Why The BBC acts as a Propaganda Outlet for Israel– An Insider View

“The BBC is institutionally pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless” says former BBC senior editor.

“The BBC is institutionally pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless” says former BBC senior editor.

 

by Gilad Atzmom

The BBC’s Panorama channel ‘investigation’ into Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ was so blatantly one sided its broadcast as ‘news’ demanded an explanation. In an attempt to grasp why the British national broadcaster fails to fulfil its core mission to report the news in as unbiased a manner as possible,  I interviewed a former senior editor for the BBC. The editor, a 35 year veteran of the BBC, reveals the culture that has steered the BBC into its present position as a Zionist mouthpiece. 

In acting as a whistle blower, the former editor risks severe consequences.  In Britain leading journalists have been locked behind bars and put under threat of extradition for reporting information whose truthfulness has not even been challenged. 

https://youtu.be/F7eEQMyzLeo

Sadly, this danger is heightened under the present toxic political atmosphere in Britain, as demonstrated by its purging of a major political party and its tolerance for abuse of its judicial system to deter and punish anyone who dares to question the Zionist narrative. 

Q: When did the BBC become openly biased?

A: The BBC has always been biased towards Israel, and its bias has been well documented.  The reasons for this bias have long been the subject of serious academic studies, the best known of which is Greg Philo’s and Mike Berry’s More Bad News from Israel. In fact, in 2006 an independent report commissioned by the BBC’s own governing body concluded that the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “does not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.”

Q: Who and what drove this cultural and political direction within the corporation?

 A: There are a number of drivers behind this biased BBC culture. The most important is the fact that a small number of hardline Zionists occupy key positions at the top and middle levels of the corporation, as well as at the shop-floor level, by which I mean the people who select what to publish or broadcast on a daily basis and who provide editorial steer to journalists. This has been widely publicised and has been in the public domain for some time — see, for example, this http://tinyurl.com/ydhjzeek, these (a) http://tinyurl.com/y7mjtkc6, (b) http://tinyurl.com/y7k39vsh, and (c) http://tinyurl.com/y3x9nktl. Also see this http://tinyurl.com/y6ne4apn and this http://tinyurl.com/y7l88zwl.

Q: What about political impartiality, supposedly a core BBC value?

A: Unfortunately, there are many examples of  such pro- Israel hype, some blatant and others who slant the news by use of emphasis and/or  omission. For instance, there was Sarah Montague’s interview with Israel’s defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, in March 2015, Head of Statistics’ Anthony Reuben’s reflection on fatalities in Gaza   (http://tinyurl.com/ycc9p8d4), and the utilization of  Gil Hoffman, an Israeli army reservist and chief political correspondent for the Jerusalem Post to write for the BBC News website (http://tinyurl.com/yanppk93) to mention but a few.

Q:  Does the broadcaster have the means or inclination to fix itself ?

A: In my opinion, the chances of the BBC fixing itself is about zero. Apart from what I have said above, it is a cowardly, spineless organisation. Not only does it always pursue the path of least resistance by selecting to broadcast what is least likely to upset the Zionist lobby, but it is also deadly afraid of what the Daily Mail might say about its output. Very often, and by that I mean almost on a daily basis, one would hear senior managers ask at the morning agenda-setting editorial meetings, “What would the Daily Mail say about that?” Invariably, they would choose what is least likely to be picked up and criticised by the Daily Mail. Please remember, this is a public broadcaster that is funded by taxpayers (yes, the License Fee is a tax) and is supposed to “Educate, Inform and Entertain”, not propagandise on behalf of Israel.

Q: Some of the so-called Labour ‘Whistleblowers’ were exposed by Al Jazeera as Israeli Lobby assets. Is it possible that the BBC was so bold as to interview these characters hoping that no one would notice or was it simply  a matter of a clumsy decision making? Can the BBC match the journalistic dedication of organisations such as RT or Al Jazeera?

A: There is no chance whatsoever that the BBC would do anything approximating Al Jazeera TV’s programme on Israeli infiltration of the Labour Party (http://tinyurl.com/yad6fslm). The BBC is institutionally pro-Zionist and institutionally spineless.

Q: You worked in the corporation for 35 years, did you notice a deterioration in the quality of people hired? Was there a change in employees’ attitudes and their willingness to express themselves freely and critically?

A: I worked for the BBC’s English-language outlets as an editor and senior editor for 35 years. Since the early 1990s there has been growing intolerance of criticism of editorial management decisions, even in internal forums which internal BBC propaganda claims are meant for staff to speak freely. This applies across the board on all matters. But certainly with regard to Israel and Zionism, any questioning of BBC impartiality would attract accusations of anti-Semitism and would certainly spell the end of one’s career, no matter how privately and confidentially such criticism is conveyed.


My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal and security services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me and others.

Donate

Advertisements

Penguin (re)Press

“Penguin Random House is proud to be a leading supporter of the American Booksellers for Free Expression and Banned Books Week, during which thousands of libraries, schools, bookstores and community centers across the nation and the world unite to celebrate the freedom to read and exercise our right to do so without interference or censorship.”

This is the position Penguin Random House publishers took in the autumn of 2018. They understood, then, the importance of freedom of literary expression and the right of readers to choose their own reading material. Yet, less than one year later, in June of 2019, we saw Penguin go the route of censorship when it announced it would no longer print or continue to ship editions of Col. Pedro Banos’s best-selling book, “How They Rule the World”.  The book, originally published in Spanish, lays out the 22 secret strategies of global power. According to Banos, war and conflict are the central strategy of geopolitics.  This sounds plausible enough, especially when you consider the author is a (reserves) Colonel of Infantry of the Spanish Army. He is also an expert in geopolitics, intelligence, terrorism, strategy, international relations, defense and security.

 I’ll preface by saying I haven’t read the book. My first order was cancelled due to the book allegedly being ‘out of stock’ and my current order isn’t due to arrive until the end of July.  I confess I have a sweet tooth for banned books, so I’m anxiously awaiting its arrival.

Penguin came under fire when UK Zionist pressure organization, Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), charged that Banos’s book was antisemitic. They accused Penguin of perpetuating antisemitic tropes by publishing the book.  It’s my understanding that there are references in a single chapter to the Rothschild banking dynasty and it is on that which the accusation is based.  The very powerful Jewish family, that according to some is known for investing in both sides of wars, is tagged as being a central player in geopolitics but according to the CAA, and others, pointing out this fact equates to condemnation of all Jews.  There has been no legitimate refutation given to counter the Rothschilds family power other than to decry antisemitism, and simply mentioning the role they played is enough to get one labeled an anti-Semite.  Is the CAA suggesting the Rothschilds represent all Jews, and if so, are they, then, guilty of antisemitism?  A more crucial question is why are Jews upset when goyim read about the Rothschilds? Is it because the current modus operandi of the Israel lobby is reminiscent of Rothschildian tactics?  Are they trying to conceal the present by suppressing the discussion of the past? Is the attempt to eradicate the discussion of the Rothschild Dynasty designed to mask a Jewish continuum?  This is indeed an interesting dilemma because the attempt to control the discussion is, in and of itself, an example of a Jewish continuum. This leads us back to what is the meaning of Jewish power so eloquently expressed by Gilad Atzmon:  Jewish power is the capacity to suppress criticism of Jewish power. In practice, we see a powerful Jewish organization stifling discussion of Jewish power.

While the book is an international best seller, there was some criticism of the Spanish text but no attempts to ban it until it was translated into English. This is when the CAA and a British author, Jeremy Duns, got involved.  Duns compared the English translation against the Spanish audible version and noticed the passages mentioning the Rothschilds family were omitted from the English translation of the text.  To Duns, this was proof positive that the book was antisemitic and the omission was some sort of a cover up.  So, now we see people not only being attacked for what is written, but also for what is not written. Duns also had a problem with the books cover, which is an image of octopus tentacles.  Apparently, octopi have been used to depict Jews negatively in the past, so it’s been tagged as an antisemitic symbol, right up there with a swastikas, rats and roaches. I’m a scuba diver and on the rare occasions I’ve been lucky enough to spot one of these lovely creatures, I solemnly swear Jews and Rothschilds did not come to mind. Possibly Duns and the CAA could provide goyim with a list of unacceptable symbols and words to avoid in the future.  Maybe everything on earth should be passed to a local synagogue for approval, first, as clearly even the most innocuous things can hit a nerve.

 Penguin, who initially defended the book but eventually succumbed to relentless pressure by Campaign Against Antisemitism, who wanted the book banned, conducted an external review, which was led by rabbi Julia Neuberger and two Spanish antisemitism experts.  I’m not quite sure how one becomes an expert on this topic. Is there a degree for this?  In any event, the findings were “echoes of Jewish conspiracy theories” but ultimately, neither the Spanish nor English versions were found to be antisemitic. So, how then, do we arrive at ceasing printing or shipping of the book?   Are we not permitted to discuss the tactics of certain dynasties, are we asked not to speak of unethical or criminal behavior if the perpetrator is Jewish?  If, for instance, a Jew is offended by a content of a book, is no one else entitled to read it? Might I suggest this is how the notion of conspiracies is born.  Keeping information in the shadows is what makes it a conspiracy.

All this begs the question, where are the voices of opposition to this book burning? Where are the Blumenthals, the racially exclusive JVL, Jeremy Corbyn? British Labour MP, Chris Williamson, defended the text. Predictably, he was accused of defending antisemites. That Penguin felt compelled to sanitize the text of Banos’s book to appease Jewish sensitivities speaks to just how powerful are these groups. Ironically, it validates the legitimacy of the very text they are working day and night to suppress.

Banning books and covering up historical fact is hardly an effective path to quash Jewish conspiracy theories. In reality, it only serves to reinforce them.  Something the CAA and its supporters may want to think about.

source: https://www.musingabout.net/blog-1/penguin-repress

Epstein 007

epstein007.jpg

by Gilad Atzmon

It is possible that Epstein is just an ordinary paedophile, a slave to his own sick depravity. But this now seems unlikely, it leaves too many questions unresolved: why did Epstein build a sex trafficking network? Why did he seek the company of the world’s most influential characters? Why did he schlep all those royals, once and future presidents, Harvard professors and movie stars around the world in his ‘Lolita Express’? And then we get to the big question: how did he get away with it all?  Back in 2007, registered sex offender Epstein was supposed to spend the rest of his life behind bars. Instead he spent a mere thirteen months in a VIP prison.

The Daily Beast reported yesterday that when Alexander Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of US labor secretary by the Trump administration’s transition team, Acosta’s conduct in the Epstein affair came under scrutiny. In that interview Acosta allegedly said,  “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone.”

The more we look into this registered sex offender’s saga, the more it appears to have the characteristics of a gargantuan espionage operation. If so, then Epstein was running a multi-million intelligence apparatus set to accumulate dirt on some of the world’s most influential people. The walls of his Caribbean island palace were rigged with cameras, and likely for reasons other than his personal libidinal gratification. Epstein didn’t work alone. Press reports allege that Ghislaine Maxwell functioned as Epstein’s ‘madam.’

Multiple court filings reviewed and reported on by the Miami Herald reveal that lawyers for one of Epstein’s alleged victims claim that Maxwell helped traffic girls and women to powerful figures. The same documents report  that the alleged victims were lured into the sex ring by offers of modelling, fashion, and educational opportunities.

Ghislaine is the youngest child of the flamboyant Jewish media tycoon Robert Maxwell, who died under mysterious circumstances in November 1991.  Shortly before he died, a self-proclaimed former Mossad officer named Ari Ben-Menashe had approached a number of news organisations in Britain and the United States with the allegation that Maxwell was a long-time agent for the Israeli intelligence service.

 I cannot verify whether Robert Maxwell was a Mossad agent or if association with the Mossad is an hereditary trait, but the possible conjecture that Epstein and Maxwell were running an intelligence operation makes sense of the questions surrounding this gruesome spectacle.

This intelligence postulate raises a crucial question. If Epstein was a spy, who did he work for? Was it the Russians? I only ask because every time Tel Aviv comes up as a likely suspect American media tends to blame the Russians. Maybe Epstein was working for the Iranians, all indications are that the Trump’s administration is desperate for a pretext for a war with Iran. Another possibly is that this affair is a classic MI6 operation and Epstein is actually the paedophile model of 007. If the espionage conspiracy theory is correct, then the Mossad and the CIA would be the natural suspects. Yet it is difficult to believe that the Mossad acting by itself was powerful enough to procure for Epstein his remarkably lenient plea deal. It is almost impossible to imagine that Acosta, acting as the federal prosecutor, would take instructions from Israel. If it was the Mossad, they likely enjoyed significant support from within the American intelligence community. I assume that Alan Dershowitz, Epstein’s former attorney, may be able to answer some of these questions. He seems to know the details:


My battle for truth and freedom involves some expensive legal and security services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me and others.

Donate

One rule for all!

Screen Shot 2019-06-30 at 03.31.07.png

Eve Mykytyn

Any Labour Party member bold or stupid enough to make or be associated with negative statements about Israel, the Zionist politics that support Israel or who questions any piece of the present Holocaust narrative has been disciplined by the Party. Ex, See or See.

England has Jewish citizens and Israel is a British ally, these two facts somehow get conflated. Israel is a separate sovereign state, has been so for seventy years, and is likely to remain a country, and a rich and powerful one at that, for the foreseeable future. Britain’s Jewish citizens, like all Brits, have rights to protection from discrimination, hate speech and the like that derive from their British citizenship and are wholly unrelated to Israel.

England and the US are also allies. When President Trump visited England he was met by huge protests and  signs calling Trump a racist, a warmonger (in that I see little difference between Trump and other recent US presidents) dangerous and unAmerican and by large balloons portraying Trump on a toilet, in a diaper and as a penis. I’m an American, not a fan of Trump’s and it is fine with me if the British choose to protest his presence, although as far as I can tell such protests have no effect. Trump blithely misinterpreted the demonstrations as crowds greeting him, brilliantly diverting the media into a discussion about how that was not so.

Now imagine if the British held up similar signs insulting Netanyahu or Israel. Could they call Netanyahu a racist or ‘unIsraeli?’ Would anyone dare hold blimps of Netanyahu as a penis? Who would be kicked out of the Labour Party? Who would be prosecuted for hate speech or defamation?  And what would this have to do with Britain’s Jewish citizens?

Why does Britain insist that there are certain ‘rules’ for criticizing Israel, as contained in the international holocaust definition of anti Semitism (the only racism that has its own special set of rules, apparently Blacks can go it on their own)  but not for critics of Americans? Sadly, the US is close on England’s heels in implementing similar free speech penalties. Is there to be one rule for Jews and another rule for the rest of humanity?

source: https://www.evemykytyn.com/writing/the-special-rules-

Yellow Vests: The undercover cop scandal that the Macron regime tries to cover up

Via The Saker

July 07, 2019

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:66468998_362790124431871_5254620172844531712_n.jpg

During the near 8 months (at the time of writing) that the French Yellow Vests (Gilets Jaunes) have been demonstrating nationwide I have written two articles (part 1 is here, part 2 is here) based on my own primary research that aimed to offer an insight into what is actually going on, since the mainstream, neoliberal media is either deliberately boycotting the topic or mentions it very briefly and in a heavily biased (pro-Macron) way. Part 3 in this series is on the way – I will publish it after July 14th (Bastille Day), but in this article I want to talk about a serious incident that happened during Act 34 (July 6th) in Paris – an incident that, of course, the French government and Brussels will try to hush up as much as possible.

Let’s start the timeline at 18:00 in the evening. The Yellow Vests have just completed their 9km – from Place de la République to Place de Catalogne -sanctioned demonstration (my videos and photos can be found here). They then travel by metro back to Place de la République (hereon in – PdlR) for a sanctioned evening gathering. At this time some feminist protest is already ongoing, and CRS (Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité) start to become nervous that the arriving Yellow Vests, being the “terrorists” that the mainstream media portrays them to be, might disrupt proceedings.

There is another reason why CRS are nervous: it should be noted that the few yellow vests that can be seen in the video above have nothing to do with the actual Yellow Vests movement. They, in fact, are the groupies of a Macron collaborator named Sophie Tissier, who deliberately registers a “Gilets Jaunes” protest with the police prefecture for every Saturday for the purpose of dividing the movement and preventing the formation of one large column. She espouses liberal values (as can be seen in the video above; she is the shaven-headed woman holding a sign saying “Anti-patriarchy”) and as a result is booed and jeered by the actual Yellow Vests every time she’s spotted. Thankfully, her joke gatherings now only attract 20 naïve individuals at most. However, that is 20 unhappy citizens who could, and should, be a part of the main Yellow Vests column, so in this sense Tissier can still declare a victory. Also present at this event is Muriel Robin – an ultra-liberal pro-Macron French personality. Inevitably, she enters into a verbal skirmish with an actual Yellow Vest (take note of the presence of men wearing baseballs caps and sunglasses):

After around 10 minutes, the feminist event starts to come to an end, but amongst the Yellow Vests a shout of “medic” can be heard. Two “street medics” (Yellow Vests who have some first aid skills) respond to the call and start to head towards the northern corner of the square. The earliest footage of the scene (the videos below this paragraph) shows this same Yellow Vest (named Wesson) – enraged and with a bleeding mouth – explaining to the independent journalist Amar Taoualit that a police officer wearing civilian clothes, possibly from the Brigade anti-criminalité, without any identification insignia, has just punched him without any motive. At this moment all the Yellow Vests start to head towards the crime scene, which is surrounded by gendarmes, and learn very quickly that a cop has committed another unprovoked act of aggression against a Yellow Vest. A barrage of insults is launched towards a circle of gendarmes who are stood on the corner of the square seemingly protecting someone.

Here are screenshots from the first of the two videos above showing the person who the gendarmes are protecting, even going as far as trying to obstruct the view of the camera:

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:66463717_2395563204007838_8307657109240020992_n.jpg

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:66468998_362790124431871_5254620172844531712_n.jpg

After 5 or so minutes these same gendarmes start to head southward down the square, but in a very agitated way. The Yellow Vests follow them:

In the video above we can see on the left-hand side the same circle of gendarmes walking with the same mysterious person in civilian clothes. Here is a better angle:

After reaching the Southern end of the square, the gendarmes form a line, and the Yellow Vests hurl insults at them. Wesson, the Yellow Vest who was assaulted, talks to other Yellow Vests and explains what happened to a crowd (3:24 onwards in the video below). Suddenly there is a shout “it’s them!” – attention is focused on three persons dressed in civilian clothes. The Yellow Vests start to pursue them, and the latter flee towards the police column on the Eastern side of the square, where an unmarked police car awaits them. One of the men enters the unmarked car, but not without Wesson giving him some abuse before he flees, and the other two hide behind gendarmes. The Yellow Vests try to approach the two other mysterious men but are prevented by the gendarmes. About 4 CRS vans arrive to the Northern part of the square and gendarmes push the Yellow Vests backwards, away from the two men. In the ensuing chaos Wesson suddenly goes to the floor. “Street medics” attend to him whilst the anger starts to mount. Prominent Yellow Vest Faouzi Lellouche explains (at 35:09 onwards) that inside the unmarked police car he saw that there were already other cops wearing balaclavas inside. The following video shows everything I described in this paragraph (the pursuit begins at 6:24):

After around 15 minutes, Wesson is taken to the accident & emergency department of the local hospital, and the gendarmes re-enter their vans and disappear – they obviously understood that hanging around any longer wasn’t a good idea and would inevitably result in clashes. And that’s how things ended, with the Parisian Yellow Vests quite shocked at what happened.

At around 9pm Wesson starts a Facebook live broadcast from outside the hospital, where he waiting for his turn to be treated. His mouth is visibly inflated and he says that he is sore, and that he doesn’t know if any of his teeth are broken but they hurt nevertheless. However, one hour later Wesson will delete his Facebook video due to a desire to make another one the following day that is much more precise vis-à-vis what happened on July 6th, since wild speculation had started to spread on social networks.

Here is a summary of his testimony video:

  • In the presence of Muriel Robin, Wesson asked a journalist why they don’t report about police violence against female Yellow Vests. After a brief discussion (which can be seen in the video towards the top of this article), Wesson left;
  • Wesson then departed towards the “Franprix” shop to buy a drink. A guy in civilian clothes squared up to him and offered to have a fight. A surprised Wesson accepted, after which he was punched in the face by the reinforced-glove-wearing man in civilian clothes.
  • He doesn’t know for sure if the guy in civilian clothes was a police officer or whether he is some bodyguard. Wesson says that the aggressor presented some kind of ID card to the cops who arrived at the scene and was thus recognised as being a friendly. An unmarked police car with balaclava-wearing men inside came to collect the civilian-clothes-wearing men in any case.
  • He fell to the floor because he had an epileptic episode.
  • A complaint will be filed with the police on July 8th.
  • He says that other Yellow Vests who witnessed the incident have given the same testimony on camera (I myself listened to two people who were present during the attack explain what happened, and they both affirmed the same thing – Wesson was attacked by the guy in the navy blue “NY” hat).

Conclusion

Those who are familiar with the scandals surrounding Emmanuel Macron will be familiar with the Benalla affair – when a police officer that is very close to Macron violated the law and beat up a May Day protestor – and may draw parallels with the incident described in this article.

In truth, I would argue that the attack on Wesson is worse since it was not in the framework of anything even resembling a police operation. However, there are still open questions, such as: why are the same guys in civilian clothes who the gendarmes protect after the attack also seen in the Muriel Robin video, seemingly acting as her security?

Example A-1 (look at the guy on the left in the blue hat)

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:Screenshots:Screenshot 2019-07-07 at 18.15.24.png
Example A-2 (look at the guy on the left in the blue hat)

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:Screenshots:Screenshot 2019-07-07 at 18.14.33.png

Example B-1 (look at the guy in the middle in plainclothes)

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:Screenshots:Screenshot 2019-07-07 at 18.20.57.pngExample B-2 (look at the guy on the right in the baseball cap, with his back turned to the camera)

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:Screenshots:Screenshot 2019-07-07 at 18.21.44.png

It’s a categorical fact that the two plainclothes guys seen in these photos are the same ones who were fulfilling some kind of security role for Muriel Robin and who were exfiltrated from PldR by the gendarmes. In the Muriel Robin video she is seen speaking to the guy in the darker blue baseball cap and pointing to Wesson. Some have claimed that over a good speaker system she can be heard saying “Virer le gilet jaune” (sort out the yellow vest), but I cannot confirm this since at the time of writing I don’t have access to such technology. In any case, it all looks very suspicious: Wesson was attacked within 10 minutes of his verbal spar with Muriel Robin.

However, it’s difficult to prove that Muriel Robin is responsible for the attack. What’s most important is that someone who looks and behaves like a plainclothes police or high-security officer (and recognised as such by overt gendarmes) attacked a civilian and is given an escort by gendarmes, and even evacuated by an unmarked police car with men wearing balaclavas inside.

Naturally, there is absolutely nothing about this incident in the French press. I stress: absolutely nothing. In fact, if one just relies on the usual mainstream propagandists for “information”, then apparently the Yellow Vests don’t even exist anymore. I remember very well how they were howling about Christophe Dettinger – who defended a woman (according to her own testimony) against police aggression – and presented him as a terrorist.

Of course, they deliberately omitted to highlight what happened before he repelled the cops – the police gassed Dettinger in the face and recklessly threw grenades into the crowd.

Concerning the Benalla case, he is still a free man and has incurred zero punishment. There is a fake “investigation” that Macron will probably drag out for as long as is needed, but nobody with any experience living under a neoliberal regime expects there to be any kind of justice.

Christophe Dettinger? He was given a 1-year jail sentence within the same month he was detained, the online fundraiser launched in his name was halted and the funds frozen, and the regime launched a police fundraiser as a weapon of psychological warfare against the Yellow Vests. Not to mention the fates of the hundreds of Yellow Vests who have been arbitrarily jailed just for the fact that they dared to resist against Macron’s socio-economic genocide, and the dozens of Yellow Vests who protested peacefully but were mutilated by the police and denied of any livelihood. No, there is no justice for them, because as we should know by now: there is one rule for us, and another for them. You didn’t pay your tax? Go to jail! Meanwhile, the regime’s offshore accounts continue to fatten up at he expense of the already impoverished poor.

July 6th 2019 – the day a plainclothes law enforcement employee – not wearing any identification number, or any insignia at all in fact, which is a violation of the law – assaulted a Yellow Vest, and uniformed law enforcement – also not wearing any identification numbers, which is also a violation of the law – protected the assailant. I think even the Milice Française would blush at such a level of impunity.

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:wt49494_created.png

Bassil from Tripoli: We Will Not Accept Dividing of Lebanon into Cantons

manar-025844600156208195710

July 6, 2019

Minister of Foreign Affairs Gibran Bassil, said Saturday afternoon, during a meeting with FPM cadres in the city of Tripoli that he wouldn’t “accept that Lebanon be divided into cantons or restricted areas in the face of the Lebanese.”

“Lebanese citizens will not be isolated in a region or a district,” he said, “We have the right to opinion and freedom of expression, and I thank all those who gathered to protest my visit.”

“A lot was said about this visit. The purpose of visiting Tripoli today is to distort its meaning because they want us to stay away from each other,” he went on.

The minister stressed that his visit to the Mountain last Sunday was not “to provoke any quarrel,” noting that the FPM did not participate in any war and was always with the Lebanese army against the militias.

Finally, he considered that his visit to Tripoli aims to promote coexistence in this city.

SourceNNA

Related

 

 

ليست القضية بالإحالة إلى المجلس العدلي

يوليو 3, 2019

ناصر قنديل

– لم يعُد خطاب الأبواب والشبابيك حكراً على حزب سياسي واحد أو فريق سياسي واحد. فقد ظهر بوضوح أن هناك جبهة سياسية وطائفية تتبنّى النص القائم على اعتبار ما جرى في الجبل نتيجة للخطاب الاستفزازي لرئيس التيار الوطني الحر الوزير جبران باسيل. والأمر بالتأكيد ليس في تحديد ما إذا كان الخطاب استفزازياً أم لا، ومعلوم أنه من السهل إيجاد ما يتيح وصف الخطاب الباسيلي بالاستفزازي، لكن القضية هي في تشريع ضمني لجعل الدخول إلى مناطق لبنانية مشروطاً بموافقات مسبقة من زعاماتها الطائفية، تحت التهديد بالأمن، وتحت شعار جديد صار هو عنوان الخطاب الرسمي، بدلاً من أن يتم وضع القادة السياسيين واللبنانيين بين حدّين، حماية حرية التعبير في الخطاب، وملاحقة مَن يلعب بالنار طائفياً بخطابه أمام القانون، أو محاسبته سياسياً، فصار الموقف الذي تمت صياغته بطريقة أخرى، أن أي طرف يستطيع قول ما يشاء لكن عليه تحمل المسؤولية، والمسؤولية هنا تتضمّن فرضية ظهور أحداث أمنية، فتصير لعبة الأمن جزءاً مشروعاً من الحياة السياسية، وبذلك يصير التحقيق القضائي والأمني محكوماً بإقامة نوع من التعادل بين سلاح حماية وزير وسلاح آخر في الشارع، ويتحول الرد بإطلاق نار قاتل على إطلاق نار في الهواء إلى اشتباك مسلح، تتساوى فيه المسؤوليات تحت شعار البدء بإطلاق النار أدى إلى خلط الحابل بالنابل وضياع الطاسة. والتعادل هنا ليس على صلة بالقانون بل هو امتداد للمعادلة الأهلية التي تحكم حرباً أهلية باردة.

– التسوية الهشة تُعاد صياغتها بطريقة أشد هشاشة من خلال معادلة، الجميع على حق، والجميع له حق، حق الذين سقطوا قتلى بملاحقة الفاعلين، و حق الذي حمل السلاح احتجاجاً على عدم دخول البيوت من أبوابها، بتثبيت معادلته، وحق الذي أراد لصاحب الخطاب الاستفزازي أن يدفع ثمن خطابه، بأن يكون الثمن بجعل منطقة لبنانية رهينة أمنية، ومحمية حزبية تدخلها الدولة بالتراضي. وضمن الشروط المتفق عليها بين أركان النظام الطائفي لعدم السماح بتغيير قواعد اللعبة السياسية لصالح تنمية فكرة الدولة على حساب الزعامات الطائفية، حتى لو لجأت هذه الزعامات إلى المحرّمات، والمحرّمات هنا يتعامل معها الجميع بصفتها من مكتسبات الزعامة، فجمهورية الحدث ولو بدون سلاح، كجمهورية قبرشمون المسلحة، والعنوان هو خصوصية القانون الذي يطبّق في كل جمهورية بخصوصية الزعامة وما تشرّعه ليصير قانوناً.

– التهديد بخطاب الحرب من الذي لم يكن جزءاً منها إلا في آخر جولاتها التي تباهى بها من الكحالة بهدف شدّ العصب وتثبيت القاعدة الطائفية، أو التلويح بأدوات الحرب ممن كان ركناً من أركانها وتمّ استحضارها في قبرشمون، بهدف الحفاظ على المكتسبات الحزبيّة والفئويّة، مشرَّعان بالتساوي والتوازي، والدولة تتكرس كضابط إيقاع بين المعادلات الطائفية وزعاماتها وليس على حسابها، والذي بات واضحاً هو أنه يستحيل لأحد هذين الخطابين أن يحقق شرعيته بدون أن يمنح الشرعية للخطاب الآخر. فخطاب الوزير جبران باسيل وطموحاته، الذي تشكلت جبهة في وجهه، كأداء النائب السابق وليد جنبلاط الذي تشكلت جبهة من حوله، والخاسر هو مشروع الدولة التي لا تقوم على خطاب الحقوق الطائفية، ولا على منطق المناطق المغلقة، فلا استعادة التوازن الطائفي في الجبل ممكنة تحت مظلة خطاب الحقوق الطائفية، دون إضعاف فكرة الدولة ومشروعها في مناطق أخرى ظهرت بلدة الحدث نموذجاً لها، ولا التمسك بالمكتسبات المحققة في ظروف تغيّرت، ممكنة بلا إضعاف هيبة الدولة وتهديد أمنها. وها هي الحصيلة أمامنا، الحفاظ على الاستقرار والسلم الأهلي يمران عبر إضعاف فكرة الدولة ومشروع قيامها، وعلى اللبنانيين تقبل أن تجاوز محنة الفتنة بحد ذاته كافٍ ليصفقوا للجميع، لأنهم فهموا أن القضية ليست قضية إحالة للمجلس العدلي، بل الحفاظ على التوازنات بين جبهتين متوازنتين أمام استحقاق رئاسي جرى استحضاره مبكراً، ومقتضيات التأجيل تستدعي الخروج من الأزمة وفق معادلة لا غالب ولا مغلوب، وتصبحون على وطن.

Related Videos

 

Related Articles

 

%d bloggers like this: