“The Saudis want to open up to Israel.” Those were the words of an Israeli legislator who organized a Knesset meeting, in Israeli-occupied territories, with a retired Saudi general & his delegation of Saudi academics & businessmen. General Eshki’s visit hasn’t been applauded, even by traditional supporters of the kingdom, yet it marks one more step towards the limelight of what stage Israeli-Saudi relations are at. In this edition of the debate, we seek to understand the relationship between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia & the Israeli regime.
Recently US Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia drew a somewhat controversial analogy. Johnson compared the destructive nature of Israel’s ongoing illegal settlement enterprise to the foundational destruction caused by termite infestation of a house.
As you may expect, the comments drew the inevitable “anti-Semite” accusations, and not surprisingly the congressman hastily backed down and issued an apology.
Johnson’s remarks were given at an event sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee and held in Philadelphia on July 25 on the opening day of the Democratic Convention. In addition to Johnson, other speakers included Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Josh Ruebner of the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. The event was entitled “Progressive for Palestine: Is the US Ready to Rethink Policy on Israel?”, and you can go here to see a full video (the portion featuring Johnson starts at about 30:50).
The Georgia congressman prefaced his remarks by stating a few simple, straightforward truths.
“You see today the world faces a very desperate situation, and we all know how high the stakes are,” he said. “We all know how dangerous it is, and we all know that we, Americans, are in large part responsible for the state of the world today.”
He added that this burden of responsibility means also that Americans “are going to have to be a part of the solution,” and he went on to point out, rightfully so, that much of the turmoil in the world today, or in the Middle East anyway, is at least peripherally related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. And a major part of the problem here is the construction of Israeli settlements:
“In addition to war and seizure of land, there has been a steady–almost like termites can get into a residence and eat it up before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself–there has been settlement activity that has been, that has marched forward with impunity and at an ever increasing rate, to the point where it has become alarming.
And it has become to the point with occupation, with highways that cut through Palestinian land, with walls that go up, with the inability or the restriction or the illegality of Palestinians being able to travel on those roads, and those roads cutting off Palestinian neighborhoods from each other, and then with the building of walls and the building of checkpoints that restrict movement of Palestinians, we’ve gotten to the point where the thought of a Palestinian homeland gets further and further removed from reality.”
Responses to Johnson’s comments, including from Jews, have been divided. The congressman was defended by Mondoweiss but attacked in an article published by The Algemeiner. The Mondoweiss article, posted July 26, appears under a joint byline attributed to the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and Jewish Voice for Peace. The writers thank Johnson for participating in the event, going on to compliment him for his “insightful comments on the diminishing prospects for a two-state resolution,” and they also assert that the termite analogy “was taken out of context in an article with a misleading headline written by a journalist with a longstanding record of anti-Palestinian reporting.”
The anti-Palestinian journalist referred to is presumably Adam Kredo, whose article, “Congressman: Jewish Settlers Are Like Termites,” appeared in theWashington Free Beacon on July 25. But in their defense of Johnson, the Mondoweiss folks contended the Georgia representative was not comparing Jews to termites, but only drawing a correlation between one “corrosive process” and another. Or as they put it:
Representative Johnson analogized this settlement activity to that of termites hollowing out and undermining a structure, noting that settlement expansion has made the creation of a viable Palestinian state in the occupied territories all but impossible. From a plain reading of his remarks, it was clear that Representative Johnson was referring, as he clarified afterward, to a “corrosive process, not the people.”
Not so! says Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, whose article on the controversy was posted July 28 at The Algemeiner.
“It’s wrong for the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to have failed to condemn as blatant antisemitism Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA)’s ‘termites’ label for Jews living in Judea/Samaria,” Klein writes in his excessively parenthetical lead paragraph.
As I mentioned above, Johnson apologized for his remarks–whether before or after the ADL piped in on the matter I’m not sure, but it does appear as if the ADLappreciated his atonement. A lot of other Jews were not so gracious and accepting, however, and Klein quotes a couple of them in his article. One is John Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, who in response to the ADL’s seeming absolution tweeted, “How about using the term ‘anti-Semitic,’ you cowards? He compared Jews to TERMITES, for f—’s sake.”
A Los Angeles rabbi also complained, “This is not an apology. ‘I am sorry I said something stupid and anti-Semitic’–that would have been a fitting apology. These are not trivial issues…To call Jews ‘termites’ is base and vile.”
As for Klein’s own sentiments on the matter, they include the following:
The ADL also disgracefully failed to condemn Congressman Johnson’s involvement in the antisemitic forum where the Congressman referred to Jews as “termites.” The Congressman was speaking at a side event to the Democratic National Convention sponsored by the “U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation.” This notorious antisemitic organization calls Israel’s rebirth in 1948 a “catastrophe” and promotes the antisemitic, anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which is aimed at destroying the state of Israel.
Determining who’s right–the left wing Jews at Mondoweiss or the right wing Jews at The Algemeiner–is not my purpose here. Whether someone in Congress is or isn’t an anti-Semite is a trifling matter (everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions), and in point of fact, it we had more anti-Semites in the House and the Senate it would almost surely restore some semblance of balance to our nation’s lopsided foreign policy and likely even save us $40 billion over the next ten years. (So all you anti-Semites out there–do your patriotic duty and start running for Congress!)
What I’d like to do instead is consider the question of whether Johnson’s analogy is a valid one. In other words, is it reasonable to draw a comparison between the two “corrosive processes,” i.e. that carried out by Israeli settlers (not Jews in general, but settlers only) on the one hand, and termites on the other? This is the question I would hope to answer.
Last year, exactly one year ago today, settlers set fire to the home of the Dawabsha’s, a Palestinian family living in the West Bank village of Duma. Three members of the family were burned to death: 18-month-old Ali Dawabsha, along with his mother and father, Riham and Sa’ad Dawabsha. The only survivor was 5-year-old Ahmed Dawabsha, who suffered severe burns and who has been hospitalized off-and-on over the past twelve months. The photo below, taken earlier this year, shows Ahmed staring at a photo of his deceased family members:
Ahmed has recently been released from the hospital and is now living with his grandfather. It is expected, however, that he’ll have to return to the hospital for weekly checkups as well as additional surgeries. Earlier this year, the young boy got to make a trip to Spain, where he met his hero, football/soccer player Christiano Ronaldo, and you can go here to see a photo of him and Ronaldo together as well as one of Ahmed being greeted by a young friend upon his return to Duma. The firebombing of the Dawabsha home was a despicable act, resulting in the tragic deaths of three people, but at least one young boy made it out alive and now has the opportunity to return to a normal life.
In the following photo, we see Meir Ettinger, the reputed leader of a group of settler youth who was arrested last year shortly after the arson attack upon the Dawabsha home:
And in the next photo we have a close up shot of a termite:
In the following photo we see termite damage to a house:
And in this next photo, we see settler damage to the Dawahsha home:
You’ll note that as bad as the termite damage looks, the settler damage appears worse.
By the way, Ettinger was not charged in the Dawabsha arson attack and has since been released from custody. However, two other youths said to be members of his group have been charged and are awaiting trial. One of them is Amiram Ben-Uliel, 21, who is facing three counts of murder, the other a minor who has not been named.
So as we can see, there are indeed certain similarities between the two “corrosive processes.” At the same time, we should also be honest and note some distinguishing differences as well. For instance, while termite infestations can cause house fires, there is no known instance of termites throwing petrol bombs through the window of a house and deliberately burning three of the occupants alive.
Nor is there any recorded instance of termites flashing three fingers to celebrate the incineration of the three people killed:
But wait! Is the video maker not reading too much into the hand gesture? After all, the young man could have been simply wagging his fingers in a bored, more-or-less abstract, absent-minded manner while awaiting the court hearing–isn’t that possible? It’s possible, but not terribly likely:
Not the 1st time Israelis flash 3 fingers to celebrate burning a Palestinian dad, mom & baby to death. 3 months ago: pic.twitter.com/Nij6vOVpNM
Nor do we know of any cases of termites dancing wildly and joyously up and down while stabbing a photo of an 18-month-old toddler–the same toddler who, along with his parents, perished in the fire they started.
I guess what we can conclude from our analysis of the two “corrosive processes” is that while certain similarities can be detected, there are also unmistakable differences.
The “anti-Semite” label is often used as a cudgel to silence criticism of Israel. If we go back and look again at the video of Johnson speaking at the event in Philadelphia it is clear that he was talking about Israeli settlements. An overactive imagination is required to construe his remarks as a “slur” against an entire people, and a certain amount of skill and artistry are necessary as well in order tothen go on and characterize them as such in public comments.
Those who have voiced harsh condemnations of Rep. Johnson–do they do so out of, a) a desire to curb “anti-Semitism” (whatever their definition of the word may be); b) to undermine him publicly and thereby inflict punishment upon a member of Congress for daring to criticize Israel; or, c) perhaps a little of both?
Johnson’s maligners apparently have little to say about Israeli Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyihu, who earlier this year posted on Facebook, ““Israeli army has to stop arresting Palestinians, but it must execute them and leave no one alive.”
Chief Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu
They apparently also have little to say about Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of Israel’s Tsomet Institute and an official in the country’s Chief Rabbinate, who once wrote, “All of the Palestinians must be killed; men, women, infants, and even their beasts.”
Rabbi Yisrael Rosen
Other rabbis as well have also issued inflammatory statements about Palestinians or non-Jews in general, including Yitzhak Shapira, Dov Lior, and Yitzhak Ginsburgh–none of this, however, is mentioned by ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt in an article written and posted July 28 on the organization’s website. The piece is apparently written in response to those who criticized the ADL for failing to castigate Johnson in a stronger manner.
“First, to the remarks themselves: As I myself tweeted, there’s absolutely no doubt that Rep. Johnson’s comments were both irresponsible and reprehensible, particularly because they played into traditional anti-Semitic canards,” Greenblatt writes. “In the annals of anti-Semitism, from the medieval period to Czarist Russia, and most pronouncedly in Nazi Germany, there is a common leitmotif of Jews being portrayed as subhuman – rats, cockroaches and other undesirable creatures. Even today, depictions of Jews in anti-Semitic cartoons that pervade the Arab press often conform to this legacy.
“Surely Rep. Johnson can understand a people’s legitimate sensitivities that emerge from a long history of oppression. And surely there is room for legitimate and balanced criticisms of policy which do not resort to these prejudiced tropes,” he adds.
Nowhere in the article does Greenblatt make mention of the “prejudiced tropes” of Israeli rabbis who have portrayed Palestinians as subhuman, nor does he mention the firebombing of the Dawabsha home and the deaths of three members of the family.
Compared to the statements of Eliyahu and Rosen, Johnson’s words, “there has been a steady–almost like termites can get into a residence and eat it up”–seem exceptionally innocuous. Yet Johnson is the only offender Greenblatt mentions in his article.
Moreover, Johnson, as Greenblatt notes, has apologized. But the rabbis have not. It looks very much as if there is one standard for Jews, and another standard for everybody else.
Rather than accusations of anti-Semitism, what is urgently needed now is for Israel to abide by international law. All settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal under international law, and Israel needs to be held accountable. The settlements should be dismantled immediately with no exceptions. Failure to do so simply perpetuates the “corrosive process.” Yet this likely would lead to massive public unrest, and some have even suggested the possibility of a Jewish civil war breaking out.
A resolution to the Palestine-Israel conflict, it also needs to be said, would require a recognition by the settlers and their religious authorities that they share a common humanity with the Palestinians–but of course for those whose mental antennae are attuned more to the boring of floor joists, grasping the concept of “shared humanity” might be an insurmountable challenge.
The historical moment of the Russian American meeting is similar to the moment which the French people who resisted the Nazism lived, those who most of them belonged to the Socialist and the Communist parties, on the eve of the Normandy’s landings on the beaches of France before the Soviet success of entering to Berlin. Some of them said that the Americans who formed the most advanced version of the capitalism’s development were not serious about getting rid of the Nazism as a distorted version of the Capitalism, because they would make use of it as a tool to exhaust the Left, to prevent the growing of its global power, and to crush the liberation movements by dual administration that tried to make use of the Soviet force, in addition to the capacities of the resistance movement and the national armies to prevent the expansion of the Nazism, and the turning into an active pole in the international politics, in return they would try to make use of the Nazism through well considered administration to fight it but at the same time to prevent its fall or its expansion in order to be the alternative balance element which would relieve America from standing against the Soviet Union, the resistance and the liberation movements.
The former French Presidents the late Charles de Gaulle and Francois Mitterrand were sharing the leadership of the French resistance, the first was leading units of the French army that refused to cooperate with the Nazi occupation, and the second was a leader of the popular resistance which was formed from the Socialists and the Communists. The harmony between the two men was a guarantee of the unity of the resistance on the approach to benefit from the American and the Soviet positions in fighting the Nazism, and keeping the liberation of France on one hand, and its independence on the other hand. These two priorities determined the position of the resistance. Therefore De Gaulle was confident of the ability of the resistance which led by Mitterrand and of the credibility of its cooperation with the Soviet support, he accepted to be the connection bridge between the two wings of the resistance and the US forces which started to prepare for the Normandy landings. The idea which the two men formulated for the resistance fighters said that the Americans were serious that time to land on the Normandy because of two reasons; the confidence that the Nazism is able to expand and to stretch unless it is crushed, and the second reason is that the rolling Soviet victory with the cooperation of the national resistance movements in Europe will make the chance of the fall of the Nazism a complete victory for the Soviets, and thus a preparation for their uniqueness in leading the post- war world.
De Gaulle who was in London was providing Mitterrand who was leading the groups of the resistance with whatever data he got, Mitterrand was the philosopher of the resistance and its writer, he formulated in a mediation language between the Left and the sincere nationalism. So that was common thought between him and De Gaulle. the Normandy’s landings has allowed him to come as a liberation fighter to France without neglecting his independent national thinking, and what the historical novels showed of the continuous collision between him and the Americans and the British. That has been shown repeatedly in the sixtieth by announcing the determination to get out of the NATO, and after the reach of the Soviet and the American troops to the gates of Berlin, and the liberation of France from the Nazism, De Gaulle and Mitterrand have shared ten years of the common rule of France then they alternated on the rule after that nearly thirty years.
After years that are similar to the years of the Second World War in the American temper in Al-Qaeda organization and making use of it from far as a means for attrition, creating chaos, blackmailing and imposing conditions, and threatening of changing the regional maps., and after years of the bet that Turkey has to play a similar role to the role played by Britain in the Second World War, the steadfastness of Syria accompanied with Russia and Iran succeeded in creating facts that are similar to what has happened after the steadfastness of Moscow and the victories of its army and people in Stalingrad’s battles against the Nazism, and its outburst in the big rolling attack towards Berlin. While the Nazism is revenging by igniting fire in London, as the terrorism ignites the capitals of the West today. But the Turkish President Recep Erdogan is not Winston Churchill; therefore Turkey becomes a burden not a supporter. On the other bank the Syrian President is succeeding in embodying the historic combination of the figures of De Gaulle and Mitterrand, he leads the resistance of his people and army against the new Nazism which is represented by the terrorism that is coming from the confine of the extremism of the atoning thought, and Berlin which is represented today by the Northern and the Eastern of Syria has become under fire, where the Syrian, the Russian and the Iranian allies agree that August is the month of the final word in the war whether the American came or not.
Many think that the Americans are still manipulating with the options and they bet on managing the balances, the matter here is not related to the intentions but to the capacities. Those who think that, are not distinguished that they are the most skeptical of the US intentions which are not indisputable of their badness, but the matter is that the suspicion of the intentions leads many times to understand completely the exaggerated confidence of the capacities, so the weak who is doomed with options is granted the ability of the maneuver which he does not have, as the situation of the Americans on the eve of the invasion of the Normandy. So it can be said that the Americans who are represented today by John Kerry in his negotiations with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov have shared with the Russians secrets for understandings that their allies do not know and they do not want them to know. There is no secret that the Americas are afraid because they admitted finally of the inevitability of the cooperation within an equation in which the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad forms a touchstone. The ideal landing was in the French Normandy. So it must cooperate with Charles de Gaulle despite the enmity and the hatred which Winston Churchill and Franklin D Roosevelt boasted of against him, as the British Foreign documents about an understanding between Roosevelt and Churchill that reported the lack of confidence of De Gaulle but the inevitability to cooperate with him.
The coming days and weeks are critical as were the days of the Normandy landings and the entry to Berlin. The Third World War approaches of its end, it draws its balances and equations, and it writes the names of its leaders. As the war has shown the name of De Gaulle as a symbol of victory despite the roles of the Soviet and the American armies, and the roles of the leaders as Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Stalin, and Winston Churchill, the French resistance accompanied with Charles De Gaulle and despite the hatred of Roosevelt and Churchill towards him has entered the pages of the war history as a distinction for achieving the victory on the Nazism, therefore the modern history will record in the war on the new Nazism the name of the Syrian President who is similar to what the US President Barack Obama has said about him what Franklin Roosevelt has said about Charles De Gaulle; I do not like this man and I cannot imagine France under his rule.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
كيري لافروف : حملة النورماندي والدخول إلى برلين
ناصر قنديل – تشبه اللحظة التاريخية للقاء الروسي الأميركي تلك اللحظة التي عاشها المقاومون الفرنسيون للنازية الذين كان أغلبهم ينتمون إلى الحزبين الاشتراكي والشيوعي، عشية إنزال النورماندي على شواطئ فرنسا قبيل النجاح السوفياتي بالدخول إلى برلين، حيث كان بينهم من يقول إنّ الأميركيين الذين يشكلون النسخة الأكثر تطوّراً للرأسمالية، ليسوا جادّين بالتخلص من النازية كنسخة مشوّهة من الرأسمالية، وسيسعون لاستخدامها كأداة لاستنزاف اليسار ومنع تنامي قوته العالمية وسحق حركات التحرّر، بإدارة مزدوجة تسعى لاستخدام القوة السوفياتية ومعها قدرات حركات المقاومة والجيوش الوطنية لمنع تمدّد النازية، والتحوّل إلى قطب فاعل في السياسة الدولية. وفي المقابل سيسعون لاستخدام النازية، عبر إدارة محسوبة للحرب عليها لا تسمح بسقوطها، ولا بتمدّدها، لتكون عنصر التوازن البديل الذي يريح أميركا من الوقوف بوجه الاتحاد السوفياتي وحركات المقاومة والتحرّر.
– كان الرئيسان الفرنسيان السابقان، الراحلان شارل ديغول وفرنسوا ميتران، يتقاسمان قيادة المقاومة الفرنسية، الأول على رأس وحدات من الجيش الفرنسي رفضت التعاون مع الاحتلال النازي، والثاني كقائد للمقاومة الشعبية التي تشكلت من الاشتراكيين والشيوعيين، وكان توافق الرجلين ضمانة لوحدة المقاومة، على منهج الإفادة من الموقفين الأميركي والسوفياتي في قتال النازية، وإبقاء تحرّر فرنسا من جهة واستقلالها من جهة أخرى، الأولويتين اللتين تحدّدان موقف المقاومة، ولذلك وثق ديغول بقدرة المقاومة التي يقودها ميتران وبمصداقية تعاونها مع الدعم السوفياتي، وارتضى أن يكون جسر التواصل بين جناحَي المقاومة والقوات الأميركية التي بدأت تستعدّ لإنزال النورماندي، وكان التشخيص الذي صاغه الرجلان المقاومان يقول إنّ الأميركيين جادّون هذه المرة بالنزول على النورماندي، لسببين وهما الثقة بأنّ النازية قادرة على التمدّد والتوسع ما لم تُسحق، والثاني أنّ الانتصار السوفياتي المتدحرج بالتعاون مع حركات المقاومة الوطنية في أوروبا سيجعل فرصة سقوط النازية، نصراً كاملاً للسوفيات، وبالتالي تمهيداً لتفرّدهم بزعامة عالم ما بعد الحرب.
– كان ديغول المقيم في لندن يزوّد ميتران الموجود على رأس جماعات المقاومة بكلّ ما يرده من معطيات، وكان ميتران فيلسوف المقاومة وكاتبها يصوغ بلغة متوسطة بين اليسار والوطنية الصادقة، ما يجمع تفكيره مع ديغول، الذي أتاح له إنزال النورماندي القدوم كمقاتل محرّر إلى فرنسا، من دون أن يلغي فكره الوطني الاستقلالي، وما تحمله الروايات التاريخية عن تصادم مستمرّ بينه وبين الأميركيين والبريطانيين. وهذا ما ظهر مراراً في الستينيات بإعلانه العزم على الخروج من حلف الأطلسي، وبعد بلوغ القوات السوفياتية والأميركية أبواب برلين، وتحرّر فرنسا من النازية، تشارك ديغول وميتران عشر سنوات من الحكم المشترك لفرنسا، ليتناوبا على حكمها بعد ذلك قرابة الثلاثين عاماً.
– بعد سنوات شبيهة بسنوات الحرب العالمية الثانية في اللعب الأميركي مع تنظيم «القاعدة»، واستخدامه عن بعد كآلة للاستنزاف وخلق الفوضى، والابتزاز وفرض الشروط، والتهديد بتغيير الخرائط الإقليمية، وبعد سنوات من الرهان على أن تلعب تركيا دوراً شبيهاً بالذي لعبته بريطانيا في الحرب العالمية الثانية، ينجح صمود سورية ومن ورائها روسيا وإيران، بخلق وقائع تشبه ما جرى بعد صمود موسكو وانتصارات جيشها وشعبها في معارك ستالينغراد على النازية، واندفاعها في الهجوم الكبير المتدحرج نحو برلين، بينما النازية تنتقم بإشعال النيران في لندن، كما يشعل الإرهاب عواصم الغرب اليوم، ولكن الرئيس التركي رجب أردوغان ليس ونستون تشرشل، فتصير تركيا عبئاً لا سنداً، وعلى الضفة المقابلة ينجح الرئيس السوري بتجسيد جمع تاريخي بين شخصيتَيْ ديغول وميتران، فيقود مقاومة شعبه وجيشه للنازية الجديدة، التي يمثلها الإرهاب الآتي من حضن تطرف فكر التكفير، وتصير برلين، التي يمثلها اليوم شمال وشرق سورية تحت النار، ويتوافق الحلفاء السوري والروسي والإيراني على أنّ شهر آب هو شهر الكلمة الفصل في الحرب، سواء جاء الأميركي أم لم يأتِ.
– يعتقد الكثيرون أنّ الأميركيين لا زالوا يتلاعبون بالخيارات، ويراهنون على القفز فوق الحبال وإدارة التوازنات فيها. والأمر هنا ليس بالنيات بل بالقدرات، فالذين يظنّون ذلك لا يتميّزون بأنهم الأشدّ شكوكاً بالنيات الأميركية التي لا يختلف إثنان على سوئها، بل الأمر أنّ الشك في النيات يتسبطن أحياناً كثيرة ثقة مبالغاً بها في القدرات، فيمنح الضعيف والمحكوم بالخيارات قدرة المناورة التي لا يملكها، كما كان عليه حال الأميركيين عشية غزو النورماندي. ولذلك يمكن القول إنّ الأميركيين الذين يمثلهم اليوم جون كيري في مفاوضاته مع نظيره الروسي سيرغي لافروف، صاروا يملكون مع الروس أسراراً لتفاهمات، لا يعرفها حلفاؤهم، ولا يريدون لهم أن يعرفوها، وليس من سرّ يخشاه الأميركيون مثل أنهم سلّموا أخيراً بحتمية التعاون ضمن معادلة يشكل الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد بيضة القبان فيها، فالإنزال الأمثل هو في النورماندي الفرنسية، ويجب التعاون مع شارل ديغول، رغم الحقد والكراهية التي يجاهر بها نحوه ونستون تشرشل وفرانكلين روزفلت، بمثل ما تنقل وثائق الخارجية البريطانية عن تفاهم روزفلت وتشرشل على عدم الثقة بديغول، رغم حتمية التعاون معه.
– الأيام والأسابيع المقبلة حاسمة مثلما كانت أيام النزول على النورماندي والدخول إلى برلين، فحرب عالمية ثالثة تقترب من نهاياتها، وترسم توازناتها ومعادلاتها، وتُكتب أسماء قادتها، ومثلما حملت الحرب اسم ديغول رمزاً للنصر، رغم أدوار الجيوش السوفياتية والأميركية، وأدوار قادة مثل فرانكلين روزفلت وجوزف ستالين وونستون تشرشل، دخلت المقاومة الفرنسية ومعها شارل ديغول رغم كراهية روزفلت وتشرشل له وحقدهما عليه، صفحات تاريخ الحرب كعلامة فارقة لصناعة النصر على النازية، سيكتب التاريخ الحديث في سجل الحرب على النازية الجديدة اسم الرئيس السوري، الذي يشبه ما قاله فيه الرئيس الأميركي باراك أوباما ما قاله فرانكلين روزفلت بشارل ديغول، لا أحبّ هذا الرجل ولا أستطيع تخيّل فرنسا وهو يحكمها.
It’s been over a week since the Turkish coup has taken place and still no one definitively knows what happened, who was behind it, and who was originally meant to benefit. It is rather obvious now that, since the coup did not succeed, Erdogan will find himself in a much safer position domestically than before it took place by virtue of the massive governmental and military purge that has taken place in its aftermath. Internationally, however, is another question.
Still, no one fully knows whether or not Erdogan was actually set to benefit from the coup to begin with. Was Erdogan behind the coup himself? Was Fethullah Gulen behind the coup? Were the nationalists behind the coup? Did Erdogan and the United States stage the coup together to allow for a crackdown and double-down on the nationalist faction? Was the coup actually the work of the United States attempting to overthrow Erdogan over his previous moves toward warming relations with Russia? All of these questions have been asked but none have yielded any definitive answer.
What is certain, however, is that Erdogan’s behavior in the weeks after the coup will tell us more about who was actually behind the coup.
While it is still too early to tell who organized the coup or even to fully analyze Erdogan’s behavior afterwards, some recent developments are notable.
For instance, on August 9, Erdogan is expected to travel to St. Petersburg, Russia in order to take part in talks with Vladimir Putin for the purposes of speeding up the repair of Turkish/Russian relations.
Announcing the August 9 visit, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek stated that Russia “isn’t just our close and friendly neighbor, but also a strategic partner.”
“Today,” he said. “we are here to normalize the situation and our relations as soon as possible and at an accelerated pace since they were disrupted on November 24.” Simsek was referring to the downing of the Russian jet fighter over Syria by Turkey that took place months ago.
Bloomberg news describes the upcoming meeting in glowing terms and as more than a mere diplomatic formality. The agency writes,
The attempt to overthrow Erdogan has turbo-charged efforts to restore ties between Turkey and Russia that were already under way after the crisis over the warplane. The rapprochement may even lead to a political realignment in the region. Erdogan has drawn strong criticism from the U.S. and other NATO allies for a sweeping crackdownon tens of thousands of alleged opponents following the failed coup, while Turkey has heaped praise on Russia for its support since the crisis erupted on July 15.
Simsek emphasized Turkey’s gratitude to Russia at the talks with Dvorkovich on restoring economic ties, saying: “You supported democracy, supported the government. Thank you very much.”
. . . . .
Turkey received “unconditional support” from Russia over the coup attempt, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said in an interview to Haberturk TV on Monday. He also said anti-U.S. sentiment is rising in the country after the failed revolt.
Putin ordered the Russian government last month to begin lifting sanctions imposed on Turkey after Erdogan sent a letter offering “sympathy and profound condolences” to the family of the pilot who died when Turkey shot down his plane during the November mission to bomb Islamic State and other militants in Syria.
Putin had accused Turkey of a “stab in the back” for downing the jet and railed against the “ruling gang” in Ankara, as Russia retaliated with a ban on charter flights that harmed tourism and sanctions on imports of some Turkish fruits and vegetables. In December, Russia directly accused Erdogan’s family of being involved in illegal oil trading with Islamic State, a charge Turkey rejected.
Bloomberg also mentions a renewed interest and hope for the Turkish-Stream pipeline. It reports,
Turkey confirmed interest in resuming the Turkish Stream gas-pipeline project, Alexander Medvedev, deputy chief executive officer of Gazprom PJSC, told reporters after taking part in talks between Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak and Zeybekci. A decision on an agreement will be made after Putin and Erdogan meet, he said.
Russia shelved talks in December on the planned Black Sea link that would make Turkey a linchpin in Europe’s energy supplies by 2020, with Gazprom saying the route was still possible if political relations improved.
Meanwhile, Turkey continues to launch accusations against the United States and demand, to no avail at least at the current time, that Fethullah Gulen be extradited. Some sources in Turkey have even pointed the finger at U.S. Commander Of The International Security Assistance Force, a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, as the organizer of the coup. Pro-Erdogan Turkish newspaper Yeni Safak reports,
A former U.S. commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, was the organizer of the July 15 military coup attempt in Turkey, sources said.
General John F. Campbell was one of the top figures who organized and managed the soldiers behind the failed coup attempt in Turkey, sources close to ongoing legal process of pro-coup detainees said.
Campbell also managed more than $2 billion money transactions via UBA Bank in Nigeria by using CIA links to distribute among the pro-coup military personnel in Turkey.
The ongoing investigation unveiled that Campbell had paid at least two secret visits to Turkey since May, until the day of the coup attempt.
The coup plot that was foiled by the comprehensive effort of Turkish Nation, including its citizens, politicians, media and police forces, was organized by the Fethullah Terrorist Organization (FETO) led-by so-called cleric Fethullah Gülen who has been living in self-exile in America for several years.
American Intelligence, Military and other institutions are accused of supporting the FETO leader Gülen and his gangs for the military coup.
Military sources said Campbell, who was the commander of ISAF between August 26, 2014 and May 1, 2016, had made some top secret meetings in Erzurum military base and Adana İnicrlik Airbase.
İncirlik Airbase has been used by the U.S. Military for conducting the anti-Daesh campaign in Syria.
Military sources said that Campbell was the man, who directed the process of trending / blacklisting the military officers in the base.
If the coup attempt was successful, Campbell would visit Turkey in a short time, according to the sources.
The Nigeria branch of the United Bank of Africa (UBA) was the main base for the last six-months of money transactions for the coup plotters.
Millions of dollars of money has been transferred from Nigeria to Turkey by a group of CIA personnel.
The money, which has been distributed to an 80-person special team of the CIA, was used to convince pro-coup generals.
More than 2 billion dollars were distributed during the process leading to the coup.
After taking money from their bank accounts, the CIA team hand delivered it to the terrorists under the military dresses.
In the Persian Gulf, accusations are also starting to circulate with Qatar’s Minister of State for Defense claiming that both Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates supported the coup. According to Khalid al-Attiyah, “This document [which he posted on his twitter account]reveals that a Saudi Emir and a top Emirati military official have been aware, in advance, of an imminent plot to topple the Turkish President through their participation in the Anatolian Eagle maneuvers held last May. However, they refrained from informing the Turkish authorities.” According to the document, the coup was scheduled for August but took place on July 15th.
Likewise, fallout is taking place in Europe with the EU warning Erdogan that his reaction to the coup may jeopardize his chances of being admitted into the EU. In fact, Brussels has warned that, if Turkey decides to go ahead with its reinstatement of the death penalty for the putchists, its bid for membership would be effectively over.
These recent developments (a greater trend toward Russia and continued shaky relations with Europe and the United States) tend to lend credence to claims by those suggesting that the coup was initiated by West (the United States in particular) as a response to Turkey’s recent warming of relations with Russia. These individuals claim that the U.S., in fear that they were losing an ally and useful pawn in the war against Syria to Russia, attempted to overthrow Erdogan and replace him with a more amenable government or, at the very least, frighten Erdogan into playing ball.
One such individual is researcher and analyst, Mimi al-Laham (aka Syrian Girl, Partisan Girl). She says,
“I don’t believe it [the coup] is [an inside job], the man had to go on FaceTime to tell his people to come out in the streets and protest, it was quite humiliating! The reason I don’t believe it was, it’s because a few days before the coup, about 4 days, Turkey started making statements that they were sorry for shooting down the Russian jet, and they wanted to re-affirm their alliance with Russia, and they wanted to get closer to their regional allies. This was like a few days or weeks after Brexit. Basically, the EU wasn’t the same EU anymore.. and the Turkey wasn’t desperate to join it any-more, so Turkey decided to maybe come up with a different Foreign Policy, and Turkey is also unhappy with the agenda to create a Kurdish state in Syria, because that is going to create a Kurdish state in Turkey as well, and of-course, it is going to displace the Christian and Syrian population in Syria as a result, but I guess those people don’t matter, as long as the agenda is pushed.
But, Erdogan is / has been a criminal for the last 4 years, and there is no doubt that he has supported terrorism up until this day, but, he is not the biggest criminal: the biggest criminals were his puppet masters which were in the White House, because, obviously, those people are far more powerful, and those people – there is a lot of indication that it was actually the CIA that was behind it. There were reports that came out that Russia actually tipped off the Turks : the leader behind the coup is in Washington, and Washington has refused to extradite him.
If you look at the Media, the Main Stream Media, for some reason, even though we have been calling Erdogan a terrorist supporter for ages, only now have they decided: “Yep! Oh yea, yea, he is a terrorist supporter.”
France, just before the Nice attacks, or – I’m not quite sure but at-least before the coup, they shut down their Embassy in Turkey. I mean, France has made statements now that Erdogan can no longer be a partner against terror. It’s a joke, cause France itself has been openly arming terror for the last 4 years, and, of-course, so has Turkey : so what’s really going on is France is angry that Turkey is choosing to go a different way now, it’s leaning now towards trying to reverse the disaster it has created for itself, with this instability, with economic problems with Russia, taking advice and shooting down a Russian jet, all because they wanted to join the EU – which is on its way to collapsing.
This is how I read the situation, and I think that *the idea that they did it to themselves.. uhm, I think it comes from a hate and distrust of Erdogan, like a lack of understanding as to why sometimes puppets are just thrown away when they are no longer doing what they are told, or they are no longer useful – which – you know, it’s a confusing situation, but no, many people died, people are in exile, coup leaders are in jail, I don’t think he did it to himself, I think that Russia tipped him off about a CIA agent to get rid of him, and put in some-one else that was gonna maintain the status-quo, and not try to make friends with Russia.”
Still, as Tony Cartalucci writes in his article “Turkey’s Failed Coup A Gift From God,” if the United States was truly involved in the Turkish coup or even if the U.S. had merely facilitated the coup via the Gulen Movement, Turkey’s response has been “disproportionately subdued.” “No one is suggesting that Turkey would “go to war” with the United States,” writes Cartalucci, “but even amid diplomatic rows of far lesser significance, nations have expelled diplomats and withdrawn the use of their territory for specific uses by the nation in question. Turkey, so far, has done none of this in regards to the United States.”
If the U.S. was truly involved in the Turkish coup one would expect a number of actions to follow the incident. First, as Cartalucci suggests, we would expect to see the expulsion of diplomats and the expulsion of U.S. forces from Turkish territory, namely Incirlik Air Base. We would expect the closure of the rather large American embassy in Ankara. Likewise, Turkey would then be forced to rethink its membership in NATO since, despite the organization being based upon the concept of “collective defense,” no one came to Turkey’s aid even though the coup would be considered an overt act of war against the Turkish government.
We would also expect to see Turkey move closer to Russia, Iran, and possibly China as well as some elements of Europe. While international developments are clearly still in flux, we have seen at least some signs that Turkey is moving closer to Russia but, interestingly enough, signs that Turkey may be moving further away from Europe.
So there still stands as a distinct possibility that the United States was indeed involved in the coup but that it was not alone.
At this point in time, we can only watch and gauge the reactions of Turkey and the subsequent behavior of the Erdogan government. Will Turkey engage in punitive measures or will it double down against Syria, Russia, Iran, and political dissent within the country? Without being privy to inside information, Turkey’s behavior will tell us all we need to know in regards to who was behind this coup.
If Erdogan did indeed conspire with the United States to stage a coup and provide a pretext for a massive crackdown and purge of his political enemies, then the man known for narcissism and delusions of grandeur made one hell of a gutsy move that appears to be paying dividends in the form of solidifying his control over the country. If this is case, then Turkey is in for an even rougher ride and, unfortunately, so is Syria.
I grew up in Syria as a child. My childhood was filled with happy memories surrounded by my family in Damascus and Aleppo. They belong to the Christian minorities but never encountered any problems related to that. Of course, there was always some Islamist extremism that lurked into the country but a very wide majority of Sunni Muslims took it easy, enjoyed secular Syria, and took some pride in being part of a country that had managed to live peacefully and united for decades.
When I see the news about the “civil war,” knowing that reality is different by being in touch with real Syrians in the country, I can only say that I have enough of this charade… It is a planned “uprising” engineered in order to further control the Middle East. This wasn’t just pushed by democracy-loving protesters. It is well-organized stratagem planned by foreign countries. Chemical weapons and attacks on hospitals have been used by chosen so-called “moderate” rebels to create more reasons for the West to fight Assad and the Syrian people who lived in secular conditions without religious struggle – including Christians, all sort of Muslims, and other religions.
Saudi Arabia is Syria’s enemy because the Saudi’s stand for Wahhabism and are not tolerant towards religious freedom or musical, artistic or female expression. If Assad fell, democracy would not be the alternative; it would be a Sharia government in its most primitive way!
There are geopolitical interests at work as well of course, and this war has been planned by the CIA and the Pentagon to complete a global long-term plan to control the Middle East and its resources.
Assad was elected by 80 % of the Syrian people, so why are we funding the rebels who want to install the Sharia law and oppress and behead people? Why would we support the very people who committed 9/11?The answer is that, if Assad is gone, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia can build a gas pipeline and Israel can sell the oil they found on the stolen Golan Heights, Iran can be attacked next and so on.
At the moment, it is Russia, Hezbollah and the Syrian Arab Army (all Syrians with different religions united) who are fighting ISIS and thousands of internationally recruited terrorists. Of course the U.S., Turkey, the Saudis and Israel are not happy about this because they profit from destabilizing Syria just as they did with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. If nobody funded the rebels, this war would be over and the refugees would be able to safely go home. But then the economy of all foreign arm dealers would stagnate. The more people die and shoot each other, the more they earn. They even fund different groups that fight each other just to keep the dollar rolling!
Imperialist megalomaniac ideas clash with the Eastern wish of staying authentic and untouchable make the possibility of a World War 3 awfully real. All the chaos that has been created by the U.S., Saudi Arabia and NATO in the Middle East is a crime against humanity. The U.S. sending troops without an invitation from the legally elected government is illegitimate!
Syria took in Palestinian, Greek, Armenian and Iraqi refugees, gave them free healthcare and school education even in times of drought and sanctions. This is something the U.S. cannot even do for their own people in their best economic days. But because nobody is trained to see the complexity of all that’s happening, people fall for simple explanations and blame Assad, call him a tyrant or bloody dictator. At the same time, the so called “freedom fighters” and “moderate rebels”, who are actually Al Qaida , Al Nusra Front and other Islamic extremists, are painted as good and freedom-lovers by a heavily corrupt western media.
They support their propaganda with millions of dollars to get it down our throats just like the weapons of mass destruction lie in Iraq. The U.S. is known for installing puppet governments in order to move forward with their own interests. I’m sick of it and I want the mainstream press to go to Syria and see for themselves what is happening. I want them to represent the Syrian people and not the terrorists who came to destroy and destabilize the country, displacing its people and who are now starting to destabilize Europe.
I have honestly never seen so many lies in the news as with this invasion, this proxy war in Syria. So many sources have been used to brainwash the people of the West, most notably that of the western press and the so-called humanitarian organizations who attempt to legitimize the horror.
No government and its people should have to accept a foreign-backed regime change for the worse.
The destabilization is doing nothing but providing us with the destruction of worldwide artifacts, loss of culture and the last Muslim and Christian people who spoke the tongue of Christ. These people are now dead, kidnapped, tortured, raped, sold as slaves, and displaced.
How can we accept this in the name of Freedom?
Hanin Elias was born 1972 in Wittlich, Germany. Daughter of a Syrian doctor and a German doctor’s assistant. She spent her childhood in Damascus and Aleppo. Co founder of the Band Atari Teenage Riot, Founder of Fatal Recordings, and political activist, she toured with Rage against the Machine, Wutang Clan, and Nine Inch Nails. She has also released an album under the name “Fantôme” entitled It All Makes Sense. Elias has released 13 albums as a solo artist.
ALEPPO: In Handaraat Camp, occupied by the U.S.-supported Nooreddeen Al-Zangi gang of terrorist child-killers, Syrian Army commandos helped by local Palestinians drew a bead on this wretch named ‘Aamir Sha’baan, killing him instantly with a shot to the neck. He was a major field commander for the gang of mass murdering, mostly foreign, jihadist cockroaches in the Handaraat Camp and played a part in the beheading spectacle of the innocent 13-year old ‘Abdullah ‘Issaa. (See photo below):
That’s the cockroach in the lower left hand corner of the photo which has gone viral. Gee. I wonder who wanted to kill him? He also seems high on Captagon.
Deputy Secretary of the Ba’ath Party Regional Command, Hilaal Al-Hilaal, meets with residents of Bani Zayd after its liberation by the Syrian Army and its allies. Dr. Assad requested his presence there and in Al-Layramoon and Al-Ashrafiyya there to assure the citizens of the continuing concern for their well-being.
Comrade Al-Hilaal, seen here also helping to inaugurate the opening of the brand new Medical Complex for the Physician’s Union in Al-Hamdaaniyya.
SYRIAN CITIZENS IN BANI ZAYD EXPLODE IN JUBILATION AFTER THE DELOUSING OF DISTRICT: (Thanks, Khaled)
People are ecstatic in the Mogambo District after the SAA’s monumental victory. (Thanks, Khaled)
Syrian soldiers prepare for the final assault in Aleppo. (Photo sent by Khaled Nawaz Al-Nouri)
Displaced Syrians in Damascus receive 4.5 tons of food from the Russian Federation. (Thanks, Khaled)
Abu Muhammad Al-Jawlaani, a native of Dayr El-Zor, but, whose nom de guerre is meant to throw off those who try to pin down his actual origins. His real name is Usaamaa Al-‘Absi Al-Waahidi. He claims to have disconnected his group, a Robert Ford creation called Jabhat Al-Nusra (The Front for Assistance), from its mother organization, Al-Qaeda. The gesture is most certainly related to the SAA’s conquest of Aleppo and the seemingly endless numbers of defectors from his criminal enterprise. His televised speech was taped and delivered in Jordan.
Syrian residents of Bani Zayd and other recently liberated quarters of the northern capital have begun leaving the area in large number through 3 corridors established for them by the government. Initially, the rodent terrorists would not permit them to leave and persisted in sniping at families carrying their only moveable property. After 3 days, when the rats took note that Syrian members of terrorist gangs could actually be granted amnesty, they relented and stopped sniping. Some stories are emerging about former terrorists turning their guns on foreign rodents who were not willing to consider surrender. Of course, as you all know, the SAA turns foreigners over to the militias for “dispensation”, so to speak, after they have been interrogated. The majority of civilians are passing out of Bani Zayd through the Salaahuddeen Quarter and into safety.
The number of Syrian terrorists who have surrendered has just passed the 400 mark as I am writing this article on Sunday, July 31, 2016, at 10:20 EDT.
WARNING TO ALL READERS FROM KHALED NAWAZ AL-NOURI:
“Urgent: do not accept the friendship of ” Elvira Visca “,” Veronica Fernandez ” and ” Paul monasterolo “, They are hackers. Tell everyone on your list because, if someone adds, get the list of contacts and the computer and IP address.
Copy and paste this post.”
Read more
The Jewish lobby is peeved with Baroness Tonge because she shared an article about ‘Jewish power.’
The horrid Time of Israel writes, ‘It emerged that the anti-Israel peer had earlier shared an article about ‘Jewish power’ being behind Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s current woes.”
Yours truly is the author of the article Baroness Tonge shared. Apparently, the Lobby doesn’t like it when their opponents openly exchange ideas. After all, Jewish power it the power to silence criticism of Jewish power. Yet, the fact that I dare to publicly criticise Jewish power and the Baroness circulated the critique suggests that Jewish power is in a sharp decline.
Here is an interesting twist. Yesterday I was told that Hasbara agent Gary Spedding, exposed on this page last week, was active behind the scenes exerting pressure on the hero humanist baroness Tonge.
On his FB page, Spedding expressed ‘deep concerns’ regarding Baroness Tongesharing an article written by Gilad Atzmon. Spedding, who is notorious for being stupid as well as treacherous, insists that Jewish power is a known anti-Semitic trope. Someone should help Spedding to figure out that for people who live in the USA, Britain and France, Jewish Power is the medium through which our politics is taking place.
In bed with the ardent ultra Zionist Jewish lobbyist in Britain; Spedding discusses with Moshe how to expel the Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Party.
The verdict is clear. The time is long overdue for the Palestinian solidarity movement to clean its ranks or just fade away.
The photo above is of Qamar Manasra, a 16-year-old Palestinian girl who lives in Reineh, a small village in the northern part of Israel. On July 19, Qamar’s home was invaded by Israeli forces who arrested her on charges of “incitement” for her posts on Facebook.
The Israelis were apparently quite violent–toward Qamar as well as other members of her family. An article about her has been posted here, although you won’t be able to read it unless you read Arabic. But you will be able to see additional pictures, including a photo of her with her arm around her elderly grandfather as well as a separate photo of what apparently is her father.
Apparently the home was pretty thoroughly ransacked. Qamar is also mentioned in a report here, which is in English, and if you go there you can read about her as well as a number of other Palestinian women and girls imprisoned by Israel. Interestingly, Qamar’s village, Reineh, is also the home village of Palestinian poet Dareen Tatour, who was arrested last October and charged with–yes, you guessed it–“incitement.”
According to the article,
Tatour has been supported by hundreds of writers around the world,including Pulitzer Prize winners and other world-renowned novelists, poets, and artists. She was imprisoned for three months and has since been held in house arrest for nine months; part of the original conditions of her house arrest included exile from her village of Reineh. Instead, her brother was forced to rent a separate apartment in Tel Aviv and her brother and sister-and-law forced to lose work in order to “guard” her 24/7. Finally, the prosecution dropped its objection to Tatour serving out her house arrest in Reineh last week; today, 25 July, her return to Reineh – still under house arrest – is expected to be approved, following significant international rpessure on the case.
Another woman mentioned in the story is Abla al-Adam, 45, who was arrested December 20, 2015 after being shot in the head by what apparently was a rubber-coated steel bullet. The bullet put her right eye out, and according to the report she now suffers from medical neglect in Israeli custody. She reportedly cannot move her head without severe pain, but is given only sedatives and painkillers rather than any serious medical treatment for the root causes of her pain.
She was hospitalized but moved before the completion of her treatment to HaSharon prison. Much of her care comes from her fellow women prisoners rather than from any kind of medical personnel. She was accused of having a knife at a checkpoint in al-Khalil. Al-Adam has nine children; only her minor children have been allowed to visit her, not those over the age of 18, due to “security” denials.
Earlier this month, Mondoweiss conducted an interview with poet Tatour in Occupied Palestine, where she is still undergoing house arrest.
“Never in my life did I believe that a poem that I wrote could lead to this,” Tatour said. “Up until this moment, I still haven’t absorbed it.”
According to the author of the article, a frayed picture of Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish hangs in the poet’s bedroom…and she also has a pet cat.
So what exactly led to the arrest of this dangerous woman?
During the upsurge of violence between Palestinians and Israelis last fall, Tatour posted a poem called “Resist my people, Resist them,”which would become the centerpiece of the multi-pronged case against her. Accompanied by dramatic music and familiar footage of Israeli house raids and Palestinian youth clashing with IDF soldiers, the defiant, confrontational poem calls for a sustained resistance against occupation. The clip had only 113 views at the time of her arrest.
The specific subject and inspiration of this poem was the murder of three Palestinian civilians in the past two years: Ali Dawabsheh, the 18-month-old infant who was burned to death by right-wing settlers in July 2015; Mohammed Abu Khdeir, the teen who was kidnapped and burned to death in July 2014, and Hadil Hashlamoun, the unarmed 18-year-old student who was gunned down at a checkpoint in September 2015. “I was in so much pain,” Dareen says. “It hit me hard. I wrote the poem about them. Hadeel Hashlamoun—they killed her at checkpoint because she refused to remove her hijab…The poem is for them.”
Israel, it is said, is now the 8th most powerful nation in the world. What does it say when a country this powerful should feel this threatened and terrified by poets and teenage girls posting on Facebook?
The Jewish-controlled media rarely mentions the ‘self-hating Jews’ who claim that Jewish religion has nothing to do with Zionism or state of Israel. I can count many of them including Hajo Meyer, Shlomo Sand, Gilad Atzmon, Richard Falk, Israel Shamir, Medea Benjamin, and Paul Eisen. Hajo Meyer addressed Never Again for Anyone conference in Toronto (Canada) on January 31, 2011 (Listen below).
There are many Jewish organizations and on-line news sites which pretends to be anti-Zionism but support the so-called ‘Jewish uniqueness’ such as Jewish Voices for Peace, Jewish Witness for Peace and Friends, Mondoweiss,Jews San Frontiers, etc.
Jewish writer G. Neuburger explains the difference between Judaism and Zionism (here).
On July 30, 2016, Canadian journalist and author Eric Walberg posted an article on his blog, entitled, Renouncing Jewishness: Shlomo Sand and Gilad Atzmon. In case some reader may not know, Dr. Shlomo Sand is an apologetic Zionist Jew while Gilad Atzmon is a rebellious Jew.
“The (Jew) exile legend is a myth. Shlomo Sand is a historian and couldn’t find any texts supporting it. The Romans did not exile peoples. “Judaic society was not dispersed and was not exiled.” Jews continued to live in the Holy Land through thick and thin, freer under Muslim rule than Christian, but even the latter never “ethnically cleansed” them. Most converted to Christianity or Islam. Voila! The (Christian, Muslim) Palestinians. However, a tiny core stuck stubbornly to the original monotheism, nurtured by the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BC (the only bona fide exile, the earlier Egyptian exile legend being crafted much later, when the Torah was written down and collected in the 3rd century BC),” says Walberg.
“Jews are not a race but rather a collective of many ethnic groups who were hijacked by a late 19th century ‘national’ movement. There is no racial or ethnic basis for being Jewish any more than there is for being Christian or Muslim. The great majority of those who today consider themselves Jewish are descended from converts in Central Asia, eastern Europe and north Africa, not from ancient Hebrews expelled from the Holy Land by the Romans. They are not ethnic “Semites”, of near eastern origin, or ethnic anything else,” adds Walberg.
July 31, 2016 (The New Atlas) – Consensus among the United States and Russia is rare, but just such a consensus was reached, at least rhetorically, in the wake of Jabhat Al Nusra’s apparent break with Al Qaeda and an attempt to rebrand itself as Syrian forces completed their encirclement of Syria’s northern city of Aleppo.
Abu Mohammed al-Jolani appeared in camera for the first time to announce his group’s name has also changed to Jabhat Fath al Sham, or The Front for liberation of al Sham. “We declare the complete cancellation of all operations under the name of Jabhat al-Nusra, and the formation of a new group operating under the name ‘Jabhat Fath al-Sham’, noting that this new organisation has no affiliation to any external entity,” Jolani said.
Al Jazeera would also quote spokeswoman Farah al-Atassi of the High Negotiations Committee representing armed groups fighting the Syrian government who claimed:
We look at it with relief,” she told Al Jazeera from Washington DC, minutes after Jolani’s announcement. This will reflect somehow positively on the Free Syrian Army (FSA) who has been fighting ISIL and al-Nusra for the past six months, because Russia is bombing and hitting FSA positions and civilian neighbourhoods with the excuse that they are hitting al-Nusra.
Her optimism, however, is likely unfounded. Both the United States and Russia have subsequently released statements indicating that the move would not change either nations’ stance on the group.
“We judge any organization, including this one, much more by its actions, its ideology, its goals,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said of al Nusra.
“We judge a group by what they do, not by what they call themselves. … Thus far, there’s no change to our views about this particular group. We certainly see no reasons to believe that their actions or their objectives are any different. And they are still considered a foreign terrorist organization.”
Attempts of Jabhat al-Nusra to paint itself differently by changing its name are vain, the group remains an illegal terrorist organization, fight against it will continue until it is fully destroyed, a Russian Foreign Ministry commentary said on Friday.
Regardless of what the United States and its allies may be doing covertly to support either Jabhat Al Nusra or groups fighting alongside it, even the US State Department finds it difficult to publicly afford the terrorist organisation any new leeway in the wake of this recent move. Global public awareness of the conflict of Syria has reached a tipping point where portrayal of armed groups fighting the Syrian government as “victims” is now increasingly ineffective.
Russia, for its part, has from the beginning of its intervention last year made it clear that while it was willing to support negotiations between armed groups and the Syrian government, those who refused to put down arms would remain legitimate targets toward the goal of ending the conflict and stabilising Syria.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov would famously say at the beginning of Russia’s intervention in Syria that,
“if it looks like a terrorist, if it acts like a terrorist, if it walks like a terrorist, if it fights like a terrorist, it’s a terrorist, right?”
It is unlikely then, with Syria and its allies including Russia possessing the initiative, that any attempt to blur the lines between various groups fighting on the ground will somehow spare any of them from military operations now entering the next phase in securing the country and ending the war.
Interview conducted by Alexander Sivilov with professor Tetsuya Sahara, one of the most prominent Japanese experts on Balkan history and politics. Prof. Sahara teaches political science at Meiji University in Tokyo. From 2008 to 2015 he worked in the Middle East Technical University in Ankara and one of the largest private Turkish universities – Bilkent. He deals with the problems of modern Islamic fundamentalism and the development of terrorist movements in the Balkans, during the civil war in Yugoslavia.
Originally appeared at A-specto
translated by Borislav exclusively for SouthFront
Prof. Sahara, who is the really behind the attempted coup in Turkey? The country’s government come up with a particular version, but many analysts point to President Erdogan himself?
According to the official sources, the coup was organized by colonel Muharrem Kose and the “Peace at home council.” According to the same data, the actions of the rioters were driven by general Akin Yozturk, former commander of the Air Force. At the same time, President Erdogan and his government say the coup was inspired by Fethullah Gülen. In fact, neither of the two versions seems credible. The roots of all this are much deeper. The Turkish armed forces are part of NATO, and without the tacit consent of this organization, a similar attempt could not happen at all.
If we look at the extent and depth of commitment, the coup was well prepared and probably organized for several months. This March, the neoconservatives were talking about the likely topple of the government of Turkey, and the entirety of Erdogan’s regime. They even claimed that the West would approve of such a development of events.
The direct actions of the conspirators, were supposed to start a little later, but information came that a preventative operation was to take place on July 16 to 17. This information leaked on July 14, and they had to change their plans. Therefore, their actions seemed poorly organized.
How do you evaluate the attitude of Russia and the US to the coup attempt? Why did Washington not categorically support their ally Erdogan? Are their differences that big?
At the time of the coup, Secretary of State John Kerry was in Moscow, and his first statement was that he hoped that the clashes and political instability would end as quickly as possible. That is strange. Why not condemn the coup? Moreover, many Western leaders repeatedly spoke with concern that the rule of law when arresting the participants in an attempt to overthrow the Turkish president, were not followed. It seems that they are trying to protect the conspirators.
The Russians initially reacted similarly. Then they let information leak that Moscow had warned Ankara about the impending insurrection. The news came from an Iranian news agency, and the spokesman for President Vladimir Putin – Dmitry Peskov, then denied the information. This is a classic escape in diplomacy.
The coup happened at a time when John Kerry was meeting with Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov. They announced that they have reached a general agreement in all major disputes between the two countries, but specific topics and solutions remained secret. Among them is undoubtedly the Peace Process in Syria. They apparently have agreed to destroy the jihadist groups that previously were supported by Turkey. The surest way to guarantee the deal is kept, is the elimination of Erdogan. Washington and Moscow have long had a common interest for that to happen. Even the recent improvements in relations with Russia, can be explained by the Turkish President’s concern that an international conspiracy is prepared against him.
What was the opposition’s attitude toward the coup? Is it true that all parties were united in their support for Erdogan against the army? What is the future of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party? There were news that two days after the clashes, Turkish warplanes bombed Kurdish positions and bases in northern Iraq. Does it mean that the president is even preparing for a war with the Kurds that are outside of Turkey?
The junta had no support from major political parties in the country. They were clearly not interested in their support and did not seek it. Therefore, none of the politicians supported them. In fact, all major opposition parties urged their supporters to take to the streets against the military. As for the PKK, they play a double game – they continue their attacks on security forces and the army in eastern Turkey, and at the same time give signals that they want to resume the reconciliation process. Erdogan said that Gülen’s organization is more dangerous than the PKK and Isil, but I do not think he really wants peace with the Kurds.
What is the situation in Turkish secondary and higher education after the start of the purges? Will their secular character be destroyed?
It is absolutely clear that a systematic purge in all universities is taking place. How far will it go is not yet clear, but the Gülenists and unruly part of the Islamists are removed. Currently removed are supporters of peace and secularism. Given that they are the best part of the Turkish academic community, what is happening is a fatal blow to the scientific and educational system.
How do you see Turkey’s future? In a previous interview you said that there will be civil war in the country, even though there were no clues for that?
Civil war has already begun. The question is how far it will go. Hostilities against the Kurds can stop, if the government of the Justice and Development Party contemplates a bit. The war against the jihadists is a different thing. That will end only if Turkey is torn apart, or the terrorists are completely destroyed. On July 15, something unseen happened. After Erdogan called on them, many radical Islamists who were carrying Kalashnikovs took to the streets, and they were the nucleus of the group torturing and beheading soldiers. It has long been rumored that the ruling Justice and Development Party is secretly arming their supporters, and now it is confirmed.
The result of the purge in the army is very scary. After coming to power in 2002, Erdogan’s party cleared the army of Kemalists. Then they replaced them with supporters of Fethullah Gülen. Currently they are cleansing the Gülenists. Who will come in their place? Most likely it will be extreme Islamists. Currently, half of those in the military are sympathetic to jihadists and the idea of a holy war. It’s a disaster.
How do you see the development of relations between Turkey and the European Union? Do you think Brussels leads an adequate foreign policy towards Ankara? What will happen with Bulgaria in this context?
Erdogan’s positions are already consolidated, and he does not need the support of the West, at least in terms of domestic politics. The EU and the European Commission will not be able to make a new restrictive agreement with the dictator.
As history shows, a strong Turkey is always a source of problems and a threat to Bulgaria. Sofia will have to be much more careful in the attempts to maintain normal relations with its arrogant neighbor.
There are rumors about a new coup in Turkey. Initially, they were fueled by Erdogan himself. In this case, its a prerequisite for escalating the crackdown, but there is another aspect of the disseminated information. Turkish Armed Forces are composed of four parts: the army, navy, air force and gendarmerie. The last three were the main participants in the mutiny. It is still not clear why the army did not get involved. For the moment it is protected from the purge, and it has the potential to make changes because it is the largest among the various armed forces.
Starting today, this map takes on a whole new geopolitical meaning. (Image by baidu.com)
Up till now, both Russian and China have eschewed the concept of an “alliance”. Why? Because of all the historical Western empire baggage that goes with it, including sometimes secret, frequently broken treaties, treachery, double dealing, back stabbing and all the other perfidy that goes with it. Not to mention, potentially unenforceable or unwise commitments to militarily attack an enemy of an ally, regardless of how stupid or absurd it is. Just recall the insanity of World War I, to put things in perspective.
The Chinese and Russians have preferred to talk about their “special relationship”, “friendship”, “historical ties” and “strategic partnership”. Until today, that is. People’s Daily, the flagship newspaper of the government of China splashed this headline:
China, Russia ‘semi-alliance’ to launch drills in S. China Sea
“Semi”, but nonetheless, an alliance. Out of curiosity, I searched “China-Russia alliance” in Chinese on the People’s Daily website and was surprised to see that it has been used sparingly, starting in November, 2015. “Semi” was not used, but “new” was, as in “new Sino-Russian alliance”. This in spite of the fact that Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, as well as their Foreign Ministries, have both publicly stated that their countries’ relationship is not an alliance, but something else.
But clearly, the semantic Rubicon has been crossed. Geopolitically and diplomatically, this is huge, “semi” or not.
I always say to my students that “words are powerful things”. This week’s headlines confirm that in spades. Please officially welcome the Sino-Russian alliance onto the world stage. WOW!
Filed under: China, Russia | Tagged: AngloZionist Empire | Comments Off on Something symbolic, but very important is happening in the China-Russia partnership
When American firms dominate a global market worth more than $70 billion a year, you’d expect to hear about it. Not so with the global arms trade. It’s good for one or two stories a year in the mainstream media, usually when the annual statistics on the state of the business come out.
It’s not that no one writes about aspects of the arms trade. There are occasional pieces that, for example, take note of the impact of U.S. weapons transfers, including cluster bombs, to Saudi Arabia, or of the disastrous dispensation of weaponry to U.S. allies in Syria, or of foreign sales of the costly, controversial F-35 combat aircraft. And once in a while, if a foreign leader meets with the president, U.S. arms sales to his or her country might generate an article or two. But the sheer size of the American arms trade, the politics that drive it, the companies that profit from it, and its devastating global impacts are rarely discussed, much less analyzed in any depth.
So here’s a question that’s puzzled me for years (and I’m something of an arms wonk): Why do other major U.S. exports—from Hollywood movies to Midwestern grain shipments to Boeing airliners—garner regular coverage while trends in weapons exports remain in relative obscurity? Are we ashamed of standing essentially alone as the world’s number one arms dealer, or is our Weapons “R” Us role such a commonplace that we take it for granted, like death or taxes?
The numbers should stagger anyone. According to the latest figures available from the Congressional Research Service, the United States was credited with more than half the value of all global arms transfer agreements in 2014, the most recent year for which full statistics are available. At 14%, the world’s second largest supplier, Russia, lagged far behind. Washington’s “leadership” in this field has never truly been challenged. The U.S. share has fluctuated between one-third and one-half of the global market for the past two decades, peaking at an almost monopolistic 70% of all weapons sold in 2011. And the gold rush continues. Vice Admiral Joe Rixey, who heads the Pentagon’s arms sales agency, euphemistically known as the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, estimates that arms deals facilitated by the Pentagon topped $46 billion in 2015, and are on track to hit $40 billion in 2016.
To be completely accurate, there is one group of people who pay remarkably close attention to these trends—executives of the defense contractors that are cashing in on this growth market. With the Pentagon and related agencies taking in “only” about $600 billion a year—high by historical standards but tens of billions of dollars less than hoped for by the defense industry—companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics have been looking to global markets as their major source of new revenue.
In a January 2015 investor call, for example, Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson was asked whether the Iran nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration and five other powers might reduce tensions in the Middle East, undermining the company’s strategy of increasing its arms exports to the region. She responded that continuing “volatility” in both the Middle East and Asia would make them “growth areas” for the foreseeable future. In other words, no worries. As long as the world stays at war or on the verge of it, Lockheed Martin’s profits won’t suffer—and, of course, its products will help ensure that any such “volatility” will prove lethal indeed.
Under Hewson, Lockheed has set a goal of getting at least 25% of its revenues from weapons exports, and Boeing has done that company one better. It’s seeking to make overseas arms sales 30% of its business.
Good News From the Middle East (If You’re an Arms Maker)
Arms deals are a way of life in Washington. From the president on down, significant parts of the government are intent on ensuring that American arms will flood the global market and companies like Lockheed and Boeing will live the good life. From the president on his trips abroad to visit allied world leaders to the secretaries of state and defense to the staffs of U.S. embassies, American officials regularly act as salespeople for the arms firms. And the Pentagon is their enabler. From brokering, facilitating, and literally banking the money from arms deals to transferring weapons to favored allies on the taxpayers’ dime, it is in essence the world’s largest arms dealer.
In a typical sale, the U.S. government is involved every step of the way. The Pentagon often does assessments of an allied nation’s armed forces in order to tell them what they “need”—and of course what they always need is billions of dollars in new U.S.-supplied equipment. Then the Pentagon helps negotiate the terms of the deal, notifies Congress of its details, and collects the funds from the foreign buyer, which it then gives to the U.S. supplier in the form of a defense contract. In most deals, the Pentagon is also the point of contact for maintenance and spare parts for any U.S.-supplied system. The bureaucracy that helps make all of this happen, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, is funded from a 3.5% surcharge on the deals it negotiates. This gives it all the more incentive to sell, sell, sell.
And the pressure for yet more of the same is always intense, in part because the weapons makers are careful to spread their production facilities to as many states and localities as possible. In this way, they ensure that endless support for government promotion of major arms sales becomes part and parcel of domestic politics.
General Dynamics, for instance, has managed to keep its tank plants in Ohio and Michigan running through a combination of add-ons to the Army budget—funds inserted into that budget by Congress even though the Pentagon didn’t request them—and exports to Saudi Arabia. Boeing is banking on a proposed deal to sell 40 F-18s to Kuwait to keep its St. Louis production line open, and is currently jousting with the Obama administration to get it to move more quickly on the deal. Not surprisingly, members of Congress and local business leaders in such states become strong supporters of weapons exports.
Though seldom thought of this way, the U.S. political system is also a global arms distribution system of the first order. In this context, the Obama administration has proven itself a good friend to arms exporting firms. During President Obama’s first six years in office, Washington entered into agreements to sell more than $190 billion in weaponry worldwide—more, that is, than any U.S. administration since World War II. In addition, Team Obama has loosened restrictions on arms exports, making it possible to send abroad a whole new range of weapons and weapons components—including Black Hawk and Huey helicopters and engines for C-17 transport planes —with far less scrutiny than was previously required.
This has been good news for the industry, which had been pressing for such changes for decades with little success. But the weaker regulations also make it potentially easier for arms smugglers and human rights abusers to get their hands on U.S. arms. For example, 36 U.S. allies—from Argentina and Bulgaria to Romania and Turkey—will no longer need licenses from the State Department to import weapons and weapons parts from the United States. This will make it far easier for smuggling networks to set up front companies in such countries and get U.S. arms and arms components that they can then pass on to third parties like Iran or China. Already a common practice, it will only increase under the new regulations.
The degree to which the Obama administration has been willing to bend over backward to help weapons exporters was underscored at a 2013 hearing on those administration export “reforms.” Tom Kelly, then the deputy assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, caught the spirit of the era when asked whether the administration was doing enough to promote American arms exports. He responded:
“[We are] advocating on behalf of our companies and doing everything we can to make sure that these sales go through… and that is something we are doing every day, basically [on] every continent in the world… and we’re constantly thinking of how we can do better.”
One place where, with a helping hand from the Obama administration and the Pentagon, the arms industry has been doing a lot better of late is the Middle East. Washington has brokered deals for more than $50 billion in weapons sales to Saudi Arabia alone for everything from F-15 fighter aircraft and Apache attack helicopters to combat ships and missile defense systems.
The most damaging deals, if not the most lucrative, have been the sales of bombs and missiles to the Saudis for their brutal war in Yemen, where thousands of civilians have been killed and millions of people are going hungry. Members of Congress like Michigan Representative John Conyers and Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy have pressed for legislation that would at least stem the flow of the most deadly of the weaponry being sent for use there, but they have yet to overcome the considerable clout of the Saudis in Washington (and, of course, that of the arms industry as well).
When it comes to the arms business, however, there’s no end to the good news from the Middle East. Take the administration’s proposed new 10-year aid deal with Israel. If enacted as currently planned, it would boost U.S. military assistance to that country by up to 25%—to roughly $4 billion per year. At the same time, it would phase out a provision that had allowed Israel to spend one-quarter of Washington’s aid developing its own defense industry. In other words, all that money, the full $4 billion in taxpayer dollars, will now flow directly into the coffers of companies like Lockheed Martin, which is in the midst of completing a multi-billion-dollar deal to sell the Israelis F-35s.
“Volatility” in Asia and Europe
As Lockheed Martin’s Marillyn Hewson noted, however, the Middle East is hardly the only growth area for that firm or others like it. The dispute between China and its neighbors over the control of the South China Sea (which is in many ways an incipient conflict over whether that country or the United States will control that part of the Pacific Ocean) has opened up new vistas when it comes to the sale of American warships and other military equipment to Washington’s East Asian allies. The recent Hague court decision rejecting Chinese claims to those waters (and the Chinese rejection of it) is only likely to increase the pace of arms buying in the region.
At the same time, in the good-news-never-ends department, growing fears of North Korea’s nuclear program have stoked a demand for U.S.-supplied missile defense systems. The South Koreans have, in fact, just agreed to deploy Lockheed Martin’s THAAD anti-missile system. In addition, the Obama administration’s decision to end the longstanding embargo on U.S. arms sales to Vietnam is likely to open yet another significant market for U.S. firms. In the past two years alone, the U.S. has offered more than $15 billion worth of weaponry to allies in East Asia, with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea accounting for the bulk of the sales.
In addition, the Obama administration has gone to great lengths to build a defense relationship with India, a development guaranteed to benefit U.S. arms exporters. Last year, Washington and New Delhi signed a 10-year defense agreement that included pledges of future joint work on aircraft engines and aircraft carrier designs. In these years, the U.S. has made significant inroads into the Indian arms market, which had traditionally been dominated by the Soviet Union and then Russia. Recent deals include a $5.8 billion sale of Boeing C-17 transport aircraft and a $1.4 billion agreement to provide support services related to a planned purchase of Apache attack helicopters.
And don’t forget “volatile” Europe. Great Britain’s recent Brexit vote introduced an uncertainty factor into American arms exports to that country. The United Kingdom has been by far the biggest purchaser of U.S. weapons in Europe of late, with more than $6 billion in deals struck over the past two years alone—more, that is, than the U.S. has sold to all other European countries combined.
The British defense behemoth BAE is Lockheed Martin’s principal foreign partner on the F-35 combat aircraft, which at a projected cost of $1.4 trillion over its lifetime already qualifies as the most expensive weapons program in history. If Brexit-driven austerity were to lead to a delay in, or the cancellation of, the F-35 deal (or any other major weapons shipments), it would be a blow to American arms makers. But count on one thing: were there to be even a hint that this might happen to the F-35, lobbyists for BAE will mobilize to get the deal privileged status, whatever other budget cuts may be in the works.
On the bright side (if you happen to be a weapons maker), any British reductions will certainly be more than offset by opportunities in Eastern and Central Europe, where a new Cold War seems to be gaining traction. Between 2014 and 2015, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, military spending increased by 13% in the region in response to the Russian intervention in Ukraine. The rise in Poland’s outlays, at 22%, was particularly steep.
Under the circumstances, it should be obvious that trends in the global arms trade are a major news story and should be dealt with as such in the country most responsible for putting more weapons of a more powerful nature into the hands of those living in “volatile” regions. It’s a monster business (in every sense of the word) and certainly has far more dangerous consequences than licensing a Hollywood blockbuster or selling another Boeing airliner.
Historically, there have been rare occasions of public protest against unbridled arms trafficking, as with the backlash against “the merchants of death” after World War I, or the controversy over who armed Saddam Hussein that followed the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Even now, small numbers of congressional representatives, including John Conyers, Chris Murphy, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, continue to try to halt the sale of cluster munitions, bombs, and missiles to Saudi Arabia.
There is, however, unlikely to be a genuine public debate about the value of the arms business and Washington’s place in it if it isn’t even considered a subject worthy of more than an occasional media story. In the meantime, the United States continues to hold onto the number one role in the global arms trade, the White House does its part, the Pentagon greases the wheels, and the dollars roll in to profit-hungry U.S. weapons contractors.
July 31, 2016 (The New Atlas) – Political developments are often emotionally charged, and even journalists who are expected to maintain an objective approach to reporting can find themselves swept away by sensational headlines and the temptation to wade into controversy without fully analysing background information that might significantly alter established narratives.
Because of this, some journalists find themselves playing the role of commentator rather than investigator, often leaving out critical information in a rush to contribute to one of two sides amid a political divide. In some cases, journalists may appear to be doing their job by “investigating” deeper into news stories, but do so in a transparently one-sided manner, thus negating their role as an objective observer.
In Thailand, this can be clearly seen in English-language coverage, particularly from The Nation and the Bangkok Post. In the rare instance that journalists from either paper “investigates” independently into any given headline, it is generally one-sided and transparently politically-motivated.
And more often than not, these papers appear to be taking their lead from foreign news sources, particularly those in Europe and North America. One would expect newspapers from region to region to develop their own unique angles and perspectives regarding the news, but upon following the money, we will soon see why this more often than not doesn’t happen.
The Industrialised Journalist Mill
Pravit Rojanaphruk, currently a commentator at Thailand’s Khoasod English, is perhaps one of the most transparent examples of just what is wrong with newspapers across Asia. He proudly boasts of his various Western media affiliations and fellowships with his Twitter profile reading as follows:
MSc (Oxon), British Chevening Scholar 2001-2002, Reuter Fellow 97-98, Katherine Fanning Fellow 2009, Salzburg Sem. Fellow.
If these scholarships and fellowships actually cultivated real principles of journalism within recipients, they might actually be noteworthy milestones in a journalist’s career.
However, what they instead represent, is a concerted attempt by the Western media to extend its influence further abroad, and to help align global news coverage uniformly to their perspective and to serve their interests.
Journalists like Pravit, then, serve as an extension of Western media coverage rather than a representation of Thai journalism. Journalism by definition is the reporting of news, and news is by definition noteworthy information.
What Pravit and others like him are prone to do, however, is interweave opinion and commentary into what is often strained, spun or even fabricated information. And this is done to align Thai news with those expectations and norms taught to them during their fellowships abroad in Europe and North America.
The Reuters Journalism Fellowship Programme alone has processed hundreds of journalists around the world, putting them through between 1-3 terms at the University of Oxford to undergo a program of stringent indoctrination into the ways of Western journalism. It is virtually impossible for a fellow to undergo this process and leave as an independent journalist.
Attend seminars given by a diverse and high-level range of guest speakers who will share their insights into key industry trends and developments
Work with an experienced supervisor, usually an Oxford academic, to produce a research paper of publishable quality
Visit world-class news organisations and gain insights into how they are approaching industry challenges. Previous visits have included trips to Thomson Reuters, The Financial Times, The BBC, The Economist and The Guardian
Join trips to key UK cultural and political organisations and institutions. Previous destinations have included Oxfam, the House of Commons and Stratford-upon-Avon, home of Shakespeare
Exchange ideas and experiences with a diverse and international peer group. Around 25 Fellows a year join us from high-level media organisations all over the world. Strengthen your network, develop a global set of contacts and gain insights into international trends and developments
Benefit from the extensive learning facilities offered by the University of Oxford, including the world-famous Bodleian Library and access to various seminars and lectures across the university. You are also encouraged to engage with the university’s cutting edge specialist research facilities, including centres for African, Middle Eastern, South Asian, Eastern and Western European, Japanese and Chinese studies
Be given visiting scholar status of Green Templeton College
For inexperienced young men and women who aspire to be journalists, to be afforded this opportunity would be both immensely flattering and emotionally as well as professionally transformative. For a young journalist in Thailand to be afforded the opportunity to travel to the UK, to attend one or more terms at the world renowned University of Oxford and to be given an opportunity to see the inner workings of news organisations like the BBC, Thompson Reuters, The Economist and The Guardian would be an overwhelming experience. And it is meant to be.
If Only Real Journalism Was Being Promoted…
The journalists who complete such fellowships and return to their home countries, are forever linked to the institutions and individuals they met and worked with during their time abroad. They take back with them to their home countries not the tools of an objective journalist, but the indoctrination, culture, interests and angles of a Western-centric worldview. To those who have completed the fellowship, they often confuse this Western-centric worldview with being “objective,” but it is most certainly not.
We can look at the Reuters fellowship program and see news organisations like Thompson Reuters, the BBC, The Economist and The Guardian held up as examples of journalism. This is despite their active manipulation of information toward particular political objectives rather than accurately informing the public.
In particular, these news services played crucial roles in promoting wars like the US-UK led invasion of Iraq in 2003, intentionally obfuscating critical information the public and policymakers required to make an honest assessment of the decision to go to war.
The BBC in particular has been embroiled in impropriety ranging from deceptive news coverage to paid-for documentaries and even criminal conduct committed by individuals, and covered up institutionally.
But news organisations serving special interests is nothing new. One must expect this realistically, to a certain degree, regarding any news organisation operating around the world. It is not a matter of whether or not they are serving special interests, it is a matter of whose interests they are serving.
While Thai-based news organisations would be expected to serve special interests in Thailand, they do not, specifically because of the Wests industrialised ‘journalist mills.’ These fellowship programs, training seminars and campaigns are undertaken to ensure the widest possible consensus globally to Western special interests, regardless of what nation journalists may be from or what nations they are currently operating in.
That is why The Nation and the Bangkok Post feature editorial slants nearly indistinguishable from those of Western news agencies. While Pravit is very open and proud of his indoctrination into this system of mass-produced consensus, others employed across the Thai media are not. Some digging, however, into the backgrounds of journalists who repeatedly and suspiciously repeat talking-points originating from abroad usually reveals a similar and extensive “resume” of foreign fellowships, education and indoctrination.
History is Repeating Itself
Understandably, for people hearing this for the first time, it sounds like an incredible conspiracy theory. However, upon thoughtful examination, it is merely the predictable repetition of history unfolding.
Ancient Roman historian Tacitus (c. AD 56 – after 117) would adeptly describe the systematic manner in which Rome pacified foreign peoples and the manner in which it would extend its sociocultural and institutional influence over conquered lands.
In chapter 21 of his book Agricola, named so after his father-in-law whose methods of conquest were the subject of the text, Tacitus would explain:
His object was to accustom them to a life of peace and quiet by the provision of amenities. He therefore gave official assistance to the building of temples, public squares and good houses. He educated the sons of the chiefs in the liberal arts, and expressed a preference for British ability as compared to the trained skills of the Gauls. The result was that instead of loathing the Latin language they became eager to speak it effectively. In the same way, our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen. And so the population was gradually led into the demoralizing temptation of arcades, baths and sumptuous banquets. The unsuspecting Britons spoke of such novelties as ‘civilization’, when in fact they were only a feature of their enslavement.
We can easily see how fellowships fill a similar role today, with the West, openly aspiring to construct an international order, “educating” potentially influential foreigners in both English and “the liberal arts,” encouraging a preference for Western culture and perspectives and convincing them that such indoctrination is a novelty of ‘civilisation’ rather than a feature of control and a vector for Western influence into any particular country.
Under the British Empire, similar education and missionary programs were created to replace independent and unique local perspectives and culture with the uniform perspective and culture of Britain, serving British aspirations of global hegemony.
Christian missionary activity was central to the work of European colonialism, providing British missionaries and their supporters with a sense of justice and moral authority. Throughout the history of imperial expansion, missionary proselytising offered the British public a model of ‘civilised’ expansionism and colonial community management, transforming [imperial] projects into moral allegories. Missionary activity was, however, unavoidably implicated in either covert or explicit cultural change. It sought to transform indigenous communities into imperial archetypes of civility and modernity by remodelling the individual, the community, and the state through western, Christian philosophies. In the British Empire, and particularly in what is historically known as the ‘second’ era of British imperialism (approximately 1784–1867), missionary activity was frequently involved with the initial steps of imperial expansion.
It is a bit ironic then that Britain, against which cultural colonialism was first used by the Romans, became a centre of power used then to disseminate cultural colonialism in service of naked imperialism under the British Empire, is now being used to disseminate a “softer” version of it under the guise of journalism and academia.
Like the sons of chiefs in Britannia, foreign journalists like Thailand’s Pravit Rojanaphruk probably have honestly convinced themselves that these features of control and manipulation are instead the “novelties of civilisation.”
What Nations Can Do.
It is important for policymakers and the public alike to understand this aspect of modern journalism to both be aware of how it impacts news coverage, and of what possible measures can be taken to combat modern day cultural colonialism.
One possible measure could be national programs that attempt to recruit and build up a corps of local journalists who represent their nation’s best interests, culture and perspectives. These journalists can then fill the ranks of local newspapers and TV stations, as well as influence news conferences and seminars both local and international from their own nation’s perspective, rather than merely amplifying those of nations running international “fellowship” programmes.
For Thailand who has large government-funded news organisations like Thai PBS, universities and trusted news professionals, untainted by foreign indoctrination, can develop a truly Thai brand of journalism that is taught to political science and journalist students in school, and reinforced through the same sort of activities conducted by foreign fellowships overseas.
In essence, instead of depending on foreign fellowships and joint news organisation-university programs abroad, Thailand should develop is own domestically, as well as well-funded news organisations for Thai journalists to work at safely, securely and far from the ego-ensnaring temptations extended by foreign interests. The New Atlas is a media platform providing geopolitical analysis and op-eds. Follow us on Facebookand Twitter.
Deep thoughts of Hillary Clinton speaking at democratic national convention.
This is a very dangerous person, with a violent and destructive nature, driven by unscrupulously bloody passions, which should not hold public office of any kind. If she will be elected, will be the most severe disgrace to the American people and for the whole world, which will be threatened by a frightful end: Libya teaches
Video footage emerged of the Syrian Army capturing loads of US-manufactured weapons including strategic TOW-launchers and missiles. All those weapons were abandoned by the rebel forces fleeing desperately before being surrounded in the Bani Zaid district of Aleppo city.
The shocking rates of infant mortality and cancer in Iraqi city raise new questions about battle
Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.
Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs. They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.
Their claims have been supported by a survey showing a four-fold increase in all cancers and a 12-fold increase in childhood cancer in under-14s. Infant mortality in the city is more than four times higher than in neighbouring Jordan and eight times higher than in Kuwait.
Dr Chris Busby, a visiting professor at the University of Ulster and one of the authors of the survey of 4,800 individuals in Fallujah, said it is difficult to pin down the exact cause of the cancers and birth defects. He added that “to produce an effect like this, some very major mutagenic exposure must have occurred in 2004 when the attacks happened”.
US Marines first besieged and bombarded Fallujah, 30 miles west of Baghdad, in April 2004 after four employees of the American security company Blackwater were killed and their bodies burned. After an eight-month stand-off, the Marines stormed the city in November using artillery and aerial bombing against rebel positions. US forces later admitted that they had employed white phosphorus as well as other munitions.
In the assault US commanders largely treated Fallujah as a free-fire zone to try to reduce casualties among their own troops. British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties. “During preparatory operations in the November 2004 Fallujah clearance operation, on one night over 40 155mm artillery rounds were fired into a small sector of the city,” recalled Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, a British commander serving with the American forces in Baghdad.
He added that the US commander who ordered this devastating use of firepower did not consider it significant enough to mention it in his daily report to the US general in command. Dr Busby says that while he cannot identify the type of armaments used by the Marines, the extent of genetic damage suffered by inhabitants suggests the use of uranium in some form. He said: “My guess is that they used a new weapon against buildings to break through walls and kill those inside.”
The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. Hitherto the Iraqi government has been loath to respond to complaints from civilians about damage to their health during military operations.
Researchers were initially regarded with some suspicion by locals, particularly after a Baghdad television station broadcast a report saying a survey was being carried out by terrorists and anybody conducting it or answering questions would be arrested. Those organising the survey subsequently arranged to be accompanied by a person of standing in the community to allay suspicions.
The study, entitled “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009”, is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct. Infant mortality was found to be 80 per 1,000 births compared to 19 in Egypt, 17 in Jordan and 9.7 in Kuwait. The report says that the types of cancer are “similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout”.
Researchers found a 38-fold increase in leukaemia, a ten-fold increase in female breast cancer and significant increases in lymphoma and brain tumours in adults. At Hiroshima survivors showed a 17-fold increase in leukaemia, but in Fallujah Dr Busby says what is striking is not only the greater prevalence of cancer but the speed with which it was affecting people.
Of particular significance was the finding that the sex ratio between newborn boys and girls had changed. In a normal population this is 1,050 boys born to 1,000 girls, but for those born from 2005 there was an 18 per cent drop in male births, so the ratio was 850 males to 1,000 females. The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.
The US cut back on its use of firepower in Iraq from 2007 because of the anger it provoked among civilians. But at the same time there has been a decline in healthcare and sanitary conditions in Iraq since 2003. The impact of war on civilians was more severe in Fallujah than anywhere else in Iraq because the city continued to be blockaded and cut off from the rest of the country long after 2004. War damage was only slowly repaired and people from the city were frightened to go to hospitals in Baghdad because of military checkpoints on the road into the capital
TEHRAN (FNA)- More terrorists laid down their arms and turned themselves in to the Syrian Army troops and poplar forces in the besieged city of Aleppo, military sources said.
“Terrorists in Eastern part of Aleppo are hopeless. They are trapped in the Syrian army’s circle of forces and have no way out. They are calling for government’s pardon in groups,” the sources said.
Also on Thursday, a large number of terrorists laid down arms and surrendered to Syrian army in Aleppo province.
“Scores of Takfiri militants laid down arms and turned themselves in to the Syrian army in Bani Zeid and al-Lairamoun to be pardoned,” a battlefield source said.
“The move by the terrorists in Aleppo province came after army troops put the militants to rout in Bani Zeid and al-Lairamoun and completed the siege of Aleppo city in the East,” the source added.
Forces loyal to president Assad took full control of Bani Zeid on Thursday. They also managed to recapture all building blocks, firms and factories in al-Lairamoun industrial zone in Northern Aleppo province.
The Syria army and popular forces had also managed to cut off all the supply lines and passages used by the terrorists to move from the North to the Eastern neighborhoods of Aleppo city on Wednesday.
Is US Coordinating its War Crimes against Syria with ISIS?
by Miri Wood, RNc
A scant twelve days after the US and France slaughtered 200 Syrian civilians, the US has again murdered Syrian civilians. This time, 45 were bombed to death, and another 50 Syrians were injured, in al Ghandoura village, near Manbij, after which “ISIS” butchered another 24 Syrians in al Bwei village, north of Manbij.
Again, the Syrian Arab Republic issued two more letters to the UN Security Council and its Secretary General, requesting denunciation of this war crime, and noting the orwellianabsurdity of one terror gang, Jabhat al Nusra, changing its name, in order to be removed from various “terror watch” lists.
The letters were issued by Syria’s Foreign and Expatriates Ministry, and will most likely also be moved to the UNSC’s trash bin, with hundreds of other letters presented to the UN mafiosi leadership.
Let our readers again be reminded that on 15 June, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) rebuked the war crimes of France and Germany in invading the SAR, with their elite military special operative forces — in Ain al Arab and Manbij areas. Had the countries which have funded, armed, trained, and facilitated the transportation of takfiri against Syria undergone an epiphany, they would have asked Syria’s permission to extinguish the insatiable fire they lit, against the country.
Elite terrorist special operatives have illegally invaded the SAR for the creation of a new Sykes-Picot butchering.
“Coalition” bombings of Syria are to be considered the aggressive war crimes against the country, that they are –according to the Geneva 1949 agreements which define military engagement and international law.
The US’ murderous, illegal bombings of Manbij, 18 July, resulting in civilian deaths, were called “accidents” by the few msm that reported the deaths; no msm made note that all bombings by the fascist coalition are war crimes.
That the earlier atrocity did not injure a single foreign spec operative, is forceful evidence that the US coordinated with the EU’s illegal invaders. That yesterday’s new war crime also did not injure any foreign terrorists on the ground in Manbij, makes such evidence increasingly substantial.
The ministry cited striking similarities between the massacres committed by US-led coalition and terrorist organizations in an attempt to exacerbate the situation across Syria following the Syrian army recent wins in Aleppo. — Foreign and Expatriates Ministry
A second bombing of civilians is indicative that the countries involved in the attempted final solution against Syria, are moving forward with their odious plans of strategic depopulationof Syria’s indigenouspeoples. [1] The almost immediate massacre by on-the-ground takfiri, in al Bwei, reeks of a coordination whose impunity has not been flaunted since Israel rushed to al Qaeda’s defense, in the bombing of Damascus suburbs, with the terrorist FSA (May 2013) so the latter could ‘capture the Kodak moment.’
[1] During his 11 January stake out, Syria’s Permanent Representative to the UN, H.E. Dr. Ja’afari, told reporters that one Syrian village, near to Aleppo, had its entire population massacred by foreign Uighars and Turkemen who are now squatting in their murder victims’ homes, running their businesses, harvesting their lands. Three thousand Syrians were slaughtered, and many of the invading killers had first been brought to Saudi [occupied] Arabia, before being deployed into the SAR.
Over Kerry’s Head: Why Russia is Delivering Its Upgraded Su-24M2s to Syria
(SputnikNews) ~ The Syrian Air Force has received its first two upgraded Sukhoi Su-24M2 all-weather attack aircraft from Russian armories. According to media reports, they are expected to improve the combat capabilities of Syrian air power in the fight against the terrorists. However, according to experts, Moscow and Damascus may also have a hidden motive.
According to Al-Masdar News, in addition to the two planes already delivered, Syria expects to receive another eight aircraft in the near future. The planes are said to have been retrofitted with new equipment “to enhance their capabilities and improve their combat efficiency,” including improved avionics, featuring both GPS and GLONASS, and a new heads-up display. The deliveries are said to be part of a defense order signed back in 2009.
Commenting on the news, Svobodnaya Pressa columnist Anton Mardasov wrote that “at first glance, there’s nothing unusual about this news: weakened by years of war, the park of the Syrian Air Force is in need of urgent replenishment. Just in the past month the effort against the Islamists has resulted in the loss of two of its aircraft.”
“But what if the logic behind this step lies in more than just the replenishment of the Syrian Air Force?” the journalist asked. “If one places this news into the overall context of what is happening in Syria, one begins to get the impression that the Russian government, in handing these bombers over to Syria, is making a clever move.”
“Judge for yourselves,” Mardasov suggested: “On July 26, after ameeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke of progress in talks on Syria. In particular, [he talked] of coordination in airstrikes against Daesh (ISIL/ISIS) and the Al-Nusra Front, and a simultaneous halt to the bombing of the ‘moderate’ insurgents. However, these ‘moderates’ have not left the front lines and continue to fight Assad’s army. If Moscow is on Damascus’s side, it has an obligation to help it repel these attacks. It seems that pressure from Washington has forced us to step aside, but what if this is just a formality?”
The heart of the issue, according to the journalist, is that it matters little if the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces are the ones bombing the terrorists, or if it’s the Syrian Air Force doing it.
“What difference does it make if it’s Russian or Syrian pilots at the controls of the Su-24s? The main thing is that the bombs drop on their designated targets. If the Syrians begin using the upgraded bombers, will it be difficult to figure out who blew up another camp of ‘moderate’ rebels – Russian or Syrian air power? Damascus, unlike Moscow, is not conducting any negotiations with Washington, and consistently calls all armed opposition in Syria ‘terrorists’.”
Asked to comment on the delivery of the Su-24M2s, military expert Yakov Kedmi, a former high ranking official in the Israeli intelligence services, told Svobodnaya Pressa that the delivery was planned long ago.
“After Russia actively got involved in the Syrian conflict, Moscow also simultaneously began activities to restore the Syrian Armed Forces, the Syrian Air Force first and foremost. This included the modernization of the Su-24MK, and their equipment with the SVP-24 special computing subsystem designed to increase bombing precision many times, along with the training of pilots and maintenance personnel.”
The decision on the number of planes, according to Kedmi, has to do with the number that the Syrian Air Force is currently capable of absorbing.
“Factually,” the expert noted, “the Syrian Air Force significantly increased its involvement in the fighting following the withdrawal of Russian aircraft from the Hmeymim Airbase. Syrian pilots began carrying out up to 30 sorties a day, which is a strong showing for this country’s Air Force.”
“Naturally, closer cooperation between aircraft and armored vehicles, artillery and infantry requires that pilots speak the local language, and are acquainted with the tactics of national units. [Therefore], as I understand it, Russia will continue to supply the Syrian army with arms – both new and upgraded. And this will continue regardless of negotiations with the United States,” Kedmi concluded.
For his part, Semyon Bagdasarov, the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Central Asia, could not rule out Mardasov’s suggestion that the delivery of the aircraft was aimed at strengthening the Syrian military’s potential, including against the so-called ‘moderate’ jihadists.
“It’s possible that the delivery of the Su-24M2s really is connected with an attempt to circumvent agreements with the United States, even if unlike the Americans, the French, and the British, both Damascus and Moscow have every right to bomb every group they consider terrorists on Syrian territory. Yes, Washington may not like this, but Moscow too isn’t exactly thrilled that US Special Forces are deployed in Syrian Kurdistan, and that the head of the US Army’s Central Command General Joseph Votel and special envoy to the US president Brett McGurk go there whenever they feel like it.”
Finally, for his part, Sergei Balmasov, an expert at the Moscow-based Institute for Middle East Studies, emphasized that Moscow must be careful not to completely ignore Washington’s interests in Syria.
“It remains necessary, in one way or another, to coordinate our activity with the Americans, so as not to overstep a ‘red line’ of sorts. Washington has the capabilities to do us a great deal of harm across the former Soviet Union, as in Ukraine, as well as in Syria. They can increase their deliveries of more advanced weapons systems to the Syrian rebels,” for example.
“Additionally,” Balmasov noted, “it is important to preserve the possibility of political dialogue with the US, and the Syrian conflict is one of the few topics we can talk about.”
Ultimately, the analyst noted, fighting against the so-called moderate Syrian opposition “is necessary, but we are forced to try to walk around the lines drawn by Washington.”
Otherwise, the US may work even harder to step up political and military pressure against both Damascus and Moscow.
Filed under: Russia, Syria, USA, War on Syria | Tagged: AngloZionist Empire, Kerry, SAA | Comments Off on Modernization of Military Equipment: Syrian Air Force received from Russia the upgraded Sukhoi Su-24M2 [attack aircrafts]
– تشبه اللحظة التاريخية للقاء الروسي الأميركي تلك اللحظة التي عاشها المقاومون الفرنسيون للنازية الذين كان أغلبهم ينتمون إلى الحزبين الاشتراكي والشيوعي، عشية إنزال النورماندي على شواطئ فرنسا قبيل النجاح السوفياتي بالدخول إلى برلين، حيث كان بينهم من يقول إنّ الأميركيين الذين يشكلون النسخة الأكثر تطوّراً للرأسمالية، ليسوا جادّين بالتخلص من النازية كنسخة مشوّهة من الرأسمالية، وسيسعون لاستخدامها كأداة لاستنزاف اليسار ومنع تنامي قوته العالمية وسحق حركات التحرّر، بإدارة مزدوجة تسعى لاستخدام القوة السوفياتية ومعها قدرات حركات المقاومة والجيوش الوطنية لمنع تمدّد النازية، والتحوّل إلى قطب فاعل في السياسة الدولية. وفي المقابل سيسعون لاستخدام النازية، عبر إدارة محسوبة للحرب عليها لا تسمح بسقوطها، ولا بتمدّدها، لتكون عنصر التوازن البديل الذي يريح أميركا من الوقوف بوجه الاتحاد السوفياتي وحركات المقاومة والتحرّر.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 