Documentary Reveals How israel Convinces Americans: “Palestine Occupies israel”

Documentary Reveals How Israel Convinces Americans: “Palestine Occupies Israel”

Israel_Palestine_Flag

In this episode of ‘Behind the Headline,’ host Mint Press Mnar Muhawesh meets Sut Jhally, an expert on media manipulation and propaganda. In the film ‘The Occupation of the American Mind,’ Jhally and others examine how high-paid spin doctors control the media message on Israel.

Following the Holocaust, the world community — led by the United States and Britain — sought to create a European Jewish-only state.

This humanitarian move, though, utterly failed in respecting the humanity of the land’s indigenous inhabitants — Christian and Muslim Palestinians.

Starting in December of 1947, their land and property was seized and destroyed to make way for the state of Israel, where white only European Jews would live . Over 750,000 Palestinians were expelled and over 10,000 were killed by the British and US armed Zionist militias, and later Israeli forces, during the Nakba, an Arabic word meaning “catastrophe.”

Those expelled by the Nakba and their Palestinian descendants who make up the world’s largest refugee population in the world are not allowed to return to their land.

Yet a recent poll found that nearly half of Americans believe Palestine occupies Israel — not the other way around. That’s because the mainstream, corporate-owned media continues to spin a propaganda wheel that dehumanizes Palestinians and paints Israel as a beacon of democracy.

Figure 1: IRmep Google Consumer Research polls

Meanwhile, special interest groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, buy their way into the hearts and minds of our elected officials. Ever wonder why Israel gets $3 billion in annual military funding from Uncle Sam? Connect the dots from the campaign contributions to the spending bills.

There’s a lot riding on our relationship with Israel: Apart from serving as a proxy for U.S. relations in the Middle East and Africa, Israel is America’s second-top destination for arms exports. Yep — the country’s that’s no bigger than the state of New Jersey is basically a black check for the military-industrial complex.

But not all Americans are on board with the notion of Israel as the victim of Palestinian oppression.

Another study showed that 62 percent of the population now believes Israel gets too much foreign aid, and theBoycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement has made waves across the world, imposing a kind of sanction against Israel’s economy by targeting Israeli products.

A new documentary, “The Occupation of the American Mind,” brings attention to how Israel’s public relations campaign has successfully manipulated the narrative of the Israel-Palestine conflict — in that, it’s not a conflict at all but a matter of modern-day colonialism, ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

Today I’m joined by Sut Jhally, executive producer of “The Occupation of the American Mind” and a professor of communication at the University of Massachusetts. The film was produced, written and directed by Loretta Alper and Jeremy Earp.

I asked Jhally to explain how Americans are being kept in the dark about Palestine, and how that prevents a mass movement against Israeli apartheid from forming in the U.S.

Learn more about the US war in Afghanistan fueling  the worldwide heroin crisis, and Israel’s occupation of American minds:

Mnar Muhawesh is founder, CEO and editor in chief of MintPress News, and is also a regular speaker on responsible journalism, sexism, neoconservativism within the media and journalism start-ups. In 2009, Muhawesh also became the first American woman to wear the hijab to anchor/report the news in American media. Muhawesh is also a wife and mother of a rascal four year old boy, juggling her duties as a CEO and motherly tasks successfully as supermom. Follow Mnar on Twitter at @mnarmuh 

israel threatening another bout of genocide in Lebanon

Ten Years After Last Lebanon War, Israel Warns Next One Will Be Far Worse

When Israeli army commanders describe how the next war against Hezbollah could unfold, they often search for words not used in military manuals. The future conflict, they warn, will be “ferocious” and “terrible.”

For both sides, the Israelis fear.

Yet far worse for Hezbollah and the civilians of Lebanon, they promise.

Ten years after Israel and Hezbollah fought a bloody but inconclusive 34-day war that left more than 1,000 soldiers and civilians dead in July and August of 2006, the Lebanese Shiite militant group has been transformed.

Hezbollah is now a regional military power, a cross-border strike force, with thousands of soldiers hardened by four years of fighting on Syrian battlefields on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad. There are 7,000 Hezbollah fighters in Syria, Israeli commanders say.

Hezbollah troops have been schooled by Iranian commanders, funded by Tehran and have learned to use, in combat, some of the most sophisticated armaments available, such as fourth-generation Kornet guided anti-tank missiles. They pilot unmanned aircraft and fight alongside artillery and tanks. They have taken rebel-held villages with Russian air support.

More than 1,000 Hezbollah fighters have died, the Israelis say; they do not describe Hezbollah as “demoralized” but “tested.”

“In 2006, Hezbollah fought a guerrilla war. Today, Hezbollah is like a conventional army,” said Elias Hanna, a retired Lebanese army general who teaches at the American University of Beirut.

Israel fought the first Lebanon war in 1982 against the Palestine Liberation Organization, a conflict that saw Israel occupy southern Lebanon and lay siege to Beirut. Hezbollah arose during that war. The second Lebanon war broke out in July 2006 after Hezbollah abducted a pair of Israeli soldiers on the border.

Ten years ago, Hezbollah fired 4,000 short-range, relatively crude rockets at Israel, about 100 a day, killing some 50 Israeli civilians. Today, the group has 100,000 rockets, including thousands of more accurate mid-range weapons with larger warheads capable of striking anywhere in Israel, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, according to Israeli army commanders and military analysts in Israel and Lebanon

Hezbollah poses a far greater threat to Israel than it did 10 years ago. The challenges posed by Islamist militant movement Hamas in the Gaza Strip are almost trivial by comparison, Israeli senior commanders say.

Earlier this year, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot called Hezbollah Israel’s “main enemy” now that Iran’s nuclear ambitions may have been delayed by a decade or more.

Whether Hezbollah’s arsenal of rockets and the overwhelming retaliatory response promised by Israel serves as a dual deterrent is one of those questions that can never be answered — but probably keeps commanders on both sides awake at night.

In Israel’s far north, Misgav Am kibbutz sits on a hilltop above the Lebanon border. There is a popular overlook. There is a gift shop for the tour buses.

On a sunny morning, an Israeli army colonel stood on the hill and pointed toward Lebanese villages at his feet.

You see villas, red tile roofs, summer homes. You don’t see soldiers in uniforms. They don’t wear uniforms. It looks nice and peaceful, right?” said the commander of a paratrooper reserve brigade, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is serving on active duty on the Lebanon border.

“I see rocket rooms, weapons caches, underground compounds,” he said. “I can pinpoint to you, below, a house with washing on the line that is a Hezbollah outpost.”

Israeli military leaders say Hezbollah has spent the past decade transforming hundreds of villages in southern Lebanon into covert fire bases with hidden launch pads, many rigged to operate by remote.

In briefings with reporters in Tel Aviv, Israeli military intelligence officers in the past year have begun to show aerial photographs of villages in Hezbollah’s southern stronghold.

A photograph of Muhaybib, a town south of here, is covered with red squares marking the placement of what the Israelis say are command posts, anti-tank positions, tunnels and launch pads. Israel says there are 90 buildings in the village of 1,100 people and that 35 buildings are being used by Hezbollah.

The message is implicit: This is a target list.

The Israeli commanders in Tel Aviv and here on the Lebanon border may be issuing propaganda as a warning to Hezbollah. Both sides do talk to each other through the media, yet there is broad agreement in Washington, Jerusalem and Beirut that another Lebanon war could be devastating, especially for civilians.

“Hezbollah is not a group or a organization or a movement. It’s an army. A big terrorist army,” said the paratrooper commander, who is a veteran of the 2006 Lebanon war. “We understand that people here find themselves in the middle. The next war will be a terrible war. I think they understand, too, that the next war will be different.”

Speaking publicly, the Israeli generals promise that if Hezbollah launches mass strikes against Israeli cities, Israel will be compelled to respond, similarly, with 10 times as much force. The commanders say they cannot allow Israeli cities to face 1,000 Hezbollah rockets a day.

Historians say the 2006 war came as a surprise for both sides. Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers at the border, which sparked a sustained aerial and ground war by Israeli forces — and tough resistance by Hezbollah.

Both claimed victory, but neither won. In Israel, the 2006 Lebanon war is widely viewed by Israelis as a military failure. Hezbollah boasted that it had stood toe-to-toe with the most powerful army in the Middle East, but the widespread destruction and civilian deaths were unpopular.

As the 10-year anniversary approached, both Hezbollah and Israel stressed that they do not want another war — even as both declared themselves ready for one.

“Israel knows Hezbollah has missiles and rockets that can strike anywhere in its territory,” the group’s leader, Hasan Nasrallah, said in a speech delivered by video in February.

Nasrallah warned that Hezbollah rockets could strike ammonia plants at the port in Haifa in any future fight, saying that the damage would be equivalent to an atomic bomb and could lead to the deaths of 800,000 people.

“Haifa is just one of many examples,” Nasrallah said. “The leaders of Israel understand that the resistance has the ability to cover the entirety of occupied Palestine with missiles. We must keep this capability because it acts as a deterrent for the third Lebanon war.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday said, “If the quiet is kept, those facing us will enjoy quiet.” Then he warned that Hezbollah aggression would be met by “an iron fist.”

Today, Hezbollah has lost some of its previous luster because of its decision to fight for Assad in a war that became deeply sectarian, Shiite against Sunni.

Going to Syria might have turned Nasrallah from “a hero to a zero” for many in the Arab world, said Sami Nader, director of the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs.

“But the Syria war also emboldened them and sharpened his military skills,” he said. “Hezbollah may be tempted to engage Israel in what it hopes is a limited war to recover their prestige.”

Simon Abu Fadel, a political analyst in Lebanon, predicts that in the event of war Hezbollah would try to inflict heavy damage on Israeli cities, power plants and airports to degrade national morale.

“In case of a new war with Israel, Hezbollah’s missiles would be painful to Israel,” he said. “However, the damage would be far less than what Israeli airstrikes could do to Hezbollah and Lebanon.”

“It is not a win-and-lose game,” Fadel said. “It is a mutual exchange of bombing and destruction.”

Suzan Haidamous in Beirut contributed to this report.

Turkey: Alleged torture & “disappearance” of Erdogan’s detainees

Amnesty: Credible Evidence Turkey Torturing Post-Coup Detainees

As Turkey continues to ratchet up their post-coup purge, with mass detentions and wholesale firings the order of the day, Amnesty International is warning that there are an alarming number of credible reports of torture and rape of detainees by the Turkish government.

Amnesty cited interviews with lawyers, doctors, and people on-duty at the detention centers. In the 9 days since the failed coup, an estimated 10,000 have been detained, some taken to actual jails but a lot of them just held in makeshift unofficial detention centers.

Lawyers reported that they saw detainees being brought in for interrogation by prosecutors with their shirts already covered in blood, reporting they’d been denied food and water for days. The detainees largely aren’t allowed access to legal counsel.

Amnesty is pushing hard for Turkey to agree to position independent monitors in those detention centers, particularly important for the makeshift ones. With Turkey’s state of emergency allowing them to detain people for any reason they want, and their withdrawal from the European Council for Human Rights, its not clear if this torture in detention isn’t simply by design.

That would also explain why discussions of the treatment of detainees are conspicuously absent in Turkey. Indeed, the reports of mass detentions that were common in the early wake of the coup have mostly disappeared from Turkish papers, replaced instead with talk of wholesale sacking of “plotters.”

Growing Fear in Turkey as Detainees Disappear in State of Emergency

It’s not a good time to be a critic of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. After years of consolidating power, and silencing public dissent, the failed coup earlier this month has allowed his government to set up a state of emergency which allows detention on any pretext, and which has many people simply disappearing into an overloaded and under-motivated court system.

People who have missing relatives, particularly relatives who were in the military, are struggling to figure out if they are in detention, and where they are being held, while questions about their ultimate fate remain totally unanswered amid calls for a return to the death penalty.

Publicly, there are shows of celebration in Turkey, and while that surely includes supporters of Erdogan glad that the military coup failed, it also includes opposition party figures trying to find space in the increasingly narrow definition of “loyal opposition” in the face of growing purges.

For many, the show of support will likely be too late, as indications are that the Turkish intelligence agencies have been drawing up “enemies lists” for years full of people not sufficiently pro-Erdogan, and it is from those lists, and not so much actual evidence of involvement in the coup, that much of the purging is originating.

 

Zionism goes from bad to worse, taking Judaism with it

Zionism goes from bad to worse, taking Judaism with it

By Lawrence Davidson | American Herald Tribune | July 24, 2016

Part I – From Bad to Worse

Zionism’s range of influence is shrinking. One can see this progression worldwide. At a popular level the Israelis have lost control of the historical storyline of Israel-Palestine. They may teach their own citizens their version of the story, the one wherein the Jews have a divine and/or historical right to all of Palestine’s territory. But beyond their fellow Zionists and the loony Christian right, no one else believes this story. Significantly, an increasing number of Jews no longer accept it either.

None of this means that the Zionists are not still influential. Yet their influence no longer has a broad popular base. It is now largely restricted to Western government circles. Of course, that is still impressive, and such lobby power does a lot of damage in the West through the corruption of elites and the perversion of state policies. We are seeing examples of this in the many stories of American police officers being trained by Israelis while (coincidently?) episodes of police brutality in the U.S. multiply.

It is to be noted, however, the Zionist ability to maintain a close connection between Western governments and Israel is now based on their ability to spread around enormous sums of money, and not on what once was popular emotional admiration for the “Israeli experiment.” In truth the Zionists are left with a narrowing base of support for a country that is increasingly seen as, at best, inhumane and racist and, at worst, ruthless and criminal.

Zionism’s internal reaction to the loss of popular support is to defensively circle the wagons ever more tightly and press on with transparently illegal policies of settlement expansion and oppression. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the secular-political leader of this hunker-down strategy. However, for Jews worldwide what is perhaps more alarming, and certainly as depressing, is the role played by Judaism’s religious representatives – members of Israel’s rabbinic officialdom – who keep publicly calling for, and religiously justifying, the slaughter of Palestinians. Here are some recent examples:

In early March of 2016 Israel’s chief Sephardic rabbi, Yitzhak Yosef, announced that it is “a religious imperative” to execute “Palestinian assailants” as soon as they are apprehended, despite more judicious directives given by Israel’s military high command and law courts. Yosef then managed to show himself utterly out of touch with the history of Palestinian resistance (which he incorrectly mixes up with modern terrorism) when he declared that “It deters them too. The moment a terrorist knows that if he comes with a knife he won’t return alive, that will deter them. That’s why it’s a mitzvah [a blessing] to kill him.” There is, of course, no evidence that such a policy of on-the-spot executions deters Palestinian violence.

Yosef’s call for on-the-spot executions is actually a follow-up to a statement made by his predecessor, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, in 2007. At that time Eliyahu pronounced that “there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza.”

In December 2015 Chaim Kanievsky, an important “ultra-Orthodox” Israeli rabbi, instructed the members of United Hatzalah, a West Bank settler-run ambulance service, that when confronted with a Palestinian “terrorist” who has “a life-threatening condition, they should leave him or her to die.” This pronouncement has sparked a lively debate among some Israeli rabbis, but the resulting impact on the practice on Israeli ambulance crews has been to give them an excuse to disregard their obligations under international law, and leave injured Palestinians untreated.

This attitude has long been evolving, and it has even produced the equivalent of “saintly” figures. For instance, there is the American Zionist settler Baruch Goldstein who in 1994 killed 24 Palestinian worshipers and injured another 125, at the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron. The settler community at Kiryat Arba has erected an elaborate tomb to Goldstein with an epitaph that reads, in part, that he had “clean hands and a pure heart.” The tomb remains today a site of pilgrimage for Zionists of genocidal inclination.

All those Zionists who justify the murder of Palestinians lawfully resisting unlawful occupation are themselves in violation of international law. Those who rationalize this behavior by evoking violent and wrathful biblical images go further and put themselves in the same category as al-Qaeda and ISIS fanatics.

Part II – An Existential Dilemma

Zionism did not start out advocating slaughter. The original Zionist preference for the disposal of the Palestinians was “transfer” –  the removal by force or economic inducement of the Palestinians from conquered Israeli territory into the surrounding Arab lands. This scheme, in its forceful guise, was put into effect during the 1948 and 1967 wars. This certainly cleared out some of the indigenous population, but by no means everyone: there are today some 6 million Palestinians living under Israeli control.

For most of those who have remained, policies of enforced poverty, enforced immobility and daily harassment have made life miserable. It has also encouraged continuous violent resistance among Palestinians and a corresponding growing frustration among Israeli Jews. This frustration soon began to encourage Zionists, both secular and religious, to replace the traditional notion of transfer with newer visions of slaughter.

The participation of the rabbis, who play the role of “spiritual guides” for millions of Orthodox Jews, in preaching a call to murder creates an existential dilemma for the adherents of the Jewish religion – existential because it speaks to the religion’s evolving nature. In terms of its present adherents, it places them in the same situation experienced by many Catholics and Protestants during the eras of the Crusades and Reformation wars. It was in those eras that official religious institutions and leaders espoused and religiously rationalized wholesale slaughter. Today we have created standards, supported by international law, that render such repulsive behavior illegal. But the Zionist leadership seems not to care about such standards and laws.

There are certainly those among today’s Jewry who understand the watershed nature of this turn of events. In August 2014 the American rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazinecalled on his fellow Jews to “mourn for the Judaism of love and generosity that is being murdered by Israel and its worshipers around the world, the same kind of idol-worshipers who, pretending to be Jewish [are] actually assimilated into the world of power.” The organization of Rabbis For Human Rights attempts to ally with Palestinians so as to keep alive the notion that there are still Jewish religious leaders who understand the potentially humane essence of their religion. Organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace give an alternative for Jewish laity who want to work against [extremist] Zionist policies. In the meantime, increasing numbers of Western Jews have silently broken with Israel and the Zionist movement. They have retreated to a passive apolitical position, rendering Israel no aid. Unfortunately, Jews in active opposition to Zionism, be they rabbis or laity, while growing in number, are still insufficiently organized to challenge Zionist political influence in official circles.

Part III – Conclusion

The existential problem that now confronts Judaism is the logical consequence of the World War II era alliance made by the religion’s leadership and the secular ideology of Zionism. There are clear historical reasons why this alliance was made: a millennium of anti-Semitic persecution in the West culminating in the Nazi Holocaust; the existence of the national state as the premier model for collective self-protection; the colonial tradition that rationalized European control of non-European lands; and finally an age-old religious devotion to biblical tales of  wandering and conquering Israelite tribes.

This offers the context within which the modern Jewish religion got captured by the Zionist movement, but whatever you think of these reasons, none of them, nor all of them together, mitigate the predictable disastrous consequences, laced with racism, chauvinism, intolerance, and violence, that was bound to follow Judaism’s collaboration with Zionism. As Rabbi Lerner says, the end product of all of this sends him into mourning.

In the eyes of increasing numbers, the country of Israel is a pariah state, and the behavior of its rabbinical officialdom may have already thrown its religious establishment into similar disgrace. Those Jewish organizations that stand against the Israeli debacle are like candles burning in an otherwise political-religious darkness. Their struggle will go on. Indeed, it may never cease until Israel’s racist behavior ceases. But right now, it has become evident that it is not only the existence of the Palestinians that Zionism threatens. It also has put in danger whatever humane instincts are left within organized Judaism.


Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history from West Chester University in West Chester PA. His academic research focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in Middle East history, the history of science and modern European intellectual history.

Debunking Myths About The Crisis In Venezuela

Debunking Myths About The Crisis In Venezuela:

An Insider’s Perspective

After three years as a correspondent in Venezuela, BBC’s Daniel Pardo decided to share a look into five myths he’s identified in relation to the country’s situation, as perceived by people abroad. Those up-to-date with the news know that almost every mainstream media outlet paints a gloomy picture of famine, insecurity and censorship. But, how bad is the situation really?

1. There’s Famine

While it is true that some areas in Venezuela are experiencing food shortages, and most people (90 percent according to an Encovi poll) have declared they now eat less and worse, there is no such thing as a widespread famine.

According to U.N. criteria, a famine is defined by severe food scarcity in more than 20 percent of households, a global acute malnutrition rate above 30 percent and death rates above 0.02 percent — two deaths per 10,000 people per day. In comparison, the most pessimistic figures for Venezuela point toward 20 to 25 percent malnutrition rate and a death rate that does not even reach one person per 1 million people per day.

Related Link: The Great Beer Catastrophe: Venezuela’s Economic Crisis Has Sobering Consequences

2. Venezuela And Cuba Are The Same

Pardo cited three main arguments people are using to argue that Venezuela has “Cubanized”: long lines to purchase rationed products, a dual economy and a militarized government. And, while there is some truth in these statements, Venezuela remains a capitalist economy with a still large private sector — and presence of international brands like McDonald’s Corporation MCD 0.85% and a large list of U.S. and Spanish banks.

Moreover, Venezuelans have free access to the Internet and the media; Facebook Inc FB 0.32%, Netflix, Inc. NFLX 0.12%, Twitter Inc TWTR 0.11% and Alphabet Inc GOOG 0.56% GOOGL 0.65%’s YouTube are available for everyone, opposite to Cuba. And, of course, Venezuelans can leave the country freely, which Cubans — arguably — cannot do.

It should be noted that none of the statements above imply contempt for the Cuban way, but are just a mere differentiation between two countries.

3. A Dictatorship Is Installed In Venezuela

While there is much debate among scholars regarding how to categorize Venezuela, one thing is pretty undisputed: It is not a traditional dictatorship — living in Latin America, I can assure you a dictatorship looks nothing like that!

First off, Pardo explained, opposition exists (even though limited in its expressions, it’s there) and elections are conducted periodically — although results can be questioned.

Now, agreeing on the fact that Venezuela is not a dictatorship is not the same as talking about a full-blown democracy — although the minimum criteria are met.

4. Everyone And Their Grandma Hates President Nicolás Maduro

Again, this is a straight-out lie. Maduro, like many Latin American (and world) leaders, is a polarizing figure. People tend to either love him or hate him; no grays. In this line, 20 to 30 percent of the country’s population supports the acting president, diverse polls have shown. However, analysts have argued these numbers are rigged, in the sense that many don’t dare to criticize the government, for fear of losing of housing, food and other benefits.

One way or another, “30 percent support is more than what the presidents of Brazil, Chile or Colombia boast nowadays,” Pardo added.

Related Link: Loving Latin America ETFs

5. People Cannot Feel Safe In The Streets

While it is true that crime rates are quite high in Venezuela, people still go out, even at night, and most return home safely. However, one must keep a low profile, Pardo expounded. Showing riches or opulence are bad ideas, but this applies to almost every country in the world.

UK/USA actions in Iraq, Libya & Syria the underlying reasons for terrorism in Europe

Genocide in Iraq By Ifekhar A. Khan

Information Clearing House” – The Chilcot Inquiry, which took seven long years to publish, finally pinned the responsibility on former British prime minister Tony Blair for acting on false evidence to attack Iraq. Former deputy prime minister John Prescott, who had remained silent until the report was published, admitted in an article in the British newspaper that the war against Iraq was illegal. Too late, Mr Prescott.
Prescott admitted his guilt with which he said he would have to live for the rest of his life. When taking the high moral ground, he had better let the world know why he remained silent when Blair used his antics to fabricate evidence to pulverize a defenseless country. Moreover, the former deputy premier apologized to the families of the 179 British soldiers who lost their lives in the Iraq war.
And yet his good sense didn’t allow him condole the deaths of about a million and a half Iraqi men, women, and children killed when their country was attacked. Prescott sympathized with the aggressors and not with the innocent victims blown to pieces in their own homes.
The Chilcot inquiry incriminated Blair for acting on false evidence that Iraq had ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and posed a real threat to Europe and world peace. And that Iraq had acquired the capability to deploy WMDs within minutes. Here’s the fine catch: acting on false evidence to destroy a sovereign country is one thing and fabricating false evidence with mala fide intent to destroy it is another. While the first possibility, even though remote, could be considered a misperception, the second was premeditated genocide.
Tony Blair, a high-wire performer, shuttled between countries to garner support for his sinister agenda. Justice demands that not only Blair, but also Jack Straw, his conniving foreign secretary at the time, be tried for war crimes. Similarly, across the ocean, G W Bush and his square-jawed defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, should face the International Court of Justice for their crimes against humanity.
Whatever the Chilcot report revealed was no news to the world. To an extent, however, the British public deserves credit for exerting moral pressure on its government to conduct an inquiry into Blair’s war crimes, while bulk of the American intelligentsia and public at large remained manifestly unaware of, and disinterested in the war in Iraq and its consequences.
Now the Washington Post has commented that anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe is on the rise because the people in European countries think Muslims, especially the refugees, are involved in terrorist activities. Why peaceful citizens turn refugees? Did hundreds of thousands of Syrian men, women, and children leave their homeland at their own will or they were forced to leave to save their lives because of the US policy in Syria?
On the contrary, large populations in the Muslim world think that imperial powers invade them to change their regimes, divide their territories, and plunder their resources. Leave aside Iraq, consider Libya. Libya would not have been attacked nor Moammar Qaddafi murdered and sodomised if the African state had no oil. Of course, Hillary Clinton wouldn’t have said on Qaddafi’s murder, “We came, we saw, and he died.”
Clinton happens to be the US establishment’s favorite candidate in the coming US elections. She reminds one of another former US secretary of state – Madeleine Albright. During a TV show when a commentator questioned Albright about the death of half a million Iraqi children because of sanctions against medical supplies to Iraq and if the price was right? She said, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” What a coldblooded calculus.
Clinton and Albright seem to have much in common. Both had remained secretaries of state and both didn’t mind spilling blood as long as it was Muslim blood. Clinton took sadistic pleasure in Qaddafi’s murder and Albright thought ‘the price was worth it’ when half a million Iraqi children perished as result of sanctions on supply of medicines.
Is it a coincidence that only Muslim countries have witnessed a bloodbath in the last decade and half? Is it also a coincidence that the US and the UK have been the major players in all wars in the Muslim world? When apportioning blame on these powers, the Muslim countries in the region – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, cannot escape from much of it. While Saudi and Qatari Sheikhdoms are responsible for financing wars against other Muslim countries, Turkey is equally responsible for acting as a conduit to these wars.
Saudi royals must understand that they have badly tarnished their image in the Muslim world by pushing their nefarious agenda to topple Bashar al-Assad. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed and many more forced to flee their homeland. Instead of pursuing divisive policies based on sectarianism among the Muslim nations, the house of Saud had better follow the old dictum: live and let live.

Syrian War Report – July 21 and 22, 2016

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,391 other followers

%d bloggers like this: