Poll: Canada’s politicians drastically out of touch with public on israel

Poll: Canada’s politicians drastically out of touch with public on Israel

A new Ekos poll released this morning found that 46 per cent of Canadians, including a majority of those who support every party but the Conservatives, hold a negative view of Israel. The Canadian government is seen to have a pro-Israel bias by 61 per cent of respondents, while 91 per cent do not think criticism of Israeli government policy is necessarily anti-semitic. These results suggest that Canada’s big political parties are out of step with Canadians on these issues.

In the first all-party leaders’ debate in Canada’s 2015 federal election, Stephen Harper, arguably the most pro-Israel Prime Minister in Canadian history, challenged Justin Trudeau to clarify his attitude toward Israel. Harper asserted that “there is a movement at the United Nations to isolate and denigrate the state of Israel… The best friend and ally this country has is in a very dangerous region, and we will never go along with that anti-Israel position.”

Justin Trudeau’s response? “All parties are in agreement on this.”

Since taking office, Prime Minister Trudeau has demonstrated that, when it comes to Israel, he is indeed in agreement with Stephen Harper.

In less than 18 months in office, the Trudeau government has voted against no less than sixteen United Nations resolutions critical of Israel. Perhaps the most notable example is a General Assembly resolution which reaffirmed Palestinians’ right to self-determination, including the right to have an independent state. Adopted in December 2015 with the support of 177 countries, that resolution was opposed by Israel, the United States and Canada, along with the tiny island states of Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Nauru.

One year later, the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution declaring that Israeli settlements on territory intended for a Palestinian state were a “flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of…peace” between Israel and Palestine. The unanimous Security Council vote (with the U.S. abstaining) reflected a decades-long international consensus on the illegality of the settlements.

Although that resolution enjoyed overwhelming support of Security Council members, including Canadian allies France, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, the Trudeau government remained conspicuously silent after its adoption. As the Canadian Jewish News reported, “amid the controversy surrounding last month’s UN Security Council resolution slamming Israel for settlement activity and calling all territory it captured in the 1967 war illegal, Canada has kept a low profile and reiterated its support for a two-state solution.”

Then, on February 6, 2017, Israel’s Knesset passed a ‘Settlement Regulation’ Law which purported to legalize settlements. The law was plainly intended to flout the Security Council’s unanimous will, so Trudeau’s government was left with no option but to admonish Israel, albeit meekly. In a statement issued quietly, Canada’s new Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland said that the Settlement Regulation law was “unhelpful to the advancement of the peace process in the region.” At the same time, she reiterated that Canada is a “steadfast friend and ally of Israel” and reaffirmed Canada’s commitment to “Israel’s right to live in peace with its neighbours within secure boundaries and free of terrorism…”

It is instructive to compare the Trudeau government’s response to Israel’s ‘Settlement Regulation’ law to another foreign policy hotspot, Crimea. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea after a violent revolution toppled its pro-Russian but democratically elected President, Viktor Yanukovych. Prior to the annexation, a referendum was held in Crimea in which 97% of Crimeans voted for integration into the Russian Federation. The turnout was 83%. Trudeau’s reaction to the annexation was to describe Vladimir Putin as a “bully” whom he would “confront” and to impose economic sanctions on Russia.

Much of the international community regards the Crimean referendum as invalid, primarily because it was held while Russian troops occupied Crimea. But in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there has been no referendum at all in which occupied Palestinians have voted to live under Israeli rule. Indeed, if such a vote were held today, it is virtually certain that Palestinians would vote overwhelmingly for independence from Israel, notwithstanding the presence of Israeli troops on occupied Palestinian territory. Yet the Trudeau government regards Putin as a ‘bully” whose country deserves to be sanctioned, while it considers Israel’s government, which by Canada’s own admission has illegally annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, as Canada’s “best friend and ally” whose “flagrant violation under international law” is merely “unhelpful.”

Israel’s apologists often complain that Israel is subjected to a double standard. That is true, but what those apologists aren’t telling you is that the double standard favours Israel.

Why does this double standard prevail in Canada? In a country that purports to be a democracy, one would expect the answer to be: ‘because Canadians want it that way.’ Yet a new survey done by EKOS Research Associates makes it crystal clear that Canadians do not want it that way.

The survey asked respondents whether they had a negative or positive view of Israel’s government. Of those who had an opinion, 46% had a negative view and only 28% had a positive view. Conservative Party supporters were on the fringes of public opinion, with a 58% positive view. The average for supporters of the other four parties was 11% positive and 63% negative. Remarkably, 55% of supporters of the governing Liberal Party had a negative view of Israel’s government – 2.5 times as many Liberal supporters who had a positive view (22%).

When asked whether they believe Canada’s government was biased towards Israel or Palestinians, 61% of respondents said pro-Israel and 16% said pro-Palestinian. Excluding Conservative Party supporters, 74% viewed Canada’s Government as having a pro-Israel bias while only 9% saw it as pro-Palestinian.

The divide between public and elite opinion is even greater on the question of whether criticism of Israel’s government is anti-Semitic. Both federally and in Ontario, elected officials of the Liberal and Conservative parties recently supported motions condemning the movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS. Although neither of those motions explicitly described BDS supporters as anti-Semites, the debates that led to their adoption were rife with explicit allegations that that is precisely what BDS supporters are. Conservative Ontario MPP Gila Martow went so far as to imply that the BDS movement is like the Ku Klux Klan.

Yet hardly anyone outside of the Conservative and Liberal caucuses believes that criticism of Israel’s Government is necessarily anti-Semitic. The EKOS survey found that 91% to 100% of Liberal, Green and NDP supporters do not believe that criticism of Israeli government policy is necessarily anti-Semitic, and that even 80% of Conservative supporters hold that view. Nonetheless, elected officials from both the Conservative and Liberal Parties darkly declare that calling for peaceful economic sanctions on a state that has been violating the Fourth Geneva Convention for decades is the ‘new anti-Semitism.’

Martin Luther King once said that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” When it comes to Canadian political support for Palestinian rights, the arc has begun to bend.

Days ago, the Green Party of Canada announced that it had adopted a policy calling for sanctions on Israel., including an arms embargo. That policy also urges the International Criminal Court to prioritize its investigation into potential Israeli war crimes. Moreover, it calls on the Government of Canada to recognize the state of Palestine, which the vast majority of states have already done, but which Canada has failed inexcusably to do. The Green Party’s sanctions policy was adopted with the support of 90% of party members who voted.

The Green Party’s sanctions policy passed overwhelmingly despite fierce condemnation from apologists for Israel’s apartheid regime. Those apologists included Conservative MP Peter Kent, who thundered in Parliament that “the Green Party has been co-opted by extreme activists who, in an obsessive campaign of prejudice against Israelis, threaten the party’s own credibility and relevance in Canadian politics.”

If the ‘Honourable’ Mr. Kent paid the slightest attention to Canadian public opinion on Israel, he would know that the credibility and relevance being threatened are his own.

A version of this article first appeared on Ricochet.

 

The US warning to Iran الإنذار الأميركي لإيران

The US warning to Iran

Written by Nasser Kandil,

It can be said after the ratification of the Congress on adopting the new US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson that the US President Donald Trump has completed the formation of his presidential team, thus it can be said too that Trump has tested with the decision of banning the nationals of the seven countries which were included in his decision the extent of his ability to go on through the popularity of his electoral statements as an agenda for his presidential mandate, and the size of the complications which will confront him badly if he continues going on in this path. Now he is in front of internal unenviable situation in respect of media, popularity, and law, and he is in front of external protest campaign that caused the disintegration of his allies and their disavowal of his policies from Britain to France and starting from his closest neighbor Canada which always obeys the US decisions.

The international checker of Trump is full of issues, full of blocks, and traps, the search for an achievement does not seem available with a decision, and the decision needed by Trump must achieve two goals together; to preoccupy the people away from the randomness of his rash procedures and to be in conformity with the image of the strong man which he wanted, but there is no opportunity to do that under forming a safe zone in Syria according to the common previous description, as an area of aerial embargo that includes a risk of military collision with Syria, which soon may turn into collision with Russia. This was said previously by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey before the Congress, and  will affect the agenda of Trump which is based on the search for a cooperation with Russia in many issues, he considered that the US failure in them is due to the avoidance of the previous administration to cooperate with Russia, while the transfer of the US embassy to Tel Aviv will relieve his relation with the occupation government and its supporters in America who are many and do not belong neither to the Republican party nor the Democratic one, they are active in media, so they will ensure the promotion of his influence into the US borders, but the political result will complicate the act of any US administration regarding the peace issues and will embarrass all the Arabs of America in addition to the Palestinian authority, it will lead to provoke the Arab Islamist background against America, that is added to the decision of banning ,but it will not disable it, on the contrary it will be accumulated because the two decisions are an expression of racism against the Arabs and the Muslims. According to Israel the profit will be politically and in media but in the ground, it will be a trouble that outbreaks the Palestinian street which is already igniting. So what will tyrannize over the failure that affects the image of the President in his first days in the office and tenses his followers and allies, and shows that Israel is the most important for presenting the image of the strong President even in negotiation? It is only Iran.

The information that came from Yemen shows that the issue has started with the US military leadership and the bloc of the military industries with the destruction of the Saudi barge which was hit by a missile by the Yemeni army and the popular committees. It was among the US advanced destroyers which was received recently by Saudi Arabia, its status surpasses the status of the Israeli Sa’ar which was bombed by the resistance in the war of July in 2006 off the coast of Beirut. The information shows that the barge has been completely bombed, and approximately two hundreds of military, navigators and technicians were killed on its board knowing that among them there were Americans. In this regard the US tension surpasses the tension in the issue of the tests of the Iranian Ballistic missiles which the Americans know that they are the outcome of the understanding on the nuclear program. They know that the speech of the President Trump regarding this understanding which did not have too much attention of the US media according to what was quoted by a phone talk between Trump and the Saudi King has formed qualitative regression of his electoral speech where the talk about the strict application of the agreement has replaced its reconsideration.

Trump and his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn takes a first step in escalation with Iran by talking about a warning stems from an incident that they know that it is difficult to be repeated as bombing the Saudi destroyer or the Saudi Sa’ar as nominated by the Yemenis, and it is difficult to punish Iran for it legally even if the Americans said that the incident was under the leadership, the supervision, and the arming of Iran. While in the issue of the tests of the Ballistic missiles the Americans know that Iran will not stop them and that lifting the tension to the level of warning recalls the uptime to interpret this warning with first new similar test which will surely happen. So will Trump and his team resort to sanctions or the military messages in this case? This is the change which will present new image. Everything shows that the media escalation will focus on the Red Sea in the light of destroying the Saudi Sa’ar to avoid the military confrontation, and transferring the talk about the ballistic tests to the diplomatic and escalated talk and the sanctions in order to avoid a confrontation, which the administration of Trump knows that the reason for not going on in it by who preceded it was not the cowardice but the inability.

By the time the outcome of the test of the meaning of the US warning becomes clear, Trump may have ignited what is enough to prevent the outcome of his own decision of banning the nationals of the seven countries. This was the first advice of Michael Flynn; addressing a strong message then get the satisfaction of the allies in the Gulf and Israel, getting the attraction of Iran for a serious dealing, and thus overcome the crisis of the nationals through the smoke of escalation.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

RELATED VIDEOS

الإنذار الأميركي لإيران

ناصر قنديل

– يمكن القول مع تصديق الكونغرس على اعتماد وزير الخارجية الأميركية الجديد ريكس تيليرسون يكون الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب قد أكمل تشكيل فريقه الرئاسي، وبالتالي يمكن القول إيضاً إن ترامب قد اختبر مع قرار منع رعايا البلدان السبع التي شملها قراره مدى قدرته على السير بشعبوية بياناته الانتخابية كبرنامج عمل لولايته الرئاسية، وحجم التعقيدات التي ستواجهه وتنفجر بوجهه إذا مضى في هذا السبيل، وها هو أمام وضع أميركي داخلي لا يُحسد عليه من الزوايا الإعلامية والشعبية والقانونية، وأمام حملة احتجاج خارجية سببت انفكاك حلفائه من حوله وتبرُّئهم من سياساته، من بريطانيا إلى فرنسا وانطلاقاً من الجار الأقرب كندا الذي لم يشق عصا الطاعة يوماً على قرار أميركي.

– رقعة الشطرنج الدولية على طاولة ترامب تحفل بالملفات، لكنها تحفل بالمطبات والفِخاخ، فالبحث عن إنجاز لا يبدو متوفراً بقرار، والقرار الذي يحتاجه ترامب يجب أن يحقق له هدفين معاً، أن يُشغل الناس عن عشوائية ما ارتكب بإحراءاته المتسرّعة، وأن ينسجم مع صورة الرئيس القوي التي أرادها لنفسه، ولا فرصة لفعل ذلك تحت عنوان إنشاء المنطقة الآمنة في سورية، وفقاً للتوصيف السابق والرائج لها كمنطقة حظر جوي، تتضمّن مجازفة بصدام عسكري مع سورية، سرعان ما قد يتحوّل لصدام مع روسيا، وهو ما قاله سابقاً رئيس أركان الجيوش الأميركية مارتن ديمبسي أمام الكونغرس، وما يقلب جدول أعمال ترامب القائم أصلاً على البحث عن عمل مشترك مع روسيا في العديد من الملفات، التي اعتبر الفشل الأميركي فيها عائداً خلال الإدارة السابقة، لتجنبها التعاون مع روسيا، أما نقل السفارة الأميركية إلى تل أبيب فسيريح علاقته بحكومة الاحتلال ومناصريها في أميركا وهم كثر وعابرون للحزبين الجمهوري والديمقراطي، وفاعلون إعلامياً، وسيتكفّلون بتسويق صورته داخل الحدود الأميركية، لكن النتيجة السياسية ستعقد عمل أي إدارة أميركية على ملفات السلام، وتُحرج كل عرب أميركا، عدا عن السلطة الفلسطينية، وتتكفّل بإنتاج مناخ عربي إسلامي ملتهب بوجه أميركا يُضاف لقرار المنع ولا يحجبه، بل يتغذّى به ويفعّل الحملة عليه باعتبار القرارين تعبيراً عن عنصرية معادية للعرب والمسلمين، وبالنسبة لـ«إسرائيل» سيكون الربح إعلامياً وسياسياً، لكنه ميدانياً سيكون ورطة تفجّر الشارع الفلسطيني المشتعل أصلاً. فماذا تبقى من الملفات التي يمكن لها أن تطغى على الفشل الذي يصيب صورة الرئيس في أول أيامه، ويشدّ عصب جمهوره وحلفائه، ويُري «إسرائيل» فيما هو أهم، ومعها يشكل رأس جسر لتقديم صورة الرئيس القوي ولو تفاوضياً، ليس هناك إلا إيران.

– تفيد المعلومات الواردة من اليمن أن القضية بدأت عند القيادة العسكرية الأميركية وتكتل الصناعات الحربية مع تدمير البارجة السعودية التي أصابها الصاروخ الذي أطلقه عليها الجيش اليمني واللجان الشعبية، هي من المدمّرات الأميركية المتطورة التي حصلت عليها السعودية حديثاً، وتضاهي مكانة ساعر «الإسرائيلية» التي فجّرتها المقاومة في حرب تموز 2006 قبالة شواطئ بيروت. وتقول المعلومات إن البارجة تفجّرت بالكامل وقتل على متنها قرابة مئتي عسكري وملاح وتقني، وإن بينهم أميركيين، وإن التوتر الأميركي بهذا الصدد يفوق التوتر في قضية تجارب الصواريخ الباليستية الإيرانية، التي يعرف الأميركيون أنها خارج التفاهم على الملف النووي، ويعرفون أن كلام الرئيس ترامب الذي لم يتوقف أمامه الإعلام الأميركي ملياً عن هذا التفاهم، في ما نشر عن الحديث الهاتفي بين ترامب والملك السعودي شكل تراجعاً نوعياً عن خطابه الانتخابي، حيث حل الحديث عن التطبيق الصارم للاتفاق بدلاً من إعادة النظر فيه.

– يخطو ترامب ومستشاره لشؤون الأمن القومي مايكل فلين خطوة أولى نحو التصعيد مع إيران، بالحديث عن إنذار ينطلق من حادث يعرفون أنه صعب التكرار، كتفجير المدمّرة السعودية، أو ساعر السعودية، كما يسمّيها اليمنيون، ويصعب محاسبة إيران عليها قانونياً، ولو قال الأميركيون إن الحادث بقيادة إيران وإشرافها وتسليحها، بينما في شأن التجارب الباليستية الصاروخية فيعرف الأميركيون أن إيران لن توقفها، وأن رفع الموقف منها لمستوى الإنذار يستدعي الجهوزية لترجمة هذا الإنذار مع أول تجرية مماثلة جديدة، وهي آتية حكماً. فهل سيلجأ ترامب وفريقه للعقوبات أم للرسائل العسكرية في هذه الحالة؟ هذا هو التغيير الذي يمكن أن يقدّم صورة جديدة، وكل شيء يقول إن التصعيد الإعلامي سيركز على البحر الأحمر في ضوء تدمير ساعر السعودية لتفادي المواجهة العسكرية، ونقل الحديث عن التجارب الباليستية إلى سجل الحديث الدبلوماسي التصعيدي والعقوبات تفادياً لمواجهة تعرف إدارة ترامب أن سبب عدم سير من سبقه إليها ليس التخاذل بل العجز.

– حتى يحدث ما يستدعي اختبار معنى كلمة الإنذار الأميركي وترجمته، يكون ترامب قد أشعل ما ينتج الدخان الكافي لحجب سحب التفاعلات الناجمة عن قراره الخاص بمنع رعايا الدول السبع، تلك أولى نصائح مايك فلين، نوجّه الرسالة القوية، ونرضي الحلفاء في الخليج و»إسرائيل»، ونجذب إيران لجدية التعامل معنا، ونتخطى أزمة الرعايا بدخان التصعيد.

(Visited 4٬754 times, 1 visits today)

The Struggle of the Venezuelan People against U.S. Interventionism

Gathering of Canadian Intellectuals in Support of the Bolivarian Revolution

Global Research, January 29, 2017
The Gathering of Canadian Intellectuals
Opposition demonstrators take part in a women's rally against Nicolas Maduro's government in San Cristobal

Following the spirit of solidarity expressed in the message released by the participants of the XII Meeting of the “Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements In Defense of Humanity,” held in Caracas, on April 11, 2016, and as testimony to the support on behalf of all the progressive forces of the world toward the Bolivarian Government and the Venezuelan people, in their struggle against the constant attacks carried out by the local and imperial oligarchy, we, the undersigned Canadian intellectuals, reiterate our support for the sovereignty and self-determination of the Venezuelan people.

We emphasize that the oligarchic/imperial aggressions reflected in the “economic war” and the “media war” directed against Venezuela are not isolated cases. Rather, they form part of an overall global strategy to silence the dissonant voice of the Bolivarian government and Venezuelan people for their opposing the structures implanted by global capitalism’s centres of power.

In this sense, we express our concern regarding the current mechanisms of manipulation, propaganda and intervention used to destabilize Venezuela’s democratic political institutions and social structures with the objective of restoring the previous order of oligarchic elitism as well as re-establishing the nefarious neoliberal policies that seek to dismantle the social gains achieved by the Bolivarian popular transformation process launched in 1998.

Likewise, we denounce that these incessant attacks have increased with the disinformation campaign carried out by media outlets, which have focused on the shortage of food and medicine without mentioning the economic war waged by the domestic oligarchy and other sectors of the local and imperial fifth column, to the detriment of the entire population, particularly the poorest sectors of Venezuelan society.

We also raise our voice against allegations of human rights violations in Venezuela, in particular the unfounded claims of a supposed existence of “political prisoners” in Venezuela. In fact, they are politician-prisoners who have violated Venezuelan penal laws by inciting violence that has caused the death of innocent Venezuelans. Nobody has mentioned this fact at the international level, as these opposition politicians echo that irrationality and have caused numerous deaths, hundreds of wounded and considerable material damage.

We express our admiration because, despite these attacks, aggressions and accusations, we note that Venezuela maintains its Bolivarian principles and enjoys a solid international prestige. In this regard, we congratulate the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela for the successful organization of the XVII Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Non-Aligned Movement, held in Margarita Island, on September 17 and 18, 2016. This Summit took place under the theme of “Peace, Sovereignty and Solidarity Towards Development.” On this occasion member states reaffirmed their commitment to respect the sovereignty, national unity, and territorial integrity of states, their sovereign equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of states, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the defense of the right of self-determination of the peoples, to refrain from using threats or force, to reject illegal policies in regards to changes to constitutional governments, and to condemn the promulgation and application of unilateral coercive measures.

Furthermore, we wish the best of success to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in its exercising of the Presidency of the Non-Aligned Movement for the 2016–2019 period, and, given its leadership, strengths and commitment to the less fortunate, we believe its tenure will reinforce and revitalize the aspirations of humankind to build a world of peace, justice, solidarity and shared development.

We recall that, despite the permanent aggression during 17 years of government management centred on the human being, coupled with a holistic view of human rights, the Bolivarian Revolution, inspired by the ideals of the Liberator Simón Bolivar and led by Commander Hugo Chávez Frías, has achieved one of the fairest distributions of wealth in Latin America, obtaining universal recognition of the progress made in education, food and income distribution, and community and popular development.

We emphasize that this policy of social assistance has been invigorated under the mandate of President Nicolás Maduro Moros, overcoming the adverse effects of a global crisis and the induced collapse of oil prices, given that the sharp drop of this commodity has been a consequence of a “financial war” that promotes stock market speculation as well as the overproduction of fossil fuels generated by, among other factors, the use of hydraulic fracking, a process that has aggravated the ecological fragility of the planet.

We express our firmest condemnation of reactionary actions taken to censor and silence the voice and critical opinion of TeleSUR through measures intended to weaken its image as a communication tool available to the entire world. For this reason, we deplore the Republic of Argentina’s untimely withdrawal from this communication platform, a departure that undermines political and media pluralism as well as the tangible progress of Latin American integration.

In order to counter these actions of censorship and misinformation regarding Venezuela, we express our willingness to contribute toward popularizing the broadcast of TeleSUR’s programming in Canada, employing the tools of modern media technologies and social networks, which have a high penetration rate in various sectors of Canadian public opinion.

In light of the long and dark interventionist record of the U.S. in Latin America, we vehemently declare our rejection of interventionist acts by the U.S. government against the democratic and institutional stability of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, imperial actions that are part of a new offensive inserted into a “Continental Condor Plan” in order to regain its lost influence in the region. These actions have sponsored a national and international vilification media campaign and a dehumanizing domestic economic war, without let-up, with the aim of provoking the suppression of the Bolivarian process.

Venezuela is not a security threat to any country but an example of hope, though it does represent a threat to the prevailing imperial order. In this regard, we demand the immediate repeal of the dismal and infamous U.S. government Executive Order, in which Venezuela is considered a threat to its national security and foreign policy; this Executive Order has been rejected by an overwhelming majority of countries around the world.

We reject any attempt to undermine the sovereignty of Venezuela through direct imperial actions, or by using hemispheric  or international organizations to promote a change of government by illegal means that restore the old oligarchic structures and dismantle the social gains achieved through revolutionary governmental social programs.

Therefore, we express our commitment to defend Venezuela’s institutions in the face of the de-legitimization campaign orchestrated in the current process of activating a constitutional option for convening a recall referendum, as definitely these operations of discrediting erode the fundamental precepts contained in the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999.

Given the recent destabilizing experiences against progressive governments in Latin America, evidenced in “soft” or “constitutional” coups, we reaffirm our solidarity with the Bolivarian government and people, and announce that we will remain alert to report any aggression against the Venezuelan constitutional order; therefore, we continue to support the Bolivarian process and the empowerment and deepening of popular grass-roots education and participation as a legacy of Commander Hugo Chávez Frías and as a guarantee of the continuity of the struggle for social justice and equality.

Finally, we reaffirm our full support towards Venezuela, whose government has been legitimately elected by the majority of the Venezuelan people, and, from this perspective, we call on the Canadian government to distance itself from interventionist U.S. policies that seek to dismantle progressive governments in Latin America and the Caribbean, framed in the American global strategy of promoting “wars by region” worldwide.

Ottawa – October 7, 2016

Michel Chossudovsky

James Cockcroft

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Kathy Hogarth

Maricarmen Guevara

Víctor Ramos

Stuart Ryan

Jorge Sorger

Santiago Escobar

Jean-Claude Balu

Luis Gómez

Félix Grande

Claude Morin

Arnold August

The Truth on Syria: Canadian Journalist Eva Bartlett in Montreal

Global Research, January 24, 2017
Eva Bartlett

Eva Bartlett will be speaking in Montreal,

Saturday January 28, 4 PM – 7 PM

Delta Hotels by Marriott Montreal

 

475 President-Kennedy Avenue
Montreal, Quebec H3A 1J7

Also participating in this event with Introductory comments are: Prof. Michel Chossudovsky and Yves Engler.

What really happened in Aleppo in Syria at the end of 2016?

Did the Russian and Syrian armies really engage in the massacre of a civilian population in rebellion against the Syrian government?

This is what the major Western media would have us believe, as it tries to justify, on humanitarian grounds, a direct military intervention by NATO forces, which could lead to further escalation, globally. But is this information ”objective” or “unbiased”?

We invite you to attend a conference by Canadian independent journalist Eva Bartlett who was is able to provide first-hand information to shed light on the real issues of the war in Syria which caused nearly half a million deaths and more than four million refugees.

An independent Canadian journalist who became well recognized after a press conference at the United Nations during which she debunked the information provided by the major western media about the war in Syria and the sources on which they rely.

Bartlett, a native of southern Ontario, has visited Palestine, Lebanon and Syria on several occasions; From where she made herself known for her reports and analyses published among others on TeleSur, Global Research, Al-Akhbar, Rabble.ca and on her own blog.

A specialist in Syria, she has been an eyewitness to mortar attacks in Damascus and has been the target of snipers herself. She will present a summary of what she observed on the spot and the many interviews with street people and victims of hostilities. Eva Bartlett also became known for her activities as a journalist and human rights activist in the Gaza Strip where she lived a total of three years between 2008 and 2013. She testified about the war crimes and attacks on Gaza perpetrated By the Israeli army while accompanying paramedics and reporting from hospitals.

En direct d’Alep! Que s’est-il réellement passé à Alep en Syrie à la fin de 2016? L’armée russe et syrienne se sont-elles vraiment livrées au massacre d’une population civile en rébellion contre le gouvernement syrien? C’est ce qu’il faudrait croire si l’on se fie aux informations diffusées avec insistance par les grands médias occidentaux, censées justifier, par des raisons humanitaires, une intervention militaire directe des forces de l’OTAN. Celle-ci serait susceptible de conduire le monde dans une escalade meurtrière. Mais ces informations sont-elles objectives ou « intéressées »? Nous vous proposons d’assister à une conférence de la journaliste indépendante canadienne, Eva Bartlett.

Elle est en mesure, mieux que quiconque, de livrer des informations de première main pour faire la lumière sur les véritables enjeux de la guerre en Syrie, laquelle a fait près d’un demi-million de morts et plus de quatre millions de réfugiés.

Journaliste indépendante canadienne rendue célèbre après une conférence de presse donnée aux Nations Unies durant laquelle fut mis à mal le bienfondé des informations livrées par les grands médias occidentaux sur la guerre en Syrie ainsi que les sources sur lesquelles elles s’appuient.

Bartlett, originaire du sud de l’Ontario, s’est rendue à plusieurs reprises en Palestine, au Liban et en Syrie; d’où elle s’est fait connaitre pour ses reportages et analyses publiés entre autres sur Mondialisation.ca, TeleSur, Al-Akhbar, Rabble.ca et son propre blog. Spécialiste de la Syrie, elle a même été témoin oculaire d’attaques au mortier à Damas en plus d’avoir été elle-même la cible de tireurs d’élite.

Elle présentera un sommaire de ce qu’elle-même a observé sur place et des nombreuses entrevues avec les gens de la rue, des victimes.

Eva Bartlett s’est également fait connaitre pour ses activités de journaliste et de militante pour les droits humains dans la bande de Gaza où elle a vécu trois ans au total entre 2008 et 2013. Elle a témoigné des crimes de guerre et attaques contre Gaza perpétrés par l’armée israélienne alors qu’elle accompagnait des ambulanciers et reportait depuis les hôpitaux.

The Political Uses Of Russophobia

19.01.2017

One of the features of the escalating global confrontation was the increase in Russophobia, in the form of accusations leveled at Russia that it’s invading Ukraine, shooting down airliners, committing atrocities in Syria, hacking US elections, sponsoring alt-Right and Euroskeptic movements, and weaponizing giant squid. No conspiracy theory involving Russia seems too outlandish to be rejected by the so-called “respectable” mainstream media. This is true across a broad swath of countries, starting with Ukraine and the Baltics, ending with the United States, with the non-Western world looking at this performance in amazement. What are the origins of this campaign, and what is it hoped to accomplish?

The answer depends on the country in question, because while this campaign may appear to be a manifestation of Western unity, in actuality it reveals deep divisions within the Atlanticist alliance as the motives for Russophobic propaganda vary.

Let’s start with the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Here the motive is prosaic economic self-interest. US and Canada are major hydrocarbon producers whose “liberal” Obama and Trudeau governments have been seeking to isolate Russia in order to eliminate the competition from Russian hydrocarbon exports. US oil and gas companies would furthermore benefit from the construction of pipelines linking Saudi Arabia and Qatar with Europe, but that project first requires the destruction of Syria which Russia successfully opposes. Finally, the Obama Administration has been pursuing regime change in Russia itself in order to make that country “available” to US financial and energy interests. The fever pitch that the anti-Russian propaganda campaign reached in recent weeks is a reflection of Russia’s success at deflecting these threats. However, the US foreign policy would change dramatically in case of revaluation of threats from China, non-government actors like ISIS and a possible global economic crisis that will force reformatting of the global economic system.

France has also embraced Russophobia as official state policy largely because it is seeking to reclaim its own empire in North Africa and the Middle East. Just as Nicholas Sarkozy was a key driver of the overthrow of Libya’s government alongside Hillary Clinton, so does Francois Hollande want to do the same in Syria. The recent dimming of the Eiffel Tower lights, ostensibly a sign of sympathy with the people of Aleppo, is as much a reflection of France’s rapacity toward Syria as it is of its powerlessness to do anything positive to influence the events there.  To the extent that, again, Russia is key in thwarting French imperial ambitions, France has found common cause with other countries which embraced Russophobia at the official level even though its interests don’t really overlap with them.

Germany’s Russophobia, which now includes allegations that Russia may hack German elections and even that Syria and Russia could promote migrant sex crimes in Germany in order to engineer Angela Merkel’s elections defeat, is an ideology in the service of German mercantilism. EU’s crisis and austerity policies force German business to find new markets to replace the depressed markets of Southern Europe, and EU’s eastern flank represents practically the only available outlet for economic expansion.  In order to realize the dream of NEO-Lebensraum reinvented as Eastern Partnership, Germany must find a way to neutralize Russian influence in, and economic ties with, countries like Ukraine and the Baltics, to ensure that German influence fills that void. The idea of regime change in Moscow, which was to be the next domino to fall after the Maidan coup in Kiev, enjoys quiet support among Germany’s current leadership for the same economic reasons.

This expansion is all the more urgent due to the economic collapse of Greece, Italy, and Spain, whose debt spiral has been the engine of Germany’s economic growth over the last decade. While Merkel’s support for the Maidan has been interpreted by many as a sign of her subjugation by Washington, in actuality Berlin has been Washington’s “fellow traveller” pursuing its own set of interests.

Poland’s interest in promoting Russophobia is similar to Germany’s in that its leaders, too, wish to reclaim territories lost after the 17th Century, or at the very least establish Poland’s dominion over the Baltics, Ukraine, and Belarus.  In addition, since ensuring financial injections from the West continue has become the dominant theme in these countries’ politics, the effort to provoke a conflict between Russia and the West represents a clever though likely doomed strategy to force Western powers to continue subsidizing their newly found allies indefinitely. While in the West the “Russian threat” card is played to delegitimize political opposition and to promote neo-imperial expansion, in Central Europe it has the added purpose of persuading the West to commit financial resources. Ukraine’s Maidan, with its anti-Russian rhetoric and policies represents arguably the most desperate such effort. Poland’s, Romania’s, Latvia’s, Estonia’s efforts may be more subtle but their aim is the same.

Even from this brief survey it is obvious that the various Western factions are at odds with one another, and that the only thing that united them was the perception of Russia’s vulnerability. For not only are the various members of the Western alliance pulling in very different directions, their interests are to a large extent incompatible. The destruction of Syria would naturally lead to a US-French conflict. Ukraine’s integration with the EU would lead to a clash of Polish and German interests. The escalation of West-Russia confrontation would benefit some but hurt others.  Naturally, there are strong factions lobbying for continued confrontation with Russia on the European continent outside of Central Europe, mainly within the United Kingdom and Germany. In the case of the UK, the calculation is a relatively simple one. UK still is a major contributor to the EU budget, it does not benefit from Central Europe’s economic development except of at least partly qualified newcomers, however, it wants the EU to continue its confrontation with Russia because it would weaken or at least distract both of them, while remaining isolated from the negative consequences due to its island location and the historical position. Germany’s current government also supports the confrontation and the implied financial commitment to Central Europe because Germany benefits from these subsidies which are often spent on German products and services. It is also no accident that Germany was so adamantly opposed to Brexit–Great Britain is one of the main donors into the EU’s budget, and its withdrawal would shift the burden of financing Central Europe on to Berlin. It is countries like France and Italy which are most opposed to the continuation of the sanctions war with Russia because their leaders would prefer to focus on tackling internal problems, and their distance from Central Europe means they do not benefit from subsidizing the region as much as Germany does.

But in the end it was Russia’s political unity, economic resilience, and military prowess that led to these fissures in the West’s earlier unity appear and forced a painful re-examination of reality upon these countries elites. Typically, the British were the first to betray their allies, and the Brexit demonstrated the UK would rather reap the benefits of Russophobic policies than to pay the costs. The election of Donald Trump and the evident change of the US foreign policy vector is also the reflection of the unwillingness to subsidize German, Polish, Ukrainian, and even French ambitions. France is practically guaranteed to change course after the next elections, which means Angela Merkel, assuming she survives her next election, will be able to stem the political tide. The two big losers appear to be Poland and Ukraine whose political elites would risk civil war–even in Poland–if they attempted to restore good relations with Russia. For that reason, we can expect rogue US intelligence community elements collude with Poland and Ukraine in order to make the improvement of relations with Russia more difficult politically.

Fake News Engineers Consent For Terrorism

Global Research, December 24, 2016
Isis-financé-par-les-USA

Mainstream media coverage of a recent pro-terrorism rally in Hamilton Ontario demonstrates the media’s continuing efforts to hide fundamental truths behind fake veneers of “objectivity” or “neutrality”.

It is known and documented, and has been for years, that Canada supports all of the terrorists in Syria, and has from the beginning of this regime change/dirty war on Syria, and yet the media messaging would have us believe that Canada and Canadians want peace.  No.  The Canadian government wants illegal regime change operations and terrorism in Syria.  It does not seek peace in Syria.  This is the fundamental lie of omission that the MSM tries to conceal beneath its fake veneer.

In fact, the MSM seeks to normalize terrorism in Syria by concealing and suppressing this well-documented truth.

The timing of the aforementioned rally was priceless.  It coincided with the joyous liberation of Aleppo, and narratives from formerly captive citizens who recounted the horrors of living under terrorist-occupied areas.  But this was omitted from MSM coverage that prefers to relay on fraudulent sources for its stories, far removed from the on-the-ground realities of life in Aleppo as covered by independent writers such as Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley.

The well-orchestrated rally featured kids dressed as victims – reminiscent of White Helmets stage-craft – professionally –made signs, and of course pleas to stop the killing, all consistent with imperial propaganda strategies that project the crimes of the invaders/terrorists on the victims.

Alshawaf, a speaker at the rally demanded “First, to stop the killing in Syria; second, for the murderers responsible to be tried and held accountable for their crimes; and lastly, for the restoration and unification of my beloved homeland.”  But he also exclaimed, Down with Bashar and Down with Putin.

Absent from the speech were the well-documented facts that both Putin and Bashar seek an end to the killing, accountability for the murderers, and restoration of the Syrian homeland.  But Bashar and Putin are seeking these goals within the framework of international law; whereas the NATO terrorists are violating international law as they seek the opposite: to destroy and balkanize Syria.

Again, the media made no note of these fundamental inconsistencies.  And it was easy for the media to ignore the well-documented facts because it refused to even acknowledge the presence of members of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War — the real messengers of peace – at the rally.

In a December 23 Facebook commentary, professor Tim Anderson explained:

It was never too difficult to understand. The Syrian people, through their government and army, and with the support of Syria’s allies, just took back their second major city, from foreign funded and armed terrorist groups. This proxy war was another step in Washington’s 15 year series of wars designed to dominate the entire ME region. The aggression and terrorism was always in clear violation of international law, sovereignty and the foundational human right of self-determination. But the big powers tried to create an ‘exception’, with the imperial doctrine of a ‘responsibility to protect’, by constant lies about a ‘brutal dictator killing civilians’, etc. The western media and embedded NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, using Washington’s preferred jihadist sources, backed them up. The UN remained paralysed and most western peoples, in their vanity and arrogance, went along for the ride. However most formerly colonised peoples saw exactly what was going on.

The truth is straightforward, and not that hard to understand, but North American MSM is an appendage of the war-mongering apparatus of deception – it furthers an agenda of war, terrorism, and hatred, not peace and goodwill.

North Americans should understand that in this festive season where we proclaim a desire for peace and goodwill, our governments, and the establishment in the shadows making the decisions, are determined to deliver the opposite, beneath the lies and distortions of their accomplices in the mainstream media.

#StandWithAleppo = #FakeNews. Let’s Celebrate The Liberation of Aleppo

#StandWithAleppo = Fake News. Let’s Celebrate The Liberation of Aleppo

By Ken Stone,

unnamed

The Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War today issued the following statement: #STANDWITHALEPPO = fake news, Let’s Celebrate the Liberation of Aleppo!

The good news is that Aleppo has been successfully liberated. About 100,000 civilians have been freed from their terrorist captors who hoarded the UN food shipments denying food to the civilians, refused them medical care, looted their homes and factories, used them as human shields, destroyed their churches, executed anyone who supported the government, and scuppered several attempts at ceasefires. However, now that the United Nations Security Council has achieved an overall evacuation agreement, we can hope that all the terrorists and their families will soon or have already departed for Idlib.

So the world should be celebrating the utter rout of the terrorists from East Aleppo after more than three years of occupation.

The bad news is that, instead, western governments and media created false and sensational expectations of a bloodbath in Aleppo, which never occurred. Nonetheless, two US public relations experts were tasked to organize the #standwithaleppo worldwide campaign of demonstrations. Actually, the whole thing is fraudulent because the two experts tried to portray themselves as just “two ordinary moms” while one works as a public relations specialist at the US Democratic Party and the other is social media editor for CBS-TV Chicago and both are veterans at spinning the news about the war against Syria.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201612181048717861-standwithaleppo-origins-analysis/]

The keynote speaker at the #standwithaleppo rally in Hamilton today is Dr. Anas Al-Kassem, who heads UOSSM Canada, a shady organization that claims to provide medical care impartially in Syria but which actually only operates in terrorist-controlled areas. Interviewed on CBC’s Metro Morning show earlier this week, he spoke about alleged atrocities committed during the rout of terrorists from Aleppo, which atrocities never took place. And, according to the recently-liberated Aleppans, he provided medical care only for the terrorists, who are mainly from Al Nusra, Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria. The purpose of the rally is clearly not to help Aleppo civilians, who have already been rescued, but rather to demonize and delegitimize the duly-elected government of Bashar al-Assad and provide continuing support for the western/Israeli/Saudi regime change operation in Syria.

If the organizers were truly interested in peace and the well-being of the citizens of Aleppo, they would call upon the Canadian government to do the following:

  1. withdraw from the US-led coalition which is operating illegally in Syria;
  2. end Canada’s illegal and punishing economic sanctions against Syria which prevented many Syrians from being able to find work and to afford to buy food for their children ;
  3. withdraw from the so-called “Friends of Syria” Group of Countries which organized the proxy war on Syria starting in 2011;
  4. restore normal diplomatic relations with Syria;
  5. quit NATO so that Canada is not drawn into any further wars of the US empire.

 

%d bloggers like this: