Debating “The Jewish Solidarity Spin”

May 30, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

by Kim Petersen and B.J. Sabri

Introduction by Gilad Atzmon:

Dissident Voice’s chief editor Kim Petersen and B.J Sabri have published a piece debating my positions. I welcome the challenge, as not a single liberal Jew has been courageous enough to do the same.

In the following piece, Petersen/Sabri dispute some of my recent observations about the corrosive impact of the  Jewish solidarity movement. Their article is three times longer than my original piece. I will keep my introduction short but I want to elaborate on issues that need clarification.  

In my article, The Jewish Solidarity Spin, I deliberately referred to two fictional Palestinian characters. I did so because I expect my readers to put their imaginations into play. Instead of referring to ‘statistics’ or interviewing real Palestinian characters, I expect solidarity enthusiasts to think empathically; putting themselves in other’s shoes. Obviously, I could delve into the actual lives of various Palestinians from the West Bank, the Western Diaspora and Israeli Palestinians. But I did not do so for a reason. I intentionally used characters who,  in my eyes,  exemplify the Palestinian plight – the refugees in the region. It is these people who are totally ignored by the solidarity movement for good reason. In the eyes of the Zionists and their Jewish opponents, the solution to the plight of the Palestinian refugees endangers the existence of their Jewish State. This is what the Jewish solidarity merchants are determined to prevent.

It is important for me to mention that unlike Petersen and Sabri, I am not convinced that granting Palestinians the right to return is more expensive than funding Israeli genocidal militarism and keeping the region in a state of constant war. I would recommend the invaluable work of Salman Abu Sitta on The Refugee Question. According to ABU Sitta, the return is a viable and desirable option.

Most of Petersen and Sabri’s issues with my Jewish Solidarity Spin paper are addressed in my paper itself. But some crucial questions raised by Petersen and Sabri beg for answers.  

 The DV article suggests that I did not offer concrete examples how The Palestinian Right Of Return was diluted by Judeo-centric duplicitous terminology. I don’t agree, in fact this is most of what I do in my paper. I point out how the terms ‘end the occupation,’ ‘colonialism,’ ‘apartheid’ and even the newly morphed BDS have become means to legitimate the Jewish State at the expense of the Palestinians and their plight.

Petersen and Sabri argue that expelling the indigenous population, replacing them with new outsiders, expropriating land and then configuring a process and a government to sustain the theft of the land by the settlers amount to “classical colonialism.”  Again, I don’t agree. The above is an institutional plunder by means of State terror and policies commonly associated with ‘ethnic cleansing’ or Hitlerian racially driven expansionism. While Zionism and Jewish nationalism exhibit some colonialist symptoms, their actions far exceed and definition of colonialism. As a thinker, I strive to identify the syndrome, rather than conflating the symptoms with the disease. 

I am not against BDS ideology or practice. I believe that Israel and its lobbies must be subject to the most severe sanctions.  I do have some issues with a cultural and academic boycott. I do differentiate between an artist and a tomato. I see a difference between an academic and an economic entity such as a soda drink factory. I believe that solutions can come from the free exchange of ideas. I’ll talk to anyone who is willing to engage in an intellectual or ideological  discussion. If BDS accepts the Two State Solution, as Petersen and Sabri suggest, BDS should admit that openly, publically and in Arabic instead of changing its goal statement in English only in a clandestine manner without informing the Palestinian people.

I thank Kim Petersen and Sabri for the time and the effort they spent on my work. I believe that if JVP and other Jewish solidarity organisations had taken a similar approach, they might have saved themselves from the tsunami of resentment they have managed to bring upon themselves in the last few weeks.


Debating “The Jewish Solidarity Spin”

By Kim Petersen and B.J. Sabri / May 28th, 2015

Gilad Atzmon has written a significant essay with no holds barred. He takes on the Jewish solidarity with the Palestinian cause and its implication for the Palestinian Resistance. With solidly constructed arguments, Atzmon opens the floodgates for attentive debates. After introducing his subject with three thematically connected arguments: The Nabil Test, Why Palestine?, Palestine Cause vs. Jewish Solidarity, he goes to the core of matter by identifying the terminology used by the solidarity movement, specifically: Jewish Solidarity; End Of The Occupation; Colonialism; Settler Colonialism; Apartheid; Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS).

The strength of Atzmon’s observations comes from his comprehensive understanding of Israel’s origins, the mentality and ideology of its American and European Jewish supporters, and of the propagandistic infrastructures built to support the Zionist state. No surprise, therefore, that his concise analysis of certain aspects of the solidarity movement has shaped his reasoned convictions whereby he sees that such solidarity hides ulterior motives. Still, and considering all the good arguments he made, did he cover all angles of the situation? Are there gray areas in the many topics he discussed? To what extent can one dismiss or accept solidarity with the Palestinians—be it genuine or conditional? Is he suggesting that the Palestinians forgo Jewish solidarity actions because they are tainted?

A major issue that Atzmon seems to strongly contest is the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) initiatives endorsed by the solidarity movement. He sees the BDS as reneging on the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees. Since he did not discuss the wider scenario, are we to assume that he approves of the BDS as long as it does not come from Jewish concerns? Or is he convinced that from whatever quarters it comes, the BDS is a bad idea for the Palestinian cause? Before we debate this and other views, we state that we agree with Atzmon when he questions the motives animating the Jewish Solidarity Project with the Palestinians. Without a doubt, when such solidarity comes from Western Jewish organizations and individuals, we have every right to treat the offer with skepticism and ask what is the catch, who is giving it, and why.

Why is skepticism warranted?

First, the power of Israel (and Zionism) in the West, the entrenchment of the Zionist ideology amidst not a few Western Jewish groups identifying with the Israeli project, and the ceaseless manipulation of Nazi atrocities against Germans of Jewish faith are all factors that shape the attitudes, political thinking, and ideological approach to the Palestinian issue. It is not expected, therefore, that these groups deviate from deep-seated beliefs and side with the truth about the fascist nature of Israel and the racism of Zionism1 ] as developed from Herzl to Jabotinsky to Begin-Sharon and to Netanyahu. Second, agendas of groups or individuals seeking to solve the Palestinian Issue (or express solidarity with the Palestinians) but without touching the policies of the Zionist state are not only antithetical to Palestinian interests but also deceptive in that they perpetuate through orchestrated duplicity the role of Israel in decapitating Palestinian dignity and inalienable national, social, cultural, and personal rights.

One must also realize there is a strong vocal minority of progressivist secular Jews (or those who no longer identify as Jews) who oppose Israel, Zionism, or both out of intellectual experience and disillusionment with the Zionist experiment and its genocidal bent. The problem is that in such cases, we are dealing with individuals, not organizations. That is, whereas an organization can extend its spheres of actions to many sectors of society and media, an individual often remains a wise voice screaming in the wilderness. Other Jewish groups that side with Palestinians do exist, of course, such as Jewish religious groups. Our strongest impression is that these are ineffectual in putting up much fight with Zionists because throughout history, ethical values rarely, if ever, prevailed in any conflict. Consequently, legitimate suspicion over the intent of solidarity donors is warranted in order to separate the genuine from the bogus.

Let us examine what Atzmon wrote:

The Nabil Test Argument

Delving into the Palestinian and Israeli psyches may be a way to explore the subtle emotional realities assumed to govern both the relations between occupied and occupiers, and their respective expectations. Atzmon did this job well. However, due to its limited dialectical validity—it is farfetched to think that most Israelis and Palestinians think in the same way as Nabil, Yusuf, and Avi—, such an argument cannot be taken as a universal model to implement revamped behavioral responses leading to practical changes on the ground. Neither could it be considered as a litmus test for how things would work versus the Jewish Solidarity Project (JSP) purported to induce Israel to change its genocidal policies and ideological conduct toward the Palestinians. In addition, the 100 years of Zionist encroachment on historic Palestine and the history that passed since then cannot be reduced to imaginary dialogues meant to show the complexity of the situation. Let us examine some of Atzmon’s statements:

Atzmon: “Nabil’s interests lie in the Right Of Return. He may not necessarily want to return to his land. But he wants his rights to be recognized once and for all. He wants his children to have citizenship and enjoy the prospect of a better future.”

Comment: The thesis that Nabil wants “his rights to be recognized …” does not resolve the serious, if not insurmountable, problems that lie ahead. That is, even if the Israelis were to give the Palestinians their natural rights fully and in every respect, the societal, juridical, economic, political praxis, and ideological configurations of the Zionist state would certainly impede the emergence of any genuine Palestinian political identity and institutions, be they independent from Israel or integrated with it.

Atzmon: “Yusuf knows that the ‘End Of Occupation’ has nothing to do with him. Gaza is not under occupation; it is, in fact, an open air prison.”

Comment: Stating that Gaza is an “open air prison” is correct and widely known among those who attempt to ascertain the facts of the situation. But that Gaza is “not under occupation” is a flimsy technicality. Like neurosis or paranoia, Israeli military occupation of Gaza need not be physical to be noticed. It should not be an argument to confirm that the hermetic blockade of Gaza—by air, sea, and land—is the physical demonstration that the occupation exists and it is proceeding by other means.

Atzmon: “Yusuf could correctly argue that colonialism is a theoretical notion that has zero significance to him and his people. Yusuf may well think that when Palestine was subject to the British Mandate, Palestinians were better off. So as far as he is concerned, genuine colonialism might actually improve his situation.”

Comment: The statement that Yusuf could correctly argue “colonialism is a theoretical notion, etc.” is farfetched because Atzmon has already hypothesized that Yusuf is educated; hence, it is certain that he knows what colonialism means exactly and even knows its equivalent Arabic term, although he may consider it in a way not categorized according to Western political lexicon. It is also farfetched because the practical manifestations of colonialism and subjugation are such that adhering to precise definition to identify it is superfluous. Therefore, it cannot be deemed by Yusuf, as Atzmon hypothesized, a “theoretical notion”. Of course, colonialism, as a specialized term in the political dictionary of the West, could be re-named in countless ways by occupied peoples. Yet, however colonialism is defined, the unadulterated meaning is unmistakable. It is either the progressive elimination of a nation to make a space for groups coming from different origins in order to form their own nation as in the classical colonialization of Turtle Island (colonial designation: North America). Or as the forced sharing of land and resources, but with the colonizer maintaining absolute preponderance in everything while reducing the occupied people to meaningless appendages of the occupier—the colonization of South Africa is an example. Where does Zionist colonialism stand? We will discuss that shortly.

Atzmon: “Yusuf may well think that when Palestine was subject to the British Mandate, Palestinians were better off. So as far as he is concerned, genuine colonialism might actually improve his situation.”

Comment: Attributing grades of preference between “genuine” colonialism (British Mandate) and Israeli Zionist colonialism is a non sequitur. It suffices to say that such mechanistic rationalization presupposes that colonized peoples are either predisposed to slavery, incapable of deciding their own destiny, or cannot find the third alternative which is to fight their way out of the shackles of the colonizer. We reject, therefore, a comparison whose inevitable interpretation means a choice between two themes both antithetical to freedom and emancipation. In addition, Atzmon left this comparison to dangle in one regard: how does it work vis-à-vis the solidarity project?

Atzmon: “Yusuf may think there is no Apartheid. He is locked behind walls because he is a victim of Jewish racism or Jewish exclusivism, you decide. Yusuf is not very happy with BDS, to start with it only applies to Israeli products produced in the occupied territories. BDS doesn’t address his plight as a refugee, and like many Gazans, etc.”

Comment: This is another non sequitur. It presupposes that Yusuf has reached the point of intellectual dereliction that he cannot define his situation. We argue: since Yusuf is educated and with good knowledge about history and the conditions of the Gazans under Israeli plans of slow genocide, that he also knows what Apartheid is without the need to look up its Afrikaan’s meaning. He may have other names for it, but he knows what the deprivation of basic human rights is, and he knows very well what the destruction of homes means. Yet, as we stated in the previous comment, Atzmon left this comparison to dangle in one regard: how does it work vis-à-vis the solidarity project?

Atzmon: “[Like Nabil] he wants his rights enforced. For Yusuf, the Right Of Return is the core of the solution to his plight.”

Comment: We agree that he wants his rights enforced. We beg to differ on specificity. We think that Yusuf knows that he would never give up his Right of Return. Yet, he also knows that this is not the core of solution to his plight. Whether he would be living in an independent Palestinian state, or in a dependent but nominally “independent” economic entity tied to the Israel as proposed by Netanyahu, he knows that the plight of Palestinians requires gigantic investment and astronomical, free financial aids that no one will be willing to contribute in the amount needed for a successful, self-sustaining society. He also knows that the Zionist state and its electorates, more than ever prone to extremist fascism,2 have long passed the point of political compromise with the Palestinians. Yusuf, therefore, knows his options are very limited. He also knows that the only thing that he could do at this point, considering the balance of military forces with Israel and U.S. imperialistic objectives in the region, is to wait and see whether the genuine Palestinian Resistance, not Mahmood Abbas and his cronies, could bring about changes to the stalemated liberation of what remains of Palestinian lands.

Atzmon: “When you suggest to Avi that Israel is a colonial state, Avi will giggle, ‘If Israel is a settler state, then I want to return to my mother state, just tell me what this state is.’”

Comment: Atzmon takes issue with the designation of Israel as a colonial state, and as per dictionary definition, he may be correct. Still, we find this to be eminently answerable and thus undermining his point: the state is the country from which Avi’s parents and grandparents emigrated. If his ancestors were citizens, then whether his familial lineage accepted this land as a homeland or not is another matter.

Atzmon: “Avi supports the call all his heart. Avi does not like the settlers, he has nothing to do with them … So far, Avi, a light Israeli patriot agrees with the entire new Palestinian solidarity terminology.”

Comment: First, BDS is a boycott of all goods made in Israel or by Israel in the West Bank. So whether Avi dislikes settlers or not has nothing to do with BDS. BDS cannot be boiled down to only a backsliding on the Right of Return. If the BDS reaches its theoretical maximum effect, then Israel would suffer economically and Avi, as an Israeli, would be equally affected. Israel could/would be forced to back-peddle on its intransigence to the Right or Return or endure the economic consequences. Second, Atzmon, being the scriptwriter for the Avi character, appears to think that settlers are the obstacles to peace. In reality, and for obvious empirical reasons based on how Israel came to exist, we consider that despite statehood, all Israeli Jewish citizens (with some exceptions for Mizrahim and the few hundred Samaritans), whether born in occupied Palestine or descendants of earlier settlers are settlers by logical definition and implication. As such, and considering the choices of Israeli Jewish voters during the past 64 years since the installation of Israel, most, if not a great majority of, Israelis are the obstacle to peace.

Atzmon: “The new Palestinian solidarity terminology is designed to appeal to Avi at the expense of Yusuf, Nabil and the vast majority of the Palestinian people. But the key difference is this: for Avi the Right of Return is a red flag; he sees it as an attempt to rob him of his ‘Jewish homeland.’”

Comment: We doubt this is the “design”; it seems more a byproduct of power politics. Nevertheless, we believe Atzmon is conflating the shifts in the border demarcation in the BDS’s call with the Right of Return. The BDS, as far as we understand, does not reject the Right of Return. It states:

There is hardly a right that is more morally urgent and more legally compelling than the Palestinian right of return. Regardless of who they are, where they came from, or when they became homeless, refugees the world over have an inalienable right to return to their homes. They and their descendants retain that right until the moment of its translation into reality – when they are permitted to return, and can chose whether or not they wish to do so. Far from being an abstract concept, this is a core principle of international law, designed to protect equally any individual or people from ethnic cleansing, dispossession, and national oppression. [Italics added]

The Why Palestine Argument

Atzmon: “Have you ever wondered what is it that attracts people from all over the world to Palestine and the plight of the Palestinians … One possible answer is that Palestine has been a symbol of gross and global injustice. As such, it provides a legitimate ideological, political and spiritual vehicle to criticize Jewish power; the Lobby, Hollywood, Jewish over representation in finance, politics, media and so on.”

Comment: Once the logical question and answer were posed in the premise, fallacy sets in the material that followed. People around the world are attracted to the Palestinian issue, not because of Jewish power, the Lobby, Hollywood, Jewish over representation in finance, politics, media and so on—these are indicators of power in the US and Europe. A logical and most congruent answer would be the Palestinian issue attracts people from around the world because of Israel, its continuous crimes against the Palestinians, and its unremitting will to eradicate them systematically. American and European Jews, like many other groups, covet power. This is a cross-cultural phenomenon denoting resistance to the concentration of power, wealth, and decision-making in few hands. However, when Zionists secure the backing of power attained in the United States and Europe for Israel, the attitude of much of the world toward so-called Jewish power assumes different political tones since the issue is no longer about Jews but about Zionism. And when Zionists use this power to finance Israel from American taxpayers’ money, reactions could follow from any source—American and international. Israel, on the other hand, is another issue despite its extensive network of connections with the Jews of the world. To conclude, people of conscience do not look at Hollywood or media empires and to whoever owns or controls them. Instead, they identify culprits and responsibilities when such owners clearly support Israel and deny Palestinian rights.

Atzmon: “This explanation is consistent with the Zionist and Hasbara claim that anti Zionism is a ‘Jewish issue.’ Seemingly, Zionists and Hasbara merchants aren’t always wrong. Indeed, healthy and genuine opposition to Israel, Zionism and the Lobby entails an understanding of Jewishness, Jewish culture and Jewish identity politics. Zionism is a Jewish nationalist movement, Israel defines itself as a Jewish State, and the Israeli Lobby is a Jewish political adventure concerned primarily with Jewish interests. Bottom line- Israel and its crimes can only be understood fully within the context of Jewish racism, Jewish exceptionalism and Jewish culture.”

Comment: Conceptually, Atzmon’s thesis is sound. We have many reservations on a few concepts such as identity, etc. The subject though goes beyond the scope of this work. Having stated that, we think, with very good reasons, that besides Jewish racism, Jewish exceptionalism, and Jewish culture, Israel and its crimes can be fully understood when correlated to the unprecedented protection given to it by the imperialist system. Take this protection out of the equation, and Israel will shrivel like a dry leaf.

Atzmon: “Is the situation in Palestine more dramatic than malnutrition in Africa or the horrors in Syria and Iraq?”

Comment: This is an erroneous analogy. On the surface, it seems congruent to compare the Palestinian plight to Iraqis and Syrians thus intentionally leading to a possible NO as an answer. The Palestinian Issue is like nothing else in the world history. In summary: Jewish European Zionists working under the wings of scheming British colonialism gathered unrelated people (whose remote ancestors had never lived in what has become known as Palestine) from disparate places and origins and transferred them to modern Palestine under the pretension that the land they migrated to belongs to them based on assumed religious connections with an ethnically differently people who lived in the same area over 2000 years ago. Once the pretension came to fruition, the remaining objective was to replace the Palestinians with the intruders at a heavy price—to the Palestinians, of course. By contrast, Iraq’s devastation by the U.S. was of 1991, followed by 13-years of U.S. sanctions and blockade, and the invasion and occupation (2003) that are lasting until today under many guises. As for Syria’s devastation by American-Saudi financed, armed, and trained “Islamist organizations”, it cannot be compared (temporally, socially, economically, or politically) to the devastation that the Palestinians are enduring at the hands of the Israelis. And here we are pointing to the Israeli attempt to erase, permanently, the Palestinian identity, historical heritage, and rights.

The Palestine Cause vs. Jewish Solidarity Argument

Atzmon: The Right Of Return offers a clear course of action that unites Palestinians in the region and in the Diaspora, but it evokes fear amongst Israelis, Zionists and Jewish anti Zionists. Jewish solidarity has been shockingly effecting in subduing the call for the Right of Return. It was gradually diluted and eventually drowned in a tsunami of duplicitous terminology designed to appeal to Jewish supporters …”

Comment: This is a strong charge, and if it is true, then the anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist front has to take a clear position on the issue. However, Atzmon did not offer concrete examples how this is so and what are the dialectical investigations he made thereof to prove his charge?

The End of the Occupation Argument

Atzmon: “The ‘End of The Occupation’ is a legitimization of Israel through the back door – it confirms that the Jewish State within the pre-1967 green line borders is a valid and legitimate political unit. ‘End of the Occupation’ limits the solidarity discussion to the West Bank; it is nothing short of a spit in the face to 6,000,000 Palestinian refugees and a complete dismissal of their right of return.”

Comment: We endorse the statement without any reservation—he put strong teeth in the weak and paralyzed mouth of the truth. Further, if he sees Israel going back to the pre-1967 borders an act of legitimization, then the right thing to do, as per the original Palestinian National Charter of 1964, is to declare the entire Zionist influx to Palestine since the early 1900s, as well as the occupation that followed as null and void. The Charter also declares that regardless of the passage of time, Palestine will always belong to the Palestinians, and that Zionism has no claim on Palestine or for a state on it. What we just said is the meaning that the phrase, “The ‘End of The Occupation’ is a legitimization of Israel through the back door – it confirms that the Jewish State within the pre-1967 green line borders.” Agreed, but this is taking us back to square one. The issue would then become this: because the existence of Israel is illegitimate, then how to reverse it?

The Colonialism Argument

Atzmon: “But Zionism is not colonialism nor has it ever been… Zionism is a movement with no precedent in history. Can you think of another historical moment when people ‘returned’ to an imaginary ‘homeland’ after 2000 years and asked the indigenous population to move out to make room for the former ‘residents?’”

Comment: Zionism is not colonialism is confusion made simple. Yes, they are different, but that is only semantics and the distinction stops there. Since Zionists defined Zionism as the “‘national” movement for the Jewish people to return to their mythical homeland in Palestine, the following was the practical consequence of that definition. The planning and implementation of that return could not have proceeded without 1) transformational action: expelling of the original population and replacement with new groups, violent intimidation to the Palestinians to leave, expropriation of land, buying properties from unsuspecting Palestinians, and 2) organizational processes to configure a sustained settlement of the new people to avoid potential return to native countries. What we just described cannot be but an organized, classical colonialization through material processes denoting the physical application of the colonialist theory through transfer (not immigration), encroachment on and the expropriation of land where the Zionist project wanted to install its state, pointedly—Palestine.

In his Iron Wall (1924), Vladimir Jabotinsky expressed the concept of colonialism as follows: “Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.” For how Herzl outlined his colonialist plan for Palestine, read here. And to cap the issue, read this from JTA: “Invite American [sic] to Zionst [sic] Colonization Department.” If Zionism, besides its declaratory manifesto, is not colonialist, colonist, or colonizing, then what is it? Of course, one could substitute other terms such as dispossessing and annexationist, but the effect would be very much the same just with different terminology, so it seems unfruitful in this regard to be sidetracked in word play

The Settler Colonialism Argument

Atzmon: “Another grossly misleading term promulgated by the Jewish progressive solidarity campaigners is ‘colonialism.’ It seems a desperate attempt to further conceal the truth of the Jewish National project.”

Comment: Yes, it is misleading, but it could also be said that Atzmon is engaging in semantics. Yes, there is no motherland in the traditional sense, but there is an influx of settlers/colonists—driven by the purpose of colonialism (Herzl expressed this sentiment when he praised the vision of British colonialism in Africa (read here). We also agree on the attempt to mislead. As we argued above (under the heading The Colonialism Argument),we consider terminologies excogitated to differentiate between various forms of colonialism as a tactic meant to empty the original concept of colonialism by creating the impression that such terminologies are unrelated or have different meanings and whose acceptance has been rendered more propitious by the meaning accorded to it.

Atzmon: “But the term ‘settler colonialism’ does not illuminate anything.”

Comment: It illuminates that Ashkenazim are people from outside historical Palestine.

The Apartheid Argument

Atzmon: “Apartheid is a racist system of exploitation but Israel doesn’t want to exploit the Palestinians, it wants them ‘gone.’”

Comment: This is an excellent point. Countless writers pointed to the genocidal intent and nature of the Zionist state, but the point was made most effectively by comrade Gary Zatzman.3

Atzmon: “At least from an ideological perspective, Israel is a Hitlerian racially driven, expansionist ethnic cleanser.”

Comment: Does Hitler need to be dragged into this? There are no races; there is no such thing as Jewish people.4 This is a group-driven crime. Moreover, we find the term “ethnic cleanser” diversionary. Even Ilan Pappe has changed his stance; he now acknowledges it as genocide.5

The BDS Argument

Atzmon: “It is devastating that even the call for BDS has become an instrument to legitimise the Jewish State within its pre 1967 borders.”

Comment: Atzmon poses a direct challenge to BDS. Does it legitimize the Jewish state or does it cave into contemporary power realities?

Atzmon: “The Jewish world and Israeli society are focused on the West Bank and have no interest in Gaza or the sand around it.”

Comment: It is certain, however, that the dispossessors have much interest in the shores of Gaza as a maritime front for tourism but also, and most importantly, in the hydrocarbons that lay offshore from Gaza.6

Atzmon: “How did it happen to the Palestinians that their solidarity discourse is attuned to the voice of the oppressor rather than the victim?”

Comment: It is fair enough for outsiders (in this case defined as non-Palestinians who do not suffer the dispossession, occupation, and oppression) to question perceived injustices in resisting dispossession. But ultimately, the decisions must be rendered by the aggrieved people, the Palestinians themselves. One of us (Kim Petersen) has argued this point versus the supposed BDS skeptic, Noam Chomsky.7 Could this argument not be thrown back at Atzmon? It would seem prudent to make clear that Atzmon is merely raising the question and hopes that Palestinians do soul searching to arrive at their own decisions on how to resist dispossession, occupation, and oppression.

Atzmon: “When the call for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions of Israeli goods was established in 2005 in Ramallah its first demand was for Israel: End[ing] its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantl[ing] the Wall…. But in 2010, its primary goal was changed significantly, it now reads: ‘Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.’”

Comment: We agree. However, the BDS movement in the Jewish Solidarity concept is in line with the two-state solution that many Palestinians — out of desperation — have accepted. It is no surprise, therefore, that many European states, known for their open support of the Zionist state and accepting of its atrocities, are now recognizing a state called Palestine. Is that for the love of Palestine? No. We firmly believe that the European move would likeliest not have been made without collaboration with the United States, American Zionists, and Israel. Objective: to allow for two things: 1) give Israel the time to shape the configuration of the envisioned Palestinian “state” while taking notice of changes on the ground, and 2) the Europeans know that they cannot force Israel through the UN or other means to change its plans for Palestine. Is the BDS, therefore, playing games? Quite possibly, but that does not diminish other aspects of the initiative.

The Jewish Solidarity Pet Argument

Atzmon: “A decade of Jewish left hegemony within the pro Palestinian movement has reduced the Palestinians and their plight into a mere ‘solidarity pet.’ …”

Comment: Atzmon’s observation may be relevant, but only in the context of the Jewish left (western and Israeli), not the Palestinian cause. To be sure, this cause is not fought inside the corridors of the Jewish Left or any other Left, it is independent from it, and it is fought inside Palestine. Did the solidarity movement change anything on the ground? No; yet the Palestinians welcome any act of solidarity, especially from the Jewish Left to show that not all Jews are callous, fascist Zionists. Sure, this posturing is opportunistic. But what can the powerless Palestinians in the West Bank of the Jordan River (and Gaza) do about it, if Mahmood Abbas and his gang accept it? Besides, has any solidarity movement eliminated the Israeli genocidal blockade of Gaza? Interestingly, do the Palestinians buy everything they hear? We need to ask them! Our impression: notwithstanding the true motivations that drive the Jewish solidarity movement, the role it plays is decidedly relevant although of no special consequential or practical importance: it keeps the Palestinian issues from sliding into oblivion.

Atzmon: “The Jewish world and Israeli society have no interest in Gaza … But Israelis and world Jewry do care about the West Bank … It is this internal Jewish political debate regarding the West Bank that has managed to shape the entire Palestinian solidarity discourse diverting the attention from the Palestinians and their true cause.”

Comment: Let us agree with Atzmon’s conclusions but with reservations on the key idea that shaped them. He did not explain in which way actions or positions taken by the solidarity movement divert attention from the Palestinians. This seems to be Atzmon’s concern: as Palestinians and supporters are concerned with issues such the project of Israelis and American Zionist Jews to keep the West Bank of the Jordan River,8 expel its citizens to Jordan, or declare a still-born Palestinian state in Gaza, here come American Jewish groups preaching sanctions and divestments, all while leaving the core of the Palestinian cause largely untouched—the right of return, for example. Yes. We agree that such initiatives could potentially distract from fundamental issues whose importance goes well beyond incidental matters. Among such issues is the ultimate, logical goal (seeing that the two-state solution is no longer viable), which is to dismantle the Zionist structures of Israel and turn the Zionist state into a Palestine open for all its current peoples. Considering this argument, is Atzmon proposing to stop the solidarity movement and concentrate on this ultimate goal? We believe such a question is diversionary and inconsequential. The BDS is a plank in obtaining justice for Palestinians. The writers take it that Atzmon’s goal is that the BDS movement not sacrifice Palestinian territory or rights due to the rigors of decades of occupation. As the people most directly affected, morally, this is a decision for the Palestinian masses to decide.

Atzmon: Would Nelson Mandela allow a bunch of recovered Afrikaners run the Anti- Apartheid struggle on his behalf? …”

Comment: Excellent point! However, the Palestinians did not appoint JVP, IJAN, JFJFP, J-big, Mondo Weiss, etc. to speak on their behalf, and never asked them to run the struggle for them. Likewise, no one asked us to comment on Gilad Atzmon’s essay, but we felt that our unwavering commitment to fairness, to justice, to the struggle against imperialism, colonialism, Zionism, fascism, and violence is a very strong motive to participate in the discussion.

Zionist Authorities Sent Hamas’ Barghouthi to Confinement after Radio Interview

Israeli prison services on Sunday stormed the cell of Hamas leader Abdullah al-Barghouthi in Rimon prison after it was revealed that he had given a telephone interview to a Gaza-based radio station from inside the prison.


An Israeli prison spokeswoman told Ma’an that the former al-Qassam Brigades commander had been sent into solitary confinement and would face trial.

Israeli media reported that prison officers searched the prison cell for the phone.

During the interview with the Hamas-affiliated al-Rai radio station, Barghouthi called on Hamas and its military wing al-Qassam Brigades to take their time as they negotiate a prisoner swap deal with the Zionist entity. “Don’t hasten, because we are firm and perseverant,” he said.

He added,

“We won’t change and we shall remain firm regardless of whether we are released today or after a thousand years.”

In response, a spokesman for al-Qassam Brigades Abu Ubayda tweeted:

“Freeing you (all prisoners) is a duty we are committed to, and your jailers will eventually vanish.”

Barghouthi is serving 67 life terms, the highest sentence ever handed down by an Israeli military court, after he was convicted of ‘multiple attacks in Israel.’ He has been detained since March 2003.

Source: Agencies


31-05-2015 – 15:27 Last updated 31-05-2015 – 15:27

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

Gilad Atzmon on the The Richie Allen Show

May 27, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

The Richie Allen Show in association with featuring Arash Derambarsh on forcing supermarkets to stop throwing away unwanted food and Gilad Atzmon, jazz saxophonist and writer  talking about his new book

Richie is always fun to talk and listen to. I particularly love his ‘devil advocate’ style… he is very good at it.

A to Zion,
Buy it now before it is banned!!!

 Order online in the USA:

Order online UK & Europe:

Saudi-led Coalition against Yemen Still Using Cluster Bombs: HRW

Human Rights Watch on Sunday published new evidence showing a Saudi-led coalition is using internationally banned cluster bombs in Yemen, urging it to stop such attacks that were harming civilians.

Children killed in Saudi-led strikes

The New York-based watchdog said it documented the use of three types of cluster munitions in Yemen, where Saudi-led warplanes have pounded Yemeni cities since March 26.

“The Saudi-led coalition and other warring parties in Yemen need to recognize that using banned cluster munitions is very likely to harm civilians,” said HRW’s senior emergencies researcher Ole Solvang. “These weapons can’t distinguish military targets from civilians, and their unexploded submunitions threaten civilians, especially children, even long after the fighting,” she added in a statement.

The organization said the banned munitions had wounded civilians including a child in attacks on northern city of Saada, pointing out that a HRW team had visited Saada province this month.

Two of three people wounded in one attack from the air were likely to have been civilians, while the source of ground-fired cluster bombs that wounded four other civilians, including a child, was not determined, HRW said. Both cases took place in an area under attack by the coalition, it added.

According to the World Health Organization, the Saudi aggression has since March killed almost 2,000 people and wounded 8,000, with hundreds of women and children among the casualties.

Source: AFP

31-05-2015 – 11:16 Last updated 31-05-2015 – 1:16

Related videos

الإخبارية السورية || تغطية خاصة ومباشرة 31-5-2015 حسين الفياض

 نشرة قناة المسيرة على قناة نبأ الفضائية

بانوراما | اليمن بين تصعيد العدوان السعودي| العالم 

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

Israel’s Alliance with al-Qaeda

By Asa Winstanley

Global Research, May 30, 2015

al qaeda-Israel

Since January, I have been ploughing a lonely furrow in this column by covering what is certainly one of the most under-reported stories in the world right now: Israeli involvement in the war in Syria. 

Almost unnoticed by the mainstream media, Israel’s occupation forces in the Golan Heights have been in alliance with the Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s official franchise in Syria. This alliance certainly includes logistical support and may even extend as far as arming al-Qaeda rebels in south-western Syria.

In January, I showed how the reports of UN peacekeepers in the Golan had talked of regular contacts between rebel forces in that Israeli-occupied sector of Syria. They also observed, according to a June report, Israeli soldiers “handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition” from the Israeli-occupied side to the Syrian-controlled side.

According to further reports by UN peacekeepers, such interactions continued after Quneitra (a town containing a key checkpoint between the Israeli-occupied and Syrian-controlled sectors of the Golan) was overrun by the Nusra Front.

In March, I wrote on how an Israeli army spokesperson had now confirmed these reports. He clarified that this extended to logistical support in the form of medical aid to al-Qaeda rebels. “We don’t ask who they are, we don’t do any screening,” the unnamed Israeli military official told the Wall Street Journal. “Once the treatment is done, we take them back to the border [sic – ceasefire line] and they go on their way [in Syria],” he said.

For several years now there have been propaganda reports in the Israeli press about how Israel is supposedly playing a purely “humanitarian” role in the Syrian war, by treating civilians and sending them back. But this has now been exposed as propaganda. If that were really the case, Israel would be treating combatants from all sides in the Syrian war and furthermore it would arrest suspected al-Qaeda militants. But in reality, all reports confirm that the Israelis are treating only the “rebel” side, including the al-Qaeda militants that lead the armed opposition in that area of Syria (as indeed they do in much of the country). The key difference that disproves the propaganda line, and proves an active Israel-al-Qaeda alliance is that, after treatment, instead of arresting them, the al-Qaeda fighters are sent back to fight in Syria. There is no chance at all that, in the event that Israel captures injured Hamas, Hizballah or Iranian combatants alive, it would send them back to Gaza or Syria to “go on their way”, as the unnamed Israeli official put it.

After all, Israeli forces in that area have, during the course of the war, made several air-strikes on what they claimed were Hizballah targets in Syria. If Israel were genuinely opposed to al-Qaeda, it would hit their positions too. But it seems that Israel prefers al-Qaeda over Hizballah and Iran.

In April, I reported how Israel had started to cover up its alliance with al-Qaeda. It seems that the propaganda line about their humanitarianism had not been bought by many, so they took measures to stop too much being revealed. Sedqi al-Maqet, a pro-government Syrian activist from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, was arrested, with a military gag-order initially banning the Israeli press from reporting the case. Al-Maqet had used his residence in the Golan to report from his Facebook account in Arabic about contacts he said he had witnessed between Israeli armed forces and what he termed terrorists active in the Syrian-controlled sector of the Golan. One of these videos, aired on Syrian state TV, was used to charging him with “spying”.

Since those reports, there have been further confirmations of the Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance. The most oblique of these came from David Ignatius, the Washington Post associated editor and foreign affairs columnist. Earlier this month he wrote that ”Jordan and Israel have developed secret contacts with members of the Jabhat al-Nusra group along their borders.”

The second new confirmation came from the Israeli press in the form of Ron Ben Yishai, an Israeli war reporter for Yediot Ahronot, a popular Israeli tabloid. The report, which included video (vetted by the Israeli military) of a hospitalised Syrian rebel (possibly an al-Qaeda militant) with a obscured face, mostly took the usual propaganda line, singing the praises of the wonderful morality of the glorious Israeli army.

In the video, Lieutenant Colonel Dr. Itzik Malka claims of the 1,600 wounded he said have arrived in Israel from Syria, “the majority are women, children and elderly people” (my emphasis). That’s another implicit acknowledgement that Israel is treating wounded militants from Syria (the majority of whom in that area are al-Qaeda). And Ben Yishai himself in the article accompanying the footage states that “wounded Syrians have been arriving almost daily to the security fence, seeking medical help. It is likely that most if not all of these nationals are rebels from the rival jihadist Islamic State and al-Nusra Front groups”.

All this would be a massive scandal were an official “enemy” of the West, like Iran, or the Syrian government, credibly reported to have aided a terrorist group like al-Qaeda. We would have been bombarded with headlines about it, much like we are currently bombarded with headlines about the evils of the “Islamic State”.

But why has all this been pretty much ignored by the mainstream press? Last month, I tried to draw some of the strands together, and suggest how this Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance fits into the wider fight in Syria and the region, especially the latest al-Qaeda offensive in Syria.

We can say with confidence that the mainstream press in the West supports Israel, and so does not find it convenient to report on this scandalous Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance in Syria. But it’s crucial to understand that this is part of a wider pattern in which the West’s alliances with (to say the least) morally-dubious regional actors are ignored, downplayed or actively disguised by the media.

As I have argued previously, the US and the UK were in large part to blame for the rise of the forces that eventually became the “Islamic State”. They can be said to have created “Islamic State,” since the 2003 invasion of Iraq (and especially the very consciously sectarian policy of divide and rule that the occupation regime enforced there) created the swamp in which al-Qaeda in Iraq (which later became the “Islamic State in Iraq,” which in turn re-branded and became the “Islamic State of Iraq and Sham” when it expanded into Syria and is now know as just the “Islamic State”) was born.

But, reports the sterling investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed, a newly-declassified Pentagon report has now proven that Western intelligence agencies were aware, as far back as August 2012, that “Islamic State” could arise and furthermore they even wanted it to happen.

The Defense Intelligence Agency report stated that “there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime”. Today, the so-called Islamic State’s power base is in the east and north of Syria, and it controls most of the regions around Deir al-Zor, the regional capital of that eponymous eastern region. The city itself is still contested between regime and ISIS forces.

The report (revealed by an American conservative group’s freedom of information request) clarifies in a preceding paragraph that “supporting powers” is a reference to “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey”. The term “western countries” here is likely supposed to include Israel. In any event, such intelligence is likely to have been shared with Israel.

So with Israel aware that the West was engaged in such cynicism with al-Qaeda-type groups in Iraq and Syria, it’s no wonder Israel feels itself permitted to engage in an active alliance with al-Qaeda in Syria.

An associate editor with The Electronic Intifada, Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist who lives in London.

Daesh End Game: How and Why CIA in Switzerland Created ISIS as Cover for Bio-Nuclear Terror Attacks



10 Reasons Why Switzerland is Home to the CIA

By David Chase Taylor,


SWITZERLAND, Zurich — Ever since ISIS declared the formation of a Caliphate on June 29, 2014, there has never been a more well-armed, well-funded, or well-organized group of terrorists in the world. Consequently, who really created ISIS and for what purpose has remained a mystery—until now.

In short, the 700-year cover of the CIA in Switzerland was officially blown for the first time in history by whistle-blower journalist David Chase Taylor in his shocking new book “Greenland Theory: Apocalypse Now” (2014) which was published globally on December 21, 2014.

Although Taylor hinted that the CIA may be located in Switzerland in report published back in 2013, he only began to accumulate hard evidence that Switzerland is harboring the CIA roughly 6-months prior, hence the creation of ISIS around the same time.

ISIS was, therefore, created by the Swiss CIA in order to terrorize the world with Weapons of Mass Destruction (MWD) so that information about Switzerland’s secret role as the progenitor of assassinations, terror attacks and wars would be lost in the aftermath of nuclear terror attacks and biological pandemics.

Consequently, the CIA is now in a race against time to destroy the world as we know with ISIS-related terror attacks in a last-ditch effort to hide the fact that the CIA is located in Switzerland, the eye of the storm which has been free of terror attacks and war for over 500-years.

The notion that Switzerland would create and fund a group of rouge terrorists to terrorize humanity by killing scores of people is not that farfetched considering Switzerland was home to Swiss Mercenaries who, historically speaking, were the CIA’s henchmen, just like ISIS terrorists are today.

When determining guilt in respect to ISIS, three aspects must first be established: a) motive, b) means, and c) opportunity. As evidenced, Switzerland has all three: motive—their cover has been blown; means—they are home to Swiss banks, namely the BIS; and opportunity—they harbor the one and only CIA.


1. ISIS is code word for the Syrian Rebels and vice versa

2. ISIS was created by the CIA in Switzerland

3. ISIS is named after Suisse, an official name of Switzerland

4. ISIS is funded by the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland

5. ISIS operates under 7 aliases while Switzerland operates under 9

6. ISIS was created as CIA cover for biological and nuclear attacks

7. ISIS is primarily composed of U.S. and NATO Special Forces

8. ISIS is armed and equipped by the U.S. military

9. ISIS is trained in Jordan under the guise of the Syrian Rebels

10. ISIS will eventually be linked to the Pakistani ISI, likely leading to World War III







R E L A T E D :


David Chase TaylorIf I am Suicided,
Killed in a Car/Train Accident,
or Assassinated via Islamic Jihad Attack
in Switzerland within the Next 48 Hours

An Open Letter by
Whistle-Blower Journalist
David Chase Taylor




PDF - 10 Reasons Why Switzerland is Home to the CIA & Created ISIS

TrutherNews - "ISIS ENDGAME: CIA in Switzerland Created ISIS"

TrutherNews - "10 Reasons Why Switzerland is Home to the CIA"

Submitted by 'The Old Sniper' 
The real SyrianFreePress.NETwork at:

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!

Iraqi Forces Escalate anti-ISIL Campaign in Ramadi recaptured Anbar traffic police building

Iraqi troops recaptured Anbar traffic police building from ISIL

Iraqi Forces Escalate anti-ISIL Campaign in Ramadi
Local Editor
Iraqi ArmyIraqi media outlets stated that the Iraqi army and the Popular Mobilization Forces launched a major campaign against ISIL terrorists in Ramadi in Anbar province.A source from the leadership of the Popular Mobilization Forces pointed out elite troops lead the campaign.

The Iraqi Ministry of Defense announced that 20 ISIL terrorists were killed western Anbar in a complex intelligence operation.

Al-Manar Website

30-05-2015 – 18:00 Last updated 30-05-2015 – 18:00


Related Video

Iraqi forces liberate Sayyid Ghareeb from ISIL terrorists

العراق وتطويق داعش في الرمادي لتحريرها | العالم

 Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

Nasser Kandil: June dancing on Hot Tin

60 دقيقة مع ناصر قنديل 29/5/2015

 Related Videos
الإخبارية السورية || الجزء الأول من الفلم الوثائقي الذي يتحدث عن الإرهاب 

استديو الحدث : طارق الاحمد | الاخبارية السورية


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

Forget FIFA corruption, what about the UN: UN considers leaving Israel off child’s rights violators list

UN envoy: Israel is a state that harms children

UN considers leaving Israel off child’s rights violators list, would compare IDF to Boko Haram

Report lists countries where serious violations against children’s rights have occurred.

By Reuters, Tovah Lazaroff, JPost
May 29, 2015

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is leaning toward not including Israel on a list which would compare the IDF to Boko Haram and ISIS when it comes to violating children’s rights in armed conflicts, according to diplomatic sources.

Earlier this week Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke with Ban about the report, which was authored by Leila Zerrougui, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.

At issue is an annex to the report, which would place Israel on a list with terror organizations and states that are considered to be among the world’s worst human rights abusers.

Netanyahu told Israeli reporters on Thursday that he had warned Ban these comparisons may start with Israel, but they risk destroying international norms.

Ban has the discretion to make changes to the report which has been Zerrougui has submitted to his office prior to its June publication.

U.N Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s special envoy for children and armed conflict, Leila Zerrougui Photo by Mohammed Huwaid /AFP / Getty Images

In an annual report on the state of children in armed conflict delivered to the UN Human Rights Council in March, Zerrougui spoke of her concern for Palestinian children in Gaza who were killed and injured during last summer’s war between Israel and Hamas.

She compared their situation with that of five other worst crisis areas such as the Central African Republic, Nigeria, South Sudan and Syria.

“In the State of Palestine, at least 539 children were reportedly killed during the Israeli military operations launched in Gaza between 8 July and 26 August 2014. Thousands more were injured and suffered life-long disabilities or lost family members, homes, schools and hospitals in the bombings,” Zerrougui said in her March report.

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said Ban had not made a decision on whether to include Israel on the annex list of worst groups and states when it comes to harm done to children in armed conflict.

Four-year-old Shaima al-Masri, wounded on July 9th 2014. Photo from B’Tselem

Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said Israel had reason to believe that Ban would remove the IDF from that list.

A draft of the report by Ban’s special envoy for children and armed conflict, Leila Zerrougui of Algeria, included the IDF for incidents including attacks on schools and hospitals in the Gaza Strip war last year. It also cited reports of violations by the Palestinian group Hamas during the conflict.

During last summer’s conflict, 66 IDF soldiers and six Israeli civilians were killed, according to Israeli statistics. Israel further counts 2,140 Palestinians killed, of which half were militants. The UN counts 2,200 Palestinians deaths of which it calculates that 605 were militants.

A UN inquiry published in April said Israeli soldiers had fired on seven UN schools during the Gaza war, killing 44 Palestinians who were sheltered at some of the sites, while Palestinian fighters hid weapons and launched attacks from several empty UN schools.

Human rights organizations have given the United Nations arguments for listing the IDF and Palestinian groups like Hamas on the annex list in Zerrougui’s report.

Some sources said UN officials had indicated to rights groups that the IDF and Hamas would most likely be on the list.

“Now, under pressure from Israel, the secretary-general is leaning towards not heeding the recommendation of Ms. Zerrougui and probably won’t include Israel,” one source said.

Other UN diplomatic sources echoed this and spoke of heated discussions among senior UN officials, with one argument being the IDF should not be categorized with groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan.

On April 27, following release of the UN inquiry, Human Rights Watch recommended to Ban that Israel and Hamas be listed. The group’s Philippe Bolopion wrote that in their case the UN’s “standard of a pattern of violations involving a multiple commission of acts has been met.” He said countries had been listed for less serious violations.

Israel could join Isis in United Nations list of groups and states that harm children

By Adam Leyland, The Independent
May 29, 2015

Israel may be included in a blacklist of states and organisations that cause harm to children, after a push by a top UN envoy to include the country alongside the likes of Islamic State (Isil) and al-Qaeda for its conduct during the 2014 attack on Gaza.

U.N Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s special envoy for children and armed conflict, Leila Zerrougui, included the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) on a draft annual list of states responsible for violating children’s rights in armed conflict.

If included in the blacklist, Israel could join groups such as Isis, Boko Haram and the Taliban. It could also lead to harsh UN sanctions and international isolation.

Zerrougui’s draft report cited IDF attacks on schools and hospitals during the 2014 war in the Gaza Strip, along with violations by the Palestinian group Hamas, who she is expected to include in the list.

U.N Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, however, is said to be leaning towards not including Israel in the list, amid what several diplomatic sources anonymously said was intense lobbying from Israel.

However, U.N spokeswoman Stephane Dujarric has said he had not yet made a decision to include the country in the report, which is due in the coming weeks.

The sisters of the four boys of the Bakr family who were killed on the beach by naval fire

Israel’s 50-day war in Gaza, dubbed Operation Protective Edge, was launched in July 2014. Over 2,100 Palestinians, including hundreds of children were killed in the conflict, along with 67 Israeli soldiers and six civilians in Israel. The UN has estimated over 20,000 homes have been rendered uninhabitable following Israeli attacks.

The envoy’s draft report criticises Israel’s treatment of children, saying the 2014 attack on Gaza killed 500 children and left 3,300 wounded.

Elsewhere, the plight of Gaza’s children has been well documented. Unicef reported earlier this year that 373,000 shell-shocked children in Gaza were in need of psycho-social support following the conflict.

Hamas are expected to be put on the UN list of organisations harming children over their conduct during the Gaza war. (AP) Hamas are expected to be put on the UN list of organisations harming children over their conduct during the Gaza war. (AP)
A UN inquiry in April cited an Israeli attack on seven UN schools during the war, which killed 44 Palestinians who were sheltering at the sites. Palestinian fighters, meanwhile, had hidden weapons and launched attacks from a number of empty UN schools.

In March, the Guardian reported that senior UN officials in Jerusalem had caved in to Israeli pressure to not include the country in Zerrougui’s list following telephone calls from senior officials, though since then the UN is believed to have changed course.

In the US, which is Israel’s closest ally, senator Lindsey Graham threatened to cut funds to the UN if Israel was blacklisted, claiming it was an attempt to marginalise the country.

“There’s a report that may come out any day now where the United Nations is considering the State of Israel in the same category as Boko Haram when it comes to crimes against children,” he said.

“If that ever happened, if the United Nations embraced a report putting the State of Israel in the same categories with terrorist organizations in terms of the way they treat innocent people, particularly children, that would be an outrage that would not go unanswered.”

In response to the report, a senior Foreign Minister official in Israel said: “Israel-haters are threatening the United Nations and no one is complaining about them. It’s a scandal and it’s hypocrisy.

“There are unfortunately a lot of situations in which children are killed in zones of conflict and yet no one dares put them on the list. Do you know how many kids the Saudis have killed while bombing Yemen? I want to see the UN secretary-general’s Algerian envoy dare to include Saudi Arabia on the list.”

Israel has denied that they have pressured the UN into excluding the country from the list. Israel’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said, “There is absolutely no Israeli pressure on the U.N. secretary-general. The pressure comes from those countries who want to include Israel in the worst possible list.”

“Those countries are motivated by hatred and totally blind to their own failings,” he said. “This is a heinous and hypocritical attempt to besmirch the image of Israel and it is doomed to fail.”

Additional reporting by Reuters

Politics the sole motive for the USA’s attack on FIFA, including of course the attempt to ban israel for racism


China Backs Putin on FIFA, Slams US

This article originally appeared at The BRICS Post

An editorial in China’s state-run Xinhua on Saturday accused the US of pursuing “geopolitical objectives” in disguise of a probe into corruption in football’s top governing body, FIFA.

In growing signs of an entente between Russia and China, portions of the Chinese editorial have said the US is “killing two birds with one stone” by trying to “act like a hero” and wrecking Russia and Qatar’s hosting of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup.

Beijing is allying with Russian President Vladimir Putin who has accused the US of using the corruption probe to try to block the re-election of FIFA chief Sepp Blatter for resisting attempts to remove Russia’s right to host the 2018 World Cup.

Russia-hating, Godless Liberals are Behind the FIFA Scandal

This article originally appeared at

Try and find any public information that shows that Sepp Blatter is guilty of any of the charges of fraud or corruption that have ever brought against him. You won’t find it. The only thing Blatter seems to have been “found guilty of” is “political incorrectness”, aka crimes against Western, liberal, capitalist, secular, atheist, war-loving culture.

For example, Blatter advised gay football fans planning to go to Qatar – a brutal dictatorship supported by the West and ruled by Sharia law, where homosexuality carries the death penalty – to “refrain” while there. That’s pretty good advice in my opinion.

Blatter also allegedly suggested that women footballers dress in a more feminine way to improve attendance rates. While that carries more than a hint of sexism and misogynism, this is sound business advice in this capitalist, sex-obsessed, free market driven, morality-free, money-is-all-that-matters Western world.

As to his “bizarre winner’s speech”; on what basis can this be considered “bizarre” when compared to the paramoralistic verbiage regularly spewed by the average Western politician. Blatter says “we need more women in FIFA” – just like every goddam political party leader in the Western world. He also mentioned god. How exactly is that bizarre when 2/3 of the global population believes in some kind of god? But I forget, he is being targeted by the liberal, godless, materialism-worshipping and warmongering West. No god here please, unless he support war and genocide.

In mentioning god, Blatter was obviously playing to his support base. His support base is mostly made up of the countries that the US and EU love to exploit and keep subservient. Blatter was therefore guilty of the ideological crime of giving African countries an equal vote and say in the running of FIFA. In other words, he did exactly what our own Western and British governments steadfastly refuse to do – give ordinary people true democracy.

And let’s look at the Western media claim that the Blatter’s win in the election “demonstrated the huge divisions at the congress”. The result of the vote was 133 votes to 73. i.e. Blatter got almost 65%, an almost 2/3 majority, yet this is touted by the scurrilous Western media as “huge division”. In the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron recently ‘won’ the general election with a ‘majority government’ with less than 25% of the national vote, and with the approval of just 1/3 of those who voted! Yet Cameron repeatedly declares that obvious statistical lie that he has been given a “clear mandate.”

Equally risible is the hysteria over all these “bribes” for this or that “exclusive commercial right”. Just substitute the word “fee” for “bribe” for those exclusive rights and you have Western capitalist business as usual. What utter hypocrisy to condemn Sepp Blatter for doing what every other big wig in the West is doing! – i.e. filling their boots, lining their own pockets and abusing their office at public expense.

The staggering hypocrisy of the Western elite knows no bounds, and the involvement of the FBI is the truly bizarre element in this whole affair. The USA is barely even a football nation and FIFA is a world body, not subject to any national jurisdiction. The chances that, before this week, most members of the US Department of Justice had never even heard of FIFA are pretty high. But it all begins to make sense when you understand the real motivation for these indictments.

Mr Blatter’s only real “crime” is that FIFA, not Blatter, awarded the 2018 World Cup to Russia, the bane of the anglo-American empire. Qatar is thrown into the mix as a cover for what is clearly an attack on Russia. Public opinion is rightly scandalized by the awarding of the 2022 world cup to that human-trafficking, slave trading cesspit of a British and American client regime, but make no mistake, Qatar is not the real target. Russia is. While Blatter has been reelected, don’t expect this ‘scandal’ to go away, because the US government isn’t about to drop the ball in its ongoing campaign to destroy Putin’s Russia.


The Heroism and Bravery of the Syrian Arab Army

The Heroism and Bravery of the Syrian Arab Army

In an interview on Al Mayadeen TV on 22 May 2015 with Mohammad Raad, the senior official in Lebanese Hizbullah and head of the Hizb’s parliament bloc, Mr. Raad highly praised the heroism of the Syrian Arab Army in a way most of those who hate reality deny, or even can imagine as they were trying to refute all the time.

Some radicals and fanatics counted on the supporters of Syria claim the SAA is a defeated army and if it wasn’t for the Hizbullah and Iranian assistant Syria would have collapsed, this should serve as an awakening slap to the ugly faces of these fanatics.

For a gullible American audience NYT repeats israel’s classic “making the deserts bloom myth”

Aided by the Sea, Israel Overcomes an Old Foe: Drought

No mention at all of the fact Israel takes 80 percent of Palestinians’ water from a major West Bank aquifer The Israeli ‘watergate’ scandal

Or that B’Tselem has reported that 90 percent of the water in the Gaza Strip is undrinkable — and 1.8 million Palestinians live there.


israel’s excuse for supporting ISIL terrorists, ” It protects us against Iran’s non-existent nukes”

Zionist Media: ISIL “Last Barrier” to Protect ’Israel’ from Nuclear Iran

Zionist media outlets considered that the terrorist group of ISIL is the last barrier which protects the Zionist entity as well as some Arab countries from Iran and the axis of resistance.

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also supported this point of view by saying that “Nuclear Iran threatens Israel thousand times more than ISIL.”

A number of other Zionist officials also noted that the terrorist ISIL group does not pose a real danger against ‘Israel’.

The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, revealed that the Zionist government and al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria, Nusra Front, as well as other militant gangs reached an agreement which stipulates that the terrorist groups abstain from the attacking the entity and guarantee its security.

In this context, the Zionist circles expressed their fear of the sophisticated techniques that Hezbollah is using in his war against the terrorist groups in Qalamoun barrens.

Media`s deafening silence over West`s and israel`s alliance with al-Qaeda in Syria

Media`s deafening silence over West`s and Israel`s alliance with al-Qaeda in Syria

The strange and strategic alliances of Middle East geopolitics never seems to surprise. But care to suggest that the West and Israel are in deep cahoots with al-Qaeda in Syria and expect a sharper look of incredulity.   

Yet, two vital new articles now fully illuminate this very reality.
The first is from Dr Nafeez Ahmed, analysing the profound implications of a recently declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document. It’s key finding, notes Ahmed: 
‘Supporting powers want’ ISIS entity
In a strikingly prescient prediction, the Pentagon document explicitly forecasts the probable declaration of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.” Nevertheless, “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” fighting to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar)”:

“… there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran).”

The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran. Crucially, Iraq is labeled as an integral part of this “Shia expansion.” The establishment of such a “Salafist Principality” in eastern Syria, the DIA document asserts, is “exactly” what the “supporting powers to the [Syrian] opposition want.” Earlier on, the document repeatedly describes those “supporting powers” as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.” Further on, the document reveals that Pentagon analysts were acutely aware of the dire risks of this strategy, yet ploughed ahead anyway.
If only ‘the best’ of our news outlets were leading the way with such challenging and damning journalism. The fanciful idea that we’d ever see these kind of revelations heading the BBC’s Six O’Clock News, or even Channel 4 News, says all we need to know about why the mass population is still in the dark about the West’s true, deceitful agenda in Syria and the Middle East at large.
Secondly, consider the same deafening media silence on Israel’s particular role in this alliance, the details this time forensically documented by independent journalist Asa Winstanley:

For several years now there have been propaganda reports in the Israeli press about how Israel is supposedly playing a purely “humanitarian” role in the Syrian war, by treating civilians and sending them back. But this has now been exposed as propaganda. If that were really the case, Israel would be treating combatants from all sides in the Syrian war and furthermore it would arrest suspected al-Qaeda militants. But in reality, all reports confirm that the Israelis are treating only the “rebel” side, including the al-Qaeda militants that lead the armed opposition in that area of Syria (as indeed they do in much of the country). The key difference that disproves the propaganda line, and proves an active Israel-al-Qaeda alliance is that, after treatment, instead of arresting them, the al-Qaeda fighters are sent back to fight in Syria. There is no chance at all that, in the event that Israel captures injured Hamas, Hizballah or Iranian combatants alive, it would send them back to Gaza or Syria to “go on their way”, as the unnamed Israeli official put it.

Winstanley provides multiple corroboration of Israel’s supportive role, including the testimonies of Israeli military figures and a few braver field journalists. 
Further sporadic pieces on these clandestine collaborations have been seeping through. (As for the supposedly more-favoured ‘moderate rebels’, it’s also worth noting that Netanyahu’s recent re-election was warmly greeted by leading FSA figures.) But it’s still a far cry from any headline narrative of Western-Israeli mendacity. So, again, why, with all that accumulated evidence, is this not a major media story?
Of the virtual media blackout, Winstanley concludes:

We can say with confidence that the mainstream press in the West supports Israel, and so does not find it convenient to report on this scandalous Israeli-al-Qaeda alliance in Syria. But it’s crucial to understand that this is part of a wider pattern in which the West’s alliances with (to say the least) morally-dubious regional actors are ignored, downplayed or actively disguised by the media.

All of which lends continuing gloss to the pristine illusion that the West is ‘fighting the good fight’ on ‘civilization’s behalf’ against the barbarian forces now controlling half of Syria and laying waste to cradles of ancient culture like Palmyra. 
Isis and al-Nusra Front have long constituted the key anti-Assad opposition in Syria. We now have definitive proof that the West, its Gulf allies, Turkey and Israel have been promoting and protecting those very forces all along.
As millions of innocents in Syria and Iraq continue to die and suffer, the core cause of that historic carnage, Western invasion and proxy warmongering, remains an all-too awkward and avoidable subject for serious media discussion.
Encouragingly, this kind of independent, untainted journalism is serving to bring us the dual truths of Western criminality and media complicity. Please help spread and support that new media front.   

As the USA’s power declines it will become more dangerous and prone to taking even greater risks

The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower

by Michael Klare

Take a look around the world and it’s hard not to conclude that the United States is a superpower in decline. Whether in Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, aspiring powers are flexing their muscles, ignoring Washington’s dictates, or actively combating them. Russia refuses to curtail its support for armed separatists in Ukraine; China refuses to abandon its base-building endeavors in the South China Sea; Saudi Arabia refuses to endorse the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal with Iran; the Islamic State movement (ISIS) refuses to capitulate in the face of U.S. airpower. What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of such defiance?

This is no small matter. For decades, being a superpower has been the defining characteristic of American identity. The embrace of global supremacy began after World War II when the United States assumed responsibility for resisting Soviet expansionism around the world; it persisted through the Cold War era and only grew after the implosion of the Soviet Union, when the U.S. assumed sole responsibility for combating a whole new array of international threats. As General Colin Powell famously exclaimed in the final days of the Soviet era, “We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, ‘Superpower Lives Here,’ no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe.”

Imperial Overstretch Hits Washington

Strategically, in the Cold War years, Washington’s power brokers assumed that there would always be two superpowers perpetually battling for world dominance.  In the wake of the utterly unexpected Soviet collapse, American strategists began to envision a world of just one, of a “sole superpower” (aka Rome on the Potomac). In line with this new outlook, the administration of George H.W. Bush soon adopted a long-range plan intended to preserve that status indefinitely. Known as the Defense Planning Guidance for Fiscal Years 1994-99, it declared: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.”

H.W.’s son, then the governor of Texas, articulated a similar vision of a globally encompassing Pax Americana when campaigning for president in 1999. If elected, he told military cadets at the Citadel in Charleston, his top goal would be “to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity — given few nations in history — to extend the current peace into the far realm of the future. A chance to project America’s peaceful influence not just across the world, but across the years.”

For Bush, of course, “extending the peace” would turn out to mean invading Iraq and igniting a devastating regional conflagration that only continues to grow and spread to this day. Even after it began, he did not doubt — nor (despite the reputed wisdom offered by hindsight) does he today — that this was the price that had to be paid for the U.S. to retain its vaunted status as the world’s sole superpower.

The problem, as many mainstream observers now acknowledge, is that such a strategy aimed at perpetuating U.S. global supremacy at all costs was always destined to result in what Yale historian Paul Kennedy, in his classic book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, unforgettably termed “imperial overstretch.” As he presciently wrote in that 1987 study, it would arise from a situation in which “the sum total of the United States’ global interests and obligations is… far larger than the country’s power to defend all of them simultaneously.”

Indeed, Washington finds itself in exactly that dilemma today. What’s curious, however, is just how quickly such overstretch engulfed a country that, barely a decade ago, was being hailed as the planet’s first “hyperpower,” a status even more exalted than superpower. But that was before George W.’s miscalculation in Iraq and other missteps left the U.S. to face a war-ravaged Middle East with an exhausted military and a depleted treasury. At the same time, major and regional powers like China, India, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have been building up their economic and military capabilities and, recognizing the weakness that accompanies imperial overstretch, are beginning to challenge U.S. dominance in many areas of the globe. The Obama administration has been trying, in one fashion or another, to respond in all of those areas — among them Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and the South China Sea — but without, it turns out, the capacity to prevail in any of them.

Nonetheless, despite a range of setbacks, no one in Washington’s power elite — Senators Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders being the exceptions that prove the rule — seems to have the slightest urge to abandon the role of sole superpower or even to back off it in any significant way. President Obama, who is clearly all too aware of the country’s strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness to retreat from such a supremacist vision. “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation,” he told graduating cadets at West Point in May 2014. “That has been true for the century past and it will be true for the century to come.”

How, then, to reconcile the reality of superpower overreach and decline with an unbending commitment to global supremacy?

The first of two approaches to this conundrum in Washington might be thought of as a high-wire circus act.  It involves the constant juggling of America’s capabilities and commitments, with its limited resources (largely of a military nature) being rushed relatively fruitlessly from one place to another in response to unfolding crises, even as attempts are made to avoid yet more and deeper entanglements. This, in practice, has been the strategy pursued by the current administration.  Call it the Obama Doctrine.

After concluding, for instance, that China had taken advantage of U.S. entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan to advance its own strategic interests in Southeast Asia, Obama and his top advisers decided to downgrade the U.S. presence in the Middle East and free up resources for a more robust one in the western Pacific.  Announcing this shift in 2011 — it would first be called a “pivot to Asia” and then a “rebalancing” there — the president made no secret of the juggling act involved.

“After a decade in which we fought two wars that cost us dearly, in blood and treasure, the United States is turning our attention to the vast potential of the Asia Pacific region,” he told members of the Australian Parliament that November.  “As we end today’s wars, I have directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia Pacific a top priority.  As a result, reductions in U.S. defense spending will not — I repeat, will not — come at the expense of the Asia Pacific.”

Then, of course, the new Islamic State launched its offensive in Iraq in June 2014 and the American-trained army there collapsed with the loss of four northern cities. Videoed beheadings of American hostages followed, along with a looming threat to the U.S.-backed regime in Baghdad. Once again, President Obama found himself pivoting — this time sending thousands of U.S. military advisers back to that country, putting American air power into its skies, and laying the groundwork for another major conflict there.

Meanwhile, Republican critics of the president, who claim he’s doing too little in a losing effort in Iraq (and Syria), have also taken him to task for not doing enough to implement the pivot to Asia. In reality, as his juggling act that satisfies no one continues in Iraq and the Pacific, he’s had a hard time finding the wherewithal to effectively confront Vladimir Putin in Ukraine, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, the various militias fighting for power in fragmenting Libya, and so on.

The Party of Utter Denialism

Clearly, in the face of multiplying threats, juggling has not proven to be a viable strategy.  Sooner or later, the “balls” will simply go flying and the whole system will threaten to fall apart. But however risky juggling may prove, it is not nearly as dangerous as the other strategic response to superpower decline in Washington: utter denial.

For those who adhere to this outlook, it’s not America’s global stature that’s eroding, but its will — that is, its willingness to talk and act tough. If Washington were simply to speak more loudly, so this argument goes, and brandish bigger sticks, all these challenges would simply melt away. Of course, such an approach can only work if you’re prepared to back up your threats with actual force, or “hard power,” as some like to call it.

Among the most vocal of those touting this line is Senator John McCain, the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a persistent critic of President Obama. “For five years, Americans have been told that ‘the tide of war is receding,’ that we can pull back from the world at little cost to our interests and values,” he typically wrote in March 2014 in a New York Timesop-ed. “This has fed a perception that the United States is weak, and to people like Mr. Putin, weakness is provocative.” The only way to prevent aggressive behavior by Russia and other adversaries, he stated, is “to restore the credibility of the United States as a world leader.” This means, among other things, arming the Ukrainians and anti-Assad Syrians, bolstering the NATO presence in Eastern Europe, combating “the larger strategic challenge that Iran poses,” and playing a “more robust” role (think: more “boots” on more ground) in the war against ISIS.

Above all, of course, it means a willingness to employ military force. “When aggressive rulers or violent fanatics threaten our ideals, our interests, our allies, and us,” he declared last November, “what ultimately makes the difference… is the capability, credibility, and global reach of American hard power.”

A similar approach — in some cases even more bellicose — is being articulated by the bevy of Republican candidates now in the race for president, Rand Paul again excepted. At a recent “Freedom Summit” in the early primary state of South Carolina, the various contenders sought to out-hard-power each other. Florida Senator Marco Rubio was loudly cheered for promising to make the U.S. “the strongest military power in the world.” Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker received a standing ovation for pledging to further escalate the war on international terrorists: “I want a leader who is willing to take the fight to them before they take the fight to us.”

In this overheated environment, the 2016 presidential campaign is certain to be dominated by calls for increased military spending, a tougher stance toward Moscow and Beijing, and an expanded military presence in the Middle East. Whatever her personal views, Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democratic candidate, will be forced to demonstrate her backbone by embracing similar positions. In other words, whoever enters the Oval Office in January 2017 will be expected to wield a far bigger stick on a significantly less stable planet. As a result, despite the last decade and a half of interventionary disasters, we’re likely to see an even more interventionist foreign policy with an even greater impulse to use military force.

However initially gratifying such a stance is likely to prove for John McCain and the growing body of war hawks in Congress, it will undoubtedly prove disastrous in practice. Anyone who believes that the clock can now be turned back to 2002, when U.S. strength was at its zenith and the Iraq invasion had not yet depleted American wealth and vigor, is undoubtedly suffering from delusional thinking. China is far more powerful than it was 13 years ago, Russia has largely recovered from its post-Cold War slump, Iran has replaced the U.S. as the dominant foreign actor in Iraq, and other powers have acquired significantly greater freedom of action in an unsettled world. Under these circumstances, aggressive muscle-flexing in Washington is likely to result only in calamity or humiliation.

Time to Stop Pretending

Back, then, to our original question: What is a declining superpower supposed to do in the face of this predicament?

Anywhere but in Washington, the obvious answer would for it to stop pretending to be what it’s not. The first step in any 12-step imperial-overstretch recovery program would involve accepting the fact that American power is limited and global rule an impossible fantasy. Accepted as well would have to be this obvious reality: like it or not, the U.S. shares the planet with a coterie of other major powers — none as strong as we are, but none so weak as to be intimidated by the threat of U.S. military intervention. Having absorbed a more realistic assessment of American power, Washington would then have to focus on how exactly to cohabit with such powers — Russia, China, and Iran among them — and manage its differences with them without igniting yet more disastrous regional firestorms.

If strategic juggling and massive denial were not so embedded in the political life of this country’s “war capital,” this would not be an impossibly difficult strategy to pursue, as others have suggested. In 2010, for example, Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M argued in the American Conservative that the U.S. could no longer sustain its global superpower status and, “rather than having this adjustment forced upon it suddenly by a major crisis… should get ahead of the curve by shifting its position in a gradual, orderly fashion.” Layne and others have spelled out what this might entail: fewer military entanglements abroad, a diminishing urge to garrison the planet, reduced military spending, greater reliance on allies, more funds to use at home in rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of a divided society, and a diminished military footprint in the Middle East.

But for any of this to happen, American policymakers would first have to abandon the pretense that the United States remains the sole global superpower — and that may be too bitter a pill for the present American psyche (and for the political aspirations of certain Republican candidates) to swallow. From such denialism, it’s already clear, will only come further ill-conceived military adventures abroad and, sooner or later, under far grimmer circumstances, an American reckoning with reality.

This article originally appeared on

The war against global killers, Monsanto, is gaining pace

The End of Monsanto


An increasing number of countries are banning Monsanto’s cancer-linked Roundup herbicide, a.k.a. glyphosate. Others are banning Monsanto’s GMOs. Meanwhile, Monsanto-funded U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton thinks “(t)here is a big gap between what the facts are, and what the perceptions are.” Actually the facts are established: Monsanto’s herbicides and GMOs are harmful to humans and animals. Several studies have demonstrated it and even led the World Health Organization to issue a warning against glyphosate’s links to cancer.

In fact, Monsanto knew 35 years ago that its glyphosate was linked to cancer and other health issues. GM-Free Cymru discovered this while looking into the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) archives from the early 80′s:

There were many animal experiments (using rats, mice and dogs) designed to test the acute and chronic toxicity of glyphosate in the period 1978-1986, conducted by laboratories such as Bio/dynamics Inc for Monsanto and submitted for EPA consideration… but like all the other older studies they were and still are treated as Trade Secrets and cannot be freely accessed for independent scrutiny. That in itself is suggestive that the studies contain data which Monsanto still does not wish to be examined by experts in the toxicology field. It is also deeply worrying that EPA acceded to the routine Monsanto requests for secrecy on the flimsiest of pretexts.

However, archived and accessible EPA Memos from the early 1980′s do give some indications as to what the rat studies contain (9). Although the studies predate the adoption of international test guidelines and GLP standards they suggest that there was significant damage to the kidneys of the rats in the 3-generational study… In the rat study results, the changes in the bladder mucosa are significant because metabolites, concentrated by the kidneys, have led to hyperplasia that could be considered as a very early and necessary step in tumour initiation. (GM-Free Cymru, Monsanto Knew of Glyphosate / Cancer Link 35 Years Ago, April 19, 2015)

Genetically modified foods are also linked to health issues including gluten disorders:

The Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) Jeffrey M. Smith has discovered a link between gluten disorders and GM foods in a study he conducted last year. Gluten disorders have sharply risen over the past 2 decades, which correlates with GM foods being introduced into the food supply. Smith asserts that GM foods – including soy and corn – are the possible “environmental triggers” that have contributed to the rapid increase of gluten disorders that effect close to 20 million American’s today. (Steven MacMillan, Monsanto’s GMO Food and its Dark Connections to the “Military Industrial Complex”, The Analyst Report, July 03, 2014)

Ironically, Hillary praises GMOs but during their stay at the White house, the Clintons, just like the Obamas, were fed organic food:

The Clinton and Bush II families ate organic foods. Walter Scheib was White House executive chef from 1994 – 2005.

He had “the professional challenge of fulfilling Hillary Clinton’s mandate of bringing contemporary American cuisine and nutritionally responsible food to the White House,” he said.

Nearly all foods used were gotten from local growers and suppliers. A small White House roof garden was used for produce grown without pesticides and fertilizers. Organic foods were prioritized.

First families continue getting wholesome pesticide/GMO-free foods while promoting frankenfoods hazardous to human health for Monsanto and other biotech giants. (Stephen Lendman, Hillary Clinton Endorses GMOs. White House Meals are Organic, Global Research, May 25, 2015)

As Mike Adams reports, Hillary Clinton has  hired former Monsanto lobbyist to run her campaign and her law firm used to have Monsanto as a client. It is no surprise that she strongly advocates GMOs.

If GMOs are as good as Hillary pretends they are, however, why are the first families not eating any and why are so many countries banning them?

The reasons for the bans recall the allegedly fraudulent 2012 Seralini study:

In response to a 2004 study declaring Monsanto’s NK603 GMO maize safe:

“…a predominantly French team led by Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini undertook a two-year (over 700 days), feeding trial [2], which was otherwise similar. Their work was published in September 2012, also inFCT. The early warnings that had been dismissed in the Monsanto paper developed into serious illnesses, including damage to liver, kidneys, pituitary gland and, most notably, early deaths and development of large tumours in females. In addition, the study included trials of minute amounts of Monsanto’s Roundup, the herbicide to which tolerance has been genetically engineered into NK603, in the rats’ drinking water.” (Christina Sarich Former Monsanto Employee Fired from Major Scientific Journal’s Editor Position, Natural Society, March 30, 2015)

The study was labeled fraudulent soon after its publication and was retracted from the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology. Shortly before the study was retracted, ex-Monsanto employee Richard Goodman had been appointed Associate Editor. He has since been removed from the Editorial Board of the scientific journal along with Editor-in-Chief, A. Wallace Hayes:

After the Seralini study was retracted, hundreds of scientists contacted the journal to ask them why they were doing so, claiming that they were giving in to pressure from the biotech industry. (Ibid.)

The WHO’s recent warning seems to have triggered a domino effect, inciting countries to ban Monsanto products and which could lead to its demise.

Here is a list of bans which are either in effect or on their way all around the world, as well as studies showing the damages caused by Monsanto’s products:

Glyphosate ban

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka’s Newly Elected President Bans Glyphosate (Monsanto Roundup) – Deadly Chronic Kidney Disease Increased 5-Fold

Sri Lanka’s newly elected president, Maithripala Sirisena, has announced that the import of Monsanto’s favorite killing-tool, glyphosate, will no longer be allowed in the country.

Sirisena is a farmer and ex health minister, and blames glyphosate for rising rates of chronic kidney disease (CKD) throughout the Sri Lankan farming community.

The Netherlands

Netherlands Bans Monsanto’s Roundup to Protect Citizens from Carcinogenic Glyphosate

Late last year, the Dutch parliament voted to ban the sale of glyphosate-based herbicides to private parties. The ban, under which agricultural use is excluded, was initially proposed several years ago. However, it is thought that Monsanto influence prevented it from taking place at the time.


Brazil’s Public Prosecutor Wants to Ban Monsanto’s Chemicals Following Recent Glyphosate-Cancer Link

While some agencies in Brazil have been busy giving 3 new GMO crops green lights, the country’s public prosecutor has written the Brazil’s National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) asking it to urgently re-evaluate their stance on the ‘likely carcinogenic’ herbicide ingredient, glyphosate. The letter was written with an expectation that the agency will ban the main ingredient in Monsanto’s best selling herbicide.

Germany (European Union)

German Ministers Call for EU-Wide Ban on Monsanto’s Deadly Glyphosate Herbicide (Roundup)

State consumer protection ministers in Germany are advocating an EU-wide ban on glyphosate herbicides in response to the World Health Organization’s (WHO) categorization of the chemical as “probably carcinogenic.”


30,000 Doctors in Argentina Demand that Glyphosate (Monsanto Roundup) Be Banned

The doctors are part of FESPROSA, Argentina’s Union of medical professionals. Citing the World Health Organization’s recent declaration that the glyphosate chemicals used in Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Round Up (formulated to use on Round Up Ready crops) are “likely carcinogenic,” they add an additional disclaimer:

Glyphosate is also associated with:

  • Spontaneous abortions

  • Birth defects

  • Skin disease

  • Respiratory illness

  • Neurological disease


Bermuda Suspends Glyphosate-Ridden Monsanto Roundup Indefinitely

Following a recent study on Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup and its main chemical ingredient glyphosate, Bermuda has decided to suspend any importation of glyphosate/Roundup until further research give reason to lift the suspension.

GMOs ban


French Parliament Moves Beyond Monsanto, Bans GMO Corn

France’s lower house of Parliament banned GM corn in a sweeping fashion, Reuters reported. Now, no variety of GM corn can be cultivated because of its toxic threats to the soil, insects and human health.


The Maui GMO Ban and the Monsanto-Dow Criminal Human Experimentation

In the last election, the voters of Maui, in a ballot measure, decided to place a temporary ban on further Dow/Monsanto GMO/pesticide experiments in Maui County.

Immediately, Monsanto, Dow, and yes, even the County government of Maui (betraying their own voters), lined up against the results of the vote.


Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Corn Fields

Hungary has taken a bold stand against biotech giant Monsanto and genetic modification by destroying 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, according to Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar.

Unlike many European Union countries, Hungary is a nation where genetically modified (GM) seeds are banned.


Peru Passes Monumental Ten-Year Ban on Genetically Modified Foods

In an act of defiance against bloated biotech companies like Monsanto, Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients within the nation for a period of 10 years…

While the ban will stop the flow of GM foods within the nation’s borders, a recent test conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC) found that 77 percent of supermarket products tested contained GM contaminants.


Why Is Russia Banning GMOs While the US Keeps Approving Them?

The VP of Russia’s National Association for Genetic Safety, Irina Ermakova, has said:

“It is necessary to ban GMOs, to impose moratorium (on) it for 10 years… It has been proven that not only in Russia, but also in many other countries in the world, GMOs are dangerous. Methods of obtaining the GMOs are not perfect, therefore, at this stage, all GMOs are dangerous. Consumption and use of GMOs obtained in such way can lead to tumors, cancers and obesity among animals.


Geopolitics of Organic Food: Russia, China and France Ban GMOs

Russia’s stance against GMO is mirrored elsewhere, including in France where just recently Monsanto’s GM corn was banned and in China where the importing of US GM corn has been outlawed. The backlash against GMO has widespread appeal due to well-placed health and environmental concerns among increasingly informed populations. But the drive to push back against GMO in nations like Russia and China also has a geopolitical dimension.


Monsanto Double Standards and the Crumbling “Scientific Myths” of the GMO Biotech Sector

Monsanto Roundup: The Impacts of Glyphosate Herbicide on Human Health. Pathways to Modern Diseases

Study Shows Monsanto Roundup Herbicide Link to Birth Defects

Cancer of Corruption, Seeds of Destruction: The Monsanto GMO Whitewash

Former Pro-GMO Biotech Scientist Admits GMOs Aren’t Safe, Refutes Claims by Monsanto

The Toxic Impacts of GMO Maize: Scientific Journal Bows to Monsanto, Retracts anti-Monsanto Study

More Evidence that Herbicide Glyphosate (Monsanto Roundup) Causes Cancer

Chronic Kidney Failure 5 Times Higher in Glyphosate-Ridden (Monsanto Roundup) Areas, Study Confirms

Turkey accused of providing weapons to Syria terrorists

Turkey accused of providing weapons to Syria jihadists

Turkish government accuses prosecutors, soldiers, security officers involved in truck search of attempting to bring it down.
Middle East Online

Turkey wants Assad toppled

Images and video footage allegedly showing trucks belonging to Turkey’s state intelligence service carrying weapons en route to jihadist rebels in Syria were published Friday in a Turkish daily.

The Turkish government has vehemently denied earlier claims that it is arming rebels fighting in Syria and accused dozens of prosecutors, soldiers and security officers involved in the searching of trucks of attempting to bring it down by suggesting that it is doing so.

Earlier this month, Turkey arrested four prosecutors who ordered searches in a similar incident in January 2014 and they are now in prison pending trial.

More than 30 security officers involved in that interception also face charges including military espionage and attempting to overthrow the government.

The footage published on opposition Cumhuriyet daily’s website on Friday shows inspectors searching a metallic container watched by security officers, a prosecutor and sniffer dogs.

The officials first open cardboard boxes marked as “fragile” and full of antibiotics. But under those boxes they find dozens of mortar shells, the video, shot by an anonymous bystander, appears to show.

Cumhuriyet, which also published a series of still images, said the weapons were of Russian origin and had been supplied from ex-Soviet countries.

The daily claimed the trucks were carrying a total of 1,000 mortar shells, 80,000 rounds of ammunition for light and heavy weapons as well as hundreds of grenade launchers.

The Turkish authorities have sought to link the affair to US-based preacher Fethullah Gulen who President Recep Tayyip Erdogan accuses of running a parallel state through supporters in the judiciary and police with the aim of usurping him.

Turkey has vehemently denied aiding jihadists in Syria such as the Islamic State (IS) group, although it wants to see Syrian President Bashar al-Assad toppled.

Tensions are running high in Turkey ahead of June 7 parliamentary elections, with the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) seeking to hold on to the dominance it has maintained since it first swept to power in 2002.

Will Moscow and Riyadh Get Closer?

Nikolai BOBKIN | 30.05.2015 | 10:50

The Islamic State has made public the plans to divide Saudi Arabia into five parts. For years the Kingdom has been calmly watching the terrorist group wreak havoc and commit acts of mass murder in Syria and Iraq. Now it looks like the situation is going through changes. 250 Islamic State militants have been arrested in the country during the recent two months. The majority of them come from Saudi Arabia. It means the Islamic States has crossed the Saudi border. Soon the radicals will fill the group’s ranks to strengthen its presence in the Kingdom. Under the circumstances Russia has come up with an initiative to join efforts countering the contemporary threats and challenges, especially those that come from international terrorists such as the Islamic State and other radical groups. Russia wants Saudi Arabia, a leading Arab state, to be its partner. It’s ready for a dialogue. Will Riyadh meet Moscow half way? This April new Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to Russia Abdulrahman al-Rassi presented his credentials. “Even brothers may disagree,” he said at the ceremony. His appointment gives hope for improvement of bilateral relations. In an interview (1) he avoided the issue of Syria which is an apple of discord. Russia has no questions to ask concerning this problem, it’s all clear – Saudi Arabia has applied great efforts to support the armed opposition, it has recognized the coalition as a legitimate government and inspired military intervention against Damascus. The Ambassador expressed concern over Iran which promotes instability in many states. Saudi Arabia sides with Israel on the issue of Iranian nuclear program, the both states refuse to discuss peace with Tehran. Tel Aviv and Riyadh don’t trust US President Obama; they do their best to prevent the Geneva talks from succeeding. Saudi Arabia does not approve the Moscow’ decision to sell S-300 air defense systems to Iran. According to Russia’s view, the delivery of S-300 is the best way to protect the Iranian air space and thus prevent a new conflict in the region. Saudi Arabia believes the deal will tip the balance in favor of Iran.

Nevertheless, with King Salman becoming the head of state Saudi Arabia has entered a period of transformation. There is ground to believe the Kingdom will review its foreign policy priorities, including the relations with Russia. Until recently the bilateral relationship had been stable. The both sides had strived to keep up the balance in the region. But the Kingdom is an ally of the United States. It spoiled the things. This factor negatively affects the bilateral relationship. Washington has made the Persian Gulf states take its side in the confrontation with Tehran. As an economic major, Saudi Arabia has assumed a leading position in the alliance. It has become deeply involved in the US-incited struggle for regional leadership. The friendship with the United States has brought no dividends. The war in Yemen damaged the country’s position. The strategic mistake has weakened the Kingdom’s clout. It all makes Saudi Arabia seek restoration of full-fledged partnership with Russia.

Neither of the countries benefits from the divisions that negatively affect the relationship. The trade turnover was only $1, 16 billion in 2014. The Saudi exports to Russia were valued at $267 million with imports reaching $863 million. Actually local markets are closed to Russian companies. The economic cooperation could make strides if it were not for political hindrances. President Vladimir Putin went to Riyadh in February 2007. The agreements on bilateral cooperation were signed (aid traffic, double taxation on profits and capital, cooperation in culture, information exchange and coordination of banking sector activities) have never been brought into life. Political reasons prevailed to make Saudi Arabia reject cooperation in the field of nuclear energy and space research for peaceful purposes.

Russian business is set to make a breakthrough. Around 30 companies are ready to invest into Saudi Arabia. Large investments projects are being studied to include oil, industry, agriculture, medicine and education. In Saudi Arabia government support is important for developing relations with foreigners and that’s something Saudi business partners lack in case of Russia. For instance, to protest the Russia’s stance on Syria Saudi Arabia formally refused to receive a team of Russian businessmen who came to the Kingdom for meeting partners in the June of 2012. No matter that, Riyadh easily found $3 billion to pay for the Egypt’s military deal with Russia. The money went to Russian budget. The positions of the both sides on Egypt coincide to bring them closer while the differences on Syria and Iran hinder political cooperation. Seeking compromises is a way out.

Russia is going through a new phase of its relationship with Arab states and the entire Muslim world. It views the Middle East as a foreign policy priority. Moscow continues unrelenting efforts to manage regional conflicts and improve ties with the states of the region, including the relationship Saudi Arabia which leaves much to be desired. Deputy Foreign Minister and Special Presidential Representative for the Middle East and Africa Mikhail Bogdanov visited Riyadh on May 26-27 to meet his counterpart Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir. He was received by King Salman. The bilateral relationship and the burning issues related to Middle East security, especially Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Palestine, topped the agenda. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported in a statement (2) that the parties exchanged opinions on a wide range of issues related to dynamics of progress in the bilateral relationship. The active participation of Russian and Saudi businessmen in the Russian Regions Road Show taking place in Jeddah demonstrates the opportunities for bilateral relationship. The parties realize that businessmen of the both countries need government support to develop cooperation. In recent years Russia has moved from the 60th to 23d place as an exporter to the Kingdom. Now Russia has a chance to join ten leading trade partners of Saudi Arabia. Perhaps economic ties will create conditions for a breakthrough on the way of establishing full-fledged political partnership.


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!


US Attacks FIFA Just Days Before Vote on Israeli Suspension from the League

By Richard Edmondson

Is the US prosecution of FIFA politically motivated? If so, the message being transmitted isn’t very subtle.

That’s Loretta Lynch, America’s brand new attorney general (she was sworn in exactly one month ago today) announcing indictments on corruption charges against officials with FIFA, the international soccer federation, or the Fédération Internationale de Football Association  if you prefer a fleshing out of the French acronym.

“This Department of Justice is determined to end these practices, to root out corruption and to bring wrongdoers to justice,” says Lynch.

Root out corruption? The US Justice Department still has not sent a single Wall Street executive to jail in connection with the 2008 financial crisis. In fact, back on February 17 of this year, Eric Holder, the former attorney general, announced that his department would determine within 90 days whether or not file charges against individual executives with the largest banks for actions taken pertaining to the collapse. That deadline passed on May 18 without a single indictment being announced.

Now we have the Justice Department patting themselves on the back over prosecutions of members of a football association. Are these people really put out with FIFA because of insufficient numbers of soccer fields built for children in developing countries, as Lynch alludes to in the above video? Or is there something else behind these indictments?

Lynch’s press conference comes just two days before FIFA is scheduled to hold its annual congress in Zurich. One of the items up for consideration at the congress is a vote on whether or not to suspend Israel from the association. If two thirds of the organization’s members vote in favor of the suspension, Israel will be barred from competing.

The measure has been introduced by the Palestinian Football Association and stems from a number of grievances including arrests of Palestinian football players and limitations on their movement between Gaza Strip and the West Bank. And on January 31 of this year,two players were critically injured by gunfire from Israeli soldiers as they were on their way home from a practice in al-Ram, in the central West Bank.

Jawhar Nasser Jawhar, 19, and Adam Abd al-Raouf Halabiya, 17, were both shot repeatedly and then beaten, and have been told by doctors they will never play football again.

Of course the possibility of the Jewish state being suspended from the world football association has caused angst in Israel and among its supporters. Here is what an article by the JTA says on the subject (emphasis added):

Soccer is Israel’s most popular sport, and though Israel qualified for a World Cup tournament only once, in 1970, Israeli soccer teams frequently travel abroad for matches. Coming amid growing economic, academic and cultural boycott efforts against Israel, expulsion from international competition in the world’s most popular sport would be a sharp blow for everyday Israelis.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry has been lobbying governments to oppose the motion on the grounds that it’s a political dispute unrelated to soccer. Shlomi Barzel, the Israeli Soccer Association’s head of communications, told JTA that “Even the biggest Israel-hater in the world understands this has a political basis; it’s not relevant.”

In addition to indictments, the US is also seeking to have FIFA officials extradited from Switzerland. Moreover, the attack seems to be a concerted one, with mainstream media piling on about FIFA “corruption.”

“FIFA has been regularly accused of bribery and kickbacks, allegations that reached a fever pitch after it awarded Russia and Qatar the World Cup in 2018 and 2022, respectively,” said CNN in an article published today. “Afterward, the group carried out its own internal investigation and cleared itself.”

FIFA President Sepp Blatter is not one of the 14 people indicted today. Blatter has opposed the suspension, but he has also asked Israel to make “concessions” to the Palestinians, and the controversy is expected to severely jeopardize his chances of winning election to a fifth term as FIFA president.

You can go here to access a series of video reports about a trip Blatter made to Israel earlier this month in which he met with both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. According to one of the reports, Blatter attempted to talk Abbas into having the Palestinian Football Association to drop its case against Israel.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center issued a statement likening the move toward an Israeli suspension from FIFA to “the ‘Kaufen nicht bei Juden’ boycott of Jewish stores across Nazi Germany in the 1930′s.”

The timing of these indictments, just two days before the FIFA Congress, is extremely suspicious. Being kicked out of FIFA would be another major blow to Israel’s rapidly disintegrating “legitimacy,” and given the US government’s long history of providing diplomatic cover for Israel at the UN, the possibility of a political motivation for today’s actions by the Justice Department cannot be dismissed so easily.




There are some readers who keep repeating the same tired mantra about the SAA losing control of the eastern part of the country.  It just isn’t true. The facts are that the SAA and its allies are recovering whole areas and liberating hundreds of villages everywhere in Al-Hasaka and Dayr El-Zor. They can publish all the lies they want, but, one thing is certain, at the end of the day they remain nothing but unembellished liars and pimps for the Saudi simian regime.

Dayr El-Zor City:   The SAAF pounded the stuffing out of the zombie-like ISIS savages in the areas of Al-Jubayla, Al-‘Urfi, Al-Hameediyya and Al-Huwayqa yesterday and today.  Whole pockets of miserable fake-Muslim rodents were liquidated in massive bursts of fire.  We can confirm the total destruction of 4 pickups with 23mm cannons, a rocket launcher and various pieces of heavy artillery which the rats had positioned inside these almost-abandoned areas.

Al-Tharda Mountain:  The SAA and PDC have intensified shelling here as a prelude to a delousing operation intended to rid the area of any ISIS microbes.  My reports indicate ISIS lost 2 bases in the mountain’s environs.

Al-Muree’iyya, Al-Jafra, Saker Island:  These locales are on the eastern borders of the city and largely under the control of the SAA.  Yesterday, scores of rodents trying to attack fixed SAA positions were routed and annihilated to the tune of 97 dead rats.

Dayr El-Zor Airbase:  The SAA confirmed the deaths of 30+ ISIS rodents trying to invade SAA outposts on the perimeter. The SAA counterattacked with the help of the SAAF and killed scores more. The area is still being assessed as we write.

  مقتل العشرات من إرهابيي داعش بعمليات برية وجوية للجيش بدير الزور

The carcasses of plague-infested trash from all parts of the world are presented here for your delectation. 


AL-HASAKA:  Several Syrian officers have expressed the belief that ISIS will be withdrawing soon from Al-Hasaka under pressure from the SAA and the various Kurdish groups who are all advancing remarkably against the slop-shop, rag-tag, jerry-made cadres of cockroaches and vermin who populate ISIS.


Jammu, Daawoodiyya, Ward Shaqra, Abyadh Checkpoint:  Our reports are in line with other news sources: ISIS took a drubbing this morning from the Syrian Army at the cited locations.  The ISIS rodents were extremely inept and unprofessional in that they huddled together at some points trying to create impenetrable strongpoints, but, instead, wound up making the pleasurable activity of killing them that much easier.   (See below)

The Ba’ath Party militias played a major role in the fighting here helping to destroy 3 suicide bombers in trucks and many pieces of artillery.  The SAA’s Special Operations units were also here and participated mightily in killing the vultures.  Number killed?  My source in Damascus says he heard 68 killed with hundreds wounded.


Don’t worry, if these cockroaches had a soul, it’s now in Hell.  Many of these were from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Iraq.

Qabr Shaamiyya:  This took place on May 23, 2015 when ISIS attempted to assault SAA checkpoints.  The SAA and militia had received Intel already about the terrorist concentrations and our soldiers were ready to kill the whole lot.  The location of this site is on the Al-Hasaka-Tal-Abyadh Road to the southwest.  The SAA now controls all this area and the foothills of ‘Abdul-‘Azeez Mountain up to the Center for the Treatment of Solid Waste after counterattacking the rats under SAAF cover.  I understand the SAA is now feeding the Treatment Center with new forms of solid waste.

Baab Al-Khayr Village:  A Mitsubishi pickup with a 23mm cannon was rendered twisted iron when one of our stalwarts fired a Kornet at it killing all 3 rats aboard.

Al-Hawl:  East of the city.  Liberated by the SAA on May 26, 2015.  The rats were annihilated here and escaped toward Al-Shidaadi.  The SAA recovered intact rockets, artillery pieces, CDs, maps and Turk-provided cellphones.  The SAA killed 18 rodents.

Read more

Related Videos

 تغطية خاصة | سناء محمود | الاخبارية السورية

تغطية خاصة | د احمد حاج على … ~ حسين الفياض | الاخبارية السورية

حوار اليوم | العميد الياس فرحات ~ على نور الدين | nbn 30 05 2015

الإخبارية السورية || الحقيبة السابعة 29-5-2015 رانيا عثمان

 حوار بث مباشر | د خالد المطرود | #الفضائية_السورية

حديث الساعة | د حبيب فياض ~ ساسين ساسين | المنار

Related Articles

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

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

%d bloggers like this: