Understanding Russia: The Continuum of History

June 20, 2017

by Yameen KhanUnderstanding Russia: The Continuum of History

The United States is actively committed to bring Russia into submission via encirclement and a two pronged attack.

NATO’s expansion of bases in vassal states right up to Russia’s borders, coupled with an attempt at encroachment in Syria, should allow The Hegemon to undermine Russia’s underbelly from the Caucasus to Central Asia.

To understand how Russians usually respond to Western power a little time travel, starting 1219 AD, is more than useful.

This was a time when a cataclysmic event left deep scars on the Russian character; an abiding fear of encirclement, whether by nomadic hordes then or by nuclear missile bases today.

Russia then was not a single state but consisted of a dozen principalities frequently at war with each other. Between 1219 and 1240 all these fell to the Genghis Khan hurricane, whose lightning-speed cavalry with his horse-borne archers, employing brilliant tactics unfamiliar to Europeans, caught army after army off guard and forced them into submission.

For more than 200 years Russians suffered under the Golden Horde of the Mongol – named after their great tent with golden poles. They left the Russian economy in ruins, brought commerce and industry to a halt, and reduced Russians to serfdom. Asiatic ways of administration and customs were superimposed on the existing Byzantine system.

Taking full advantage of its military weakness and of its reduced circumstances, Russia’s European neighbors started to help themselves to its territory, starting with German principalities, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden. The Mongols couldn’t care less so long as they received their tribute. They were more concerned with their Asiatic dominions.

Still, European cities did not match the riches of Samarkand and Bukhara, Herat and Baghdad, whose incomparable wealth and splendor outshone wooden-built Russian cities.

Russia’s greatest fear begins here – crushed between their European foes to the West and the Mongols to the East. Russians were to develop a paranoid dread of invasion and encirclement which has tormented their foreign relations ever since. Hardly ever has an experience left such deep and ever-lasting scars on a nation’s psyche as this cataclysm did on Russians. This explains, among other things, their stoical acceptance of harsh rule at home.

And then came Ivan III – the man who freed the Russians from the Golden Horde.

Muscovy then was a small provincial town overshadowed by and subservient to its powerful neighbors. In return for allegiance and subservience locals were gradually entrusted with more power and freedom by the unsuspecting Mongols. Over time the Principality of Muscovy grew in strength and size, eventually to dominate all its neighbors.

In 1476 Ivan refused to pay the customary tribute to the grand Khan Ahmed. In a fit of rage Ivan trampled the portrait of Ahmed and put several of his envoys to death.

The showdown came in autumn 1480 when the Khan marched with his army to teach a vassal a lesson, but was astonished to find a large well-equipped force awaiting him on the far bank of the River Ugra, 150 miles from Moscow. For weeks the two armies glowered at one another, neither side wanting to make the first move.

The stakes were clear. Ivan did not need to cross the river. He would change the course of history if he did not lose. A stalemate could become a turning point in history.

For Ahmed Khan there is no choice. He must cross the river and engage. Win or die like Tariq ibin Ziyad in 711 AD, another age and time, when a brilliant Arab general landed on the ‘rock of Hercules’ subsequently called by Arab Historians ‘Jabal Tariq’, meaning the ‘mountain of Tariq’ and later anglicized as Gibraltar.

Tariq, by one master stratagem, with a much smaller force (12,000 against 90,000 Spaniards) at the Battle of Guadalete defeated Roderic and thus opened the road for the subsequent Arab commanders to march all the way to Tours in France.

With the arrival of winter, the river began to freeze. A ferocious battle appeared inevitable. And then something extraordinary happened. Perhaps a miracle. Without warning both sides turned and fled in panic. Despite their inglorious act, the Russians knew that their long subservience was over.

The Khan had lost his stomach for a fight. The once invincible Mongol might had evaporated. Their centralized authority in the West had now collapsed, leaving three widely separated khanates (Kazan, Astrakhan and Crimea) as their last remnants of the once mighty and the largest contiguous land empire in history.

It was in 1553 when Ivan the Terrible, a successor of Ivan III, thirsting for revenge, stormed the fortress of Kazan on the upper Volga, slaughtered its defenders and thus ended the Mongol rule. Two years later the Khanate of Astrakhan, where the Volga flows into the Caspian met with similar fate.

Starving Napoleon’s army

Fast forward to June 1812, and the fateful day, the 24th , when Napoleon’s Grande Armée crossed the Neman River in an attempt to engage and defeat the Russian army.

Napoleon’s aim was to compel Tsar Alexander I of Russia to stop trading with British merchants through proxies and bring about pressure on the United Kingdom to sue for peace. The overt political aim of the campaign was to liberate Poland from the threat of Russia (as the US claims of Eastern Europe today). Thus the campaign was named the Second Polish War to gain favor with the Poles and provide a political pretense for his actions.

The real aim was domination of Russia.

The Grande Armée was massive; 680,000 soldiers. Through a series of marches Napoleon rushed the army rapidly through Western Russia in an attempt to bring the Russian army to battle, and in August of that year winning a number of minor engagements and a major battle at Smolensk.

Any invading army must consider war in Russia as a war at sea. It is futile to occupy land or city or cities. The aim of an invading force must be to destroy the military machine of Russia. The aim of Russian commanders has always been to survive and use its vast land mass to exhaust its enemy, learn from him and defeat and annihilate him with his own tactics and stratagems, only better executed.

Napoleon engaged the Russian army for a decisive battle at Maloyaroslavets. The Russians would not commit themselves to a pitched battle. His troops exhausted, with few rations, no winter clothing, and his remaining horses in poor condition, Napoleon was forced to retreat.

He hoped to reach supplies at Smolensk and later at Vilnius. In the weeks that followed the Grande Armée starved and suffered from the onset of “General Winter”. Lack of food and fodder for the horses, hypothermia from the bitter cold and persistent attacks upon isolated troops from Russian peasants and Cossacks led to great losses in men, and a general loss of discipline and cohesion in the army.

When Napoleon’s army crossed the Berezina River in November, only 27,000 fit soldiers remained. The Grand Armée had lost some 380,000 men dead and 100,000 captured. A riveting defeat.

All those Afghan overt – and covert – wars

Four centuries after the cataclysm of the Mongol invasion, the Russian Empire had been steadily expanding at the rate of 55 square miles a day – or 20,000 square miles a year. At the dawn of the 19thcentury only 2,000 miles separated the British and the Russian empires in Asia.

Both the Russians and the East India Company (as in the British Indian Empire) sent their officers, businessmen in disguise, as Buddhist priests or Muslim holy men, to survey uncharted Central Asia.

One such chap was Captain Arthur Connolly of the 6th Bengal Light Cavalry in the service of the British East India Company. The East India Company was the British version of America’s Halliburton.

Connolly ended up beheaded as a spy by the orders of Alim Khan, the Emir of Bukhara. It was Connolly who coined the expression “The Great Game”, which Kipling immortalized in his novel “Kim”.

By the end of the 19th century the Tsars’ armies had swallowed one Khanate after another and only a few hundred miles separated the two empires. In some places the distance was only twenty miles.

The British feared that they would lose their Indian possessions – the ‘Jewel in the Crown’ – to the Tsar; and two theories emerged to defend the frontiers of British India.

The ‘forward policy’ and its proponents (hawks, today’s US neocons) argued to stop the Russians beyond India’s frontiers by getting there first, either by invasion, or by creating compliant ‘buffer’ states, or satellites, astride the likely invasion route.

But there were those who did not buy this proposition and did not believe that the Russians would invade India. The opponents of the ‘forward policy’ argued that India’s best defense lay in its unique geographical setting – bordered by impassable mountain ranges, mighty rivers, waterless deserts, and above all warlike tribes.

A Russian force which reached India surmounting all these obstacles would be so weakened by then that it would be no match for the waiting British Army. Therefore, it was more sensible to force an invader to overextend his lines of communications than for the British to risk theirs. And above all this policy was cheaper.

NATO today has a forward policy of deploying troops all over Eastern Europe and creating bases around Russia in an effort to encircle it. The final straw for the Russian Federation has been the occupation of Ukraine, by proxy, by Washington.

Guess who won the policy debate in 19th century Britain? The hawks (the US neocons of today), of course.

In 1838 Lord Auckland decides to replace the current Emir of Afghanistan, Dost Muhammad Khan with Shuja-ul-Mulk.

One could easily replace Dost Muhammad of Afghanistan in 1838 with today’s Gaddafi of Libya or Saddam Hussein of Iraq or Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Or Putin of Russia. Or anyone who becomes an obstacle to the West’s geopolitical, geoeconomic domination.

And yet the British suffered a massive defeat after a year’s occupation of Afghanistan. The only soldier who eventually reached Jalalabad was William Brydon. The Afghans may have spared him so he would be able to tell the tale of this horrific defeat.

You would think the British would have learned from history. Not at all. They did it again.

Tension between Russia and Britain in Europe ended in June 1878 with the Congress of Berlin. Russia then turned its attention to Central Asia, promptly sending an uninvited diplomatic mission to Kabul.

Sher Ali Khan, the Emir of Afghanistan (the son of Emir Dost Muhammad Khan) tried unsuccessfully to keep them out. Russian envoys arrived in Kabul on July 22, 1878, and on August 14, the British demanded that Sher Ali accept a British mission too.

The Emir not only refused to receive a British mission under Neville Bowles Chamberlain, but threatened to stop it if it were dispatched. Lord Lytton, the viceroy, ordered a diplomatic mission to set out for Kabul in September 1878 but the mission was turned back as it approached the eastern entrance of the Khyber Pass, triggering the Second Anglo–Afghan War.

After several defeats in various battles except one, and thus abandoning the provocative policy of maintaining a British resident in Kabul, the British were forced to withdraw.

One would think the British would have enough sense to cease with the stupid policy of occupying Afghanistan. Not at all. They tried it for the third time.

The Third Afghan War began on May 6, 1919 and ended with an armistice on August 8, 1919. An Afghan victory, again.

The British finally abandoned their forward policy. It had failed – just as the American neocons “policy” is failing.

And yet, roughly 60 years later the Russians would don the madman’s (British) hat and on December 25th, 1979, launched a vertical envelopment and occupied Kabul.

Their main aim was the airbase at Shindand, about 200 miles as the crow flies from the Straits of Hormuz, the choke point of the Persian Gulf, through which at the time 90% of the world’s oil was flowing.

They placed 200 Bear Bombers – the equivalent of the US B-52’s – as if sending a message to President Carter: “Checkmate”. A certain game was over – and a covert war was about to begin.

As our historical trip takes us from The Great Game to the Cold War, by now it’s more than established that the United States took on the mantle of the British Empire and filled in the power vacuum left by the British. If Connolly were to come back during the Cold War he would be right at home – as the Cold War was a continuation of the Great Game.

In between, of course, there was a guy named Hitler.

After Napoleon, it was Hitler who considered the Russians as barbarians and despite a nonaggression pact invaded Russia.

The Second Great European War (GEW II) was in fact fought between Germany and the USSR. Germany deployed 80% of its economic and military resources on its Eastern Front compared to 20% against the rest of the allies on the Western Front, where it was merely a ‘fire brigade operation’ (Hitler’s words).

Paul Carell describes the moment when, at 0315 on June 22nd 1941, the massive ‘Operation Barbarossa’ over a 900-mile front went under way.

“As though a switch had been thrown a gigantic flash of lightening rent the night. Guns of all calibres simultaneously belched fire. The tracks of tracer shells streaked across the sky. As far as the eye could see the front on the Bug was a sea of flames and flashes. A moment later the deep thunder of the guns swept over the tower of Volka Dobrynska like a steamroller. The whine of the mortar batteries mingled eerily with the rumble of the guns. Beyond the Bug a sea of fire and smoke was raging. The narrow sickle of the moon was hidden by a veil of cloud. Peace was dead.”

Bagration revisited

Russians are masters of Sun Tzu: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.”

These principles were recently applied in Ukraine and Crimea. For background, one just needs to study the battle of Kursk as well as Operation Bagration.

The Soviet military doctrine of maskirovka was developed in the 1920s, and used by Zhukov in the 1939 Battles of Khalkhin Gol against Japan.

The Field Regulations of the Red Army (1929) stated that:

“Surprise has a stunning effect on the enemy. For this reason all troop operations must be accomplished with the greatest concealment and speed.”

Concealment was to be attained by confusing the enemy with movements, camouflage and use of terrain, speed, use of night and fog, and secrecy.

Operation Bagration – the Soviet destruction of the German Army Group Centre – was, arguably, the single most successful military action of the entire war. This vital Soviet offensive is symptomatic of the lack of public knowledge in the West about the war in the East. Whilst almost everyone has heard of D-Day, few people other than specialist historians know much about Operation Bagration.

Yet the sheer size of Bagration dwarfs that of D-Day.

“Army Group Centre was really the anchor of that whole German front,’ writes Professor Geoffrey Wawro, ‘blocking the shortest path to Berlin; and the Russians annihilated it at the same time as we were landing on D-Day and marching on, liberating Paris and then heading towards Germany. But the scope of the fighting was much bigger in the East.

You had ten times as many Russians fighting in Bagration as you had Anglo/American/Canadian troops landing on the Normandy beaches.

And you had three times as many Germans in action fighting trying to hold up the Russian advance as you had defending the Atlantic Wall.

So, it’s a perfect encapsulation of the problem (of lack of appreciation of the scale of fighting on the Eastern Front). I mean, think about it, when D-Day and Bagration jumped off, the allied armies in Normandy and the Russian armies on the Eastern Front were equidistant from Berlin, and in the German view they were sort of equal threats.

After Operation Bagration, Russia is seen as being the principal threat because they just kicked down the door altogether and reoccupied all the ground that was lost in 1941. They take most of Poland and they move into East Prussia and they’re at the very gates of Berlin while we’re still slogging our way through Normandy and towards Paris.”

Operation Bagration was a colossal victory for the Red Army. By the 3rd of July Soviet forces had recaptured Minsk, capital of Belorussia, a city which had been in German hands for three years. And by the end of July the Red Army had pushed into what had been, before the war, Polish territory, and had taken Lwow, the major cultural center of eastern Poland.

Before Operation Barbarossa, the German High Command masked the creation of the massive force arrayed to invade the USSR and heightened their diplomatic efforts to convince Joseph Stalin that they were about to launch a major attack on Britain.

Maskirovka (deception) was put into practice on a large scale in the Battle of Kursk, especially on the Steppe Front commanded by Ivan Konev.

The result was that the Germans attacked Russian forces four times stronger than they were expecting.

The German general Friedrich von Mellenthin wrote, “The horrible counter-attacks, in which huge masses of manpower and equipment took part, were an unpleasant surprise for us… The most clever camouflage of the Russians should be emphasized again. We did not .. detect even one minefield or anti-tank area until .. the first tank was blown up by a mine or the first Russian anti-tank guns opened fire”.

Broadly, military deception may take both strategic and tactical forms. Deception across a strategic battlefield was uncommon until the modern age (particularly in the world wars of the 20th century), but tactical deception (on individual battlefields) dates back to early history.

In a practical sense military deception employs visual misdirection, misinformation (for example, via double agents) and psychology to make the enemy believe something that is untrue. The use of military camouflage, especially on a large scale, is a form of deception.

The Russian loanword maskirovka (literally: masking) is used to describe the Soviet Union and Russia’s military doctrine of surprise through deception, in which camouflage plays a significant role.

There are numerous examples of deception activities employed throughout the history of warfare, such as: feigned retreat leading the enemy, through a false sense of security, into a pre-positioned ambush; fictional units creating entirely fictional forces or exaggerating the size of an army; smoke screen – a tactical deception involving smoke, fog, or other forms of cover to hide battlefield movements; Trojan Horse – gaining admittance to a fortified area under false pretenses, to later admit a larger attacking force; strategic envelopment – where a small force distracts the enemy while a much larger force moves to attack from the rear (that was a favored tactic of Napoleon’s).

And that brings us to Syria, and its importance to Russia.

The deep state in Washington wants to keep the entire spectrum from the Levant to the Indian sub-continent destabilized – shaping it as the platform to send sparks of terrorism North to Russia and East to China. At the same time the US military will keep a physical presence (if China, India and Russia will allow it) in Afghanistan, from where it can survey the Eurasian land mass. As a master geopolitical chess player, Putin is very much aware of all this.

Syria is right at the underbelly of Russia and would be strategically important if it were in the hands of remote-controlled thugs like Ukraine is today. It has the potential to destabilize Russia from the Caucasus to Central Asia – generating as many Salafi-jihadi terrorists as possible. The region from the Caucasus to Central Asia holds about 80 million Muslims. Russia has enough reasons to stop US advances in Syria and Ukraine. Not to mention that in Iraqi Kurdistan the Pentagon is aiming to build a mega base, a springboard to create mischief in Central Asia for both Russia and China, in the form, for instance, of an Uyghur uprising in Western China, like it has done in Ukraine for Russia.

Once again; it may be helpful to look back to the continuum of history. It tells us these current efforts to encircle and destabilize Russia are destined to fail. (edited by Pepe Escobar)

Selected bibliography:

Carell, Paul: Hitler’s War on Russia (George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., London, 1964).
Fraser-Tytler, W.K.: Afghanistan: A Study of Political Developments in Central Asia (Oxford University Press, London, 1950).
Hopkirk, Peter: Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for Lost Cities and Treasures of Chinese Central Asia (First Published by John Murry (Publisher), 1980; First issued as an Oxford University Press, paperback 1980, Oxford).
Tzu, Sun: The Art of War (Edited with an introduction by Dallas Galvin; Translated from Chinese by Lionel Giles, First Published in 1910, Produced by Fine Creative Media, Inc. New Yor
Gibbon, Edward: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Volume III (Random House Inc. Manufactured in the United States by H. Wolf).
Weatherford, Jack: Genghis Khan and the making of the Modern World (Three Rivers Press, New York).
Wawro, Geoffrey: WW2.com (Professor of Military History at the University of North Texas).

Jerusalem, Nicosia and WW3

June 19, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Cypriot press reported last week on a large joint Israeli-Cypriot military drill.

The following Israeli video  publicises an elite Israeli commando brigade engaged in aggressive military routines around Cyprus’ Troodos Mountain range.

https://youtu.be/uvQJfqnPuME

//www.youtube.com/embed/uvQJfqnPuME?wmode=opaque&enablejsapi=1″,”url”:”https://youtu.be/uvQJfqnPuME”,”width”:854,”height”:480,”providerName”:”YouTube”,”thumbnailUrl”:”https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uvQJfqnPuME/hqdefault.jpg”,”resolvedBy”:”youtube”}” data-block-type=”32″>

How did this came about? How did the Cypriots, who are known to support the Palestinian cause, become a province of the Israeli empire?

An Israel-Europe gas pipeline deal is the answer.

 

In the beginning of April we learned about a proposed 2,000 kilometer subsea pipeline connecting gas fields located offshore in Gaza and Cyprus with Greece and possibly Italy.

The pipeline agreement among Israel, Italy, Cyprus and Greece leaves both the Turks and the Palestinians out. While Gaza faces a critical energy crisis with electricity reduced to less than three hours a day; Israel aims to collect billions of dollars from a significant natural gas reserve located off the Gaza shore and well within Palestinian territorial water (assuming such a term exist).

Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s energy minister,  hailed the pipeline project expected to be in operation in 2025 as the “beginning of a wonderful friendship between four Mediterranean countries.” Of course, not all related Mediterranean nations are included in the deal. We can foresee that this is a recipe for disaster: the pipeline and the gas installation are soft targets. The region is volatile. Cyprus is putting its sovereignty at risk. It may, within a short time, God forbid, become a battle ground for some merciless global operators.

Cyprus leadership realises that it has to become an Israeli province if it wants an oil pipeline that dispatches plundered Palestinian natural gas. And as the video reveals, Cyprus is now protected by its Israelite big brother. The Israeli-Cypriot joint military drill was performed to deliver a message to Turkey and other regional players: any attempt to interfere with their gas theft project will be met by Israeli military brutality.

Gilad’s Being in Time can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com  and on Gilad’s site  here.

Washington is weaker than waging a confrontation واشنطن أضعف من خوض مواجهة

Washington is weaker than waging a confrontation

 يونيو 22, 2017

Written by Nasser Kandil,

The dropping of the Syrian plane in Raqqa by the Americans formed an opportunity to show the war of wills between Washington and each of Moscow and Tehran around Syria, and to determine who has the upper hand in it, after Washington has suffered from successive defeats in an attempt to prove is presence as a party that is capable of drawing red lines, imposing rules of equations and balances, and having control over what is called the rules of engagement. The first attempts were with the high ceiling speech of the US President Donald Trump about Syria after the incident of Khan Sheikhoun, which the President Vladimir Putin was sure that it is bad Hollywood direction by Washington to carry out deliberate strike on Shuairat Airport. The hesitation and the confusion have soon accompanied the implementation of the strike, the Russians were notified about it a few hours before it and it passed without any military impact despite the US illusions about a panic that will affect the Syrian army and its morals, and will lead to a change in the balances of its war with the armed groups, leading to the displacement of thousands of the Syrians from their country, but nothing has happened like that, even the minimum level which is supposed by the Americans by choosing Al Shuairat Airport to draw a red line in front the Syrian army and its allies to stop the war and to restore what is seized by the armed groups in the outskirts of Damascus and the countryside of Hama after the invasion of Mohammed Bin Salman after his visit to Washington has not happened, on the contrary the areas have become successively under the control of the Syrian army during two weeks. The US supposed red line to prevent the Syrian army from progress in Badia has been fallen with the dashing of the Syrian army from Palmyra to beyond Palmyra and beyond beyond Palmyra.

In the second time, the Americans started to organize troops trained and armed in Jordan, they coincided their movement with maneuvers entitled “the Eager Lion” to talk about the process of the southern front. The Jordanian King started talking about the preemptive security, suggesting to the participation of his army and his flight inside the Syrian territories and airspaces, and then this coincided with the US raids in Badia to prevent the Syrian army from reaching the Syrian-Iraqi borders. In these two times the position of Russia and Iran was crucial through the announced position and the field steps along with Syria and Hezbollah, after refusing a bribe offered to Moscow by Adel Al-Jubeir through showing the readiness in committing to the call of the Secretary of State Rex Tellierson to accept the stay of the Syrian President in exchange of the exit of Hezbollah from Syria. The Russian response was harsh, that Hezbollah in Syria is legitimate exactly as the Russian air forces. The field witnessed crowds of the Syrian army towards Daraa and Badia along with the elite units of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The Russian flight was active in the areas which it did not participate in bombing before, taking into consideration the relations with Jordan and Israel. Everything was put to ensure the victory of the Syrian army and its allies by saying to Washington that the red line in the southern of Syria has been fallen and the red line on the borders with Iraq has been fallen as well. Today the matter is resolved by facts and become above the capacity of the Americans to return back to the previous situations.

This time the Americans pretended to be clever by saying that the war on ISIS in Raqqa is their exclusive responsibility and they behold it in the field to the Kurdish groups, they are ready to apply that on all the possibilities, they have lost an ally as Turkey in order not to lose that principle. The issue as all the issues of America,  the principle depends on the interest, the US interest by staying in Syria is related organically to two conditions; an issue that must not end; as the war on terrorism through a war led by Washington in which ISIS can be moved from one area to another, and a coverage that is granted the legitimacy, and has a formative identity in the Syrian society, here the choice is known, it is the Kurds, but Syria and its allies succeeded in disrupting the US plan, they prevented the rolling war in favor of a war of resizing ISIS, they drew the map to close the secure corridors which were arranged by the Americans to ISIS towards Badia, they tried to attract ISIS making use of the US desire of rolling in order to transfer the battle of termination to Deir Al Zour, they surrounded Deir Al Zour from all directions to make the war arena  under their control. But when the Americans noticed that the matters have become out of their control they raised the tension by dropping the plane to keep the matters under their control and agenda.

The answer came; the Syrian army and the allies will continue their plan to approach Deir Al Zour, to enhance their presence in it, to make a progress in Badia and the borders with Iraq, to coordinate with the Iraqis whether the Iraqi army or the Popular Crowd, and to continue their progress in the countryside of Raqq and at the course of the Euphrates. The Iranians have sent missile message to Deir Al Zour, which its chosen as a goal was not in vain. The Russians announced that they will consider any flying object in the areas of their military operations a goal for their missiles after they canceled the working under the understanding of preventing the collision with the Americans in the Syrian airspaces, so how did Washington behave?

Washington responded by asking Moscow immediately to return to the understanding, and to consider the dropping of a plane an incident resulted from the lack of coordination in a geographic spot in which the forces have become working closely. The Russians responded this can be through one of two conditions; either to be sufficient with an understanding to prevent the collision and in this case not the Russian flight will be involved only but the Syrian flight too, or to coordinate in the war on ISIS by land and air, and in this case there must be a coordination with the Syrian army. Washington is still confused, it tries to adapt to less expensive choices, after Moscow has adjusted the conditions of the return to understanding, so for whom the high hand? And who will be ready to prove the superiority of the will at the end?

Washington is living in a state similar to the state experienced by it when it came with its fleets at the era of the President Barack Obama, and it discovered that due to the Russian and Iranian positions and the readiness of Syria and the resistance that it faced the choice of the full war, so it retreated and accepted the face-saving with the political solution of the Syrian chemical weapons, but with one difference this time, it will not get a compensation for the retreat, it has to accept the new equations which are drawn by sacrifices, and which are fixed by the Russian and Iranian cross-missiles or to go the full war if it is ready, but the time of testing the intentions has ended. The lesson is that the pretension to be clever does not replace the cleverness, the pretension to be strong does not replace the strength, and the psychological war does not replace the actual war, because neither the owner of the land is as the occupier, nor the owner of right is as the trader.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

 

(Visited 2 times, 2 visits today)

واشنطن أضعف من خوض مواجهة

يونيو 20, 2017

ناصر قنديل

– شكّل إسقاط الأميركيين للطائرة السورية في منطقة الرقة فرصة لتظهير حرب الإرادات بين واشنطن وكل من موسكو وطهران حول سورية، وتحديد صاحب اليد العليا فيها، بعدما مُنيت واشنطن بهزائم متلاحقة في محاولة إثبات حضورها كجهة قادرة على رسم الخطوط الحمراء، وفرض قواعد المعادلات والتوازنات، والتحكم برسم ما يُسمّى بقواعد الاشتباك. وكانت أولى المحاولات مع الكلام العالي السقوف للرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب حول سورية بعد حادثة خان شيخون التي يجزم الرئيس فلاديمير بوتين أنها إخراج هوليودي سيئ قامت به واشنطن لتنفيذ ضربة معدّة مسبقاً لمطار الشعيرات. ولم يلبث أن ظهر التردد والارتباك في تنفيذ الضربة، فأبلغ الروس بها قبل ساعات، ومضت بلا أثر عسكري رغم الأوهام الأميركية عن ذعر سيُصاب به الجيش السوري وانهيار في معنوياته وتغير في توازنات حربه مع الجماعات المسلحة، ودفع لمئات آلاف السوريين للنزوح عن بلدهم. وشيء من كل هذا لم يحدث، بل إن الحد الأدنى الذي افترضه الأميركيون تحصيل حاصل باختيارهم مطار الشعيرات، عبر رسم خط أحمر للجيش السوري وحلفائه لوقف الحرب لاسترداد ما سيطرت عليه الجماعات المسلحة في أطراف دمشق وريف حماة في غزوة محمد بن سلمان بعد زيارته لواشنطن، لم يحدث، فتهاوت هذه المناطق بيد الجيش السوري تباعاً خلال أسبوعين. والخط الأحمر الافتراضي لمنع الجيش السوري من التقدم في البادية لم يبد له أثر مع اندفاع الجيش السوري من تدمر إلى ما بعد تدمر وما بعد ما بعد تدمر.

– في المرة الثانية بدأ الأميركيون بتنظيم قوات درّبوها وسلّحوها في الأردن وزامنوا تحريكها مع مناورات أسموها بالأسد المتأهب للحديث عن عملية الجبهة الجنوبية. وبدأ الملك الأردني يتحدث عن الأمن الوقائي ملمّحاً لمشاركة جيشه وطيرانه داخل الأراضي والأجواء السورية، وتلتها وتزامنت معها المرة الثالثة بالغارات الأميركية في البادية لمنع الجيش السوري من بلوغ الحدود السورية العراقية. وفي هاتين المرّتين كان موقف روسيا وإيران حازماً بالموقف المعلن والخطوات الميدانية إلى جانب سورية وحزب الله، بعد رفض رشوة حاول عادل الجبير تقديمها لموسكو بإبداء الاستعداد للسير بدعوة وزير الخارجية الأميركية ريكس تيلرسون لقبول بقاء الرئيس السوري مقابل خروج حزب الله من سورية، فكان الردّ الروسي قاسياً، بأن حزب الله في سورية شرعي تماماً كالقوات الجوية الروسية. وشهد الميدان حشوداً للجيش السوري نحو درعا والبادية ومعه وحدات النخبة من حزب الله والحرس الثوري الإيراني. وفي السماء نشط الطيران الروسي في مناطق لم يشارك في قصفها من قبل مراعاة لحسابات العلاقات بالأردن و«إسرائيل»، وتم وضع كل شيء جانباً لضمان انتصار الجيش السوري والحلفاء بالقول لواشنطن إن الخط الأحمر في جنوب سورية ساقط والخط الأحمر على الحدود مع العراق ساقط مثله، وقد بات ذلك اليوم محسوماً بالوقائع، وبات فوق قدرة الأميركيين العودة بالأمور إلى الوراء.

– هذه المرة تذاكى الأميركيون بمحاولة القول إن الحرب على داعش في الرقة هي اختصاصهم الحصري، وقد أوكلوه في الميدان للجماعات الكردية، وأنهم مستعدون لفرض ذلك بكل الاحتمالات، وقد خسروا حليفاً كتركيا كي لا يتسامحوا مع هذا المبدأ. والقضية ككل قضايا أميركا المبدأ فيها هو المصلحة. والمصلحة الأميركية في البقاء في سورية ترتبط عضوياً بشرطين، هما قضية يجب ألا تنتهي وهي الحرب على الإرهاب عبر حرب لا تكسر عظام داعش يقودها الأميركيون بدحرجتها من منطقة إلى منطقة، وبغطاء يمنح المشروعية له هوية تكوينية في المجتمع السوري، وهنا الخيار معلوم وهو الأكراد، لكن سورية وحلفاءها نجحوا بتعطيل الخطة الأميركية ومنعوا الحرب المتدحرجة لحساب حرب كسر العظام مع داعش، ورسموا الخارطة لإقفال الممرات الآمنة التي رتبها الأميركيون لداعش نحو البادية، وعملوا لاجتذاب داعش مستفيدين من الرغبة الأميركية بالتدحرج لتكون معركة كسر العظم في دير الزور، وزنّروا دير الزور من الجنوب والغرب والشرق والشمال لتكون ساحة الحرب بين أيدي الجيش السوري والحلفاء. ولما رأى الأميركيون الأمور تفلت من بين أيديهم أرادوا رفع التوتر بإسقاط الطائرة لرد الأمور إلى حضنهم وسيطرتهم وإدارتهم وأجندتهم.

– جاء الجواب المثلّث، فالجيش السوري والحلفاء يواصلون خطتهم نحو التقرّب من دير الزور وتعزيز الوجود فيها والتقدم في البادية والحدود مع العراق والتنسيق مع الجانب العراقي المقابل سواء الجيش العراقي أو الحشد الشعبي، ومواصلة التقدم في ريف الرقة وعلى مجرى نهر الفرات، بينما قام الإيرانيون بتوجيه رسالة صاروخية لم يكن عبثاً اختيار دير الزور هدفاً لها، وقام الروس بإعلان اعتبار كل جسم طائر في مناطق عملياتهم هدفاً لصواريخهم بعدما ألغوا العمل بتفاهم منع التصادم مع الأميركيين في الأجواء السورية، فكيف تصرّفت واشنطن؟

– ردّت واشنطن بالطلب الفوري إلى موسكو العودة للتفاهم واعتبار إسقاط الطائرة حادثاً ناجماً عن ضعف التنسيق في بقعة جغرافية باتت القوى فيها تعمل عن قرب، فردّ الروس بأن لذلك أحد طريقين، إما الاكتفاء بتفاهم لمنع التصادم. وفي هذه الحالة لن يشمل الطيران الروسي وحده بل الطيران السوري معه، أو الذهاب للتنسيق في الحرب على داعش براً وجواً. وفي هذه الحالة يجب أن يشمل التنسيق الجيش السوري أيضاً، ولا تزال واشنطن مرتبكة محاولة التأقلم مع أقل الخيارات كلفة، بعدما عدّلت موسكو شروط العودة للتفاهم، فلمن تكون اليد العليا؟ ومن يكون المستعدّ للذهاب إلى النهاية في إثبات تفوق الإرادة؟

– تعيش واشنطن حالة تشبه تلك التي عاشتها يوم جاءت بأساطيلها في عهد الرئيس باراك أوباما، واكتشفت أنها مع الموقفين الروسي والإيراني وجهوزية سورية والمقاومة، تواجه خيار الحرب الشاملة، فتراجعت وارتضت بحفظ ماء الوجه بالحل السياسي للسلاح السوري الكيميائي، مع فارق أنها هذه المرة لن تحصل على تعويض لتتراجع، فعليها تجرّع المعادلات الجديدة التي ترسمها الدماء، وتثبتها الصواريخ العابرة الروسية والإيرانية، أو الذهاب للحرب الشاملة إن كانت مستعدّة وقد فات أوان اختبار النيات، والعبرة أن التذاكي لا يحلّ مكان الذكاء والاستقواء لا يحلّ مكان القوة، والحرب النفسية لا تحلّ مكان الحرب الفعلية، وليست الثكلى كالمستأجرة، وليس صاحب الأرض كالمحتل، ولا صاحب الحق كالتاجر.

(Visited 363 times, 363 visits today)
Related Videos

Related Artcles

 

Egypt Court Votes against Transfer of Islands to Saudi Arabia

June 21, 2017

Egypt

 

An Egyptian court has overruled a previous verdict authorizing the transfer of two strategic Egyptian islands to Saudi Arabia, something President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has agreed to in a controversial deal with Riyadh.

The administrative court ruled on Tuesday that all judicial decisions taken to date by the Urgent Matters Court would be considered invalid. The latter had previously ruled in favor of the bilateral deal enabling the transfer in 2016.

Tiran and Sanafir, as the islands are named, can be used to control access to the Israeli port of Eilat. Recent reports have indicated that Riyadh and Tel Aviv are mulling over establishing economic relations.

“The ruling (on Tuesday) signifies that the land is Egyptian,” said Khaled Ali, a lawyer who argued at the administrative court that the islands belonged to Egypt.

The verdict would affirm that any attempt to transfer the islands to Saudi Arabia would be considered unconstitutional “even if the president ratified the agreement,” he added.

Source: Websites

Related Posts

 

United States Signals Intent to Occupy and Divide Syria

By Alex Christoforou

June 20, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  Tensions in Syria hit an all time high when the US military shot down a Syrian SU-22 that was attacking Al Qaeda jihadist forces on the ground.

The US version of the incident goes like this (courtesy of The Hill)…

A statement from the U.S. military said it shot down the Syrian SU-22 in self-defense and after contacting Russian counterparts through the established deconfliction zone. The Syrian aircraft was bombing U.S.-backed forces fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) south of Tabqa. It was the first time the United States has shot down a Syrian plane, and the first time a U.S. military jet has shot down any manned aircraft since 1999.

The reality is much more complex, yet simpler. Syria was flying its jets over Syrian sovereign territory, moving to attack Al Qaeda jihadists (aka “moderate rebels”) operating illegally in Syrian territory, and backed up by US forces, which have set up operations illegally within Syrian sovereign territory.

The US has not been invited by the internationally recognized government of Syria to fight ISIS on Syrian land, and as such the United States has de-facto invaded and occupied Eastern Syria.

To make matters worse, the US is supporting Al Qaeda terrorists as a foot soldier proxy army, in order to secure as much of Eastern Syria as possible, and create a rump state Syria, effectively dividing the once united country.

Russia responded to the US aggression by saying its surface-to-air missile systems in Syria would begin to track manned and unmanned aircraft from the US coalition if they move west of the Euphrates River.

Once again we see American regime change policy gone horribly wrong (as expected) with consequences now pushing the US military into full confrontation with Russia and Iran…two countries which have been invited by the Syrian government to operate on Syrian sovereign territory to fight ISIS and Al Qaeda.

The Hill reports that American forces may be digging in, ready to protect the Al Qaeda army at all costs so as to ensure an East-West division in Syria…

Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria, said there is real danger to the U.S. as tensions flare.

Syrian President Bashar Assad has vowed to recapture all Syrian territory lost during the nation’s civil war, Ford noted in an email.

“There is, therefore, a real risk of escalation, especially if, unlike in western Syria, the Americans insist on backing up their Syrian allies on the ground and there is no deal with Assad,” he said.

U.S. and Syrian forces largely had stayed out of each other’s way before, because the United States operated mostly in eastern Syria and the government forces mostly in western Syria.

But since the fall of Aleppo, pro-Assad forces have been moving further east, bringing them into closer proximity with the U.S. forces and upping the potential for confrontation, said Ford, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and professor at Yale.

Assad can’t match U.S. airpower, Ford said, but could hit U.S. forces in other ways.

“The escalation may be asymmetrical,” he said. “Assad’s air force can’t challenge ours. Look instead for car bombs, ground ambushes and small-scale, regular attacks against our forces and those we back in eastern Syria. The Syrian government is very experienced at testing the edges of any envelope or red line.”

War hawks in neocon think tanks are salivating at an all out confrontation breaking out between all the players involved…

Nile Gardiner, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, doubted Moscow would follow through on its threat. Russia, for instance, did not retaliate militarily after Turkey shot down its jet in 2015, he noted.

He called the U.S. military’s decision to shoot down a Syrian jet a “welcome development.”

“Washington has sent a clear message to Moscow that it’s no longer business as usual,” he said. “For too long, the Russians have treated Syria as their own backyard.”

But even if neither Russia nor the United States wants to get dragged further into war, they could be “chain ganged” to their allies who are jockeying to control land taken from ISIS, said Stephen Biddle, adjunct senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Other experts worry about the U.S. military attacking pro-Assad forces without a larger Syria strategy from President Trump.

Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, has advocated for more U.S. involvement in the civil war. But she expressed alarm at the United States shooting down the Syrian jet and attacking militias at Al Tanf without a larger strategy.

“My biggest concern is not escalation, although I agree that there’s a real risk,” she said. “Escalation toward a particular end is a good thing. Escalation for no reason with no particular goal is not.”

We remind our readers, the sovereign nation of Syria, whose government is internationally recognized by the United Nations, has invited Russia and Iran to fight ISIS and Al Qaeda.

The United States has not been invited into Syria.

This the irony of neocon war hawks making comments such as, “for too long, the Russians have treated Syria as their own backyard”, which exposes the perversion of US propaganda and the despicable nature of American military empire.

Syria is neither Russia’s or America’s backyard, but only one country was invited to enter the backyard, and it was not the United States.

This article was first published by Duran

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

– See more 

Shoygu reported to Vladimir Putin about successful liquidation of the head of ISIS

Source: https://cont.ws/@barbera/642188

Translated by EugeniaShoygu reported to Vladimir Putin about successful liquidation of the head of ISIS

Today at the working meeting of the Russian Security Counsel the Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu reported to the Commander-in-Chief that the Russian Air Force in Syria liquidated more than 30 field commanders of the terrorist organization ISIS, likely including its leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi.

The report stated that on the night of May 28 Russian military planes Su-34 and Su-35 struck an ISIS command center near Raqqa. It was confirmed that as the result all participants of that clandestine meeting of the higher ISIS leadership were liquidated. Military authorities said that the leader of ISIS (as confirmed by many sources) was among the participants.

Russian Defense Ministry

In the end of May of 2017, the command of the Russian troops in Syrian Arab Republic obtained information that in the Southern suburb of Raqqa the leadership of terrorist group ISIS will be holding a meeting.

During checking of this information, it found that the goal of the meeting was to plan the retreat of the militants from Raqqa via so-called “Southern corridor”.

The strikes of Su-35 and Su-34 liquidated high-ranking commanders of the terrorist group who were members of the so-called Military Counsel of ISIS, as well as about 30 mid-ranking field commanders and up to 300 militants of their bodyguard.

Among liquidated terrorists were Emir of Raqqa Abu Al-Haji Al-Mysri, Emir Ibrahim An-Naef Al-Haj, who controlled the area from Raqqa to Es-Suhne, and the commander of ISIS security Suleiman Al-Shauah.

The airstrike occurred on May 28, and since then the terrorists tried to suppress the information about the demise of their leader. However, today the Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu personally reported to Vladimir Putin about possible liquidation of Al Baghdadi.

The liquidation of the ISIS leader is supported by the fact that meeting of this level and importance usually do not occur without the participation of the leader of the organization. Moreover, the strike happened on May 28, but was disclosed only after several weeks of painstaking verification of the information.

At the same time, presentation of unambiguous information regarding the liquidation of the terrorist leader is hard, because it is impossible to conduct identification of the bodies at the site of the strike. The territory where this command center was located remains in the hands of the enemy, the Western media purposefully suppress any information, and the place of the Russian airstrike at this “fatal military counsel” is now an even and totally burnt out wasteland.

In the future, one cannot exclude staged scenes with “live” Al Baghdadi (on poor quality video translated by Western media), but the fact that this information was reported to the President leaves little doubt that it is correct.

GENERALIZATION

After the siege of the Syrian Raqqa (by the US-led coalition) became more active and the top leaders of ISIS were destroyed by Russian Air Force, the capital of the terrorist group was moved again to a new place.

Right now, most of the ISIS field commanders left Raqqa and moved to the city Al-Mayadin in Deir-ez-Zor province. Previously, ISIS leadership from Iraqi Mosul also moved there.

Why this insignificant (considering its size) city is so important? Why after the demise of top leaders did their sidekicks moved there from everywhere? The answer: because of resources (oil, natural gas) and its strategic (for all involved) location.

The thing is, the Americans started their war in Syria not only to control the price and sources of oil and gas, but also to put pressure on Russia (details here). To this end, directing the terrorists to the Central Asia (the Russian underbelly) was one of the key objectives, and the construction of a huge pipeline Persian Gulf – EU was supposed to be its final economic achievement. Next, that was supposed to be followed by explosions all over Russia (with concomitant fall of the economy and standards of living), organization of “opposition rebellions”, Western “support of the press”, “sweet promises”, and “democratic” replacement of Putin and “elites” by those subservient to the US.

The next few years showed that the American strategy was too ambitious, but despite the Russian victories, its implementation in Syria not been completely stopped.

Thus, while the war is approaching its logical end, the US desperately needs to take possession of the largest possible and most convenient parts of pro-American Syrian territory, and via those, without deposing Assad, build those coveted oil and gas pipelines.

The first attempt to get this territory was made just a few weeks ago. Thanks to the able actions of the Russian Ministry of Defense it failed miserably (details here). The second attempt is being made right now and it is directly connected with little known Syrian township Al-Mayadin.

Al-Mayadin is a little hamlet in Deir-ez-Zor province, right next to the Euphrates river. In addition, it is located in the middle of rich Syrian deposits of oil and natural gas, and the shortest route (based on geological considerations) for the oil and gas pipelines from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean goes through the territories nearest to it (which was the greatest desire of the US from the start).

Thus, Al-Mayadin became the most contested point for the US, terrorists, and Russia.

To block the American scenario, the Russian coalition needs full control of the diagonal from the Northwest to the South-East of Syria, i.e., the whole territory along the Western bank of Euphrates. To the dismay of the US, this is quite achievable for the Russian coalition.

That is exactly why Washington, via Pentagon, recently intensified the attack on Raqqa and hastily announced that the area around Euphrates, including Deir-ez-Zor province, suddenly became the area of “increased American interests”. This statement is quite ironic, as “the area of interests” completely overlaps with the region of the richest Syrian oil and gas deposits.

In the near future, the Russian and American coalitions will rush to outcompete each other in taking the “capital” city of Al-Mayadin and oil- and gas-rich areas along the Western bank of Euphrates.

Meanwhile, the successes of the Russian operation are leading the war in Syria to its final conclusion. The closer it becomes, the more “financial” Russophobic nightmares will trouble the “civilized world”…

Palestinian Prof on US Speaking Tour Harassed by Airport Security

In case you missed it:

Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle

Ed Note: What happenned to Mazin is a message for all “Palestinian” Activist, especially, BDS activist funded by Soros, debating the right to BDS and Sharing the Holly Land, instead of talking about the Palestinian right of return.  Your American citizenship will never protect you in United States of Isteal,

At the beginning of the the so-called Syrian Spring, I exchanged few mails with mazin, and discovered his true face. For Mazin, Hezbollah, liberated Lebanon from the Israeli Occupation and the the Arz Revolution liberated Lebanon from the “Syrian Occupation”

Prof Mazin forget that, until Sykes-Picot, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine were parts of the Lavent (Greater Syria), consequently, he is ready to share the Land of Canaan. I wonder if Prof Mazin is aware the the Land of Canan is nothing but the Lavent.

Please compare our Ex-Palestinian Activists, such as , Ali Abunimah, holding western passports with the Ex-Jew, Ex-Istael, Hebrew Speaking Palestinian, Gilad Atzmon born in Occupied Palestine who decided to join the UPROOTED PALESTINIANS in their struggle for RETURN,

UP

Click the image

 

Palestinian Prof on US Speaking Tour Harassed by Airport Security

Posted on June 19, 2017

Mazin Qumsiyeh is author of Popular Resistance in Palestine: A History of Hope and Empowerment and director of the Palestine Museum of Natural History. He will be speaking in Albuquerque, New Mexico on June 20; in Austin, Texas June 21-23; New Orleans on June 24-25; and Houston June 26-27 (see full schedule here.) The following was posted on Facebook by Jeff Blankfort:

Israel Occupied USA. Mazin Qumsiyeh, latest adventure in Israel’s most important occupied territory where he is now on a speaking tour (see link to his schedule below).

I think, after reading this (and admittedly did before) that the issue of US control over our Congress as it relates to the Middle East which has cost, from a US perspective, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and permanent injuries, is what needs to be taken to the American people, and the exclusive focus on the BDS campaign (in the US as opposed to Europe and elsewhere) has been, on reflection, a diversion from doing the work that needs to be done in the US. With that as an intro, here’s Mazin Qumsiyeh:

From: Mazin Qumsiyeh <mazin@qumsiyeh.org> [
Cc: Human Rights Newsletter <humanrights@lists.qumsiyeh.org>
Subject: [HumanRights] Israeli occupied USA
Date: Jun 17, 2017 9:09 PM

I spent 40 hours on grueling travel between Palestine and the USA and my documents (and luggage) were checked 15-20 times along the way. The Israeli occupied United States is not much different from Israeli occupied Palestine. I will not bore you with details of going from Bethlehem to Jordan. I do want to tell you that US security agents were at the exit from the Amman-Chicago flight waiting for me checking IDs and when the one checking my ID announced “we got him” loud enough for the other passenger to hear, four of them escorted me to get my checked-in luggage and then to a special security area where agents went through everything I had thoroughly.

They looked through my note book/diary and also copied my speaking schedule. When I got my boarding pass for Chicago to Denver I noted with dread the SSSSS marked on it for extra checks and so between that special examination and the gate I had to undergo two more examinations and rifling through my luggage beyond the already tight security checks of all other passengers.

I took it as an opportunity to lecture the agents about how they are being used not in the service of the US but in the service of a foreign country (Israel). I told them that it seems I have left one Israeli occupied territory to arrive at another one.

US interests are not served by obeying dictates of Zionists who do not want a professor (who happens to be a US citizen) from speaking the truth. Trying to shoot the messenger will not kill the message!

This harassment happened to me repeatedly even after I was told by the USgovernment in 2002 it would not happen again (see http://qumsiyeh.org/thecaseisclosed/ ). It happened to me again in 2011 and 2013. I do have more flights in the US coming up.

I am a US citizen and I would appreciate it if anyone on this list has advise how to sue or go after the US government (e.g. freedom of information act) for harassment to stop them from doing this. In the meantime such harassment only adds to my determination to work even harder for human rights, peace, and justice.

By comparison, the last 17 hours in Denver area so far were very pleasant as I recovered from the ordeal (though not the jet lag) and reveals the disconnect between the government of the US and the people of the US. I saw the good people of Colorado who are lighting candles instead of cursing the darkness or as the Israeli controlled US agents trying to snuff out the candles. I already gave two talks; one at Longmont library and one at Posner Center.

The latter was shared with Joseph Medicine Robe who spoke on Environmental and Justice matters from Native American perspectives. We both connected the dots as to how wars, conflict, militarization of society and corporate profit are connected at the expense of native people from North Dakota to Palestine. We both agreed that weapons were manufactured to be used in wars before but now wars are manufactured and not just to sell weapons to make money in other ways (pipelines etc.). We also agree that the governments use false flags, lies and distortions and capitalize on these key areas to push their anti-nature, anti-people agenda: fear, distraction, racism (divide and conquer), and consumerism.

Two weeks ago I wrote about looking for goodness & emphasizing the positive rather than focusing on opposing the negative energy. This was emphasized to me also by a fellow panelist Iman Jodeh, spokeswoman of the Muslim community who spoke of leading groups to Palestine to learn objectively about what is going on. It was emphasized to me last night by my host in Denver Joann and tonight by the other host in Lafayette Richard Forer. Rich incidentally published a remarkable book called “Breakthrough: Transforming fear into compassion” describing his own transformation from a Zionist to a compassionate caring human being (see http://www.richardforer.com/ ).

The only other reading I want to list for this message is for those of you who did not read it is a chapter in my book that deals with violence: http://qumsiyeh.org/chapter8/

Again please look at my schedule posted here: http://qumsiyeh.org/upcomingevents/ and do contact people you know in those cities, ask them to attend and help. Those who cannot help in this tour, can donate and/or support our efforts via our website:

http://palestinenature.org

More

 

%d bloggers like this: