بعد كلام السيّد: المعاملة بالمثل بين رئاسة الجمهورية ورئاسة الحكومة

نوفمبر 12, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– خلال الشهور التي أعقبت تسمية الرئيس المكلف بتشكيل الحكومة سعد الحريري تعطّل تشكيل الحكومة لشهور بسبب واضح تكشفه الحلحلة التي تمّت لعقدتي تمثيل كل من حزب القوات اللبنانية والحزب التقدمي الاشتراكي، حيث تراجع الاشتراكي عن مطلب غير محق ومضخّم بنيل ثلاثة مقاعد، وتراجعت القوات عن مطلب شديد المبالغة في التضخم نحو مكسب مضخم بدرجة نسبية لكن برضا شريك التمثيل في الطائفة الذي يمثله التيار الوطني الحر وبتنازل عن منصب نائب رئيس الحكومة من قبل رئيس الجمهورية، فبقيت القوات تحتل بـ15 نائباً 4 مقاعد وزارية وصار الاشتراكي ممثلاً بوزيرين. وهذا معناه عملياً تمثيل 24 نائباً بستة مقاعد وزارية، ومعيار التمثيل يكون هنا هو وزير لكل أربعة نواب، لكن رئيس الحكومة الذي قاتل بكل قواه لرفع نسبة تمثيل حلفائه وسعى لتحصيل مطالبهم الشديدة التضخم، لم يمتنع ولا منع حلفاءه من توجيه الاتهام مراراً خلال شهور التعطيل، لرئيس الجمهورية بالسعي للنيل من صلاحيات رئيس الحكومة، كما لم يمتنع ولا منع حلفاءه من رفع متاريس طائفية في قلب هذا الاتهام جامعاً رؤساء الحكومات السابقين ومستصدراً منهم بيانات داعمة لما أسماه معركة الصلاحيات، ومن دون التردد في إقحام دار الفتوى في هذه المعركة المفتعلة.

– بالمقابل بقي رئيس الجمهورية حريصاً على تأكيد احترامه لصلاحيات رئيس الحكومة كشريك كامل في تشكيل الحكومة، وكصاحب الحق الوحيد بعرض التشكيلة الحكومية مقابل حق رئيس الجمهورية بالاعتراض وطلب إدخال التعديلات عليها. وفي ذروة دفاع رئيس الجمهورية عن محاولات مكشوفة للنيل من صلاحياته وتحويله إلى مجرد بريد رسمي لإعلان تشكيلة رئيس الحكومة لحكومته، لم يستنفر رئيس الجمهورية حلفاءه ولا زجّ بالمرجعيات الدينية في معركة محقة هي الدفاع عن صلاحيات رئيس الجمهورية، كشريك كامل في تشكيل الحكومة وفقاً للدستور الذي خرج من اتفاق الطائف، وفي ذروة اندفاع رئيس الحكومة لتحصيل ما ليس محقاً لحلفائه، تعامل رئيس الجمهورية بلغة الاحتواء بدلاً من المواجهة، وأظهر حرصه على تدوير الزوايا فتولى حلحلة عقدة الحزب الاشتراكي، بما لم يكن رئيس الحكومة راضياً عن نتيجته، وتولى التنازل عن منصب نائب رئيس الحكومة لحساب القوات اللبنانية من حصته، ورئيس الحكومة يضغط خلال كل هذه الفترة على فريق رئيس الجمهورية لتقديم التنازلات لحساب حلفائه، بما لا تخوّلهم مقاعدهم النيابية بنيله.

– خلال الأيام القليلة الماضية ظهرت صعوبة ولادة الحكومة من دون تمثيل النواب السنة الذين يمثلون ثلث ناخبي طائفتهم ويحتلون ثلث مقاعدها النيابية، ويحق لهم ثلث مقاعدها الوزارية، ويرفض رئيس الحكومة منحهم مقعداً واحداً بدلاً من حقهم بمقعدين، ويشنّ عليهم حملة ظالمة ويطلق عليهم أوصافاً لا تليق برئاسة الحكومة، ولا بزعامة وطنية، يفترض أنها تحترم إرادة الشعب الذي يمنح النواب مقاعدهم في العملية الديمقراطية ومنه تستمدّ عبر مجلس النواب كل حكومة شرعيتها الدستورية، ومعها رئيسها، ورغم ذلك حاول رئيس الجمهورية أن يمون على حلفائه عبر ضغط نفسي ومعنوي وأدبي، بإعلان تضامنه مع رئيس الحكومة ورفض التسليم بحق النواب السنة، وتوصيف تمسك حزب الله بتمثيلهم خطأ تكتيكياً يصيب الاستراتيجية الوطنية.

– لأن رئيس الجمهورية فعل كل ما فعله في السابق لتسهيل ولادة الحكومة، وحاول أن يضغط للتسهيل، ولكنه وجد موقفاً لا مجال للتراجع فيه لدى حزب الله بعد كلام السيد حسن نصرالله، وصار أمام معادلة استعصاء فهو معنيّ من الموقع ذاته بالسعي لتذليل العقدة بغض النظر عن رغبته بكيفية تذليلها، وقد بات لذلك طريق واحد يعرف الرئيس أنه ليس السعي للضغط على حزب الله للتراجع عندما يكون مقتنعاً بأنه يقوم بعمل وطني، كما كان الحال يوم جمّد حزب الله تشكيل الحكومة الأولى للرئيس سعد الحريري شهوراً بانتظار توافق الحريري مع رئيس التيار الوطني الحر جبران باسيل عام 2009، وكما كان الحال يوم تحمّل حزب الله الاتهامات بتعطيل الانتخابات الرئاسية والتسبّب بالفراغ الرئاسي ليقينه بأحقية العماد ميشال عون بالرئاسة. وهو اليوم بلسان السيد نصرالله، يعلم أن الإجحاف السياسي بحق فريق الثامن من آذار في التشكيلة الحكومة بالمقارنة مع تمثيل الرابع عشر من آذار لا يمكن تبريره إلا بالضعف وليس بالتواضع. وحزب الله ليس ضعيفاً ليقبل بتمثيل فريقه بسبعة وزراء مقابل إثني عشر وزيراً لقوى الرابع عشر من آذار، وهما بحجم نيابي واحد، فإذا كان المعيار المعتمد وفقاً لتمثيل القوات والاشتراكي هو وزير لكل أربعة نواب، فلذلك نتيجة أولى أن يكون لتيار رئيس الحكومة خمسة وزراء فقط بدلاً من ستة، والفارق كافٍ لحل مشكلة تمثيل سنة الثامن من آذار، ونتيجة ثانية هي نيل فريق الثامن من آذار وفقاً للمعيار ذاته، لكن بالمقابل يرتضي فريق الثامن من آذار بتواضع، أن يطبق عليه معيار مزدوج بحيث يكون لكل 4 نواب من 14 آذار وزير ولكل ستة نواب من 8 آذار وزير، لأنه إذا طالب بالمعيار ذاته لتمثيل قوى الرابع عشر من آذار مقابل 45 نائباً يمثلهم فستكون حصته 11 عشر وزيراً كما هي حصة الرابع عشر من آذار، بينما هو يرتضي التمثيل بـ8 وزراء فقط إذا تم تحصيل مقعد وزاري للنواب السنة في اللقاء التشاوري.

– المعاملة بالمثل مع رئيس الحكومة تستدعي من رئيس الجمهورية مطالبته بالتنازل عن مقعد من طائفته ليحل المشكلة، علماً أن هذا المقعد حق ثابت، يريد رئيس الحكومة وضع اليد عليه بغير حق، بعدما لبّى رئيس الجمهورية طلب رئيس الحكومة بمنح مقعد غير مستحق من طائفته لحساب القوات اللبنانية وفوقه صفة نائب رئيس الحكومة، تحت عنوان التعاون لتسهيل ولادة الحكومة. وعسى ألا يقبل رئيس الحكومة بالتمني ليفتح باب تشكيل الحكومة من جديد، وفقاً لمعادلة التمثيل بمعيار واحد لأنه الأمثل والأكثر استقراراً وفقاً لكلام رئيس الجمهورية المتكرر، فإما حكومة بـ 36 وزير لتتسع لـ11 وزيراً لكل من 8 و14 آذار وتكون حصة التيار الوطني الحر وتكتله بـ 7 وزراء، وفقاً لمعيار وزير لكل 4 نواب، ووزير لكل من حزب الكتائب وتكتل الرئيس نجيب ميقاتي إذا رغبا وإلا تؤول حصتهما بوزير لكل من رئيس الجمهورية ورئيس الحكومة إضافة لـ 5 وزراء محسومين لرئيس الجمهورية. وهكذا تتمثل الأقليات ويتمثل العلويون، أو حكومة بـ 30 وزيراً وفقاً لمعيار وزير لكل خمسة نواب يكون فيها 9 وزراء لكل من 8 و14 آذار و6 وزراء للتيار الوطني الحر وتكتله و6 وزراء لرئيسي الجمهورية والحكومة 5 بـ 1 ، والنصيحة بلا جميلة وبلا جمل، لكن لا تضيّعوا وقتاً بغير هذا التفكير.

– اللهم اشهد أني بلغت.

Related Videos

Related Articles

Advertisements

Khashoggi, Ben Barka & PressTV’s Serena Shim: A 4-part series

by Ramin Mazaheri for The Saker Blog

November 11, 2018

In October of 1965, 2014 and 2018 three journalists were prominently assassinated: Mehdi Ben Barka, Serena Shim and Jamal Khashoggi. Most readers likely don’t know the first two, while the entire world seems to know about the last one.

This is a 4-part series which explains what Jamal Khashoggi represented ideologically, the relevance of his ideology in the modern Islamic World, the perhaps-unexpected similarity of his ideology with the Western World, and why – even more unexpectedly – the world is still talking about Khashoggi six weeks after his death.

Why do so few remember Mehdi Ben Barka or care about Serena Shim even though they did far more for the People than Khashoggi ever did?

There is a quick answer to this question: Khashoggi remains in the spotlight because the House of Saud killed a Western journalist.

The location and details, or Khashoggi’s birthplace and background, are totally subservient to the fact that he worked for a top Western media and that he was blindly and foolishly loyal to their ideology. A Western journalist cannot be killed without media campaigns and even serious bilateral repercussions, but Khashoggi was no regular freelancer – he was a prominent editorialist at the United States’ 2nd-most important newspaper, the neoconservative The Washington Post.

Anyone familiar with American media knows that The New York Times and The Washington Post essentially set the agenda of discussion in the country. All of America’s other media – with such dwindled newsrooms and so much free, terrible content – have their low-wage 20-somethings essentially re-report what these two media put on their front pages. Television news, even at the very top channels, often starts with “The Washington Post reported that….”

So, forget everything else: kill a member of The Washington Post and it is certain to be huge news for a long time…because they will ensure that it stays in the national headlines.

Given that the US runs the Anglophone world, and add in that other Western nations (such as France) are constantly paying more attention to the US than their own backyards, and this all explains why the world is still talking about Khashoggi – if you think that the US isn’t the primary decider of what’s on the average screen, think again.

Why not Shim and Ben Barka? They believed in and reported from the ‘wrong’ view – class

However, kill a journalist who doesn’t work for the US and their interests and the Western media says,

“Who cares?”

That was the case with PressTV’s Serena Shim in 2014. She was born and raised in the US, half-Lebanese, a mother of two, and was doing ground-breaking, extremely brave reporting about Turkey’s collusion with Western NGOs to get terrorists across their border to Syria. She reported on PressTV about being threatened with assassination by the Turkish secret service two days before her suspicious death, and the West said…essentially nothing. Not their media, nor even the US government, even though Shim was a lifelong American citizen.

Or what about Morocco’s Mehdi Ben Barka? It’s no exaggeration to say that he was the most widely influential Muslim thinker and activist of the 1950s and 1960s. Ben Barka was the organiser of the Tricontinental Conference in Havana, an update of the famed Bandung Conference, and the last great gathering of international leftism. We are in desperate need of another anti-imperialist conference, and another Ben Barka: he was the man who truly did bridge the gap between African, Asian and Latin American leftists, but he also could have done the same for the Muslim and European worlds. Just as East Asia had China, and then Korea, and then Vietnam, Ben Barka would have taken what happened in Algeria to Morocco – one of the few fundamentally key Muslim nations, historically – but he was abducted off Paris streets just before the start of the Tricontinental. Who killed him, why won’t France open up their archives, what is his legacy, why doesn’t Western media do more reports on the annual October demonstrations in Paris (and who is wiping my annual reports from Google and YouTube?!) to keep his flame alive in the public mind? To all that the West says…nothing.

Both Shim and Ben Barka combine to disprove many unstated claims of the West: that they care about all journalists equally, that they care about Western journalists regardless of their political persuasion, that their presses are free, and that their leadership respects a free press more than in other nations.

Ben Barka was the son of the policeman and a math teacher before he got involved in politics. Serena Shim had chosen a career in journalism, but hardly a ladder-climbing one – working for Iranian government media would only land you a job in a top Western media if you then turned around and denounced Iran.

Khashoggi came from a totally different background: his grandfather made his family billionaires via the connections provided by his job – doctor to the king. Those billions helped future family members become prominent artists, journalists and intellectuals by purchasing gallery space, column space and bookshelf space. Jamal truly grew up among the political and cultural elite of Saudi life.

Khashoggi graduated from (the hardly prestigious, given his wealth and connections) Indiana State University, and did not even get trained as a journalist but got a degree in business administration. It is being widely misreported, even by places like Al-Jazeera, that he studied journalism, but Indiana State doesn’t even have a journalism program (top-notch work there, guys – score one for PressTV). “Business administration” says a lot about his intellectual orientation and his plans as a young man (to manage his millions).

But Khashoggi was so elite that he just had to ask to become king of the Saudi journalism sphere – he procured not one but two appointments to the newspaper Al Watan. After all, he had access to all the Saudis movers and shakers, was extremely close with Osama Bin Laden and was a high-level official at Saudi Arabia’s embassy in Washington for two years.

All this explains why reading Khashoggi is to read a guy who essentially says, “What I’m writing here is going to be made into public policy” – and he means it and is right! For a journalist – who could ask for more? Contrarily, Ben Barka was hounded out of Morocco and nobody picked up on Shim’s reporting that UN World Food Organisation trucks headed for Syria were filled with people who looked and dressed like Takfiri terrorists.

Despite his influence and responsibility, Khashoggi’s journalism did not attempt to voice the needs of the People of Saudi Arabia. In his journalism he admitted his social station divorced him from their common experience. What is far worse is that after such admissions he simply dropped the subject – he never questioned his privilege nor the system that maintained it.

Even more so than a guy like The New York Times’ unbearable Thomas L. Friedman, who married into billions and is similarly influential in shaping policy discussions in the US, Khashoggi’s writing combines an aristocrat’s air of unquestionable authority with the certainty that the sun could never and should never set on his totally unmerited entitlements.

Khashoggi is being portrayed as some sort of dissident, but it’s absolutely not the case: he spilled tankers of ink showing that he was 100% supportive of the Saudi (monarchical, and thus anti-democratic) system – the only question was “which monarch”? He ran afoul of the wrong one, but his proffered solution was only another monarch, and one who could have just as easily vivisected him in a Turkish embassy.

Just ask his kids – his sons recently told CNN“Jamal was never a dissident. He believed in the monarchy that it is the thing that is keeping the country together.”

Like all far-right proponents – not just monarchists – Khashoggi’s proffered solutions only suggested looking backward and deeper into his own tiny tribe – the 1% of Saudi Arabia. But Arabia is not all Saudi…and that is what Khashoggi’s journalism explicitly fought against – reflecting the democratic will of the Arabian Peninsula.

The outrage in the West should be over their support for such an elitist, out-of-touch, anti-democratic reactionary…and yet HE is now the poster child for freedom of the press?

No. We have Serena Shim – too many Serena Shims – for that. We will have more Serena Shims.

I regret that even this series talks about Khashoggi and not Shim and Ben Barka from this point forward, because they certainly deserve it, and because the Mainstream Media never does that. They were the dissidents, the real reformers, the true martyrs.

Jamal Khashoggi was not a victim but a willing, favoured participant in a system of exploitation and repression which he desperately wanted to uphold – read some Khashoggi and that will be clear. So why does the West support such a person?

Khashoggi: Cultural colonist extraordinaire, but the Muslim World doesn’t want more Westernization

Khashoggi obviously represented something which The Post wanted to promote. That is hardly an epiphany, but Khashoggi gives us a chance to examine exactly what that was on an ideological level. Such understanding will grant us better understanding of Western policy and political culture; it also allows us to fully compare “Khashoggi-Thought” with the ideologies of previous decades and centuries, and also with other ideologies available and being promoted in 2018.

Certainly, these intellectual currents are what are the most important to grasp when discussing Khashoggi. The media prefers to focus on that which is not relevant to our daily lives and struggles – the sensational and gruesome details of the killing, and the soap opera of the House of Saud’s latest, never-ending, internecine power struggles.

It is very telling that there has been essentially no discussion of Khashoggi’s actual ideas, writings and morals. The unsaid implication in the West, then, is that he was “one of us” – i.e. he thought like a Westerner and supported Westernization.

And he certainly bent over backwards to show them how much he wanted Saudi Arabia to exactly emulate the West. Khashoggi only wrote about 20 columns for The Washington Post and three of them were literally titled, “What Saudi Arabia could learn from…”, concluded by “Queen Elizabeth II”, “South Korea”, and even the Hollywood movie the “Black Panther”. A fourth carried the same message: “Why Saudi Arabia’s crown prince should visit Detroit”. Not only is that lazy and unoriginal headline writing, but it’s basically advertising (for Westernization) instead of journalism.

In his work at Al-Arabiya (the Saudi answer to Al-Jazeera) which published his columns from 2012-16, the publication most often cited by Khashoggi seems to be The Economist, capitalist newsmagazine nonpareil.

The West is mourning Khashoggi because they knew what they had: a Westerner in sheik’s clothing.

But what did Jamal Khashoggi really believe, this journalist for whom we are spending so much time, energy and consideration, for whom column inches are devoted to instead of Shim and Ben Barka? Illuminating these great unsaids is the goal of this series, which analyzes and quotes from Khashoggi’s writings at The Washington Post and Al-Arabiya.

And here is the quick upshot: Khashoggi ticked the three main ideological boxes a Saudi Arabian (or any Muslim) needs in order to win a prominent place in Western media:

Firstly, he despised Iran, by far the Muslim country which has most successfully rebelled against the West’s dictates, and was also an anti-Shia sectarian of the highest and most disgusting order.

Secondly, he was the foremost promoter of what I accurately term “Liberal Democratic Salafism”. That’s an incredibly stupid ideology which combines 1%-focused West European/bourgeois democracy with (Islamic) monarchism, but that’s exactly what he promoted. For this he was hailed as a “reformer” because…the West is full of monarchy-loving, backwards-looking Liberal Democratic Salafists whose only difference is that their Salafism is of the Christian variety.

Thirdly and lastly, “Liberal Democratic Salafism” combined with neoliberal capitalism is what made Khashoggi the prototypical fake-leftist of the monarchical Muslim World. Western 1%ers adored Khashoggi because the extremely limited and bourgeois changes he advocated would inevitably lead to mass privatization, thus giving Western high finance control over the single most powerful economic tool in the world today – Saudi oil. Handing over your country to such interests in the name of “reform” is obviously catastrophic, anti-socialist, unpatriotic, and fake-leftism.

Why care about Khashoggi at all? It’s no revelation to find out that he was a reactionary tool of the West, but how many people appreciate that “reactionary” in the Western and Islamic Worlds are not worlds apart, but fundamentally identical?

Clarifying what Khashoggi truly represented allows us to identify, call attention to, and fight against these reactionary forces, and also to appreciate the truly modern, cooperative, socialist-inspired world that Mehdi Ben Barka, Serena Shim and countless unheralded others have worked and died for.

***********************************

This is the 1st article in a 4-part series which examines Jamal Khashoggi’s ideology and how it relates to the Islamic World, Westernization and Socialism. Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

Khashoggi, Ben Barka & PressTV’s Serena Shim: A 4-part series

Khashoggi Part 2: A ‘reformer’…who was also a hysterical anti-Iran warmonger?

Khashoggi Part 3: ‘Liberal Democratic Salafism’ is a sham, ‘Islamic Socialism’ isn’t

Khashoggi Part 4: fake-leftism identical in Saudi Arabian or Western form

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.

Related Videos

Related Articles

WHY IS ZIO-MSM IGNORING SERENA SHIM ON HER 4TH MARTYRDOM ANNIVERSARY? BECAUSE SHE DIDN’T SERVE THE EMPIRE LIKE JAMAL KHASHOGGI

WHY IS ZIO-MSM IGNORING SERENA SHIM ON HER 4TH MARTYRDOM ANNIVERSARY? BECAUSE SHE DIDN’T SERVE THE EMPIRE LIKE JAMAL KHASHOGGI

 

by Jonathan Azaziah

Serena Shim (R.A.) was a heroine. Not only in her field but in general. She laid her life on the line for the highest honor anyone could pursue: The truth. As a journalist for Press TV, she exposed Turkey’s premier intelligence agency, MIT, using UN WFP “humanitarian aid” trucks as cover to deliver heavy weaponry to ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other Takfiri terrorist groups in Syria. For her efforts, she was threatened, targeted and killed in a “mysterious” car accident that is such an obvious assassination coupled with a subsequent cover-up, it could’ve been a plot to one of those terrible low-budget spy movies from the 80s that Zionist Hollywood was pumping out every other week.

The culprits, undoubtedly, are Turkey and ‘Israel’–the neo-Ottoman regime in Ankara’s overlord and central partner in keeping the Syrian state destabilized. Verily, the usurping Zionist entity needed the weapons supply line from Turkey to Syria’s north to remain open and unbothered. Not just for arms but oil. Thus, Serena Shim was jeopardizing the entire ‘Israeli’-led regime change scheme. Yet, with her 4th martyrdom anniversary upon us on October 19th, how many American mainstream media outlets are covering the Lebanese-American daughter of Detroit’s murder, asking questions, highlighting her accomplishments, saluting her bravery and demanding justice?

NONE. ZILCH. NOT A ONE.

Meanwhile, how many American media outlets are, depending on the tone of the article, all up in arms or waxing lyrical (or both) about how much they love Jamal Khashoggi as well as how upset they are at his grizzly killing at the hands of a Saudi hit team and the laughable story concocted–a fight broke out and Khashoggi got murked outta the frame by accident, Al-Saud says–to bury what really took place?

ALL OF THEM. EVERY. SINGLE. LAST. ONE OF THEM.

If you needed an indictment of how the corporate press works in America, you won’t be able to find a more damning one. The lifelong Saudi regime apologist, Takfiri stenographer, Ikhwanji stalwart and US-UK-Zionist intelligence asset is praised and celebrated, mourned and cried about. The young Shi’a Muslim reporter who challenged the status quo and shined an all-beaming light on the criminality of an ‘Israeli’-aligned NATO regime which is arming terrorists that desecrate shrines, dig up bodies, burn churches, execute suicide bombings against civilians and enslave children is ignored–not partially but totally.

Which is why it is imperative to remember her. And her sacrifice. And her heroism. And her steadfastness under tremendous pressure–never wavering as she got down into the grime, the guck and the muck to dig out the truth no matter what rested deep within such immense filth; no matter the danger it put her very person in. And we should bow our heads in respect to everyone like her too.

Trailblazers like Gary Webb, assassinated by the CIA for exposing the Company’s role in cocaine trafficking in Central America as well as the crack epidemic that ravaged African-American communities all over the US, especially in the Los Angeles area; Danny Casolaro, murdered by a Mossad-CIA death squad for digging into what he called “the Octopus”, a Zionist-led international conspiracy tied in with the Inslaw-PROMIS affair, the collapse of BCCI and the Iran-Contra scandal; my dear brother Victor Thorn, murdered by Hillary Clinton’s (likely-Mossad-connected) goons for telling one truth too many about her family’s illicit history; Hamza Hajj Hassan (R.A.), Muhammad Mantash (R.A.) and Halim Allou (R.A.), reporters of Hizbullah’s Military Media Unit who were assassinated by ‘Israeli’-NATO-GCC-backed terrorists whilst covering the Hizbullah-Syrian Arab Army liberation of the ancient, Aramaic-speaking town of Maaloula…

… Robert Friedman, the gallant Jewish-American investigative reporter who took the veil off the Jewishness of the “Russian” mafia (aka Red Mafiya aka Organizatsiya) and also exposed the JDL-ADL-Mossad nexus in two groundbreaking books. He was murdered by the “chosenite” mobsters he unmasked; Khaled al-Khatib (R.A.), a Syrian RT journo murdered by ISIS in Homs; and too many Palestinian journalists to name here, dauntless souls who are routinely targeted by the Zionist enemy for exposing the evil of the ongoing Nakba that has raged since ‘Israel’ criminally came into existence. Ahmed Abou Hussein (R.A.) and Yasser Murtaja (R.A.) were slaughtered by the usurping Jewish entity this year alone. Dozens of others have been wounded, maimed and arrested. We salute them all in humbleness.

Serena Shim (R.A.), who now rests in Bourj al-Barajneh, a municipality of Dahiyeh that has endured and prevailed over both Zionism and Takfirism, is everything Jamal Khashoggi wasn’t–truthful and decent, righteous and principled, Anti-Imperialist and fearless. Because she was striving to expose the evils of the Zio-NATO Empire, instead of serving it like Khashoggi, the American media has rendered her persona non grata. Honestly though, what else do you expect from a bunch of careerist, orientalist hypocrites who work for some of the most powerful Zionist Jews on the planet? Needless to say, may they not only be shamed again and again but punished. For silence is complicity and their willing inability to speak up on her behalf makes them as guilty as the Mossad/MIT assassins who took her away from her husband, her children, her family and her friends. Serena was moved to become a reporter after the July War, which saw her homeland ravaged by an illegal, barbaric ‘Israeli’ aerial campaign. She was in Bourj el-Barajneh at the time and simply put, the savagery of the Zionists changed her life.

And in turn, through her tremendous reporting, she has changed the lives of us all–especially those in Syria–because she decided to report the truth amid the worst fog of lies that modern warfare has ever seen. During her funeral, thousands on top of thousands poured into the streets to greet the Shahida, chanting, “The hero’s here! The hero’s here! The hero’s here!” She still is too. Right here with us. The Martyrs are alive. Guiding us and inspiring us. As for Jamal Khashoggi and all the Zionist, Imperialist and Wahhabi miscreants shrieking about him across the Shlomo-controlled establishment press? They weren’t, aren’t and will never be good enough to even clean the dirt off the bottom of her shoes. Zio-MSM may continue to ignore Serena Shim (R.A.) four years on since her martyrdom. But Moustazafeen the world over recognize her unequivocal valor and will not be deterred from lionizing her forever. Rest deeply o’ truth-teller; o’ tyrant-breaker; o’ heroine. Rest in power and pristineness.

US “Investigates” Genocide in Myanmar, Commits Genocide in Yemen

Related image

US “Investigates” Genocide in Myanmar, Commits Genocide in Yemen

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2018/10/us-investigates-genocide-in-myanmar.html?m=1

Joseph Thomas – NEO) – Rarely is US hypocrisy so cynical and overt as a recent US State Department investigation into ongoing violence in Myanmar, all while the US continues its full spectrum support of Saudi Arabia’s genocidal war on Yemen.

In addition to Washington’s role in Yemen, the US also occupies Afghanistan and Syria while carrying out drone strikes and covert military interventions in territory stretching from North Africa to Central Asia.

In Myanmar specifically, the US has openly and for decades funded and supported groups and individuals involved directly on both sides of ongoing ethnic violence. Now, it is leveraging that violence to single out obstacles to US influence in Southeast Asia and in Myanmar specifically. 

Reuters in their article titled, “U.S. accuses Myanmar military of ‘planned and coordinated’ Rohingya atrocities,” would claim:

A U.S. government investigation has found that Myanmar’s military waged a “well-planned and coordinated” campaign of mass killings, gang rapes and other atrocities against the Southeast Asian nation’s Rohingya Muslim minority.

Reuters admits the US State Department’s report, titled “Documentation of Atrocities in Northern Rakhine State,” was in fact merely interviews conducted with alleged witnesses in neighbouring Bangladesh.

Was it Really an Investigation? 

Imagine a fight breaks out between two groups of people. The police are called in. But instead of arriving at the crime scene, the police instead interview only one group, and do so at their home before drawing their final conclusions. Would anyone honestly call this an “investigation?” The US State Department apparently would, because this is precisely what the State Department has done in regards to ongoing ethnic violence in Myanmar.

The full report, found here on the US State Department’s website, would admit:

The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), with funding support from the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), conducted a survey in spring 2018 of the firsthand experiences of 1,024 Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar District, Bangladesh. The goal of the survey was to document atrocities committed against residents in Burma’s northern Rakhine State during the course of violence in the previous two years.

No physical evidence was collected or presented in the report, because investigators never stepped foot in Myanmar itself where the violence allegedly took place. The report also failed to interview other parties allegedly involved in the violence.

While the witness accounts in the US State Department’s investigation were shocking, had investigators gone to Rakhine state and interviewed locals there, they would have heard similar stories told of Rohingya attacks on Buddhists and Hindus.

Both accounts require further and impartial investigation, however the US State Department, by exclusively interviewing only one party amid multiparty ethnic violence all but ensures nothing resembling a real, impartial investigation ever takes place. This, of course, assumes that the United States has any authority as arbiter in Myanmar’s internal affairs in the first place.

The US State Department investigation follows a similar UN report which mirrored and admittedly used similar claims made by US and European funded fronts posing as “nongovernmental organisations” (NGOs).

Together, these efforts represent a cycle of one-sided propaganda cynically aimed at leveraging ethnic violence within and along Myanmar’s borders to pressure and coerce the government of Myanmar, particularly in regards to its growing ties with China. This is a fact that even Reuters in its article concedes to, albeit buried deep within the body of the text.

Reuters, after describing how the US could use the investigation’s alleged findings to pressure Myanmar, would admit:

Any stiffer measures against Myanmar authorities could be tempered, though, by U.S. concerns about complicating relations between civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, and the powerful military which might push Myanmar closer to China.

Myanmar, which borders China, seeks like the rest of Southeast Asia, closer ties to Beijing as the region collectively rises economically and politically on the global stage. Attempts by Western capitals to reassert and expand their former colonial influence has manifested itself in political meddling, subversion, the use of ethnic tensions to divide and weaken national unity and even terrorism.

It should be noted that the US and UK’s leveraging of ethnic violence in modern day Myanmar is a continuation of ethnic divisions intentionally cultivated by the British Empire to divide and rule Myanmar when it was a British colony.

It is worth repeating that Channel 4, one of Britain’s own public service broadcasters, in an article titled, “A Brief History of Burma,” aptly described the very source of Myanmar’s current ethnic divisions:

Throughout their Empire the British used a policy called ‘divide and rule’ where they played upon ethnic differences to establish their authority. This policy was applied rigorously in Burma. More than a million Indian and Chinese migrants were brought in to run the country’s affairs and thousands of Indian troops were used to crush Burmese resistance. In addition, hill tribes which had no strong Burmese affiliation, such as the Karen in the south-east, were recruited into ethnic regiments of the colonial army.

The article also admitted:

The British ‘divide and rule’ policy left a legacy of problems for Burma when it regained independence.

Not only has the British “divide and rule” policy left a legacy of problems for Myanmar since gaining its independence, these are problems Washington is now cynically exploiting in its own interpretation of “divide and rule.”

Washington’s Own Role in the Violence Goes Unreported 

Oft omitted in US-European media reports, Aung San Suu Kyi, defacto leader of Myanmar’s government, is the product of decades of US and British political and financial backing. Virtually every aspect of Aung San Suu Kyi’s government including high-level ministers, are the result of US-European training, funding and support.

The government’s minister of information, for example, received US-funded training in neighbouring Thailand before working his way up Aung San Suu Kyi’s US-backed opposition party.

Another aspect omitted by the US-European media is the fact that the most prominent so-called “pro-democracy” leaders supported by Washington, London and Brussels, have openly been involved in calling for, promoting and defending ethnic violence against Myanmar’s Rohingya minority, violence now being leveraged by Washington to place pressure on Myanmar and foil growing ties with China.

This includes NED Democracy Awardee Min Ko Naing who denied the Rohingya as an ethnic group in Myanmar, suggesting they were merely illegal immigrants. It also includes Ko Ko Gyi who openly vowed to take up arms against the Rohingya whom he called “foreign invaders.”

More telling of Washington’s lack of convictions in protecting the Rohingya and instead cynically exploiting Myanmar’s ethnic tensions is the fact that Ko Ko Gyi was invited to speak in Washington D.C. a year after pledging to take up arms against the Rohingya.

It should be pointed out that Ko Ko Gyi’s pro-genocide remarks were made in a US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded publication, The Irrawaddy, and it was the US NED who would invit him to speak in Washington a year later, meaning that those in Washington were well aware of exactly who and what Ko Ko Gyi really was.

Founding member of Aung San Suu Kyi’s political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), U Win Tin, awarded “journalist of the year” by Reporters Without Borders in 2006, would suggest that the Rohingya be interned in camps.

It’s clear that at the very least, it is more than just Myanmar’s military involved in ethnic violence inside Myanmar. It is also clear that the US and its European partners and the virtual army of fronts posing as NGOs have selectively “investigated” and “reported” on Myanmar’s ethnic violence to single out and undermine the military alone, while providing impunity to others involved in the violence including extremists among the Rohingya population itself, as well as anti-Rohingya extremists backed for years by the US government.

The very fact that the US has backed those involved in ethnic violence in Myanmar, and that their role continuously goes unreported in various US government and US-funded NGO investigations illustrates an additional and major crisis of credibility regarding Washington’s self-appointed role as arbiter in Myanmar.

This US strategy of cultivating animosity on all sides, providing impunity to some while singling out others, ensures Myanmar remains divided and weak, while the US and its European partners can pick apart Myanmar’s military and any civilian politicians who refuse to tilt Myanmar away from Beijing, and back toward Anglo-American influence. It is another example of the American-dominated international human rights racket advancing Western interests merely behind pro-human rights rhetoric, often at the cost of undermining real human rights.

While supposed NGOs funded by the US, UK and European nations pose as dedicated to human rights in Myanmar, they are in fact foreign fronts meddling in Myanmar’s internal affairs, and because of the selective nature of their “investigations,” they are in fact enabling those involved in atrocities who are currently in Washington’s, London’s and Brussels’ good graces.

Genocidal Humanitarians? 

The final, and perhaps central reality that exposes the disingenuous and cynical nature of the US State Department’s “investigation” into Myanmar’s violence is the fact that concurrently, the United States is carrying out a war by proxy against the impoverished, war-torn Middle Eastern nation of Yemen.

There, the US has provided its partners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia with weapons, intelligence and other forms of direct material support in carrying out the brutal and systematic destruction of the nation’s infrastructure, including the blockading and takeover of ports where essential food, medicine and other necessities are just barely trickling through.

The same UN the US has enlisted to coerce Myanmar’s military, has published far more substantiated claims regarding substantially worse human tolls amid the US proxy war in Yemen. A March 2018 report posted on the UN’s website titled, “UN renews push for political solution as Yemen marks three years of all-out conflict,” would admit that up to 22 million people were in dire need of humanitarian assistance. The report would also note the deaths of thousands of children along with the closure of some 2,500 schools.

Another report, by the UN high commission for human rights, noted that the US proxy war in Yemen has caused over 17,000 civilian casualties defining it in terms dwarfing accusations made by the US State Department regarding Myanmar. The US actively enables atrocities in Yemen while “investigating” atrocities in Myanmar based purely on US geopolitical objectives, not any sort of genuine or even semi-genuine concern for human life.

For the US-UK and European-funded fronts posing as NGOs and meddling in Myanmar under the pretence of defending human rights, the fact that they claim to fight for human rights while being funded by and working for the demonstrably worst human rights abusers on the planet eliminates whatever legitimacy remains after already taking into account their one-sided, bias investigations.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

From Turquzabad to Dimona (and a little fun on the way!)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Prime walks with his stage props to the podium at the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly, at UN headquarters in New York, the United States, on September 27, 2018. (Photo by AFP)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Prime walks with his stage props to the podium at the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly, at UN headquarters in New York, the United States, on September 27, 2018. (Photo by AFP)

By Hossein Jelveh

(Hossein Jelveh is an independent Iranian journalist based in Tehran. He has graduated with a master’s degree from the Faculty of World Studiesat the University of Tehran. You can follow him on Twitter @hossein_jelveh)

 

Let’s be fair. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asks for it.

He has been exposed to the Iranian people’s unrelenting mockery of his foolishness before. So when he took his stage props up to the podium at the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2018, showing the picture and map coordinates of what he said is a “secret atomic warehouse” in a suburb of Tehran called “Turquzabad,” Mr. Netanyahu must have known that there would be verbally barbed consequences.

In the speech, Mr. Netanyahu claimed he was “disclosing” the site “for the first time,” and said Iran was keeping “massive amounts of equipment and material” there for future use in its “nuclear weapons program.” He said the site was just 100 meters from “the Kalishoi” — which by the way sounded like a Japanese martial art the way he said it — as if that style of direction-giving would be more accurate than longitudes and latitudes.

At one instant, he pointed to the picture of the building and said, “How about inspections right here, right now?” At another, with a triumphal look about him, he said,“[L]adies and gentlemen, rest assured […] what Iran hides, Israel will find.”

The Iranian people wouldn’t let that circus come and go without adequately making fun of Mr. Netanyahu. And they were sure up to the task. Naturally, tongue-in-cheek stuff flooded the social media.

Let me just quickly offer here my picks of the top two jokes and move on (and please excuse the colorful language — Mr. Netanyahu brought it upon himself):

“Yesterday, we had lentil stew for lunch and red kidney bean side dishes for dinner [both of them highly intestinal gas-inducing food]. Today, we warmed the leftovers [from both] and had them for lunch. I’m thinking Netanyahu will find our house and ask for ‘inspections right here, right now!’”

And second place goes to:

“Dude! That’s where we throw [off-the-radar] parties. Good luck screwing that with those map coordinates!”

*

The word “Turquzabad” itself, while referring to a real place, has somewhat humorous, local connotations for Iranians. In Persian, it is something like “John Doe,” except that is used to refer to places, not people.

Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister and a former nuclear negotiator, repeatedly attempted not to chuckle when he spoke about it following Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks.

“Seriously, seriously, I think someone is sending Netanyahu on a wild-goose chase. This time, they have referred him to Turquzabad!” Mr. Araqchi said, with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif — also laughing and visibly speechless with amusement — next to him.

Mr. Netanyahu can speak about Iran all he wants. But wouldn’t he be better off running things by somebody before he speaks them? Seriously.

‘What a showman!’

It was not the first time Mr. Netanyahu was staging a show. His past performances include

(1) an appearance, also at the United Nations General Assembly in 2012, during which he famously held up a cartoon bomb that looked pretty much like the ones in Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner and that the White House later trolled;

(2) a speech at the US Congress in March 2015, which served well to deepen a schism between him and then-President Barack Obama; and

(3) a closed-door meeting with 22 US lawmakers in August 2015, after which one stunned lawmaker said of Mr. Netanyahu, “What a showman!”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to display a photograph as he addresses the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly, at UN headquarters, in New York, the United States, on September 27, 2018. (Photo by AP)

And then there was his appearance on early-morning live TV beaming into President Donald Trump’s bedroom in April 2018, revealing what Mr. Netanyahu claimed was nuclear-related material from an Iranian “atomic archive.”

But Mr. Netanyahu’s showing at the General Assembly on September 27 this year was certainly the first time he was drawing the most embarrassing rebuttal of his oft-repeated anti-Iran allegations.

“I have a message to the head of the IAEA, Mr. Yukiya Amano. I believe he’s a good man. […] Well, Mr. Amano […] Go inspect this atomic warehouse, immediately, before the Iranians finish clearing it out,”

the Israeli prime minister said, at least implying that he thinks the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency “goes inspecting” sites himself.

Anyway, Mr. Amano must have been watching the speech over pizza because it didn’t take him long to show up to, essentially, demolish Mr. Netanyahu.

In an October 2 statement that read like an adult’s solemn reminder to a child yet to fully develop his cognitive capabilities, the IAEA chief said,

“It should be noted that under the existing verification framework the Agency sends inspectors to sites and locations only when needed. […] The Agency […] has conducted complementary accesses under the Additional Protocol to all the sites and locations in Iran which it needed to visit.”

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Yukiya Amano (C) is flanked by Secretary General of the European Union External Action Service (EEAS) Helga Schmid (to his left) and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi during a special meeting of the parties to the Iran nuclear deal at Coburg Palace in Vienna, Austria, on May 25, 2018. (Photo by AFP)

When Iran and originally six world powers plus the European Union (EU) struck a nuclear deal in 2015 — the very deal that all of Mr. Netanyahu’s theatrical gimmicks have been aimed at derailing — they agreed to put the organization under Mr. Amano’s watch in official charge of monitoring the implementation of the technical aspects of the deal.

The IAEA’s October 2 statement was a clear sign that, for all of their drama, Mr. Netanyahu’s attempts are falling flat.

But, in the futile Israeli attempt to dramatize the Iranian nuclear program, there is not just absurdity. There is also irony:

Iran is a member of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel is not.

Iran has no military nuclear program. Israel does.

Iran has, under the nuclear deal, allowed enhanced monitoring by the IAEA of all of its nuclear activities. Israel has allowed no inspections at all of its covert nuclear program.

Still, there is more Israeli behavior that flies in the face of the international world.

For one thing, Mr. Netanyahu on August 29, 2018 issued a threat of a nuclear attack against Iran from inside an Israeli nuclear facility in the Negev Desert — formerly known as Dimona.

This file photo, taken on March 8, 2014, shows a partial view of a nuclear facility, formerly known as Dimona, in the southern Israeli Negev Desert. (By AFP)

Israel is believed to have at least 200 nuclear warheads in a military nuclear program active since decades ago. According to The Washington Post, the United States initially opposed and worked to stop that program.

‘Quite simply, they were lying’

“So the Israelis turned to France, which […] in 1957 secretly agreed to help install a plutonium-based facility in the small Israeli city of Dimona. Why France did this is not settled history. French foreign policy at the time was assiduously independent from, and standoffish toward, the United States and United Kingdom,” according to the 2013 article on The Washington Post.

While working together, Israel and France kept everything secret from the US.

“When U.S. intelligence did finally discover Israel’s nuclear facility, in 1960, Israeli leaders insisted that it was for peaceful purposes and that they were not interested in acquiring a nuclear weapon. Quite simply, they were lying, and for years resisted and stalled U.S.-backed nuclear inspectors sent to the facility,” the article reads.

Ultimately, however, Washington made some sort of an unspoken deal with Tel Aviv, agreeing to an Israeli nuclear program over the pretext that Israel lacked conventional means for protection at the time.

That happened during a September 1969 White House meeting between US President Richard Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir.

According to The Washington Post, which cited the Nixon administration’s “meticulous records,” the bargain was that Israel would “make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program” in return for the US keeping mum.

But since, the Israeli regime’s conventional military power has increased. And “[s]ome scholars are beginning to ask whether the old deal is outdated,” according to the Post.

Speculation came up (unnecessarily) when US National Security Adviser John Bolton met with Israeli nuclear officials in August. Mr. Bolton, who likes to present himself as a wild pro-Israeli hawk, dismissed all such speculation.

“‘I don’t think there is anything out of the ordinary or unexpected,’ Bolton said of the meeting. Asked to elaborate, he added only: ‘No change in policy,’” Reuters reported later in August.

When Mr. Netanyahu less-than-tacitly brandished nuclear weapons against Iran at the Israeli facility in Negev in late August, he basically violated even that purported agreement with the US.

Israel’s Sorek nuclear reactor center is seen near the central town of Yavne, on July 5, 2004. (File photo by AP)

Bahram Qassemi, spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, said on Monday that international inspections of the Israeli nuclear program had to be put on the global agenda and that the current inaction on the matter was not sustainable.

There is no questioning of the fact that that should happen.

But at one point or another, Israel’s shameless even if laughable attempts to derail the Iranian nuclear accord with the remaining five parties will have to be addressed, too.

All the derision that the Turquzabad remarks sparked, and the fact that Israeli accusations against Iran are being taken increasingly less seriously, in no way remove the need to confront Israeli cheekiness against the greater part of the world that is both law-abiding and civilized.

Related

The West Turns A Blind Eye To Actions of Saudi Arabia And The British Court, by Ruslan Ostashko

The Saker

August 09, 2018

Translated by Scott Humor and captioned by Leo

 

“Double standards,” practiced by the West towards Russia, once again came out thanks to the sentencing by the British court an eighteen-year-old resident of London, and an expulsion of the Canada’s Ambassador from Saudi Arabia. The “incorruptible” Western media did not brand these two states “totalitarian regimes.”

Do you recall squealing of the liberals in Russia and leading Western publications in defense of the convicted terrorist Oleg Sentsov? One of their arguments was the following: Ukrainian “patriot” was just preparing to commit a terrorist attack, his arrest prevented him, as a consequence there were no victims.

All right, let’s look at the BBC website and read what they say about the sentence the British court passed on the eighteen-year-old Safaa Buolar.

“Safaa Buolar, convicted in early June of plotting a terror attack on British soil has been jailed for life with a 13-year minimum term. She became the youngest woman convicted of terrorism in Britain.

18-year-old Safaa Buolar originally from the London district Vauxhall was in a jihadist group, calling itself “Islamic State” (recognized as a terrorist and banned in Britain, Russia and other countries).

How do you like it? Does this sound like Sentsov’s case? Also a terrorist and a brat, she also was “only” preparing a terror attack, and she also, like Sentsov, did not have time to commit it. The “most humane court” in the world sentenced her to life in jail. I hesitate to ask: where are all those screams of honored British actresses, petitions addressed to Theresa May and Elizabeth II, and all this?

What’s symptomatic is how the UK judge rebuffed in his sentencing statement the defense’s argument that the defendant realized her wrongdoings and regrets her actions.

“She acted with open eyes,” said the judge. “She was old enough to make her own decisions and her own choices,” he added, calling the girl “not stupid and able to very clearly argue her ideas.”

Buolar is still a danger to society, the judge decided.

Mind you, the girl tried to pretend that she no longer shares the radical ideas. The court refused to believe her. Sentsov doesn’t even pretend to feel remorse. He continues to flaunt his flavor of “patriotism” in favor of the terrorist Ukrainian state shelling Donbass. But, Safou Buolar didn’t find any support [of the “democrats”], while Sentsov is being defended by them until foam starts coming out of their mouths.

A second fresh example of the Western “double standards” is Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom arrested local civil rights activists. Make a note that they just fought for their civil rights and didn’t jump around a temple as the ever-memorable Pussy Riot [feminist group]. Canada’s Foreign Ministry has tried to express an outrage by issuing a statement saying:

“Canada is gravely concerned about additional arrests of civil society and women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia, including Samar Badawi. We urge the Saudi authorities to immediately release them and all other peaceful human rights activists.”

What happened next? That’s right. Riyadh threw out the Ambassador of Canada. Has the State Department expressed its indignation? Did Madonna wear a t-shirt with portraits of arrested activists? Not at all. After all, Saudi Arabia is not Russia, but a valuable ally of the US, and the collective media chihuahuas didn’t get a command to start barking at the Saudis. They ignored the fact that Canada just got slapped in a face for attempting to intervene in the domestic affairs of the kingdom.

“The Canadian position is an overt and blatant interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and is in contravention of the most basic international norms and all the charters governing relations between States.” The Saudi Press Agency quotes the statement of the Foreign Ministry.

Conclusion? We should act like Britain and Saudi Arabia. As for those who protect terrorists, immediately take their cases to be investigated by the security services as possible participants of terrorist organizations. In events of meddling into domestic affairs, expel diplomats and recall ambassadors for consultations. And suspend new trade and financial operations, as Riyadh has done.

Every hostile act against Russia should be punished. A stick is the only tool to point to a yapping bunch its place. And those expressing “deep concern”, it’s just a password for shaking the air.

 

Scott Humor,

the Director of Research and Development

My research of the war on Donbass is available at the saker.community book store

The War on Donbass, which is called by the Western politicians and media the “Russian aggression in Ukraine” was a staged psyop.

My illustrated investigation titled Pokémon in Ukraine reveals how this psyop was staged, by whom and why.

The Essential Saker II
The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
The Essential Saker
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

Jews, Immigration, Syria and Israel

June 29, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

 “Now I’m White Will You Deport Me?” – Africans in Israel Paint Their Faces White To Avoid Deportation

“Now I’m White Will You Deport Me?” – Africans in Israel Paint Their Faces White To Avoid Deportation

By Gilad Atzmon

The Israeli press reports this morning that “Israel transferred aid to Syrians seeking refuge near border in overnight mission.”

On first glimpse it seems that Israel has made a crucial and timely humanitarian effort. The IDF says it provided tons of food, medicine and clothing to Syrians living in makeshift encampments on the Golan border. But the IDF also made it clear that it

“won’t allow Syrians fleeing the country into Israel and will continue to defend Israel’s national security interests.” We are entitled to presume that the Israel humanitarian aid was given to discourage Syrian refugees from approaching the Israeli border. The Israelis were in effect telling the Syrian evacuees, ‘we will give you water and food, just make sure you don’t seek refuge in our Jews only State.’

This attitude is in stark contradiction to the message we hear from Diaspora Jews. Just a week ago American Jewish organisations, “alarmed by the U.S. government’s zero tolerance policy to immigration,” submitted a letter to the American administration.  “As Jews, we understand the plight of being an immigrant fleeing violence and oppression,” the letter said, “We believe that the United States is a nation of immigrants and how we treat the stranger reflects on the moral values and ideals of this nation.”

It seems that this understanding of alleged ‘Jewish values’ does not apply to the Jewish State. We have yet to hear a single American Jewish organisation calling on Israel to open its gates to Syrian refugees. While American Jewish organisations claim to understand the “plight of being an immigrant fleeing violence and oppression” we have not heard that any of those Jewish organisations called on Israel to allow the Palestinian refugees to return to their land.

In the eyes of the American Jewish organisations “the USA is a nation of immigrants,” but Israel is a Jews only State. The Indigenous people of Palestine are either expelled, living in open air prisons or endure the reality of being seventh class citizens. When it comes to immigration, no country in the world can compete with Israel’s anti immigration attitude. As we learn today, loving your (Syrian) neighbours and inviting them in is not even an option.

This raises the question of whether the Jewish Diaspora institutional approach to immigration is hypocritical. There is a clear expectation that the Goyim ought to support immigration. This is understandable. Diaspora Jews would love to see themselves as one ethnic minority amongst many. However, when it comes to the Jewish State, this attitude changes radically. Israel sees itself as the Jews only State. This vision is approved by Jewish organisations around the world. From a Jewish political perspective, multiculturalism is the goyim’s affair, the Jewish State prefers to see itself as a mono-ethnic planet.

Maybe the Jewish organisations that allegedly care so much about the way Trump’s immigration policy reflects on American values might bear in mind that the way Israel ‘treats the stranger reflects on the moral values and ideals’ of their own nation.

%d bloggers like this: