Syria does not call these executions war crimes – as Syria’s enemies always accuse Syria of war crimes. But it was clear from his reply that this is a war without any prisoners. “The Syrian Arab Army has been in open war with terrorists for four years. Of course we are feeling angry. We have setbacks and they are targeted by us every day. We are killing hundreds of them. I am not going to give Syria to these stupid people. We are fighting to the death. But we are for a political resolution. We are concerned that in the end there must only be a political resolution for Syria. Eliminate the terrorists – all the people in the world are against them – and anyone who carries weapons against Syrian soldiers or the Syrian government or civilian people is involved in terrorism. We will deal with them. America did this because a journalist was murdered – it was a pretext for America to come to Syria. But we are going to eliminate all the terrorists on Syrian soil. In my opinion, we are cooperating with the Coalition because we said ‘yes’ when they attacked Isis. The UN resolution was a sign of cooperation.”

As for the battle of Ain al-Arab, or Kobani, on the Turkish border – famous on television screens around the world – the general had some cynicism. “We must separate the military and the political. Ain al-Arab is a Syrian town, the majority of its people are Kurds and Isis attacked them, just to control it. And to base themselves there, because it’s a border town. Politically, however, there is something of a theatre about this. The Turks want to have a buffer zone and to pressure the US to give them this buffer zone. And the Americans are trying to push Turkey into the war situation. This is the ‘headline’! But they are trying to use each other, the Turks and the Americans, and Ain al-Arab’s civilians are paying the cost of this.”

As for the FSA into which the US put so much faith, he laughs. “There may be some in Idlib and near Deraa.”There were soldiers and some officers who defected from the Syrian army,” he said. “Some asked to come back and are in our army again. Others returned and we sent them home.” More Dad’s Army, it would seem to the general, than the Free Syrian Army.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article40091.htm

Strengthening Iran & China relations

The Iranian Nuclear Issue and Sino-Iranian Relations

http://goingtotehran.com/the-iranian-nuclear-issue-and-sino-iranian-relations

rohanixi

As the world waits to see if Iran and the P5+1 reach a final nuclear agreement by November 24, we remain relatively pessimistic about the prospects for such an outcome.  Above all, we are pessimistic because closing a comprehensive nuclear accord will almost certainly require the United States to drop its (legally unfounded, arrogantly hegemonic, and strategically senseless) demand that the Islamic Republic dismantle a significant portion of its currently operating centrifuges as a sine qua non for a deal.

–While we would love to be proved wrong on the point, it seems unlikely that the Obama administration will drop said demand in order to close a final agreement.

–Alternatively, a final deal would become at least theoretically possible if Iran agreed to dismantle an appreciable portion of its currently operating centrifuges, as Washington and its British and French partners demand.  However, we see no sign that Tehran is inclined to do this.  Just last week, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi reiterated that, in any agreement, “all nuclear capabilities of Iran will be preserved and no facility will be shut down or even suspended and no device or equipment will be dismantled.”

Still, almost regardless of the state of U.S./P5+1 nuclear diplomacy with Iran a month from now, the Islamic Republic’s relations with a wide range of important states are likely to enter a new phaseAmong these states, China figures especially prominently.

To explore the historical factors and contemporary dynamics shaping the prospective trajectory of Sino-Iranian relations, we have written a working paper, American Hegemony (and Hubris), the Iranian Nuclear Issue, and the Future of Sino-Iranian Relations.  It has been posted online, see here to download, as part of the Penn State Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series.  It will soon be published as a chapter in a forthcoming volume on The Emerging Middle East-East Asia Nexus.

As our paper notes, the People’s Republic of China and the Islamic Republic of Iran have, over the last three decades, “forged multi-dimenstional cooperative relations, emphasizing energy, trade and investment, and regional security.”  There are compelling reasons for this.  Among other things, both political orders were born of revolutions dedicated to restoring their countries’ independence and sovereignty after extended periods of dominance by foreign—above all, Western—powers.  Today, both are pursuing what we describe as “counter-hegemonic” foreign policies, especially vis-à-vis the United States.

But, while U.S. primacy incentivizes closer Sino-Iranian ties, it has also kept those ties from advancing as far as they might have otherwise, particularly on the Chinese side.  Over the years, Beijing has tried to balance its interests in developing ties to Tehran with its interest in maintaining at least relatively positive relations with Washington.  Our paper examines a series of trends that are reducing China’s willingness to continue accommodating U.S. pressure over relations with Iran.

–We assess that, as these trends play out, “Chinese policymakers will continue seeking an appropriate balance between China’s relations with the Islamic Republic and its interest in maintaining positive ties to the United States.  Nevertheless, [this] balance will continue shifting, slowly but surely, toward more focused pursuit of China’s economic, energy, and strategic interests in Iran.”

–We also argue that, unless the United States fundamentally revises its own posture toward the Islamic Republic, “a deepening of Sino-Iranian relations will almost certainly accelerate trends in the international economic order—e.g., backlash against Washington’s increasingly promiscuous use of financial sanctions as a foreign policy tool and the slow erosion of dollar hegemony—that are weakening America’s global position.”

We look forward to a lively discussion.

–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

The USA is waking up, Google Survey: Majority of US Citizens Think US Gives Too Much to Israel

Google Survey: Majority of US Citizens Think US Gives Too Much to Israel

http://www.globalresearch.ca/google-survey-majority-of-us-citizens-think-us-gives-too-much-to-israel/5410863

 

usa-israel

The majority of US citizens, according to a Google Consumer Survey (cited here), think the US gives too much aid to Israel:

Today 6 in 10 Americans believe the U.S. gives too much aid to Israel

Surveying Americans about U.S. aid to Israel requires putting it into proper perspective. Given Israel’s position as the leading single U.S. foreign aid recipient (by a wide margin), as in 1989 asking the foreign aid question requires embedding relevant data to obtain a bona fide response.  When such data is included, the majority of Americans (60.7 percent) believe U.S. aid to Israel is excessive.  The major response, that aid to Israel is “Much too much” is 33.9 percent of Americans.  Some 26.8 percent believe it is “too much” while 25.9 percent believe it is “about right.” Only 13.4 percent of Americans believe U.S. aid to Israel is not enough.

The policy and political implications of this finding are stark.  Elected officials passing ever larger aid packages and supplemental spending for Israel simply cannot claim they are representing the majority interests of their constituents.  American presidents proclaiming the U.S.‐Israel bond is “unbreakable” cannot claim such a bond is willingly underwritten by U.S. taxpayers.  The finding also shines yet more light on Israel lobby organizations as the major factor coming between most constituents and their representatives and quietly working to ensure that Israel’s majority share of the U.S. foreign aid budget continues.

The survey also finds that, in particular, younger US citizens are strongly opposed to the amount of US aid that goes to Israel, and, crucially, finds that “Only the Wealthiest Americans believe U.S. aid is ‘about right’”:

The only category of Americans (47.6 percent) who believed U.S. aid for Israel is “about right” is the segment earning $150,000 or more (although even 42.9 percent in that category thought aid was too high).  The next lower income category, $100,000‐149,000 is the most vehemently opposed to aid, with 79.5 percent believing it is too high (42.9 percent responding “much too much” and 36.6 percent “too much.”)

While the Google report says the findings are “stark”, they are precisely consistent with the findings of the recent study out of Cornell and Northwestern universities, the largest study of its kind to date, which looked at nearly 1,800 individual US policy issues and found that the average US citizen has zero impact on those policies, while the wealthiest citizens essentially get exactly what they want, meaning they dictate US policy (and they largely comprise the US government).

This Google survey simply singles out one of the policy issues, which together illustrate that the USA is not a democracy, but a society in which people are allowed to choose which of two corporate-backed figureheads they want as the face of an oligarchy that dictates government policy in its own interest.

It is also worth noting here that 1) the top ten recipients of US aid (with Israel as #1) all, like the US itself, have torture regimes, 2) US law “prohibit[s] U.S. foreign aid to nuclear weapons states such as Israel that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”, and 3) Obama, while repeatedly insisting the US is a “nation of laws”, requested more military aid for Israel than any president ever (among many other blatantly illegal acts).

Netanyahu wants to test who controls the U.S. Congress, israel or U.S. Government?

Israel Tests the Bounds of Its US Clout

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/30/israel-tests-the-bounds-of-its-us-clout/

Israeli resistance to deals on Palestinian peace and Iran’s nuclear program has strained U.S.-Israeli relations and will test if Congress is more loyal to Prime Minister Netanyahu or President Obama. But the tension underscores a deeper division between the two countries, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.

By Paul R. Pillar

A piece by Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic, bearing the title “The Crisis in U.S.-Israeli Relations is Officially Here,” has performed a useful service in at least two respects. One is that Goldberg’s piece highlights how friction in the U.S.-Israeli relationship is primarily an epiphenomenon of an Israeli policy trajectory that is detrimental to Israel itself — no matter what U.S. officials may or may not say about the policies, publicly or privately — and not only detrimental to others.

In commenting, for example, on the latest insertion of right-wing Jewish settlers into Arab areas of East Jerusalem — which many Palestinians unsurprisingly see as another step in de-Palestinianizing East Jerusalem so much that it could not become capital of a Palestinian state — Goldberg writes, “It is the Netanyahu government that appears to be disconnected from reality. Jerusalem is on the verge of exploding into a third Palestinian uprising.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the United Nations in 2012, drawing his own "red line" on how far he will let Iran go in refining nuclear fuel.

He’s right about the potential for a new intifada, one that could emerge spontaneously from bottled-up frustration and anger and would not need to be ordered or directed by anyone.

Another service by Goldberg is to portray the relationship far more realistically than one would conclude from the boilerplate that both governments routinely serve up about supposedly unshakeable ties between close, bosom-buddy allies. The fact is that the interests that this Israeli government pursues (not to be confused with fundamental, long-term interests of Israel and Israelis generally) are in sharp and substantial conflict with U.S. interests. No amount of pablum from official spokespersons can hide that fact.

For both these reasons, Goldberg’s article deserves a wide readership.

The most recent expressions that reflect the true nature of the relationship are not just a matter of unnamed U.S. officials mouthing off. Goldberg notes in the third sentence of his piece that the comments he is reporting are “representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli [emphasis added] officials now talk about each other behind closed doors.”

So the barbed tongues extend in both directions, but with two differences. One is that in this relationship the United States is the giver (of many billions in aid, and much political cover in international organizations) and Israel is the taker; harsh comments are far harder to justify when they are directed by an ungrateful beneficiary to its patron rather than the other way around.

The other difference is that Israeli leaders insult the United States not just through anonymous comments to journalists but also publicly and openly; the current Israeli defense minister is one of the more recent and blatant practitioners of this.

One can legitimately question some of the particular accusations by the U.S. officials that Goldberg reports, not to mention the scatological and indecorous terminology employed. But to concentrate on this is to overlook the larger and far more important contours of the relationship. The most fundamental truth about the relationship is that, notwithstanding routine references to Israel as an “ally,” it is not an ally of the United States beyond being the recipient of all that U.S. material and political largesse.

An ally is someone who offers something comparably significant and useful in return, particularly on security matters. That this is not true of Israel’s relationship with the United States is underscored by the priority that the United States has placed, during some of its own past conflicts in the Middle East such as Operation Desert Storm, on Israel not getting involved because such involvement would be a liability, not an asset.

The core policy around which much of this Israeli government’s other behavior revolves, and which defines Israel in the eyes of much of the rest of the world, is the unending occupation of conquered territory under a practice of Israel never defining its own borders and thus never permitting political rights to Palestinians under either a two-state or a one-state formula. This policy is directly contrary to U.S. interests in multiple respects, not least in that the United States through its close association with Israel shares in the resulting widespread antagonism and opprobrium.

One of the biggest and most recent U.S. foreign policy endeavors is the negotiation of an agreement to restrict and monitor Iran’s nuclear program to ensure it stays peaceful. Completion of an agreement would be a major accomplishment in the interest of nonproliferation and regional stability. The Israeli “ally” has been doing everything it can to sabotage the negotiations and prevent an agreement.

It is a fallacy to think that making nice to the Israeli government will get it to back off from its opposition. It is a fallacy because that government has shown it does not want any agreement with Iran no matter what the terms, and because it is dishonest in expressing its opposition.

There certainly is genuine concern in Israel about the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon, but that is clearly not what is behind the Israeli government’s opposition because the sort of agreement that is shaping up would make it markedly less likely, in terms of both Iranian motivations and capabilities, for Iran ever to make a nuclear weapon than would be the case with no agreement. That’s the very purpose of the agreement.

The Israeli government instead seeks to keep Iran permanently in diplomatic exile, precluding any cooperation between Iran and the United States on other issues (which would dilute Israel’s claim to being the only worthwhile U.S. partner in the Middle East) and retaining the specter of Iran and a nuclear threat from it as the “real problem” in the Middle East supposedly more worthy of international attention than the occupation and unresolved plight of the Palestinians.

These objectives, as well as the setback for the cause of nonproliferation that collapse of an agreement with Iran would entail, also are directly contrary to U.S. interests.

The best way to handle the implacable opposition to an Iranian deal from Netanyahu — who, according to Goldberg’s reporting, has “written off” the Obama administration — is to write off Netanyahu and any hope that he could be brought around on the subject. Needed instead is to expose — to Israelis, as well as to members of Congress and other Americans — the fundamental dishonesty of Netanyahu’s opposition.

Maybe a useful step in doing that would be to bring back Netanyahu’s cartoon bomb that he displayed at the United Nations General Assembly and point out how the preliminary agreement reached with Iran last year (and which the Israeli prime minister consistently denounced) has already drained the bomb and moved the Iranian program back from the lines that the Israeli prime minister drew with his red marker.

Calling Netanyahu to account certainly is not a sufficient condition to achieve political change in Israel, with its ever steeper rightward tilt, but it is probably a necessary condition. The state of the relationship with the United States is highly salient and highly important to many Israelis, but it will not be a driver of political change as long as it remains masked by all that boilerplate about how great the “alliance” is.

There are a couple of problems with the title of Goldberg’s piece (which is probably the doing of an editor, not Goldberg). One is that there isn’t “officially” a crisis. The fact that official statements continue to talk about a supposedly rosy relationship is part of what is, as explained above, wrong.

The other problem is that in this context the word crisis is a misnomer. The term usually indicates a potential for a big turn for the worse, especially the outbreak of a war between whatever two parties are experiencing a crisis. That’s not what’s involved here.

The only reason the term crisis comes up regarding U.S.-Israeli relations is the fictional, deliberately inflated view of the relationship as something qualitatively different that ought to defy any of the usual rules that apply to any patron and client or to any bilateral relationship. Sweep aside the politically-driven fiction about two countries that supposedly have everything in common and nothing in conflict and instead deal with reality, and the concept of crisis does not arise at all.

What you have instead is a bilateral relationship that is like many others the United States has, with some parallel interests and objectives along with other objectives that diverge — sometimes sharply — and with honest recognition of the latter being a normal part of business. Being honest and realistic is good for U.S. interests, and in this case it would be good for the long-term interests of Israel as well.

Paul R. Pillar, in his 28 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, rose to be one of the agency’s top analysts. He is now a visiting professor at Georgetown University for security studies. (This article first appeared as a blog post at The National Interest’s Web site. Reprinted with author’s permission.)

Chickenshit Netanyahu insists he is ‘under attack for defending Israel’ after remarks from US official

Quotes from senior Obama administration figures damn Israeli prime minister as ‘chickenshit’ over stance on settlements and peace with Palestinians

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/29/binyamin-netanyahu-a-chickenshit-say-us-officials-in-explosive-interview?CMP=twt_gu

Binyamin Netanyahu is condemned by Obama administration officials in an interview for the Atlantic.

Binyamin Netanyahu is condemned by Obama administration officials in an interview for the Atlantic. Photograph: Amir Cohen/Reuters

US relations with Israel have plunged to new depths of bitterness and hostility as senior officials in the Obama administration decried Binyamin Netanyahu as a “chickenshit prime minister”, “coward” and a man more interested in his own political survival than peace.

The furious assessment delivered in anonymous but no-holds barred comments in an interview with the American journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic underline a state of anger with Netanyahu that is characterised as “red hot”.

The remarks are particularly telling in having been made to Goldberg, a Washington insider who has interviewed both Obama and Netanyahu, and who warned US-Israeli relations were in a “full-blown crisis” that could only get worse after the midterm elections.

Speaking to the Israeli parliament – the Knesset – a few hours after the comments were revealed, Netanyahu angrily insisted he was “under attack simply for defending Israel”, adding that he “cherished” Israel’s relationship with the US.

“When there are pressures on Israel to concede its security, the easiest thing to do is to concede,” he said. “You get a round of applause, ceremonies on grassy knolls, and then come the missiles and the tunnels.”

The Obama officials’ comments underline the dismal state of relations between the Obama administration and Netanyahu after a series of damaging announcements by Israel – including again this week – regarding its determination to push ahead with settlement building in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The temperature of relations plunged again last week when Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Yaalon, was pointedly snubbed by senior administration officials during a visit last week to Washington, which itself followed a public warning from the White House that Israel risked alienating its “closest allies”.

Despite the deepening frustration in Washington, Netanyahu continued to hit back over the latest settlement announcement, saying US criticism was “detached from reality”, even on the eve of the publication of the latest remarks.

“The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” said one official quoted in the Atlantic. “The good thing about Netanyahu is that he’s scared to launch wars. The bad thing about him is that he won’t do anything to reach an accommodation with the Palestinians or with the Sunni Arab states.

“The only thing he’s interested in is protecting himself from political defeat. He’s not [Yitzhak] Rabin, he’s not [Ariel] Sharon, he’s certainly no [Menachem] Begin. He’s got no guts.”

In a more diplomatic and public statement on the recent settlement announcements, the US national security council spokesman Alistair Baskey insisted the US would continue to criticise Israel.

“There are times when we disagree with actions of the Israeli government and we must raise our concerns, such as our concerns about Israel’s settlement policy,” he said. “We raise these concerns as a partner who is deeply concerned about Israel’s future and wants to see Israel living side by side in peace and security with its neighbours.”

In comments designed to further sting Netanyahu, who has expended huge diplomatic effort on attempting to derail any deal with Iran over its nuclear programme, another official suggested the White House no longer believed Netanyahu would launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran to prevent it obtaining nuclear weapons.

“It’s too late for him to do anything,” the official said. “Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.”

A White House spokesman sought to distance the administration from the remarks, insisting they were “inappropriate and counter-productive”, adding Netanyahu and Obama have “forged an effective partnership”.

The comments are the latest in a series of high-profile spats between Washington and Netanyahu’s government. Relations began their sharp decline when defence minister Yaalon accused the US secretary of state, John Kerry, of being “obsessive and messianic” in his pursuit of a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians. Later, in off-the-record remarks, Kerry warned that Israeli risked becoming “an apartheid state”.

On Wednesday Netanyahu told the Knesset: “I am not prepared to make concessions that will endanger our state. Understand, our national interests, topped by security and the unity of Jerusalem, are not what top the interests of those anonymous forces attacking us, and me personally. I am under attack simply because I am defending the State of Israel. If I didn’t stand firm on our national interests, I would not be under attack.

“I respect and cherish the deep connection with the United States. Since the establishment of the state, we’ve had our arguments and then some. We have seen time after time, year and year, support rising among the American public. The strategic alliance between the stances is continuing and will continue.”

Responding to the remarks in the Atlantic late on Tuesday night, Israel’s far-right economics minister, Naftali Bennett, used his Facebook page to call for Washington to renounce the comments: “If what was written [in The Atlantic] is true, then it appears the current administration plans to throw Israel under the bus.

“The prime minister is not a private person but the leader of the Jewish state and the whole Jewish world. Such severe insults towards the prime minister of Israel are hurtful to millions of Israeli citizens and Jews all over the world.

“Instead of attacking Israel and forcing it to accept suicidal terms, it should be strengthened. I call on the US administration to renounce these coarse comments and to reject them outright.”

Hezbollah captured a Takfiri Terrorist moments before blowing himself حزب الله يقبض على إنتحاري قبل لحظات من تفجير نفسه بالضاحية

بالتفاصيل: حزب الله يقبض على إنتحاري قبل لحظات من تفجير نفسه بالضاحية

*صورة تشبيهية 

تمكن الجهاز الامني التابع لحزب الله اللبناني يوم أمس، من احباط عملية تفجير انتحارية في المنطقة التي تربط الطيونة بطريق المطار في الضاحية الجنوبية لمدينة بيروت، حيث جرى ايقاف الانتحاري بعد إصابته بعدة طلقات منعته من اتمام مهمته. 

وفي التفاصيل التي أوردها موقع “بوصلة” القريب من حزب الله، أن إنتحارياً يرتدي حزاماً ناسفاً تم رصده وهو يقود دراجة نارية صغيرة من نوع ( ابريو ) يقودها من منطقة الطيونة بإتجاه طريق المطار القديم، جرى متابعته بعدها واللحاق به بدراجة نارية تابعة لحزب الله وتم اطلاق عدة أعيرة نارية بإتجاهه ما أدى لإصابته وسقوطه عن الدراجة النارية على الفور. 

وبعد ذلك، حضرت سيارة لفرقة تابعة لوحدة الهندسة حيث جرى تعطيل الحزام الناسف واعتقال الإنتحاري الذي يبلغ من العمر 22 سنة بحسب ما أفاد مصدر امني لموقع بوصلة، مع التحفظ على ذكر جنسية الانتحاري. وقد أكد شاهد عيّأن لـ “الحدث نيوز” الحادث، قائلاً ان الحادثة وقعت ظهراً، وان الانتحاري تعرض للضرب المبرح بوسط الشارع من قبل السكان وبعض سائقي السيارات بعد ان انكشاف أمره، على الرغم من محاولات العناصر الامنية ابعادهم من إنفجار الحزام.

See more 

REATED VIDEOS

مع الحدث | حسن حمادة 30-10-2014



River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

Using the Holocaust to justify war on Assad

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

RT

Since its creation after WWII, Israel and friends have been masters at manipulating emotions, endlessly invoking the memory of Hitler’s Germany as a pretext for starting further wars as in the recent Holocaust-themed propaganda against Syria’s government.

“The irony is that the Nazi holocaust has now become the main ideological weapon for launching wars of aggression,” Norman Finkelstein tells Yoav Shamir in“Defamation”, the Israeli filmmaker’s award-winning 2009 documentary on how perceptions of anti-Semitism affect Israeli and US politics. “Every time you want to launch a war of aggression, drag in the Nazi holocaust.”

If you’re looking for evidence in support of Finkelstein’s thesis today, you need look no further than the US Holocaust Memorial Museum’s exhibit of images of emaciated and mutilated bodies from contemporary Syria.

The small exhibit, entitled “Genocide: The Threat Continues,” features a dozen images said to be from an archive of 55,000 pictures allegedly smuggled out of the country by “Caesar”, a mysterious source who claims to have defected from his job as a Syrian military photographer after being ordered to take photos of more than 10,000 corpses.

Emphasizing the threat of an impending genocide, the reportedly conscience-stricken defector warns that a similar fate awaits the 150,000 people he says remain incarcerated by President Bashar Assad’s government.

“They’re powerful images, and viewers are immediately reminded of the Holocaust,”Cameron Hudson, the director of the museum’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide, was cited as saying in an October 15 Associated Press report. Hudson’s intriguing career in genocide prevention includes a stint as intelligence analyst in the CIA’s Africa Directorate.

The museum’s promotion of these Holocaust-recalling images dates from a few months earlier, however. In his July visit to Washington that included a series of meetings with US government and congressional officials, Caesar’s first stop was at the Holocaust Museum.

On July 28, Michael Chertoff, the former secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and a member of the museum’s governing board of trustees, presented the purported defector to a small group of reporters and researchers. According to the Washington Post’s Greg Miller, this event was the first time that Caesar had appeared publicly to answer questions about the photos deemed bysome human rights organizations as evidence of war crimes committed by Assad.

Among the other members of the Holocaust Memorial Council noted for their staunch support of Israel and American interventionism are the pardoned Iran-Contra neocon intriguer Elliott Abrams and Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.

Writing in Foreign Policy’s The Cable on April 23, 2012, Josh Rogin drew attention to Wiesel’s pointed introduction of President Barack Obama at a ceremony in the Holocaust Museum. Comparing the Syrian president and then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the perpetrators of the Nazi holocaust, Wiesel implicitly criticized Obama’s supposedly obtuse inaction, “So in this place we may ask: Have we learned anything from it? If so, how is it that Assad is still in power?”

As Rogin, a regular media conduit for anti-Assad interventionism, pointedly observed, the speech was reminiscent of another one Wiesel gave at the opening of the museum in 1993, when he urged President Bill Clinton to take military action in Bosnia:“Similarly, that speech came at a time when the Clinton administration was resisting getting entangled in a foreign civil war, but was under growing pressure to intervene.”

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

The Israel lobby’s Syrian Interpreter

In a revealing interview published on August 11, 2013, by the Turkish newspaper Today’s Zaman, Caesar’s interpreter at the museum echoed Wiesel’s criticism of President Obama’s resistance to doing the bidding of the neocons and “liberal interventionists”seeking greater American intervention in Syria.

Asked by the Gülen movement-aligned daily if America had forgotten the Syrian war, Mouaz Moustafa replied, “It is the president who is against action in Syria not the whole of the US government. President Barack Obama has been very insular and cautious about Syria.”

It is hardly a coincidence that Moustafa’s rhetoric bears a striking resemblance to that of Israel’s friends like Wiesel. One of best known media-promoted faces of the Syrian opposition in Washington, the executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force has undeniable links to one of the Israel lobby’s leading think tanks.

After it emerged that Moustafa’s non-profit had coordinated Senator John McCain’s May 2013 trip to meet with the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, an examination of the SETF executive director’s background revealed that he was one of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s “experts”; a contributor toWINEP’s Fikra Forum,“an online community that aims to generate ideas to support Arab democrats in their struggle with authoritarians and extremists”; and had addressed the AIPAC-created think tank’s annual Soref symposium entitled“Inside Syria: The Battle Against Assad’s Regime.”

Even more damningly, it was discovered that one of SETF’s web addresses was“syriantaskforce.torahacademybr.org.” The torahacademybr.org url belongs to the Torah Academy of Boca Raton, Florida whose key values notably include promoting “a love for and commitment to Eretz Yisroel.”

When confronted with these embarrassing revelations, Moustafa responded viaTwitter, “call me terrorist/Qaeda/nazi as others have but not Zionist Im [sic] denied ever entering palestine but it lives in me..” Dismissing the intriguing connection to a pro-Israel yeshiva in Florida, he claimed that the“url registration was due to dumb error by web designer.”

The WINEP-linked Moustafa also interpreted for Caesar, who was wearing dark glasses and a blue rain jacket with the hood pulled over his head, when hetestified before a closed-door session of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs this July. At least some of its members would no doubt have recognized the interpreter, however.

As Foreign Policy’s The Cable reported on June 6, 2013, two leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Reps. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Eliot Engel (D-NY), dispatched aides to Turkey to meet leading members of the Syrian Free Army between May 27 and June 3. As The Cable had learned, the meeting had been coordinated by Moustafa’s Syrian Emergency Task Force.

Interestingly, the FP article noted that “the two lawmakers don’t exactly see eye-to-eye on the question of whether the United States should intervene more aggressively in the protracted civil war,” with the stridently pro-Israel Democratic congressman from New York having “carved out one of the most hawkish positions in Congress on Syria, being the first to introduce legislation authorizing lethal assistance for the rebels.”

While Caesar and his American-based Palestinian-Syrian interpreter clearly have the enthusiastic support of Israel’s friends in Washington, the photos presented as evidence of an alleged Syrian “holocaust” by Assad’s forces received their initial boost from one of Tel Aviv’s closest, albeit covert, Arab allies in their mutual war against the Syrian government.

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images/AFP

The Israeli-Qatari Nexus

As part of a review of the photos commissioned by the government of Qatar, David Crane, a former war-crimes prosecutor for Sierra Leone, reportedly spent hours interviewing Caesar. An October 13 Yahoo News report by Michael Isikoff quotes Crane as saying that they document “an industrial killing machine not seen since the Holocaust.”

Like the director of the Holocaust Museum’s Center for the Prevention of Genocide, Crane has also worked for the US government in the intelligence field. His former posts include Director of the Office of Intelligence Review, assistant general counsel of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Waldemar A. Solf Professor of International Law at the United States Army Judge Advocate Generals School.

Having ostensibly left the intelligence world behind him, Crane founded and directs the Syrian Accountability Project (SAP) at Syracuse University’s College of Law, which describes itself as “a cooperative effort between activists, non-governmental organizations, students, and other interested parties to document war crimes and crimes against humanity in the context of the Syrian Crisis.”According to its website, SAP has “worked closely with the Syrian National Coalition” which is listed as one of its clients.

Founded in Doha, Qatar in November 2012, the Syrian National Coalition represents the Free Syrian Army, which has reportedly collaborated with the Al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamist Ahrar al-Sham in massacres of Syrian civilians such as the one this March in the village of Kassab, an ancestral home of Syria’s minority ethnic Armenians, on the Turkish border.

Professor Crane is also vice-president of I Am Syria, whose mission statement describes it as “a non-profit media based campaign that seeks to educate the world of the Syrian Conflict.” I Am Syria’s president, Ammar Abdulhamid, has been a fellow at two of the most prominent Washington-based pro-Israel think tanks, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and the neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies; while one of its education directors, Andrew Beitar, is a regional education coordinator for the Holocaust Museum.

As the case of the mysterious Caesar and his trove of photos clearly shows, those who want to launch a war of aggression on Syria (as they have succeeded in doing in Iraq and Libya) have at every opportunity sought, as Finkelstein put it, to drag in the Nazi holocaust.

As more and more people become wise to this ruse, they should keep in mind the two words espoused by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum: “Never Again.”

Maidhc Ó Cathail

Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer and political analyst

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

RELATED VIDEOS

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

THE TRUTH ABOUT KHAZARS



http://www.iahushua.com/JQ/factsR3.html 
By Benjamin H. Freeman,

Maybe you can explain to me, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the reason why and just how the origin and the history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom was so well concealed from the world for so many centuries?

What secret mysterious power has been able for countless generations to keep the origin and the history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom out of history text-books and out of class-room courses in history throughout the world? The origin and history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom are certainly incontestable historical facts.

These incontestable historic facts also establish beyond any question of doubt the origin and history of the so-called or self-styled “Jews” in eastern Europe. The origin and history of the Khazars and Khazar kingdom and their relationship to the origin and early history of the so-called or self-styled “Jews” in eastern Europe was one of history’s best kept secrets until wide publicity was given in recent years to my research on this subject. Do you not think, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that it is time this whole subject was dragged out of its hiding place?

In the year 1948 in the Pentagon in Washington I addressed a large assembly of the highest ranking officers of the United States Army principally in the G2 branch of Military Intelligence on the highly explosive geopolitical situation in eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Then as now that area of the world was a potential threat to the peace of the world and to the security of this nation I explained to them fully the origin of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom. I felt then as I feel now that without a clear and comprehensive knowledge of that subject it is not possible to understand or to evaluate properly what has been taking place in the world since 1917, the year of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. It is the “key” to that problem.

Upon the conclusion of my talk a very alert Lieutenant Colonel present at the meeting informed me that he was the head of the history department of one of the largest and highest scholastic rated institutions of higher education in the United States. He had taught history there for 16 years. He had recently been called back to Washington for further military service.

To my astonishment he informed me that he had never in all his career as a history teacher or otherwise heard the word “khazar” before he heard me mention it there. That must give you some idea, my dear Dr. Goldstein, of how successful that mysterious secret power was with their plot to “block out” the origin and the history of the Khazars and Khazar Kingdom in order to conceal from the world and particularly Christians the true origin and the history of the so-called or self- styled “Jews” in eastern Europe.

The Russian conquest in the 10th-13th centuries of the little-known-to-history Khazars apparently ended the existence for all time of the little-known-to-history 800,000 square mile sovereign kingdom of the so-called or self-styled “Jews” in eastern Europe, known then as the Khazar Kingdom.

Historians and theologians now agree that this political development was the reason for the “IMPORTANT CHANGE IN THE WORDING OF THE `KOL NIDRE’ by Meir ben Samuel in the 11th century, and for the policy adopted by the so-called or self-styled “Jews” that “THE LAW OF REVOCATION IN ADVANCE WAS NOT MADE PUBLIC”. Will you be patient with me while I review here as briefly as I can the history of that political emergence and disappearance of a nation from the pages of history?

Prior to the 10th century the Khazar Kingdom had already been reduced by Russian conquests to an area of about 800,000 square miles. As you can see on the map from the Jewish Encyclopedia [Reproduced in the book form of this tract, “Facts are Facts”] the territory of the Khazar Kingdom in the 10th century was still by far the largest of any nation in Europe.

The population of the Khazar Kingdom was made up for the most part of Khazars with the addition of the remnants of the populations of the 25 peaceful agricultural nations which had inhabited this approximately 1,000,000 square miles before their conquest by the invading Khazars.

In the 1st century B.C. the Khazars had invaded eastern Europe from their homeland in Asia. The Khazars invaded eastern Europe via the land route between the north end of the Caspian Sea and the south end of the Ural Mountains. (see map.)

The Khazars were not “Semites”. They were an Asiatic Mongoloid nation. They are classified by modern anthropologists as Turco-Finns racially. From time immemorial the homeland of the Khazars was in the heart of Asia. They were a very warlike nation. The Khazars were driven out of Asia finally by the nations in Asia with whom they were continually at war. The Khazars invaded eastern Europe to escape further defeats in Asia.

The very warlike Khazars did not find it difficult to subdue and conquer the 25 peaceful agricultural nations occupying approximately 1,000,000 square miles in eastern Europe. In a comparatively short period the Khazars established the largest and most powerful kingdom in Europe, and probably the wealthiest also.

The Khazars were a pagan nation when they invaded eastern Europe. Their religious worship was a mixture of phallic worship and other forms of idolatrous worship practiced in Asia by pagan nations This form of worship continued until the 7th century. The vile forms of sexual excess indulged in by the Khazars as their form of religious worship produced a degree of moral degeneracy the Khazar’s king could not endure. In the 7th century King Bulan, ruler at that time of the Khazar Kingdom, decided to abolish the practice of phallic worship and other forms of idolatrous worship and make one of the three monotheistic religions, about which he knew very little, the new state religion. After a historic session with representatives of the three monotheistic religions King Bulan decided against Christian and Islam and selected as the future state religion as the religious worship then know as “Talmudism”, and now known and practiced as “Judaism”. This even is well documented in history.

King Bulan and his 4000 feudal nobles were promptly converted by rabbis imported from Babylonia for that event. Phallic worship and other forms of idolatry were thereafter forbidden. The Khazar kings invited large numbers of rabbis to come and open synagogues and schools to instruct the population in the new form of religious worship. It was now the state religion. The converted Khazars were the first population of so-called or self-styled “Jews’ in eastern Europe. So-called or self-styled “Jews” in eastern Europe after the conversion of the Khazars the descendants of the Khazars converted to “Talmudism”, or as it is now know “Judaism”, by the 7th century mass conversion of the Khazar population.

After the conversion of King Bulan none but a so-called or self-styled “Jew” could occupy the Khazar throne. The Khazar Kingdom became a virtual theocracy. The religious leaders were the civil administrators also. The religious leaders imposed the teachings of the Talmud upon the population as their guide to living. The ideologies of the Talmud became the axis of political, cultural, economic and social attitudes and activities throughout the Khazar kingdom. The Talmud provided civil and religious law.

It might be very interesting for you, my dear Dr. Goldstein, if you have the patience, to allow me to quote for you here form Volume IV, pages 1 to 5, of the Jewish Encyclopedia. The Jewish Encyclopedia refers to the Khazars as “Chazars”. The two spellings are optional according to the best authorities. The two are pronounced alike. Either Khazar or “Chazar” is pronounced like the first syllable of “costume” with the word “Czar” added onto it. It is correctly pronounced “cos(tume)Czar”. The Jewish Encyclopedia has five pages on the Khazars but I will skip through them:

  • “CHAZARS: A people of Turkish origin whose life and history are interwoven with THE VERY BEGINNINGS OF THE HISTORY OF THE JEWS OF RUSSIA…driven on by the nomadic tribes of the steppes and by THEIR OWN DESIRE FOR PLUNDER AND REVENGE…In the second half of the sixth century the Chazars moved westward…The kingdom of the chazars was firmly established in MOST OF SOUTH RUSSIA LONG BEFORE THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE RUSSIAN MONARCHY BY THE VARANGIAN (855)…At this time the kingdom of the Chazars stood at the height of its power AND WAS CONSTANTLY AT WAR… At the end of the eighth century…the chagan (king) of the Chazars and his grandees, TOGETHER WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF HIS HEATHEN PEOPLE, EMBRACED THE JEWISH RELIGION… The Jewish population in the entire domain of the Chazars, in the period between the seventh and tenth centuries, MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLE… about THE NINTH CENTURY, IT APPEARS AS IF ALL THE CHAZARS WERE JEWS AND THAT THEY HAD BEEN CONVERTED TO JUDAISM ONLY A SHORT TIME BEFORE… It was one of the successors of Bulan named Obadiah, who regenerated the kingdom and STRENGTHENED THE JEWISH RELIGION. He invited Jewish scholars to settle in his dominions, and founded SYNAGOGUES AND SCHOOLS. The people were instructed in the bible, Mishnah, and the TALMUD and in the `divine service of the hazzanim’.. In their writings the CHAZARS USED THE HEBREW LETTERS … THE CHAZAR LANGUAGES PREDOMINATED… Obadiah was succeeded by his son Isaac; Isaac by his son Moses (or Manasseh II); the latter by his son Nisi; and Nisi by his son Aaron II. King Joseph himself was a son of Aaron, AND ASCENDED THE THRONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE CHAZARS RELATING TO SUCCESSION… The king had twenty-five wives, all of royal blood, and sixty concubines, all famous beauties. Each one slept in a separate tent and was watched by a eunuch…THIS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE BEGINNING OF THE DOWNFALL OF THE CHAZAR KINGDOM … The Russian Varangians established themselves at Kiev… until the final conquest of the Chazars by the Russians…After a hard fight the Russians conquered the Chazars… Four years later the Russians conquered all the Chazarian territory east of the Azov … many members of the Chazarian royal family emigrated to Spain… Some went to Hungary, BUT THE GREAT MASS OF THE PEOPLE REMAINED IN THEIR NATIVE COUNTRY.”

The greatest historian on the origin and the history of the so-called or self-styled “Jews” in eastern Europe was Professor H. Graetz, himself a so-called or self-styled “Jew”. Professor H. Graetz points out in his famous “History of the Jews” that when so- called or self-styled “Jews” in other countries heard a rumor about so-called or self-styled “Jews” in the Khazar Kingdom they believed these converted Khazars to be the “lost ten tribes”. These rumors were no doubt responsible for the legend which grew up that Palestine was the “homeland” of the converted Khazars. On page 141 in his “History of the Jews” Professor H. Graetz states:

  • “The Chazars professed a coarse religion, which was combined with sensuality and lewdness…After Obadia came a long series of Jewish Chagans (kings), for ACCORDING TO A FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE ONLY JEWISH RULERS WERE PERMITTED TO ASCEND THE THRONE…For some time THE JEWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONVERSION OF THIS POWERFUL KINGDOM TO JUDAISM, and when at last a vague rumor to this effect reached them, THEY WERE OF THE OPINION THAT CHAZARIA WAS PEOPLED BY THE REMNANT OF THE FORMER TEN TRIBES.”

When the Khazars in the 1st century B.C. invaded eastern Europe their mother-tongue was an Asiatic language, referred to in the Jewish Encyclopedia as the “Khazar languages”. They were primitive Asiatic dialects without any alphabet or any written form. When King Bulan was converted in the 7th century he decreed that the Hebrew characters he saw in the Talmud and other Hebrew documents was thereupon to become the alphabet for the Khazar language. The Hebrew characters were adopted to the phonetics of the spoken Khazar language. The Khazars adopted the characters of the so-called Hebrew language in order to provide a means for providing a written record of their speech. The adoption of the Hebrew characters had no racial, political or religious implication.

The western European uncivilized nations which had no alphabet for their spoken language adopted the alphabet of the Latin language under comparable circumstances. With the invasion of western Europe by the Romans the civilization and the culture of the Romans was introduced into these uncivilized areas. Thus the Latin alphabet was adopted for the language of the French, Spanish, ENGLISH, Swedish and many other western European languages. These languages were completely foreign to each other yet they all used the same alphabet. The Romans brought their alphabet with their culture to these uncivilized nations exactly like the rabbis brought the Hebrew alphabet from Babylonia to the Khazars when they introduced writing to them in the form of the Talmud’s alphabet.

Since the conquest of the Khazars by the Russians and the disappearance of the Khazar Kingdom the language of the Khazars is known as Yiddish. for about six centuries the so-called or self- styled “Jews” of eastern Europe have referred to themselves while still resident in their native eastern European countries as “Yiddish” by nationality. They identified themselves as “Yiddish” rather than as Russian, Polish, Galician, Lithuanian, Rumanian, Hungarian or by the nation of which they were citizens. They also referred to the common language they all spoke as “Yiddish” also. There are today in New York City as you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, many “Yiddish” newspapers, “Yiddish” theaters, and many other cultural organizations of so-called or self-styled “Jews” from eastern Europe which are identified publicly by the word “Yiddish” in their title.

Before it became known as the “Yiddish” language, the mother-tongue of the Khazars added many words to its limited ancient vocabulary as necessity required. These words were acquired from the languages of its neighboring nations with whom they had political, social or economic relations. Languages of all nations add to their vocabularies in the same way. The Khazars adapted words to their requirements form the German, the Slavonic and the Baltic languages. The Khazars adopted a great number of words from the German language. The Germans had a much more advanced civilization than their Khazar neighbors and the Khazars sent their children to German schools and universities.

The “Yiddish” language is not a German dialect. Many people are led to believe so because “Yiddish” has borrowed so many words from the German language. If “Yiddish” is a German dialect acquired from the Germans then what language did the Khazars speak for 1000 years they existed in eastern Europe before they acquired culture from the Germans? The Khazars must have spoken some language when they invaded eastern Europe. What was that language? When did they discard it? How did the entire Khazar population discard one language and adopt another all of a sudden? The idea is too absurd to discuss. “Yiddish” is the modern name for the ancient mother-tongue of the Khazars with added German, Slavonic and Baltic adopted and adapted numerous words.

Yiddish” must not be confused with “Hebrew” because they both use the same characters as their alphabets. There is not one word of “Yiddish” in ancient “Hebrew” nor is there one word of ancient “Hebrew” in “Yiddish”. As I stated before, they are as totally different as Swedish and Spanish which both likewise use the same Latin characters for their alphabets. The “Yiddish” languages is the cultural common denominator for all the so-called or self-styled “Jews” in or from eastern Europe. To the so-called or self-styled “Jews” in and from eastern Europe, “Yiddish” serves them like the English language serves the populations of the 48 states of the United States. Their cultural common denominator throughout the 48 states is the English language, or wherever they may emigrate and resettle. The English language is the tie which binds them to each other. It is the same with the “Yiddish” language and so-called or self-styled “Jews” throughout the world.

“Yiddish” serves another very useful purpose for so-called or self-styled “Jews” throughout the world. They possess in “Yiddish” what no other national, racial or religious group can claim. Approximately 90% of the world’s so-called or self-styled “Jews” living in 42 countries of the world today are either emigrants from eastern Europe, or their parents emigrated from eastern Europe. “Yiddish” is a language common to all of them as their first or second language according to where they were born. It is an “international” language to them. Regardless of what country in the world they may settle in they will always find co-religionists who also speak “Yiddish”. “Yiddish” enjoys other international advantages too obvious to describe here. “Yiddish” is the modern language of a nation which has lost its existence as a nation. “Yiddish” never had a religious implication, although using Hebrew characters for its alphabet. It must not be confused with words like “Jewish”. But it is very much.

Directly north of the Khazar Kingdom at the height of its power a small Slavic state was organized in 820 A.D. on the south shore of the Gulf of Finland where it flows into the Baltic Sea. This small state was organized by a small group of Varangians from the Scandinavian peninsula on the opposite shore of the Baltic Sea. The native population of this newly formed state consisted of nomad Slavs who had made their home in this area from earliest recorded history. This infant nation was even small than our state of Delaware. This newly-born state however was the embryo which developed into the great Russian Empire. In less than 1000 years since 820 A.D. this synthetic nation expanded its borders by ceaseless conquests until it now includes more than 9,500,000 square miles in Europe and Asia, or more than three times the area of continental United States, and they have not stopped.

During the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries the rapidly expanding Russian nation gradually swallowed up the Khazar kingdom, its neighbor directly to the south. The conquest of the Khazar Kingdom by the Russians supplies history with the explanation for the presence after the 13th century of the large number of so-called or self-styled “Jews” in Russia. The large number of so-called or self-styled “Jews” in Russia and in eastern Europe after the destruction of the Khazar Kingdom were thereafter no longer known as Khazars but as the “Yiddish” populations of these many countries. They so refer to themselves today.

In the many wars with her neighbors in Europe after the 13th century Russia was required to cede to her victors large areas which were originally part of the Khazar Kingdom. In this manner Poland, Lithuania, Galicia, Hungary, Rumania, and Austria acquired from Russia territory originally a part of the Khazar Kingdom. Together with this territory these nations acquired a segment of the population of so-called or self-styled “Jews” descended from the Khazars who once occupied the territory. These frequent boundary changes by the nations in eastern Europe explains the presence today of so-called or self-styled “Jews” in all these countries who all trace their ancestry back to the converted Khazars. Their common language, their common culture, their common religion, and their common racial characteristics classify them all beyond any question of doubt with the Khazars who invaded eastern Europe in the 1st century B.C. and were converted to “Talmudism” in the 7th century.

The so-called or self-styled “Jews” throughout the world today of eastern European origin make up at least 90% of the world’s total present population of so-called or self-styled “Jews”. The conversion of King Bulan and the Khazar nation in the 7th century accomplished for “Talmudism”, or for “Judaism” as “Talmudism” is called today, what the conversion of Constantine and the western European nations accomplished for Christianity. Christianity was a small comparatively unimportant religious belief practiced principally in the eastern Mediterranean area until the conversion to the Christian faith of the large populations of the western European pagan nations after the conversion of Constantine. “Talmudism”, or “Judaism” as “Talmudism” is known today, was given its greatest stimulus in all its history with the conversion of the large pagan Khazar population in the 7th century. Without the conversion of the Khazar population it is doubtful if “Talmudism”, or “Judaism” as “Talmudism” is known today, could have survived. “Talmudism”, the civil and religious code of the Pharisees, most likely would have passed out of existence like the many other creeds and cults practiced by the peoples in that area before, during and after “Pharisaism” assumed its prominent position among these creeds and cults in the time of Jesus. “Talmudism”, as “Pharisaism” was called later, would have disappeared with all its contemporary creeds and cults but for the conversion of the Khazars to “Talmudism” in the 7th century. At that time “Talmudism” was well on its way towards complete oblivion.

In the year 986 A. D. the ruler of Russia, Vladimir III, became a convert to the Christian faith in order to marry a Catholic Slavonic princess of a neighboring sovereign state. The marriage was otherwise impossible. Vladimir III thereupon also made his newly-acquired Christian faith the state religion of Russia replacing the pagan worship formerly practiced in Russia since it was founded in 820 A.D. Vladimir III and his successors as the rulers of Russia attempted in vain to convert his so-called or self-styled “Jews”, now Russian subjects, to Russia’s Christian state religion and to adopt the customs and culture of the numerically predominant Russian Christian population. The so-called or self- styled “Jews” in Russia refused and resisted this plan vigorously. They refused to adopt the Russian alphabet in place of the Hebrew characters used in writing their “Yiddish” language. They resisted the substitution of the Russian language for “Yiddish” as their mother-tongue. They opposed every attempt to bring about the complete assimilation of the former sovereign Khazar nation into the Russian nation. They resisted with every means at their disposal. The many forms of tension which resulted produced situations described by history as “massacres”, “pogroms”, “persecution”, discrimination, etc.

In Russia at that period of history it was the custom as in other Christian countries in Europe at that time to take an oath, vow or pledge of loyalty to the rulers, the nobles, the feudal landholders and others in the name of Jesus Christ. It was after the conquest of the Khazars by the Russians that the wording of the “Kol Nidre” (All Vows) prayer was altered. The new altered version of the “Kol Nidre” (All Vows) prayer is referred to in the Talmud as “the law of revocation in advance”. The “Kol Nidre” (All Vows) prayer was regarded as a “law”. The effect of this “LAW OF REVOCATION IN ADVANCE” obtained for all who recited it each year on the eve of the Day of Atonement divine dispensation from all obligations acquired under “oaths, vows and pledges” to be made or taken in the COMING YEAR. The recital of the “Kol Nidre” (All Vows) prayer on the eve of the Day of Atonement released those so-called or self-styled “Jews” from any obligation under “oaths, vows or pledges” entered into during the NEXT TWELVE MONTHS. The “oaths, vows and pledges” made or taken by so-called or self-styled “Jews” were made or taken “with tongue in cheek” for twelve months.

The altered version of the “Kol Nidre” (All Vows) prayer created serious difficulties for the so-called or self-styled “Jews” when its wording became public property. It apparently did not remain a secret very long, although the Talmud states “the law of revocation in advance was not made public”. The altered version of the “Kol Nidre” (All Vows) prayer soon became known as the “Jews Vow” and cast serious doubt upon “oaths, vows or pledges” given to Christians by so-called or self-styled “Jews”. Christians soon believed that “oaths, vows or pledges” were quite worthless when given by so-called or self-styled “Jews”. This was the basis for so-called “discrimination” by governments, nobles, feudal landholders, and others who required oaths of allegiance and loyalty from those who entered their service.

An intelligent attempt was made to correct this situation by a group of German rabbis in 1844. In that year they called an international conference of rabbis in Brunswick, Germany. They attempted to have the “Kol Nidre” (All Vows) prayer completely eliminated from the Day of Atonement ceremonies, and entirely abolish from any religious service of their faith. They felt that this secular prologue to the Day of Atonement ceremonies was void of any spiritual implication and did not belong in any synagogue ritual. However the preponderant majority of the rabbis attending that conference in Brunswick came from eastern Europe. They represented congregations of Yiddish-speaking so-called or self- styled “Jews” of converted Khazar origin in eastern Europe. They insisted that the altered version of the “Kol Nidre” (All Vows) prayer be retained exactly as it was then recited on the Day of Atonement. They demanded that it be allowed to remain as it had been recited in eastern Europe since the change by Meir ben Samuel six centuries earlier. It is today recited in exactly that form throughout the world by so-called or self-styled “Jews”. Will the 150,000,000 Christians in the United States react any differently when they become more aware of its insidious implications?
How genuine can the implications, inferences and innuendoes of the so-called “brotherhood” and “interfaith” movements be under these circumstances? These so-called movements are sweeping the nations like prairie fires. If the Talmud is the axis of the political, economic, cultural and social attitudes and activities of so-called or self-styled “Jews” participating in these two so-called movements, how genuine are the “oaths, vows or pledges” taken or given in connection with these two so-called movements by so-called or self-styled “Jews”? It would be a superlative gesture of “brotherhood” or of “interfaith” if the National Conference of Christians and Jews succeeded in expunging from the Talmud all anti-Christ, anti-Christian, and anti- Christianity passages. At a cost of many millions of dollars the National Conference of Christians and Jews succeeded in expunging from the New Testament passages which so-called or self-styled “Jews” regarded as offensive to their faith. A great portion of the cost was supplied by so-called or self-styled “Jews”. Christians might now supply funds to expunge from the Talmud passages offensive to the Christian faith. Otherwise the so-called “brotherhood” and “interfaith” movements are merely mockeries.
The National Conference of Christians and Jews might look into the millions of dollars being invested today by so-called or self-styled “Jews” to insure that the Talmud shall remain the axis of political, economic, cultural and social attitudes and activities of so- called or self-styled “Jews” today, and future generations. Violating the basic principle of “brotherhood” and “interfaith” so-called or self-styled “Jews” are spending millions of dollars each year to establish and equip quarters where the teachings of the Talmud can be indoctrinated into the minds of children from the time they are able to read and write. These few news items were selected from hundreds like them which are appearing daily in newspapers clear across the nation:

  • “Two new Jewish Centers, built at a cost of $300,000 will be opened to 1000 students for daily and Sunday school activities next month, it was announced by the Associated Talmud Torahs.” (Chicago Herald-Tribune, 8/19/50.)
    “The Yeshiva School Department now provides daytime an approved English-Hebrew curriculum for grades 1 to 5 (aged 5 1/2 to 10). The afternoon Talmud Torah has opened a new beginner’s class and is accepting enrollment of advanced as well as beginner students.” (Jewish Voice, 9/18/53.)
    “RABBI TO TALK ON TALMUD TO SHOLEM MEN.
    Dr. David Graubert presiding rabbi of Bet Din, and professor of rabbinical literature at the College of Jewish Studies, will present the first of his series of four lectures, “The World of the Talmud’. (Chicago Tribune, 10/29/53.)
    “MARYLAND GRANTS DEGREE IN TALMUD.
    Baltimore, (JTA). New Israel Rabbinical College has been granted here authority by the Maryland State Board of Education to issue degrees of Master of Talmudic Law and Doctor of Talmudic Law.” (Jewish Voice, 1/9/53.)
    “TALMUD LESSONS ON AIR FROM JERUSALEM.
    Weekly radio lectures on the Talmud, in English, will be available shortly on tape recordings for local stations in the United States and Canada, it was announced today.” (California Jewish Voice, 1/11/52.)

Earlier in this letter, my dear Dr. Goldstein, you remember reading a quotation by the most eminent authority on the Talmud to the effect that “THE MODERN JEW IS A PRODUCT OF THE TALMUD.” Would it surprise you to learn that many Christians also are the “PRODUCT OF THE TALMUD”. The teachings of the Talmud are accepted by Christians in the highest echelons. I will only quote one of the subject of the Talmud, the former President of the United States. In 1951 President Truman was presented with his second set of the “63 books” of the Talmud. On the occasion of his acceptance the newspapers carried the following news item:

“Mr. Truman thanked us for the books and said that he was glad to get them as `I have read many more of the ones presented four years ago than a lot of people think’. He said that he did read a lot and that the book he read the most is the Talmud which contains much sound reasoning and good philosophy of life”.

Former President Truman says he benefits by “much sound reasoning” and his brand of “good philosophy of life” which absorbs from the “book that he reads the most.” His recent term in office reflected his study of the Talmud. No one familiar with the Talmud will deny that. But does our former President Truman known that Jesus did not feel the way he feels about the Talmud? The “much good reasoning” and the “good philosophy of life” in the Talmud were constantly and consistently denounced by Jesus in no uncertain terms. Former President Truman should refresh his memory by reading the New Testament passages where Jesus expresses Himself on the question of the Pharisees and their Talmud. Will Mr. Truman state that in his opinion the Talmud was the “sort of book” from which Jesus “drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world” on “moral and religious subjects”?

Before leaving the Talmud as my subject I would like to refer to the most authentic analysis of the Talmud which has ever been written. You should obtain a copy of it and read it. You will be amply rewarded for your trouble in finding a copy of it. I can doubly assure you. The name of the book is “The Talmud”. It was written almost a century ago in French by Arsene Darmesteter. In 1897 it was translated into English by the celebrated Henrietta Szold and published by the Jewish Publication Society of America in Philadelphia. Henrietta Szold was an outstanding educator and Zionist and one of the most notable and admirable so-called or self- styled “Jews” of this century. Henrietta Szold’s translation of Arsene Darmesteter’s “The Talmud” is a classic. You will never understand the Talmud until you have read it. I will quote from it sparingly:

  • “Now Judaism finds its expression in the Talmud, which is not a remote suggestion and a faint echo thereof, but in which it has become incarnate, in which it has taken form, passing from a state of abstraction into the domain of real things. THE STUDY OF JUDAISM IS THAT OF THE TALMUD, AS THE STUDY OF THE TALMUD IS THAT OF JUDAISM . . . THEY ARE TWO INSEPARABLE THINGS, OR BETTER, THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME . . . Accordingly, the Talmud is the completest expression of religious movement, and this code of endless prescriptions and minute ceremonials represents in its perfection the total work of the religious idea . . . The miracle was accomplished by a book, the Talmud , , , The Talmud, in turn, is composed of two distinct parts, the Mishna and the Gemara; the former the text, the latter the commentary upon the text . . . By the term Mishna we designate A COLLECTION OF DECISIONS AND TRADITIONAL LAWS, EMBRACING ALL DEPARTMENTS OF LEGISLATION, CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS . . . This code, which was the work of several generations of Rabbis . . . Nothing, indeed can EQUAL THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TALMUD unless it be the ignorance that prevails concerning it . . . This explains how it happens that a single page of the Talmud contains three or four different languages, or rather specimens of one language at three or four stages of degeneracy . . . Many a Mischna of five or six lines is accompanied by fifty or sixty pages of explanation . . . is Law in all its authority; it constitutes dogma and cult; it is the fundamental element of the Talmud . . . The DAILY STUDY OF THE TALMUD, WHICH AMONG JEWS BEGAN WITH THE AGE OF TEN TO END LIFE ITSELF, necessarily was a severe gymnastic for the mind, thanks to which IT ACQUIRED INCOMPARABLE SUBTLETY AND ACUMEN . . . SINCE IT ASPIRES TO ONE THING: TO ESTABLISH FOR JUDAISM A `CORPUS JURIS ECCLESIASTICI’.”

The above quotations were culled from a treatise intended to sugar-coat the Talmud. In painting a nice word-picture of the Talmud the author could not escape mentioning the above facts also. Coming from this source under the circumstances the facts stated above do not add glory to the Talmud.

__________________________________________________________________
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Related

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

ISIS threatens the Ismaili capital of Syria

The Syrian village of al-Silmiya. (Photo: Al-Akhbar)
Published Thursday, October 30, 2014
The military operation in the northern and western countryside of Hama has almost achieved its goal, with the Syrian army recapturing most of the towns in the region. However, the war is still raging near al-Silmiya front in the eastern countryside, where the threat of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) continues to terrorize local residents. People in Silmiya believe that the Syrian regime “which is taking upon itself to protect minorities” will not forget their city, the capital of the Ismaili minority in the region.
The people of al-Silmiya live in constant fear; “ISIS is at our doorstep,” they say.
Located at one of the most critical roads for both the army and the militants, al-Silmiya is part of Hama’s eastern countryside, halfway between Hama’s western countryside and Idlib. More importantly, the town lies halfway between Hama’s military airport and Khanasser in Aleppo’s countryside, which leads to the city of Aleppo.
The towns of Saan, Saboura, and Akareb located to the northeast of al-Silmiya constitute its defense line against smaller nomadic towns under ISIS control.
Although an army unit led by Colonel Shouheil al-Hassan was dispatched from Aleppo to the western countryside to recapture Rahba Khitab and the surroundings of Mahrada, locals here are still worried that the regime would balk at defending their town if it is invaded by ISIS. Nevertheless, the army’s control of the western countryside and the town of Mork in the north of Hama restored some hope to the people of Silmiya.
A local high ranking figure described al-Silmiya as a dual site for intellectuals and infidels in the midst of a conservative Islamic population “that shares the same affiliation.” But locals reject the use of the term “infidel” to describe the town known as “the birthplace of Cairo and the Fatimid dynasty” [the first Fatimid caliph, Ubaidullah al-Mahdi, was a al-Silmiya native]. They instead substitute “infidel” with poverty, hence intellect in this town is coupled with the poverty of its rebels who advocate the same ideas as those of late Syrian poet Mohammed al-Maghout, a town native.

At the onset of the “Syrian revolution,” al-Silmiya witnessed some unique demonstrations with protesters proudly drinking and raising a glass to the civil revolution.

At the onset of the “Syrian revolution,” al-Silmiya witnessed some unique demonstrations with protesters proudly drinking and raising a glass to the civil revolution. The number of demonstrators reached 4,000 at one point, but it all ended with the first bullet that transformed the protests into a conflict between Islamist fighters and the authorities, while opponents in al-Silmiya tried to distance themselves [from the conflict].
People here are proud that their protesters were the only ones who did not emerge from mosques. However, most residents acknowledge that they were not able to positively influence their surroundings for reasons related to intellectual and sectarian differences.
Bahaa, an opposition member in Silmiya, said “Silmiya was the third town to revolt after Daraa and Banyas; protesters at the beginning raised slogans calling for reform and for solidarity with Daraa and other slogans celebrating Syrian pride.”
ISIS at the doorstep
The specter of war is looming over the far eastern part of the town. In fact, al-Silmiya is separated from al-Shaer Mountain in the north of Homs by the villages of Berri, Okayrbat, and al-Soha, with the last two being important ISIS strongholds located to the east of Silmiya in Hama’s eastern countryside. The demarcation line also surrounds the town from the east to the north, including the villages of al-Mabouja and al-Saan – the last village of Silmiya before the Syrian Desert.
People of Saan engaged in direct battles against ISIS militants who control neighboring Okayrbat. They had to leave their town in a sad exodus which was not covered by the media.
Marwan, a town native who fought alongside the National Defense Forces, said local young men fought to recapture their village and transformed into a confrontation point against ISIS-controlled areas.
He said that the village of Berri is witnessing similar battles against local militants because it overlooks the farms of some villages under militants’ control such as Edima and Um Mil.
About a year ago, ISIS captured the village of Abu Hubaylat, located to the north east of Silmiya, a town that did not have a large population. Meanwhile, local militants control Taksis village in the south west of Silmiya, barricading themselves in the town’s rugged terrain linked to the Assi river basin.
Not far from the threat of militants in Homs’ northern countryside, al-Silmiya is only a few kilometers away from al-Zaafarana and Ezzeddin road which leads to Talbissa and Rastan, where the ISIS threat reemerges from the south.
Hence, al-Silmiya residents will find themselves surrounded from all sides in any upcoming war that would threaten the particularity of this town located in the heart of Syria.
Awaiting the imam
In this poverty stricken town, neglected by the government, people have resorted to the “Imam” Agha Khan. Here, it is normal to hear sentences such as “the Imam ordered us to distance ourselves from the conflict between the regime and Islamists,” or “the Imam will not leave us and he is working to fix our problems.”
Hani, another opposition member in the town, believes that Agha Khan, the leader of an Ismaili sect, has a certain influence on believers but civil and secular individuals do not care about “the orders of the Imam,” and these were the ones who led the protests in the town.
He explained that locals who do not advocate sectarianism are fearful following the fall of many villages in the town’s countryside, in addition to the threat of ISIS that worries everyone.

“The people of Silmiya were never sectarian fanatics, and the supporters of Agha Khan were never his spokespersons like they are today.” – Hani, opposition member

“The people of Silmiya were never sectarian fanatics, and the supporters of Agha Khan were never his spokespersons like they are today,” Hani said, adding “they interpret every sign of danger with great fear and they await some sort of a savior.”
The role of local associations
Like many other Syrian towns, al-Silmiya is coping with the loss of dozens of its young men who were martyred while fighting with the army or the National Defense Forces in battles at its eastern border.
The town has a population of about 150,000 residents, and in the summer it suffered a severe water crisis, after the water pipe running through the lawless al-Waer neighborhood in Homs was cut off.
The problem was temporarily solved in cooperation with Agha Khan association that provided interim alternatives which brought water back to households in Silmiya and parts of Hama.
However, visitors will be shocked to see widespread poverty and chaos in the town despite all the talk about development projects launched by Agha Khan association. Today, the association is focusing on relief efforts in cooperation with al-Birr charity organization and the Higher Shia Ismaili Council.
Ghaleb al-Mir Ghaleb, head of al-Adiyat Charity Organization, said the stature of Agha Khan is deeply rooted in the sect as a spiritual leader. During the crisis, he called upon his followers not to raise arms against the state.
Al-Mir said local associations are working together to help refugees and the poor in the town, and today they are seeking to give out $100 (16,000 Syrian Lira) cash aid to about 20,000 people in Silmiya. In addition, relief organizations are aiding refugees from Talbissa and Rastan who fled to the town since the beginning of the war, without showing off their assistance.
Today, peaceful protests are long gone, and people are left with distant memories of early protesters, some of whom met suspicious destinies. One protester from Akareb village was killed by Harasta rebels who wrote “traitor dog” on his body, accusing him of being an agent of the regime.
Of course, the name of this brave man who touched the hearts of Silmiya’s protesters was listed among the victims killed by the regime which was published by the Center of Documentation of Violations in Syria in 2012, without investigating the details surrounding his death.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Related Artices

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

Hezbollah Hails Heroic Palestinian Operation against Extremist Zionist Rabbi

Local Editor

Hezbollah -  Al-Aqsa MosqueHezbollah hailed the heroic operation against one of the Zionist extremism symbols, asserting that it represents the Palestinian steadfastness, bravery and willing in defending the holy mosque of Al-Aqsa.

Hezbollah also condemned the unprecedented action of the Zionist occupation troops that sealed Al-Aqsa mosque and prevented the Muslim worshippers from praying at it.

The party further denounced the Israeli aggressions against the Palestinians across Jerusalem, what led to the martyrdom of the Palestinian freed prisoner Moataz Hijazi murdered.

Hezbollah called on the Arab and Islamic peoples to jointly support the Palestinians and their heroic resistance.

Source: Hezbollah Media Relations

30-10-2014 – 18:24 Last updated 30-10-2014 – 8:24

Related Articles

Remember November 1, 1954, the beginning of the revolution in Algeria

http://mohsenabdelmoumen.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/remember-november-1-1954-the-beginning-of-the-revolution-in-algeria/

During the period between 1830 and 1962, France practiced brutal racial extermination in Algeria, which led to the killing of 5 million innocent civilians, yes 5 million. Not many people in this world know about this fact because the hypocrite French government, which claims human rights and freedom, doesn’t want you to know about their real ugly face. Because if you know and the world knows then they would be forced to admit their war crimes and apologize to Algeria. Watch this rare video containing real pictures and discover the truth by yourself.

GROWING small (Originally for Samer and now also for Shireen Issawi)

GROWING small (Originally for Samer and now also for Shireen Issawi)

Comments comments (0)

This body represents the earth, the sky and water

You cannot exile all these no matter how you try

These hands will not sign papers to appease misguided reason

for your attempt to imprison this body

The only crime is your attempt

Watch me as I grow small

This body does not bend to your injustice

beat it as you will or kill it as my brothers’ before me

You flail and scream at the earth, laugh in the face of the sky

and cast stale bread upon the water

The only crime is your contempt

Watch me as I grow small

To my people you bring suffering through taking

taking what you believe to be your earth, your sky and your water

Stealing whatever they might possess for the short time their hearts beat in this world

except their dignity. their hopes and their dreams

The only crime is your greed

Watch me as I grow small

From my family you took their shelters and trees and fruits of all their labors

you came like a thief in the night to shatter sleep

Tormenting them in ways your phosphorous, and bombs and missles never could

Yet they are earth and wind and water too and you cannot possess them

The only crime is your avarice

Look at me as I grow small

So foolish you are thinking you have walled us in and that we all are prisoners

whether here in your jails or there in our villages

Thinking that only you deserve the earth, the sky and water

Chosen, you think, so all is yours and all others be damned

The only crime is your arrogance

See me as I grow small

Now you look at me and before you is a man half once his size

Your prison jumper hangs from my limbs

cheeks shallow as my eyes

But I am twice the man you will ever be, Netanyahu

and twice that of these guards and all your soldiers

and all the earth and all the sky and all the water will be free

watch me as I grow smaller and slip through

you cannot stop me

…..M. Dennis Paul, Ph.D.

Muslim Brotherhood specialist: reformists isolated, leadership detached from reality

Thousands of supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and ousted president Mohammed Mursi march through the streets of Cairo in his support on November 8, 2013 in Cairo. (Photo: AFP-Gianluigi Guercia)

By: Hisham Abdel Halim

Published Thursday, October 30, 2014

Ahmed Ban is an Egyptian researcher on Islamist movements and currently runs a research center in downtown Cairo. He was the co-founder of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) and a former member of the Brotherhood’s general assembly before resigning in 2012. Al-Akhbar conducted an interview with him to discuss the current state of affairs in Egypt, the history of the Muslim Brotherhood and how current challenges facing the country can be overcome.

Al-Akhbar: In your opinion, what are the implications of the recent operations in Sinai?

Ahmed Ban: The takfiri groups want revenge on the Egyptian army following the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) [government], where dreams of creating an Islamic Caliphate and an Islamic state in Egypt were shattered.

The recent operations indicated a lack of intelligence related to Sinai, which works in the terrorists’ favor and has led to the failure of the army’s attempts to crush them until today. Confronting such criminal activities requires a strategy. Reports on the evacuation of Sinai’s residents to fight the terrorists are unacceptable. Creating good relations with the tribal sheikhs is imperative now, since the security solution alone will not be enough to confront people who are trained, carry modern weapons, and utilize the Sinai’s [rugged] terrain.

We need a comprehensive plan to address this dangerous phenomenon, where the economy, politics, and culture are considered all together, instead of just security measures, which will only lead to more terrorist operations.

AA: What links does the Muslim Brotherhood have with the extremist groups active in Sinai, who are suspected of links with al-Qaeda in Libya, in particular?

AB: Historically, the Muslim Brotherhood was the first to take up violence, by creating a private structure in 1940, which only became apparent in 1948, when the famous “Jeep” was apprehended and uncovered the case. Violent activities and assassinations continued after that. However, the MB realized this was a dead end in 1966, in conjunction with the executions of Sayyid Qutb and his cohorts.

In the 1970s, however, other groups became active, with the Military Technical College incident, the assassination of al-Sheikh al-Thahabi, and former President Anwar Sadat. This was followed by the [Islamist] wave which hit Egypt in the 1980s and 1990s, with organizations like Islamic Jihad and al-Jamaa al-Islamiya. But most of the leaders of those groups have truly recanted [violence] since 1995. The rest of the leadership contacted al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri. They are currently active in Sinai or the Valley.

The biggest force today is Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, which is comprised of a union between 100 members from al-Naser Salahuddin Brigades – a Palestinian group in Gaza – with al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in Sinai. It also gave birth to a better trained cell called al-Furqan Brigades, which is the biggest threat.

In the meantime, Egyptian authorities attacked the tunnel and weapon smuggling trade [between Sinai and Gaza]. This produced the “sacred alliance” between tunnel traders, arms dealers, and takfiri groups. They aim to wear down the Egyptian state and go back to business.

This intersects with the scenario adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is to exhaust the state. Investigations and the courts will ultimately decide if this is due to coordination between those groups and the Muslim Brotherhood or out of sympathy. However, it is certain that the Sharia Council for Rights and Reform, created after the January 25 Revolution, bolstered relations between the moderate and extremist wings of the Islamist current as a political actor in the sphere of Islamist movements.

AA: How true is the divide between reformists and extremists in the Muslim Brotherhood?

AB: One could say there was always a department promoting the Muslim Brotherhood and creating lines of communications with civil society actors. But this faction did not have any weight inside the Brotherhood. For example, the education committee in the Brotherhood has never seen a reformist member. It seems the Brotherhood has a written code, which is outdated and backwards and a spoken one, which it uses to deal with political and civil forces.

Thus, the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood with the FJP was merely a facade. There was no separation between the proselytising wing and the political entity.

It is deeply regrettable that the head of Misr al-Qawiyya party Abdel-Moneim Aboul-Fotouh could have separated from the party early in the January 25 Revolution, when it began making deals with the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF). He could have taken an important bloc with him, but he was late for sentimental reasons and the chance was lost. It also seems that the zero sum game group took control of the Brotherhood and remains so today. Egypt’s Brotherhood did not learn the lesson of the Turkish or Moroccan experiences and chose the most dismal model.

Today, the imprisoned leadership keeps insisting on leading the organization. There are no reformists available to draw a new theoretical line, but the organization is full of angry members.

However, I call on the reformists inside the Brotherhood – if they exist – to separate themselves from the followers of Qutb who have been controlling the Brotherhood since the 1970s.

They live in a state of total separation from reality due to the spiritual isolation they practice. Although the Brotherhood got lost when it was controlled by Qutb’s followers, since the internal elections in 2009, the Guidance Office has been isolating the reformist MB officials.

AA: What is your contention with Qutb’s supporters, who you said took control of the organization?

AB: The “Qutb” leadership supports reaching power by any means. But it believes this society is composed of infidels or is at least living in the jahiliyyah [pre-Islamic era]. The Qutb group goes back to 1965. Back then, when they were sent to prison, they were called the Group of Tens for being sentenced to 10 years each. They were released in 1975.

This group took control of the administrative offices of the Brotherhood in Egypt and the most important committee, the Education Committee, which formulates the group mentality of the Brotherhood’s members, based on the ideas of Sayyid Qutb.

Qutb’s central idea was based on the dichotomy between al-Hakimiyyah, from the [Quranic verse] “no governance but to God,” and al-Jahiliyyah, meaning that society has steered away from Islam. So, a vanguard [from the Brotherhood] was needed to embody Islam and be a model for society. Thus, the organizational ideology of the MB led them to be a brigade or isolated religious cult, treating society with hostility, instead of permeating its fabric, from 1965 until today.

AA: Nevertheless, the Muslim Brotherhood appeared on the political scene in the 1970s.

AB: Ever since the group looked for some reformist issues to promote a positive mental image of the Brotherhood. This began in earnest during the term of [former MB Supreme Guide] Omar al-Tilmisani in 1973 and the creation of the Brotherhood’s political group, particularly in the universities in the 1970s, which included Issam al-Aryan, Aboul-Fotouh, Hilmi al-Jazzar, Hamed al-Dafrawi, and other student leaders at that time. The MB was on the track of the political process. But when Tilmisani died in 1986, this group was struck a knockout blow and slowly became isolated, until it found itself outside the context of the Brotherhood’s orientation and far from influencing the organization’s mindset.

AA: This week, the pro-Muslim Brotherhood National Alliance to Support Legitimacy raised the slogan “down with the regime.” What do you think of this slogan at this time?

AB: Peculiar… The Brotherhood were political when they needed to be revolutionary. Today, they call for revolution, when the facts on the ground call for cumulative political work. Raising the slogan of overthrowing the regime is an expression of complete separation from facts. The popular mood does not favor revolutions. Egyptians are tired and despondent.

It should not be forgotten that the January 25 Revolution took place before the wave of enlightenment reached Egypt and in the midst of high illiteracy rates and reduced awareness. Tunisia is different, not just due to al-Nahda’s different way of handling political developments and giving priority to building a modern state. The Brotherhood in Egypt favored the interests of their organization. However, Tunisia also benefits from an active and influential civil society.

AA: Will the Egyptian regime’s measures, its police tactics, and animosity towards young people and workers be a blessing in disguise for the Islamists?

AB: Yes. The current regime’s insistence on repeating the mistakes of its predecessors will give the Islamists the chance to return and I don’t believe it is unlikely to witness another revolutionary wave in Egypt. The current landscape is in favor of the interests and aspirations of the Brotherhood to crowd out those who dream of a “new country.” This landscape will be the outcome of the “stupid” policies, which led the symbols of the past to take over the scene once again. The embers under the ash will turn to fire at any moment.

Young people in Egypt were silent and did not participate effectively in the political process. But this was not out of submission and it could become flammable at any moment. I believe the recipe for getting out of the current crisis necessitates an end to assaults on the freedoms and rights of people and moving forward on the questions of national dialogue and transitional justice. They are both part of the roadmap on which the regime bases its legitimacy.

In parallel, a council of elders must be created to reassess the political landscape. Egypt will not rise without national consensus, allowing the state the possibility of stepping out of the circle of reaction and taking the lead.

This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.

Related

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

SYRIAN ARMY LIBERATES HAWSH AL-FAARRA AND SURROUNDS MAYDA’AA; FOREIGN RODENTS FROM U.K. AND AUSTRALIA DIE IN SYRIA

Ziad Fadel

الجيش السوري يطوق ميدعا ويبسط سيطرته على حوش الفارة في الغوطة الشرقية

Hawsh Al-Faarra:  (It means Courtyard of the Female Mouse or the Courtyard of the Female Fugitive)  Whatever it means, the SAA has completely liberated this village as of 2 days ago.

Syria in Last 24 Hours: Army Keeps Terrorists under Siege in Homs City

Mayda’ah:  This important connecting link to the successful campaign to delouse the entire East Ghoutaa is under very tight artillery control as of today with some reports, unconfirmed, indicating the infesting rats had pulled out.  As of right now, it is fair to say that this town will be liberated within the next 72 hours at the most. Let’s hope.

Tal Kurdi:  Major SAA advances into the “industrial zone” here with 9 confirmed rat carcasses dotting the landscape.  All of these vermin belonged to Ahraar Al-Shaam (yawn) and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami Li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam (yawn squared).  This front is of signal importance to the process of choking off the area of Doumaa. It is infested by Jaysh Al-Islam terrorists who are followers of the doomed Zahraan ‘Alloosh.  .

“Al-Sha’laani” (TUNISIAN BARBARY APE FETISHIST. Id pending.)

Shaafi’ Rajab

No other names available.

 

Al-‘Ibb Farms in Doumaa.  This is where ‘Alloosh is cringing in fear.  7 rats killed today belonging to Nusra.

 

Harastaa:  At the Secondary Roundabout, heavy fighting with no details.

الجيش السوري يواصل تقدمه في محوري تل كردي ومزارع العب على مشارف دوما

Harastaa:  East of the Cars Automobile Company, 2 rodents were killed:

Salaah Al-Hayya (PALESTEEZIAN SNAKE SPUNK)

Talaal Ahmad

 

‘Ayn Turma Town:  12 confirmed rats down in a firefight.  Weapons and ammo were seized behind the Police Station and the Municipal Offices.

 

Baalaa Village:  A major triumph for the SAA backed by the NDF here at this little hamlet which was depopulated by the savages of the Nusra crime syndicate.  36 carcasses counted:

Abdul-‘Azheem Deebu

Mustafaa Al-Kawwaa

Fareed Shidaadi

Sa’di Safraa

‘Adnaan Ghuraab

Muhammad Al-Zaahid

‘Umar Al-Shaykh-Hassan

The rest were foreigners mostly from Tunisia and Libya.

قتل وكواتم واختطاف.. جماعة

Jawbar:  To the north. Major fighting continuing.  The SAA continues to advance by taking over several more city   blocks and cleaning out rat infestations.

 

Zamalkaa:  North of the Grand Mosque.  A pickup with 23mm cannon destroyed.  No further details.

 

‘Irbeen:  At the north entrance.  A Truck with weapons and ammo from Jordan was vaporized by alert SAA RPG operators.

‘Abdul-‘Aleem ‘Azeeziyya (JORDANTEEZIAN SCORPION CLONE)

 

Hammooriyya Village:  9 skunks killed.  All were foreigners.

 

Al-Zabadaani:  In the Al-Sultaaniyya Quarter, Ahraar Al-Shaam traitors lost 5 rats.  I have no names.

 

Fighting also reported in Madhaayaa Town, Al-Zamaaniyya, Dayr Salmaan, Doumaa.

القضاء على إرهابيين من

 

Al-Zamraani Crossing at Qaarra on the Leb border.  2 trucks laden with weapons and ammo were destroyed.  All rodents inside atomized by SAAF.

__________________________________________________

MORE ENGLISH AND AUSSIE RODENTS TAKE THE SCENIC ROUTE TO THE RIVER STYX:

Jaffar Deghayes

The dead rodent, Ja’afar Dighayyes, appearing in this photo without a bullet in his empty skull.

British professional rat, of Libyan origin, joins his brother in Hell Syria after receiving an unwelcome projectile into his brain courtesy of the Syrian Army. Tsk tsk.  He is deemed a martyr or something or another by his father.  He decided his own Libya did not need any more incompetent jackdaws so he went to Syria where his one brother was killed already this year and where his third brother is waiting anxiously to complete the hat trick.  What a family!  Soon they will be extinct.

photo taken from Twitter claiming to be Mohammad Ali Baryalei fighting with ISIS.

Muhammad ‘Ali Baryalaay, an Aussie strip-joint bouncer, drug dealer, heroin addict, pimp and pederast seen here carrying the same weapons that would blow up in his face in Idlib a few days ago.  Jihad!  Jihad!

Here he is again all ready to travel to his destination in Hades.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

9/11 Was NATO’s License to Expand Globally

Wayne MADSEN | 30.10.2014 | 00:00

The 9/11 attacks on the United States undoubtedly benefited a number of actors, including the American military-intelligence complex, Israel, and most definitely, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The Cold War-era, the area of responsibility for which had long been confined to Europe and North America, used the provisions of Article 5 of the NATO Charter – which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all – to extend NATO’s power deep into Eurasia, particularly in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Kyrgyzstan.

After engaging in out-of-area invasions and occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, and Syria and, again in Iraq, against the «Islamic State,» the «North Atlantic» military bloc has transformed itself from a Cold War defensive alliance into a global offensive axis of nations that acts with or without United Nations authorization.

NATO has also become an instrument of neo-colonialism. Under its umbrella or the European Union, NATO established quasi-colonial governments in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan, and Libya, as well as a Syrian government-in-exile in Turkey. Political advisers from NATO nations have acted as virtual viceroys, exercising veto authority over the governments installed with Western military might.

The first nation to come under NATO occupation was Bosnia-Herzegovina, created from the ashes of the former Yugoslavia. After NATO’s «Stabilization Force» (SFOR) was dissolved, the European Force (EUFOR) was created. EUFOR’s «OPERATION ALTHEA» authorizes 1600 troops from mostly NATO nations, including France, Italy, Turkey, and Germany, to occupy Bosnia-Herzegovina. EUFOR’s main base is at Camp Butmir, a former Yugoslav air base outside of Sarajevo. Additional troops can be deployed to Bosnia-Herzegovina from NATO’s Kosovo Force (KFOR) in neighboring Kosovo, carved by NATO out of Serbia. Camp Butmir also permits troops from non-NATO members of the EU, particularly Austria, Finland, Ireland, and Sweden, to interface with NATO troops assigned to the base.

EUFOR is also supplemented by a European Police Mission (EUPM), comprising police forces from mostly NATO nations. The European Union Special Representative (EUSR) acts as a political viceroy with effective control over the government in Sarajevo.

NATO exercises political and military control over Kosovo through NATO’s KFOR, which is based at Camp Film City in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo, a nation which remains unrecognized by UN Security permanent members Russia and China. While most NATO nations are opposed to UN membership for Palestine, they wholeheartedly support UN membership for Kosovo, a nation governed by remnants of the Kosovo Liberation Army, once recognized as a terrorist group by the United States and which has been accused of running a number of criminal enterprises, including human organ, narcotics, cigarette, nuclear material, weapons, and stolen automobile smuggling.

KFOR mainly comprises troops from NATO countries Germany, France, the United States, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Romania, and Turkey. Under NATO KFOR command are troops from Ukraine, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Morocco, Armenia, Finland, and Ireland. There is little doubt that NATO’s integration of non-NATO troops in theaters like Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Libya is an attempt to integrate through the back door the armed forces of neutral and non-European nations, yet another indication of NATO’s global expansion. NATO is on a fast track to becoming a worldwide military force for a de facto one-world, largely unelected, government.

KFOR’s commander reports to the NATO Commander of Joint Force Command in Naples, Italy. KFOR’s political adviser exercises de facto veto authority over the «independent» government of Kosovo. The U.S. Army’s main base in Kosovo is at Camp Bondsteel in Ferizaj. The base, built by former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s former company, Kellogg, Brown and Root, is a mini-city complete with American fast-food restaurants like Burger King and Taco Bell, as well as a «Cool Beans Coffee Shop.» In other words, Camp Bondsteel is a virtual U.S. colony in the middle of the Balkans putting on display all of the excesses of America’s «trash culture.»

KFOR troops are engaged in asserting Kosovo control over majority Serbian communes in northern Kosovo and the troops have used «non-lethal» force, including rubber bullets, on Serbs who want to be integrated with Serbia. The plight of the Serbs in northern Kosovo in dealing with Kosovo government criminal syndicates in Pristina is just as dire as the fate of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine who are under threat from neo-Nazi and Ukrainian Jewish oligarch militia forces intent on retaliatory carnage and ethnic cleansing in the Donbass region. NATO has adopted the recalcitrant regimes in Pristina and Kiev as virtual vanguards against Serbia and Russia, respectively.

Although NATO’s presence in Iraq ended with the withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces in 2011, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, housed in America’s largest embassy, continues to play a major political role in Iraq. The most recent example was forcing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, accused of being too pro-Iranian and an «anti-Semite,» to step down from his office in favor of the more pro-Western Haider al-Abadi. Thousands of U.S. military personnel and contractors continue to be based at the Baghdad embassy and U.S. consulates in Basra, Erbil, and Kirkuk. The advance of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) from Syria into Iraq has permitted NATO to restore its presence in Iraq with U.S., Canadian, British, and French aircraft taking part in offensive operations against ISIL forces in the country. U.S. forces have ordered civilians to evacuate the Herir airport in Iraqi Kurdistan so the facility can be transformed into an airbase for U.S. and NATO forces. U.S. and NATO forces are also using Erbil International Airport as a base from which to launch attacks on ISIL forces.

 

NATO, through the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), maintains de facto control over the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia via the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM), which consists mostly of troops from Uganda and Burundi. In addition, the TFG is supported by Ethiopian military forces and CIA operatives. The CIA operates from a secret base at Mogadishu’s Aden Adde International Airport. CIA officers direct the activities of AMISOM’s Ugandan and Burundian forces in Somalia and conduct drone attacks against suspected Islamist guerrillas in the country. The CIA base in Mogadishu also coordinates drone attacks throughout the Horn of Africa and Yemen with other CIA drone facilities in Djibouti, Seychelles, and Oman.

NATO’s Counter-Piracy Task Force 508 (CTF-508), which, ostensibly, operates in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean to counter Somali-based pirates, is also involved in counter-insurgency operations in Yemen directed against Shi’a Houthi rebels and South Yemen independence restoration forces. Such NATO operations are thinly veiled as «anti-Al Qaeda» operations. However, NATO sees Yemeni instability as a reason for it to turn the country into yet another NATO occupied nation. And NATO and its Pentagon masters have long yearned to turn the Yemeni strategic island of Socotra into an Indian Ocean version of Hawaii, a massive U.S. military base in the region that would dwarf the smaller base at Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory far to the south.

The NATO political adviser in Libya, a post pushed by the CIA-backed American Libyan Council, coordinates NATO’s military operations in Libya with Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Morocco. NATO’s military training role in Libya is handled by an «advisory team» based in Brussels but which makes frequent visits to Libya. NATO’s outreach to Arab monarchies in the Gulf, Jordan, and Morocco to become de facto «associate members» of NATO are conducted through the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. NATO’s outreach to Jordan and Morocco, as well as Egypt, Israel, Algeria, Mauritania, Tunisia, and now, Libya, is conducted through the Mediterranean Dialogue.

NATO is also expanding into the Southern Hemisphere. NATO and Colombia have signed a partnership agreement, the first such agreement with a Latin American nation. Colombia reportedly agreed to facilitate the stationing of additional NATO troops in Central America and the Caribbean, including European colonies and ex-colonies such as Aruba, Curacao, Bonaire, St. Maarten, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Belize. NATO controls over 400 islands as «overseas territories» in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean alone, many inhabited with several uninhabited, but all of which could be transformed into military bases.

NATO is no longer a European or North Atlantic entity. However, its supporters prefer to retain the bogus acronym in order to mask NATO’s actual intentions of global military domination and occupation.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

%d bloggers like this: