‘Imagine outcry if israelis were held in open air prison like Gaza & 120 were shot dead’

‘Imagine Outcry If Israelis Were Held in Open Air Prison Like Gaza & 120 Were Shot Dead’
By RT

‘Imagine outcry if Israelis were held in open air prison like Gaza & 120 were shot dead’

The UN resolution condemning Israel shows overwhelming international recognition that what’s going on in Gaza is wrong and that there’s no future in continuing this oppression, investigative journalist Rick Sterling told RT.

The UN has adopted a nonbinding resolution condemning Israel’s excessive use of force during clashes in Gaza which have left more than 120 Palestinians dead since the end of March.

The resolution was passed by the General Assembly in New York with 120 votes in favor and eight against. However, the text does not include a US amendment, blaming Hamas for inciting violence, as it did not get enough support.

Israel and the United States strongly opposed the vote calling it biased and one-sided, while the Palestinian side said that a resolution was not enough.

Investigative journalist Rick Sterling told RT that the UN condemnation of Israel’s use of deadly force shows the isolation of the US and Israel on this issue.

“There was a 120 votes ‘Yes’, and eight votes ‘No.’ But of those eight, five of them are tiny island nations, like the Solomon Islands… and other countries that few people have heard of before. Only three countries have actually opposed the resolution: that was Israel, the US and Australia,” said Sterling.

Sterling believes that it shows the overwhelming international recognition of what is going on in the Gaza Strip. “The facts are very clear. Over the last two months about a 130 Palestinians killed, many thousands seriously injured…And as much as the US and Nikki Haley may deny it, it is being recognized increasingly around the world,” he added.

Sterling claimed that “the situation is very biased” saying that “you’ve got approximately 2 million [Palestinian] people in what amounts to an open air prison.”

“Just imagine the reverse scenario: imagine that 2 million Israelis were held captive in an open air prison and when they protested, 120 of them were shot and killed. Just imagine what kind of outcry there would be about that. The situation is biased. That is the reality. It is totally unjust and it needs to be called to account for the good of everyone,” he explained.

Israel and the US claims Hamas is responsible for much of the violence. “The resolution is one-sided, makes not one mention of Hamas which routinely initiates violence,” the US envoy Haley said during the debate preceding the vote, adding that: “What makes Gaza different is that attacking Israel is their favorite political sport.”

Sterling argued that the blaming of Hamas “is just a distraction” and that “it is a form of deception to mislead the people [and stop them] from seeing what it pretty clear.”

“You’ve got unarmed protesters who are in Gaza, hundreds of yards from the so-called fence and they are being shot by snipers with live ammunition. This is what is going on. It is really a testament to the courage of Palestinians that they have kept going on and also a testament of desperation of how grim the situation is. They’ve seen thousands of their fellow women and men, including medics, shot and injured or killed. And yet Palestinians continued going out week after week protesting against oppression.”

Asked about the prospects of the border standoff between Israel and Gaza being resolved, Sterling said that there is a clear recognition that there is no future in continuing this kind of oppression. “In the long run, there is got to be a real change in the situation there and so, this resolution at the UN General Assembly is a small but positive step in the right direction,” he concluded.

Dr Gina Loudon, political analyst and author, noted that the resolution adopted in the General Assembly is non-binding, “but what it can do is exert political pressure on them to act and I believe part of what was passed was something along the lines of a resolution asking for some sort of action.”

Loudon said she had just returned from Israel and studied the issue.  “I agree with the [US and Israeli] ambassadors that this is a vital mistake and if people knew the true story about Israel regarding Hamas, this vote would not have gone this way,” she told RT.

She also argued that “a lot of times these deaths of these Palestinians, are actually because they are using civilians as human shields. And a lot of times…the violence is actually initiated by Hamas, certainly not by Israel. It is a very frustrating situation I know from most Israelis that I talk to,” Loudon added.

This article was originally published by “RT

Advertisements

120 Countries at UN Condemn israel Over Gaza Violence

Information Clearing House” –  UNITED NATIONS: The UN General Assembly on Wednesday adopted by a strong majority of 120 countries an Arab-backed resolution condemning Israel for Palestinian deaths in Gaza and rejected a US bid to put the blame on Hamas.

 

At least 129 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire during protests near the border with Gaza that began at the end of March. No Israelis have died.

The resolution put forward by Algeria and Turkey on behalf of Arab and Muslim countries won 120 votes in the 193-member assembly, with 8 votes against and 45 abstentions.

An amendment presented by the United States condemning Hamas for “inciting violence” along the border with Gaza failed to garner the two-third majority needed for adoption.

Addressing the assembly, US Ambassador Nikki Haley dismissed the resolution as biased against Israel and accused Arab countries of trying to score political points at home by seeking to condemn Israel at the United Nations.

“For some, attacking Israel is their favorite political sport. That´s why we are here today,” said Haley.

“I wish everyone supporting this one-sided resolution would put as much energy into encouraging President Abbas to the negotiating table,” she said.

The resolution deplored Israel´s use of “excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force” against Palestinian civilians and called for protection measures for Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Arab countries backing the measure turned to the General Assembly after the United States used its veto in the Security Council to block the resolution on June 1.

Unlike the Security Council, resolutions adopted by the assembly are non-binding and there is no veto.

UN chief to propose protection

The resolution tasks UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres with the drafting of proposals for an “international protection mechanism” for the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

These could range from setting up an observer mission to a full-blown peacekeeping force, but action on any option would require backing from the Security Council, where the United States has veto power.

Palestinian Ambassador Riyad Mansour dismissed the US amendments blaming Hamas as “games and gimmicks” and urged ambassadors not to be “fooled” by the US proposal.

“We are asking for a simple thing,” Mansour told the assembly. “We want our civilian population to be protected.”

Turkey´s Ambassador Feridun Hadi Sinirlioglu defended the resolution, saying it was “about taking sides with international law” and showing the Palestinians that the world “does care about their suffering.”

Taking the podium, Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon assailed the measure as an “attempt to take away our basic right to self-defense.” He warned ambassadors that by supporting the resolution “you are empowering Hamas.”

The US amendment condemning Hamas received 62 votes in favor, with 58 against and 42 abstentions. The United States sought to challenge the ruling requiring a two-thirds majority but that was defeated in a separate vote.

“We had more countries on the right side than the wrong side,” Haley said in a statement.

The General Assembly last held a similarly contentious vote on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in December, when it rejected President Donald Trump´s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel´s capital and move the US embassy there.

Haley had warned at the time that Washington was “taking names” of countries that supported the resolution. That vote was 128 to 9, with 35 abstentions.

Backed by Arab countries, the Palestinians had lobbied to win as many votes as those cast in support of the Jerusalem resolution.

 

 

 

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

======

Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and Palestine – UN General Assembly

Watch

General Assembly: 10th emergency special session – Illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory

The General Assembly, Recalling its relevant resolutions regarding the question of Palestine, Recalling also its relevant resolutions on the protection of civilians,

Posted June 13, 2018

 

“By supporting this resolution you are colluding with a terrorist organization, by supporting this resolution you are empowering Hamas,” Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon told the General Assembly before the vote.

Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Solomon Islands and Togo joined Israel and the United States in voting against the resolution.

UN: Assault on Yemen’s Hodeidah Port could Cost 250,000 Lives

Source

 June 8, 2018

Hodeida strike

A long-feared assault on Yemen’s port city of Hodeidah by the Saudi-led coalition could cost up to 250,000 lives, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator in the country, Lise Grande, said in a statement on Friday.

“A military attack or siege on Hodeidah will impact hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians,” she said.

“In a prolonged worst case, we fear that as many as 250,000 people may lose everything – even their lives.”

Yemen has been since March 25, 2015 under a brutal aggression by Saudi-led coalition, which also includes UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan and Kuwait, in a bid to restore power to fugitive former president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi.

Tens of thousands of Yemenis have been injured and martyred in Saudi-led strikes, with the vast majority of them are civilians.

SourceAgencies

Related Articles

 

Another UN veto by the U.S. in support of the jewish terror state

United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks during a UN Security Council emergency session on Israel-Gaza conflict at United Nations headquarter on May 30, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by AFP)United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley speaks during a UN Security Council emergency session on Israel-Gaza conflict at United Nations headquarter on May 30, 2018 in New York City. (Photo by AFP)

The United States has vetoed an Arab-backed UN draft resolution calling for measures to protect the Palestinians but failed to win any backing for its own text condemning Hamas for the violence in Gaza.

The two failed votes at the Security Council came a few hours after a young Palestinian woman was shot dead by Israeli soldiers near the Gaza border fence.

At least 123 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since the protests began at the end of March. No Israelis have been killed.

US Ambassador Nikki Haley declared that “it is now completely clear that the UN is hopelessly biased against Israel,” saying council members were “willing to blame Israel, but unwilling to blame Hamas.”

Ten countries, including China, France and Russia voted in favor of the draft put forward by Kuwait on behalf of Arab countries. Four countries — Britain, Ethiopia, the Netherlands and Poland — abstained.

Kuwait’s Ambassador Mansour al-Otaibi said the US veto “will increase the sense of despair among the Palestinians,” fuel further violence and “feed the sentiments of hatred and extremism.”

The Kuwait-drafted text had called for “measures to guarantee the safety and protection” of Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, and requested a UN report on proposals for an “international protection mechanism.”

Haley told the council the measure was “wildly inaccurate in its characterization of recent events in Gaza” by condemning Israel for the violence and failing to mention Hamas, which rules Gaza.

“The terrorist group Hamas bears primary responsibility for the awful living conditions in Gaza,” she told the council ahead of the vote.

No support for US draft

During a second vote, the United States failed to win support for its own rival measure calling on Palestinian militants to halt their protests in Gaza and condemning Hamas.

Eleven countries abstained, while Russia and two others opposed it.

A draft resolution requires nine votes to be adopted in the 15-member council and no veto from the five permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

The outcome deepened the deadlock at the top UN body over how to respond to the flareup of violence in Gaza that a UN envoy has warned is close to the brink of war.

“This session was another missed opportunity for this council,” French Ambassador Francois Delattre said, deploring an “increasingly deafening silence” from the United Nations on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.

A barrage of rocket and mortars into Israel from Gaza on Tuesday was followed by Israeli strikes on 65 militant sites in the Gaza Strip in the worst flareup since the 2014 war.

Israel has fought three wars in Gaza against Hamas, which the United States considers a terrorist organization.

After the failed votes, Arab diplomats said they were considering turning to the UN General Assembly to win adoption for the US-vetoed resolution.

It was the second time that Haley has resorted to US veto power to block a UN measure on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In December, Haley vetoed a draft resolution that rejected President Donald Trump’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem after all 14 other council members supported it.

 

President Lahoud to Al-Ahed: Liberation One of the Most Beautiful Days in My Life

Fatima Salameh

25-05-2018 | 08:49

It would not be a “Resistance and Liberation” holiday without hearing from him. He holds the title of the pro-resistance president and the “man” – described as such by the master of victory.

Emile Lahoud

His national and historic positions, which never abandoned the resistance, testify to that. The path of President Emile Lahoud, the nationalist, is full of honorable stances that carried Lebanon from the age of dependency to liberation. He defended the resistance before he knew them. It is enough that he is one of those who sought to liberate the land. The historic victory of 2000 was the pride of his reign and the result of his courageous positions that supported the path of Jihad at a time when the entire world stood against him. He was offered a lot in exchange for abandoning this path. He chose to work with conscience and in accordance with his convictions, which are not bought and sold.

In an interview with al-Ahed, President Lahoud recalls many stages, from his time as commander of the Lebanese army to the time he took over the presidency. His does not conceal his “joy” with the liberation of the land during his reign. He describes this event with pride. He tells how he learned about Hezbollah and its leader for the first time and how very proud he was of meeting him [the leader]. He often expresses his happiness that he is living in the time of the resistance fighters, who have returned Lebanon’s stolen dignity.

Emile Lahoud

Below is the script of the interview:

Eighteen years after liberation, what does President Emile Lahoud remember from that era?

It is the most beautiful day of my life. Before that date, there was no hope that we would be able to regain our dignity. Our land has been occupied for 22 years. All the officials who inherited the government were accustomed to this issue until it became obvious. Truthfully, I never heard of Hezbollah. When I took over as army commander, I was living in Rayak. The atmosphere was charged against Hezbollah. When I wanted to visit my family in the north, they used to send me telegrams asking me to be careful and watch out for Hezbollah members who intended to kill me. However, the teaching inside the house, which does not know a path of sectarianism, made me not interested in the matter, even though the picture in my mind drawn about Hezbollah is that it was a Takfiri group. When did I learn of Hezbollah? It was in 1991, when I took over the army command. A decision was issued by the Lebanese state to position the army in the South. I went to Tyre. One of the officers told me: “For 22 years, I was deployed here. I was a company commander and we received instructions that ‘if a militant is caught, we must hand him over to the intelligence services, who in turn will imprison him.’ You are a new army commander, what are your instructions for me in such a case?”

I asked him, what is their nationality, are they Palestinians? He said no, they are Lebanese who want to return to their villages, which are occupied by the “Israelis”, and they carry out operations against them. Sometimes we catch them before they arrive as they are on their way to the valleys. What do you want us to do in such a situation? I told him: “Lebanese who want to return to their villages that are occupied by the Zionists are resistance fighters. You have to support them.” He told me, “appreciated” and he rejoiced. It was the first time an officer thought in this way. ” To me, as Emile Lahoud, any nationalist army commander should not ask permission from anyone to issue such an order. Should I stand in the face of those who seek to liberate the land! On the contrary, I should be an absolute support for them.

Then I returned to Beirut and the President of the Republic, Elias Hrawi, told me:

“Emile are you crazy? You are supporting people who are causing trouble at the border. Tomorrow an “Israeli” soldier will be killed and [“Israel”] will attack all of Lebanon.” Do you want to ‘destroy’ Lebanon?

I told him:

“Have you ever heard of an army commander whose land is being occupied and he gives an order to his officers that whoever liberates the land should be imprisoned? We must support them. He told me: I give you an order to confront them. I told him: I will not obey.

In 1993, the resistance became stronger than before. The Zionists were annoyed and exerted pressure on the Americans, who in turn pressured the Lebanese state and the Security Council. The latter took a decision to get rid of Hezbollah. The Lebanese state at the time issued a decision. I remember an incident that took place at the time. Members of the army spoke to me. They told me that a Zionist tank bombed a Lebanese area and killed a woman. What do you want us to do? It was the first experience with “Israel”. I asked them: is there a Lebanese tank in range? They said yes. I said, what are you waiting for? Respond. At this point, the President of the Republic summoned me and told me: “Emile, what is happening? How could you do that and give an order to respond? I told him this is what I must do. He asked me more than once to eliminate Hezbollah with the support of the UNIFIL forces. I told him: You are not understanding me, I will not do it. He told me: ‘Tomorrow is the meeting of the Supreme Council of Defense and you have to attend.’ I said, ‘I will not attend.’ He replied, ‘then we will take the decision without you. Someone else will be the army commander.’ I told him: let him come. I am doing my duty and what my conscience tells me. The next day I came late to the meeting. I found them meeting with the UNIFIL commander. They designed a map for the elimination of Hezbollah. I told them: what are you doing? Fold this map. The commander of the UNIFIL forces replied: ‘they have taken the decision in the Security Council.’ I told him: let them take whatever they want. I will not comply. Let them bring another army commander to carry out what they want. What right does the Lebanese state have to order a national army to strike its people because the “Israelis” are annoyed?

Emile Lahoud

All this and you had no interaction with Hezbollah. When was your first direct contact with them?

After all these years, there was no contact between us. But there was absolute support on my part.

The first contact in which I got to know Hezbollah was in 1997 when I got a call saying that Hadi, the son of the Secretary General of the party, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was martyred. I told them, this is the first time that an Arab leader presents his son as a martyr. I want to get to know him. Indeed, the measures were taken. I found him relaxed although the news of his son’s martyrdom was announced an hour before my visit. We spoke for about ten minutes as I consoled him. I felt that we would win and triumph with this leader. Days passed, and we did not meet. In 2000, at the time of the liberation, Sayyed Nasrallah asked me to meet him. So we met and he presented me with an “Israeli” rifle. After that, I never saw him until I left the presidency. At the time, we sat for about three hours and talked about everything. He told me, ‘I do not know you.’ I told him, ‘We met in good conscience.’

What does to Emile Lahoud that the land was liberated during his reign as you have always described this event with pride?

It means my dignity. I take pride in this event very much. I am glad that the dignity of the Lebanese had been restored during my days. Is it possible that the “Israelis” occupy our land for 22 years and no one is shaken. Only a handful of resistance fighters met and liberated the land and defended us. Without them, “Israel” would have been among us.

How did the liberation of the land contribute to your military experience?

We can achieve the impossible. Many asked me what I was doing. No one can resist “Israel”. I told them, you will see. The resistance is the immunity of Lebanon. I am surprised how some people speak after the conclusion of the elections on the need to disarm the resistance, after all that it has done! They certainly get money from their masters who incite them to do so.

How do you perceive the golden equation, which you supported early on?

Without the golden equation, Lebanon would no longer exist, especially after the events that took place in Syria and Iraq, which made Lebanon strong and able to stand up to “Israel”. Unfortunately, we did not learn that we must preserve it through national action and not through sectarianism.

Today, the Palestinians are doing all they can to liberate their land. What is your advice for them given the experiences with the liberation of Lebanese lands?
There is no talk with “Israel” except in the language of force. I do not want to criticize, but when I hear some Palestinian officials talking about the need for a settlement, this does not return the land. The solution is only by force, just as we did in Lebanon. Here, I recall an incident. At one of the closed summits of the Arab heads of state in Khartoum, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said ‘how can I possibly pay for the salaries for the ‘Strip’ when the Zionists are not allowing the funds to arrive. I ask you Arabs to mediate with the concerned parties to put pressure on “Israel” so that the money can reach us. I told him, ‘Abu Mazen, behave like we did in Lebanon. It is shameful to beg for our salaries. We have to attack them by force. If you acted like Lebanon, you will not be here right now.’

You have always said that the the crisis in Syria will conclude with a victory. How do you describe the situation seven years after the crisis started?

Syria triumphed. The losers including the Zionists and the Arabs are coveting a winning card. That is why they are pressing in the last quarter. But they will not triumph. The crisis will soon be over and with it the conspiring mentality in Lebanon will end.

A final word

How lucky we are that we have lived in the time of the resistance and the men who sacrificed themselves for the homeland.

Source: Al-Ahed

Related Articles

Consequence of U.S. occupation-‘Unprecedented’ surge in cheap, high-purity heroin expected from Afghanistan, UN warns

Source

Poppy fields in Helmand Province. In 2000 the ruling Taliban outlawed the cultivation of poppies. By June 2001 Afghanistan's drug production had all but ended. Western forces invaded the country in November and the drug trade was quickly re-established. Was this the REAL reason for the U.S. led invasion? Click to enlarge

Poppy fields in Helmand Province. Click to enlarge

Although the following Telegraph article doesn’t say as much, drugs were the real reason for the West’s “intervention” in Afghanistan
Over the past 17-years and despite the ongoing conflict drugs production has surged to record levels in Afghanistan.
In July 2000 it was reported that the Taliban had banned the cultivation of poppies for opiates, claiming it was “un-Islamic”. By May 2001 that ban had all but put an end the country’s drug trade. In one growing season alone the country’s drug production ground to a virtual halt.
Five months later New York was rocked by the World Trade Center attacks, however. Following Sept 11 it was reported that the alleged mastermind behind the attacks, bin Laden, was hiding somewhere in Afghanistan.
Weeks later a U.S. led invasion was underway and although bin Laden was never located in Afghanistan the country’s drugs trade was quickly restored.
Of course this is all now history but it is vital to understanding what has happened in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was not the reason for the U.S. led invasion. Like claims that he was the mastermind behind 9/11, that was just a smokescreen. The restoration of the country’s drugs trade was the real reason and that’s why the U.S. and its coalition allies are likely to remain in the country. Ed.

‘Unprecedented’ surge in cheap, high-purity heroin expected from Afghanistan, UN warns

Ben Farmer — Telegraph.co.uk May 23, 2018

An unprecedented surge of high quality and low-cost Afghan heroin is bound for the world’s streets after the country’s opium crop jumped two thirds to record levels, the United Nations has warned.

Afghanistan’s farmers grew more than 1,250 square miles of opium poppy last year, paving the way for potentially unseen levels of heroin production.

The bumper crop has the potential to make up to 900 tonnes of high purity, export quality heroin the UN’s Office on Drugs and Crime said.

Afghan opium already provides more than 90 percent of the world’s heroin and 95 percent of that found on Britain’s streets.

The trade also finances militant groups such as the Taliban, forcing the UK to spend tens of millions in the past 15 years trying to destroy poppy crops.

But production in Helmand province alone, the capital of opium growing where Britain spent eight years trying to wean Afghans off the crop, has risen by 79 percent in a single year.

“With the record high of production in 2017, a wave of high quality, low-cost heroin is expected to reach consumer markets across the world,” the UN warned.

It said “unprecedented amounts of heroin” will reach drug users “with increased consumption and related harms as a likely consequence.”

Poor security and the Kabul government’s lack of control in swathes of the country were blamed for the burgeoning trade.

Opium now dwarfs all other sectors of the Afghan economy, despite a 17-year-long international aid campaign to try to rebuild the country after the Taliban regime was toppled in 2001.

The crop was worth up to £5bn, or nearly a third of the country’s entire GDP, while legal exports are worth only around seven percent. Many billions more are made further down the drugs pipeline, as it is smuggled across the Middle East into Europe.

Impoverished farmers are now increasingly reliant on the crop, and it is now the backbone of Afghan agriculture, making efforts to curb the trade harder.

The UN said: “The 2017 record levels of cultivation and production further show the dependency of Afghanistan’s rural economy on opium cultivation.”

Britain has scaled back in recent years on aid efforts designed to encourage farmers to grow crops other than opium, but the National Crime Agency works with Afghan police to try to catch traffickers or seize their wealth.

A Government spokesman said: “The UK supports the investigation and prosecution of narcotics trafficking and associated money laundering. However, this is only one strand of activity required to deliver a sustainable reduction in the opiate threat emanating from Afghanistan.”

Source

Letter from Iran: Mr. Trump, you have been served

South front

May 19, 2018

by Pepe Escobar (cross-posted with the Asia Times by special agreement with the author)Letter from Iran: Mr. Trump, you have been served

Top officials, including former CIA officers, Pentagon officials, US Army officers and former diplomats demand explanation of Israeli actions

By Pepe Escobar May 19, 2018 11:57 AM (UTC+8)

In a letter addressed to President Donald Trump, with copies to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Security Council, four top former officials at the highest level of the US government have given him legal notice about his duty to advise the US Congress, the ICC and the UNSC, among others, about Israel’s actions coinciding with the “70th anniversary of the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians from their homes.”

The letter is signed, among others, by former CIA operations officer Phil Giraldi; former Pentagon official Michael Maloof; former US Army officer and State Department coordinator for counterterrorism contractor Scott Bennett; and former diplomat and author of Visas For al-Qaeda: CIA Handouts That Rocked The World, Michael Springmann.

Maloof, Bennett and Giraldi, as well as Springmann and this correspondent, were among guests at the 6thInternational New Horizon conference in the holy city of Mashhad, eastern Iran. The top themes of the conference’s debates were Palestine and the Trump administration’s unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

As Maloof and Bennett separately confirmed to Asia Times, the letter was written by Giraldi and Maloof at an airport lounge as they were waiting for a flight from Mashhad to Tehran, where it was presented at a press conference this past Tuesday. This correspondent was on a reporting trip in Karaj. We all reunited on Thursday at Mashhad’s airport. The press conference in Tehran was virtually ignored by US corporate media.

Visas for the visiting Americans were an extremely delicate matter debated at the highest levels of the Iranian government between the Foreign Ministry and the intelligence services. In the end, the visitors, under intense scrutiny by Iranian media, ended up finding a huge, eager audience all across Iran.

A new psyops in the making

The letter signatories make a direct connection about Israeli actions that may trigger “and escalate American military actions against Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Russia since these nations are opposed to the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem; and rising tensions already exacerbated by the US withdrawal from the JCPOA.”

President Trump is also served legal notice that the letter “will be included as evidence in all matters relating to the US Embassy move to Jerusalem/Al Quds and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The letter is to be listed as “exhibit 1 in any war crimes investigation and prosecution (past, present, future) relating to this matter, at all times.”

As Bennett told Asia Times, the main concern is that according to his military sources the current, volatile situation may establish the preconditions for “a new psyops campaign.”

Trump has been served legal notice – pursuant to 18 US Code 4, and 28 US Code 1361 – of “national and international legal violations.” The letter also doubles as “a legal notice to the American people” – and is established as legal protection “against any retaliation, detainment, investigation, sequestration, interrogation, discrimination, imprisonment, torture, financial consequences, or any other negative or prejudicial consequences or actions.”

Moreover, “any action taken against the undersigned will be interpreted as a violation of the following; 18 USC 242 (conspiracy to deny/violate constitutional civil rights); 42 USC 1983, 1984, 1985 (civil action for rights violations); 18 US 2339A (providing material support to terrorists).

The letter may also be interpreted as an olive branch; apart from requesting full whistleblower protection, the signatories offer themselves to fully debrief the President as well as Congress.

The letter is copied to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani.

There has been no White House response so far.

Considering the US embassy transfer to Jerusalem; the unilateral abrogation of the JCPOA followed by a declaration of economic war against Iran; the new narrative on the DPRK — as in there’s only our deal, or you will be destroyed like Libya; not to mention the treatment of whistleblower Julian Assange, the prospects for a fruitful dialogue remain bleak.

%d bloggers like this: