A US probe into the killing of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh that seeks to give the Zionist occupation forces a clean chit for the murder, unlike other independent investigations, has drawn wide condemnation from human rights advocates, including the Hebrew leading human rights group B’Tselem, as well as Palestinian officials.
Abu Akleh, a veteran reporter for the Qatar-based Al Jazeera network, was assassinated in cold blood by ‘Israeli’ occupation forces in May while covering their raid at the Jenin refugee camp in the occupied West Bank.
Her tragic death sent shockwaves across the region, drawing widespread condemnation and outrage against the occupying regime.
The US State Department on Monday claimed that the US Security Coordinator [USSC] had concluded that Abu Akleh was likely killed by “unintentional” gunfire from ‘Israeli’ positions, but said the independent investigators could not make a “definitive conclusion” on the origin of the bullet that struck her.
B’Tselem denounced the US probe as a “US-backed ‘Israeli’ whitewash.”
“All investigations published so far conclude that ‘Israel’ is responsible for the killing of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh,” the group said in a tweet on Monday.
The previous findings by the Associated Press, CNN, New York Times, and Washington Post, as well as the office of the UN human rights chief, have established the fact that the veteran scribe was murdered by ‘Israeli’ troops.
Abu Akleh’s family has expressed its disappointment over the conclusions of the US investigation, but vowed to keep fighting for justice.
“With respect to today’s announcement by the State Department — on July 4, no less — that a test of the spent round that killed Shireen Abu Akleh, an American citizen, was inconclusive as to the origin of the gun that fired it, we are incredulous,” the family said in a statement on Monday.
“To say that this investigation, with its total lack of transparency, undefined goals, and support for ‘Israel’s’ overall position is a disappointment would be an understatement,” the statement read.
The findings of the US probe come as the Zionist military said that ‘Israeli’ experts rather than American ones examined the bullet extracted from Abu Akleh that was handed over by Palestinian officials to US officials.
US “representatives were present throughout the entire process,” the Zionist military claimed.
Palestinian officials maintain that the Zionist regime cannot be trusted to conduct a fair and transparent probe into the killing.
Related Videos
Angry Palestinian responses to the US State Department’s statements regarding the murder of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh
The Palestinian Resistance factions announced on Saturday launching a national campaign and a popular conference in face of the UK decision to label Hamas Movement as a terrorist group.
After holding a meeting in Gaza Strip, the Palestinian factions considered that the UK decision targets all the Palestinians and represents an extension of Britain’s colonial policy.
The Palestinian factions called on the UK authorities to undo their decision, urging the Arab League to reject it.
Member of Islamic Jihad politburo, Mohammad al-Hindi, described the UK decision as unjust and adding that it reflects grudge against all the Palestinians and their resistance.
Meanwhile, Yemen’s Ansarullah movement firmly denounced the UK decision decision against Hamas, voicing support to all the Palestinians and their resistance factions.
Speech of Hezbollah’s Secretary General His Eminence Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah tackling a range of political developments on the occasion of the birth anniversary of Prophet Muhammad [PBUH] and his grandson Imam Jaafar Sadiq [AS], and the Muslim Unity Week.
I seek refuge in Allah from the accursed Satan. In the name of Allah the Most Gracious the Merciful. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and prayers and peace be upon our Master and Prophet, the Seal of Prophets, Abi al-Qassem Muhammad Bin Abdullah and his good and pure household and his good and chosen companions and all the prophets and messengers.
May the peace, mercy, and blessings of God be upon you all.
In the coming days, God willing, we will welcome a very dear, precious, and great occasion, which is the anniversary of the birth of the Greatest Messenger of God, the Seal of the Prophets, and the Master of Messengers, Muhammad bin Abdullah [PBUH]. I congratulate all Muslims in the world and all Lebanese on this great and solemn occasion in advance. God willing, on this occasion, we will hold a proper and appropriate celebration in a few days, and therefore, I will leave talking about the celebrant and the occasion itself until then.
With regard to the topics, I divided them into two part. One part I will talk about today, and the second I will talk about it, God willing, during that celebration.
I will begin with tonight’s topics. I will speak about the first topic as briefly as possible, appropriate, and unobtrusive.
1- The elections:
The country today is busy preparing for the electoral law, the dates of the elections, the administrative procedures related to the elections, and the natural prelude to entering the stage of the electoral atmosphere as well as having the elections on time.
Regarding the elections, I want to emphasize several points:
i- Holding the elections on time
We have already talked about this and emphasized it on more than one occasion. In any case, there still remain those who try to spread confusion by blaming a certain party, including us sometimes, of planning to extend and postpone the elections, etc. This is all baseless talk. We affirm, insist, and call for the elections to be held on time within the constitutional deadline. To be fair and according to our follow-up with all the parliamentary blocs, parties, and political forces, we believe that no one – so as not to make baseless accusations like some opponents do – whether implicitly or openly is planning or preparing to push matters towards the postponement of the parliamentary elections and the extension of the current Parliament. Therefore, let us put this issue behind us and let everyone engage in holding the parliamentary elections on time, and we are certainly one of those.
ii- The expatriate vote
We agreed to the current law, which was voted on in 2018 and followed in the 2018 elections, as a result of the discussions, and in all sincerity, taking our allies into account. We agreed to a number of things in that law. In the joint parliamentary committees, whether formally or informally, a discussion took place some time ago, and some parliamentary blocs asked to reconsider or demanded a reconsideration. Some of our deputies expressed a position based on an existing reality. This same discussion existed in 2018 and became more intense at the time than it was in the past. This issue was the expatriate vote.
Today, when we want to prepare electoral campaigns or for people who want to run for office or be elected, there is no equal opportunity, whether in conducting electoral campaigns, in candidacy, or even by going to the polls to exercise free elections, specifically with Hezbollah. There will be other political forces whose situation may be less sensitive, but Hezbollah’s situation abroad, in some European countries, in North America, in the Gulf, and some other Arab countries is known. There is no possibility for preparing an electoral campaign, candidacy, or elections. In fact, this is a point of appeal, and we had mentioned to our allies that with regard to Hezbollah, we would not submit an appeal.
But someone can file an appeal regarding the elections in terms of unequal opportunities. The brothers raised the issue from this angle, and an atmosphere emerged in the country that there were those who wanted to prevent the expatriates from voting. Extensive debates were held over this and there was no problem. We discussed the issue once again and came up with the following conclusion. It was expressed by our deputies at the last meeting of the joint committees. But I’d like to mention it here to close discussions on it.
We, once again, discussed and evaluated it. This is what we had to say. Regardless of how many countries in which expatriates or residents will take part in the parliamentary elections – they usually participate in presidential elections – and if there are countries that participate in parliamentary elections, this may be present and perhaps their number may be few, but in any case, as long as the injustice befalls specifically us, we do not have a problem.
This means that we, Hezbollah specifically, will be oppressed. We will not be allowed abroad or have the right to campaign, announce candidacy, or the freedom to vote. This even applies to our supporters. But as long as the injustice pertains to us and there is a national interest and it allows the Lebanese residing outside Lebanese to feel that they are partners and bear responsibility, we have no problem with that. We will overlook this observation, and that is why our brothers amended and said that we support the principle of expatriate voting, in principle. We divided the issue.
Now, there is a detail that whether the expatriates or those residing outside the Lebanese territories will vote according to the constituencies in Lebanon or elect the six representatives that are said to be allocated for the elections abroad. If they are going to vote according to the constituencies in Lebanese, we have no problem with that. And if voting on the six representatives will be confirmed, we are open to discussions when it’ll be discussed in Parliament. However, if the topic is not discussed, there is a law. So, work according to the law. Hence, we consider this matter closed.
And we hope, God willing, from our brothers, our expatriates and people residing outside the Lebanese territories to register and take part in the elections. They are welcome, and we hope that they will have the real opportunity to frankly express their opinion.
iii- Voting at the age of 18
With regard to the issue of [voting at] the age of 18, I honestly tell all the Lebanese people and young people between the age of 18 and 21 that this matter is only raised to be used locally. It is always raised at a time close to deadlines, and time does not help. Although it was brought up at a time way ahead of deadlines, something strange happened. Since 1992 when we first took part in the parliamentary elections, we’ve been known to have strongly supported giving young people at the age of 18 the right to vote.
Whenever you talk with political forces, you find that everyone is in favor. Yet, you go to the Parliament and it gets dropped. There is something strange in this country. We not only raised this in our speeches, slogans, and political and electoral programs, but we also seriously worked and fought hard for it. In March 2009, the Loyalty to the Resistance bloc proposed a constitutional amendment law to reduce the voting age to 18 since this needs a constitutional amendment. In March 2009, it was voted unanimously. This was before the 2009 elections. The constitutional amendment needs two-thirds of the members of the parliament. The government also voted unanimously on this proposal. It was returned to the parliament after the parliamentary elections in the February 2010 session. The session was attended by more than 100 deputies, out of which only 34 deputies voted on the project, mainly the Amal Movement, Hezbollah, and some other blocs. The rest of the blocs abstained, and it fell through. There is really something strange about this country.
If you now make an opinion poll for the parliamentary blocs and the political forces, they all tell you: yes, this is their natural right, and they must elect, etc. Of course, I heard a strange two days ago saying that young people need to be prepared and educated. What is this talk!
In Lebanese, children as young as five or six years old talk politics! You are talking about 18-year-olds. These need educating, preparation, school programs!!! What is this nonsense?!
Anyway, we once again call, the expatriates have the right to vote. All people should demand this right and respect it. If they are wronged somewhere like us, let us go beyond this oppression. With regard to the issue of voting at the age of 18, there is no injustice to anyone. If this right is not given, this is injustice to all Lebanese youth who are being deprived of the right to participate in the parliamentary elections only for purely partisan and personal reasons, not for national or real reasons..
iv- The MegaCenter
Also, related to the elections is the MegaCenter. We have no problem so that no one later says that Hezbollah is preventing this from happening. From now, we do not have a problem. You want to adopt the megacenter, go ahead. You don’t want the megacenter, also go ahead. You want to adopt the magnetic card, we don’t mind. Whether the Ministry of the Interior wants to adopt it or not, let it go ahead. What do you want us to vote with? The identification card? We’ll use it to vote. An excerpt of the civil registry? We’ll use it to vote. We’ll use whatever you want. We do not have a problem. Just hold the elections on time and don’t come up with excuses for not holding the elections on their constitutional dates. The rest of the matters related to the elections, nominations, alliances, the electoral program, and reading the electoral scene will be discussed at their right time, God willing.
2- The electricity file:
In fact, I should have started talking about this file, but I deliberately did not start with it because this file contains some annoyance. Hence, I opted to start with the elections.
In the past few days, they told the Lebanese that fuel has run out, the factories will stop working, and the country will go into complete darkness. Save us. What should we do? Now, they’ve found a temporary solution. They found some with the Lebanese army, and the army instructed to take advantage of what it has to overcome this stage. Of course, We thank the leadership of the Lebanese army for this kind humanitarian step.
But the question remains: Today, this issue should be an absolute priority for the current government. Basically, when the cry came out, it was necessary – this is our personal suggestion – that the government hold an extraordinary session, not a two- or three-hour session, but one that remains from dawn to dusk to find a solution. What does it mean that the country has entered complete darkness? This does not only mean that the country is in complete darkness because of power outage, the country is in a state of clinical death because here we are talking about hospitals, cooperatives, everything having no electricity. Despite this, what has been happening in the country? Instead of calling for a serious, radical, and real treatment, as usual, the Lebanese blamed each other for being responsible, insulted and cursed each other, and insulted one another. All of this does not bring electricity.
Eventually, responsibilities must be determined. But usually in the prevailing Lebanese way, people enter the labyrinth, with more grudges, insults, and swearing emerge. And you’ve seen social media in the past two days.
Since the government holds its session every Wednesday, the priority on the table must be the issue of electricity. What I want to call for tonight is for you to see what you want to do regarding electricity. Find a solution or put the country on the path to a solution, not that pump it with painkillers, i.e., take an advance from the central bank and buy fuel with it for power plants to generate electricity for a few hours. Does this solve the problem? How many days and weeks will this last? The issue needs a radical solution. There are contracts that exist. Make up your mind, say yes or no, but address the issue in any way.
Today, a sum of money was sent to the Lebanese government – the Lebanese state. One billion and one hundred million dollars is in the hands of the Lebanese government. If we want to speak as a matter of absolute priority, take advantage of this amount or part of it and primarily and radically address the issue of electricity – building new power plants, addressing the problem of existing plants. The matter is in your hands. There are many offers from various countries in the world, from the East and the West. You do not want from the East, from the West, then, unless there is an American veto.
If the Americans are forbidding you, tell the Lebanese people frankly: O Lebanese people, we are terrified and unable to bring in European companies because the Americans will be angry with us and have forbidden us from doing so.
In this way the people will express their opinions – whether or not they’d like to live in darkness and in humiliation with no electricity, as the Lebanese used to live in humiliation with the lack of gasoline and diesel. We’ll act depending on the outcome. I know, for example, in Iraq – this is a common and well-known thing there – that the Iraqis have an electricity problem. When they tried to reach an understanding with some European countries, the Americans intervened forcefully and prevented them. So, is there a veto here in Lebanon, an American veto preventing that?
As for the Iranians, there was an old offer. Today, there is a new offer. Two days ago, when His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran was in Beirut, he reconfirmed that we are ready to build two plants and provide a certain, large, and respectable quantity. Respond to him.
Ask for an exception since America is your friend. To us, they are our enemy, and we expect anything from our enemies. But they are your friends and allies. You trust them and consider them moral and humanitarian who possess human values and law. Ask them for an exception.
Iraq got an exception. Afghanistan under the rule of the Ghani government had an exception – it used to import many things from Iran. Other neighboring countries have exceptions. You ask for an exception. I learned a rather funny thing that was in fact published in the media – when one Lebanese official was by told by the Iranian foreign minister to ask for an exception as the other countries, the official replied to him, saying: I hope you will ask for the exception. It’s a very funny thing. Imagine a Lebanese official telling the Iranians who have enmity with the Americans to do so. There is an ongoing war between them and the Americans, and I him: you ask the Americans for an exception so that you can build us, for example, power plants, or so you can sell us fuel for the power plants, or so you can sell us gasoline or diesel. What a way of taking responsibility?
Anyway, regarding this issue along with all the people, we will raise the voice. The government, the President of the Republic, and the Prime Minister must determine the agenda. But we are among the people who have the right to demand that electricity be at the top of the agenda, or they should allocate an emergency and urgent special session and work for a real radical treatment for this issue. If the issue remains a matter of throwing accusations and scoring points and who disrupted, we will get nowhere.
Hezbollah or others may have raised this suspicion in the past. For the first time, I would like to raise a suspicion. I’m one of those people who has a feeling that somewhere there might be a certain game. Let me say how. It’s the same with what happened gasoline, diesel, and food stuff. The state knows that at some point it will have to lift the subsidies. Everyone tells you that there is no solution except the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF will ask for the subsidies to be lifted, and no one dares to take the responsibility of lifting the subsidy.
They’ll let the people fight, race to cooperatives, and queue at gas stations for petrol, diesel, etc. After a month, two, or three, they’ll start shooting each other, cursing one another, and wielding knives at each other. Then, they will call for the subsidies to be lifted just to be saved and accept the fact that the price of gasoline is 500,000LBP.
If the subsidies are lifted, the problem of the humiliating queues will be solved. Therefore, if you notice and you can go back to the media when we saw the humiliating queues, the voices called for the subsidies to be lifted. This action was serving this. Whether this was intentional and planned or not needs to be verified.
When talking about the subject of electricity, privatization and selling some state assets and some public sectors, including the electricity sector, are always mentioned. The electricity sector is always being eyed for privatization.
There is a fear I would like to raise today. I do not want to accuse anyone. It is very unclear to me, to be honest, that somewhere – within the government or outside it or whether they belong to the opposition or not – they want the electricity sector in Lebanon to collapse. Then, the state would be helpless and unable to solve the problem. Hence, there would be no solution except through privatization. Then, the Lebanese people would not want to live in darkness, so they’d demand to solve this problem with privatization. This is the real fear. We must pay attention to this subject.
From this subject, I will delve into the third point which is related to diesel, gasoline, and the like. I once again make appeal to the various political forces and leaders in Lebanon – brothers, go and check with your allies and friends. I repeat and say that whatever we are capable of doing with our allies and friends, we will do. What can Iran do more than this? They are already telling you that they are prepared to sell you gasoline, diesel, and fuel and build power plants and metro stations. They want to cooperate with you and offer you facilities. This is a solution.
The Syrians told you they do not have a problem. Bring Egyptian gas and electricity from Jordan. I will offer you the facilities you want. If there is anything else, I am at your service as well. These are our allies.
As for your allies, we have not seen them do anything. You have not done anything. Talk to someone to make you an exception. Talk to someone to help the Lebanese. If your allies told you that Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese people, then exclude Hezbollah and bring help for the rest of the Lebanese areas. Act responsibly, not maliciously.
Until now, we still hear that, for example, they brought diesel from Iran. They brought it across the border into Syria, so 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. We hear it every other Sunday, etc. Here is another example of the level of responsibility in the country. A politician reached a conclusion that the power cut stated happening when diesel was brought in from Iran as the power plants broke down. You all know. It is all known. He did not know that the state’s electricity plants run on fuel, and what was brought from Iran was diesel. There is no relation between diesel, fuel, and electricity plants. In any case, this is the level that exists in the country.
This is a call for the last time. Budge a little. Move a little, and don’t be malicious. What is your main role other than criticizing, insulting, and accusing? Do something positive for your people and your country.
3- Gasoline and diesel:
I moved to the third topic, in which I will talk about what happened with us and what will happen concerning diesel and gasoline.
So far, we consider ourselves still in the first phase. Of course, a number of ships have arrived so far, and we are gradually moving them to Lebanon. We consider that the first phase will continue until the end of October. During the first phase, we did two things, and we will continue with them.
The first thing we said is that there is a group that we will gift them diesel for a month and a group that we will sell diesel to. We did not put the diesel at the stations and said, “People, please. Who wants to buy can come.” Meaning that we are doing more than the goal. We said that the goal is to secure this material for these pressing and urgent cases, and we do not want to compete or block the way for companies and stations that sell diesel. In the end, we will give to a group and the rest can buy from the stations. By doing so, we are not cutting off people’s livelihood. We adopted this approach, and we will indeed continue until the end of October as a first phase.
Within this first phase, there are two points I would like to add.
1- We had announced a gift or donation for a group for a period of one month. That period has ended. There is a quantity that has arrived and another that is on the way, and it will reach them, God willing. What I would like to announce today is that we will renew this gift. This gift is for the same group and will be for an additional month, for a second month.
I will again mention the institutions belonging to this group: government hospitals, nursing homes, orphanages, centers for people with special needs, official water institutions, water wells belonging to municipalities, provided they are a poor municipalities, and fire brigades in the Civil Defense and the Lebanese Red Cross. After the end of the first month, I announce today that we will provide the quantity they need from this material as a gift and assistance, God willing, for a second month.
2- Regarding the groups, I would like to announce that this material would also be sold to the fishermen. This addition comes following many revisions that have been made. We’ve already started and not just starting. This happened in the last period. The fishermen has been added to the segments to which this material can be sold to. The same institutions that we talked about before will remain – private hospitals, pharmaceutical laboratories, mills, bakeries, etc. We will complete the first phase by working with the same [entities] we worked with last month.
When we reach the second phase, which starts from the beginning of November, we will add heating for families. We and our brothers are studying the standards because the most important thing is to abide by the standards. During the past month, there were cases that included people not belonging to the group that this material can be sold to contacted us. These people are very dear to us and we love to be of service to them. However, we had a serious commitment to the standards and the groups. If we did not abide, it will be chaotic, and, therefore, we would not be able to serve the groups that we considered a priority.
Today, we have the issue of heating that needs to be studied, and it is a very big topic. For example, among the entities that it will be sold to are private hospitals, bakeries, mills, laboratories, etc. We considered that establishments and companies operating generators are the largest segment, and they, in fact, are the ones that need the largest amount. But when we bring in the issue of heating, there is no comparison because here you are talking about Lebanese families in areas where there is cold and frost.
This requires different controls, standards, and a distribution mechanism that we are studying. God willing, before the beginning of November, we will talk about this issue, I or one of my brothers, and it will be announced in detail. Also because of winter, we may add new entities. This, too, is being evaluated and studied – first of all because of the high demand that happened. The volume of requests in all Lebanese regions was very large. I’d say it was greater than expected, yes, greater than expected. It is very large in all areas. This is on the one hand.
On the other hand, winter season is coming, and of course, the demand for diesel will increase exponentially – we had made diesel a priority. This means that we have decided to continue with diesel being the priority. We postponed bringing gasoline. Even if we get gasoline, we will exchange it for diesel with the merchants because the priority now is to provide the fuel oil in the way that it is secure. Thank God, now, in one way or another, the queues of humiliation are over. Gasoline is available at the stations, albeit at a high price. Our main concern was to get rid of the queues of humiliation. Now, these queues are over. Gasoline is available. We do not believe now, as a result of the large file, that we should work on all the entities. We have to focus our priority on diesel, especially since we are a few weeks away from winter season.
I will conclude this whole file. We heard people say, leave the Lebanese state buy its own gasoline and diesel from Iran. We support this talk. This is our demand. Let the Lebanese government ask the Americans for an exception, while the Lebanese companies buy. We guarantee that they will get facilities from Iran to buy diesel, gasoline, and fuel from Iran, etc. At that point, we will withdraw from this file. We will leave the file completely. We will not buy, nor bring ships, nor transport to Baniyas, nor bring from Baniyas to Baalbek. We will leave the matter completely. Go ahead, take responsibility. Open this door. This only needs some courage and boldness. Many countries neighboring Iran have exceptions – exceptions in buying gasoline, diesel, oil derivatives, and many other materials. Go ahead, work on this matter. This is one of the doors – you consider that we are violating sovereignty. Good, then help us so that we do not violate sovereignty. Go ahead, ask for an exception and open this door.
4- The Beirut Port [blast] investigation:
I would like to recall what I used to say since the beginning – we want and support the investigation. I honestly say and tell you that even if the families of the martyrs and the wounded abandoned the investigation, we, Hezbollah, will not abandon the investigation. We consider ourselves among those who were affected not only in terms of martyrs, wounded, and homes, but we were also affected morally, politically, and media wise. Taking humanitarian considerations towards the families of the martyrs, we want the truth and accountability. Politically and morally, we, as Hezbollah, want the truth and we want accountability. There is no discussion regarding this topic. It is not cutting of the road in front of the investigation nor is it to end or cancel the file. Never. Whoever says this is unfair. We want to reach a result. What is really required is justice. What the former judge did is clear. He was biased and politicized. We spoke loudly about this and gave advise. The man rose and asked with legitimate suspicion and left. The man made a legitimate request and left. However, instead of benefiting from all the mistakes and the observations made to the previous judge, the current judge continued with the same mistakes. He ignored these remarks and did worse. The current judge’s work is politically motivated and biased. His work is being politicized and has nothing to do with the truth and justice.
Before I conclude, I would like to address the families of the martyrs – if you expect to uncover the truth with this judge, you will not. If you expect that this judge will bring you justice, even at the level of an indictment, you will not get it. The work of this judge is politically motivated. He is exploiting the blood of the martyrs, the wounded, the tragedy, and the calamity to serve political goals and political targeting.
1- We previously talked about the evidence, but now I would like to highlight the issue more because we have reached a point that can no longer be tolerated.
Let us simply talk logically. Is this interference in the affairs of the judiciary? But first off, tell me this is a judiciary so that I can agree with you whether this is interference or not. This is not a judiciary. This is a politically-motivated job. As long as it is a politically-motivated job, allow me to say a couple of words. What do science and justice say? They say there was an explosion. Hence, look for the responsibilities. This is a problem that I will return to shortly.
I would like to ask the current judge – disregard the previous judge. Since the arrival of the ammonium nitrate ship to Lebanon’s Beirut Port to Lebanon, there have been two presidents: President Michel Suleiman and His Excellency President Michel Aoun. His Excellency, President Michel Aoun has said on more than one occasion – a transparent man – “I knew on this day and I followed up this way. I am ready for the judge to come and listen to me.”
Did you listen to him? You are a judge who works as the judiciary, did you listen to His Excellency the President and took his statement? He is the one telling to go to him. What are you afraid of?
Did you ask President Michel Suleiman? Did you listen to him? did you ask him – you were the president of the republic when this ship came and entered, did you know? What did you do? Regardless of whether he was responsible or not. You did not ask him, and you did not listen to His Excellency the President even though he invited you.
Since the day the ship entered Lebanon in November 2013, there have been multiple prime ministers. You, the judge, quickly belittled Prime Minister Hassan Diab and thought you can accuse him, summon him, etc.
One question. Did you ask former heads of government? Did you listen to them? I’m not telling you to summon them. Did you go to them? Did you sit with them? Did you ask them even a question about their knowledge of the subject? What did they do if they had knowledge? Were they responsible or not? You did not do any of this. You quickly went to Prime Minister Hassan Diab. Can you tell me that the explosion took place during the premiership of PM Hassan Diab? Why did you go after the former ministers and not the current ministers? I am not defending people who are our friends only. Among them are our friends and those who are not our friends. The people I’m telling you to investigate include some of our friends. Why did you not ask the ministers in the current government who were in office when the explosion occurred? Instead, you went to the former ministers. Why not all the former ministers? Did you ask all the finance ministers? Did you summon them all and investigated with them? Did you investigate and ask the ministers of works who were in office in November 2013? The current Minister of Works is also our friend. The ministers of interior who were in office in November 2013 until today is also our friend. The ministers of defense as well as the ministers of finance and works are also the ministers of guardianship. Did you investigate with the ministers of defense? Non, you didn’t. Did you ask the ministers of justice? No, you didn’t. Did you ask all the heads of the security and military services? No, you did not. I tell you no because they really did not ask them. he asked some of them, but not all of them. What do they call this? You are going after specific agencies, specific ministers, and a specific prime minister is clearly [political] targeting. Does the issue need a little understanding in order to see that there is clearly targeting? There is political targeting. This is the first point. We’ve spoken about this in the past. We also warned you. Do not be biased and politicized. Or else, we will demand you leave. Then he continues working as if nothing happened. On the contrary, he rose even more and behaved as if he was the ruler with regard to this file. This is the first point.
2- The main subject in the explosion:
The whole thing is incomprehensible. Yet, you skipped it. Basically, it is like what many Lebanese say. I am not saying anything new. The basic principle, O honorable judicial investigator, is that you go and tell the families of the martyrs before you incite them against the politicians. You have to tell these families that you sit with every other day who brought the ship, who let the ship dock, who gave permission, who left the materials in hangar 12, and who gave approval. You are not doing any of these. You are tackling another matter which comes in second place which is negligence. You are making a big deal out of this for settling political scores. O brother, tell the Lebanese people. If you don’t want to tell the Lebanese people, at least tell the families of the martyrs. And you, our people and our loved ones, the families of the martyrs, go and demand. This is your right to demand. Ask him how your children were killed? You, an investigative judge, do not want to tell them because this does not serve the politicization that you are working on. So, what did you turn to? To negligence. You are making a bigger deal out of negligence – the one who is charged with negligence should receive the most severe penalties.
I’m not asking for anything. I am only asking why he is disregarding and neglecting the first part of the issue. Why is the truth not told to the Lebanese? The judicial secrecy is the issue. It is not about someone killing another person. This is a catastrophe that has befell the country, and the country is heading towards a catastrophe if this judge continues working in this way. Therefore, the matter needs a different approach.
3- Bias:
The judges, who were involved and whose responsibility wss greater than that of the presidents of the republic, are responsible. I do not know. I am not a judge to rule on this matter. The responsibility of judges is greater than that of heads of government, ministers, and heads of the security services because the judges are the ones who allowed this material to enter and to be stored. The rest are all procedural. The two judges or the judges are the first to be responsible. O families of the martyrs, ask this judge. Ask him about those judges whose responsibility is unquestionable.
There might be a discussion about the responsibility of the prime minister, a specific minister, and the security apparatus. But there is no discussion that these judges are responsible. What did you do to them? You did nothing. You filed a lawsuit against them in court, the High Judicial Council and the Discriminatory Public Prosecution, and to appoint a special court. Great! You do not want to summon the judge, issue an arrest warrant for him, or imprison him because he is a judge. The judiciary wants to protect itself. However, you want to summon a respectable prime minister like Hassan Diab, subpoena him, issue an arrest warrant against him, and throw him in prison. Is this a state of law? Is this a state institution? Does this country have morals? The law says that judges go to court. The constitution says that presidents and ministers go to the presidents’ court. In the case of the presidents and ministers, why don’t you accept. You consider this your right and transcend all constitutional principles and attack people? However, in the case of the judges, the law says that they go to the High Judicial Council. Answer us so that we know whether what is happening is right, just, and fair or is political targeting?
4- The last part in this file:
When presidents, ministers, and representatives feel that they have been wronged, who do they turn to? They tell you – this specific judge is biased. He is attacking us and is unfair with us. He want to arrest us unjustly. He is impatient with formal matters as in talking with us and our lawyers. We are being wronged. Who do we turn to? In a state of law and institutions, the law must answer. They turned to a judicial body, and we see that this judicial body did not take its time to study the case, did not discuss, nor summon, nor investigate. It returned the request saying it’s outside of their jurisdiction. Whose jurisdiction is it? So, guide us. You say the law and the state of institutions, O Higher Judicial Council, answer. Bring the prime minister who will be summoned for arrest, the ministers, and others who may be caught up in lawsuits. Where are they being wronged? If there is no jurisdiction for so and so and so, who has jurisdiction then? This needs a solution and an answer. In any case, we have big problems. We consider that what is happening is a very bad situation. It will not lead to the truth and justice, but it will lead to injustice and to concealment of the truth. This does not mean that we are demanding that the investigation be closed. Not at all. We want an honest and a transparent judge, who works on a clear and transparent investigation based on rules, an investigation in which there is no bias. He must continue the investigation and this matter should not stop at all.
First, we want an answer. Where would an oppressed person and a person with suspicions seek refuge in this country?
Another thing, the issue is no longer a personal matter, the issue has repercussions at the national level and on the country. Today, I am appealing to the High Judicial Council. What is happening has nothing to do with the judiciary, nor with justice, with fairness, nor with the truth. You must find a solution to the matter. The Supreme Court does not want to resolve the issue. The Council of Ministers is required to resolve this issue. It referred this issue. It will be raised in the Council of Ministers. We will speak and others too. This matter cannot continue this way. There is no possibility for it to continue this way, especially in the next few days. Therefore, among the institutions, the High Judicial Council should meet and see how to address this issue. We are talking to you and on behalf of many people in this country. We are a large segment in this country, and we have the right to be heard. We have the right to be given an answer. We have the right to demand in the Council of Ministers. It is our right that the Council of Ministers discuss this issue and take a stance. In all honesty, I tell you this matter must not continue this way.
As for the rest of the points of discussion, I wanted to talk about the demarcation of the maritime borders, the disputed area, the new negotiations, the Israeli steps, and other files. We will talk about all this, God willing, during the occasion in a few days.
I just want to conclude with two points. I must, morally and ethically, talk about them.
The first point is the bombing that took place in Kunduz, a few days ago, in Afghanistan, in a mosque during Friday prayers, which led to dozens of martyrs and wounded. Of course, this is a painful matter. Any person, Muslim or not, will ache when he sees elderly people and children being killed, just because they were praying in a mosque. This is very sad and very painful.
Despite the distance, we also share with our family and loved ones and these oppressed families their grief and pain. We express our sorrow for what happened and condemn it. But what’s most important is that Daesh committed this crime and claimed responsibility. I say the Wahabi terrorist organization Daesh.
I hope from all our friends, companions, and the media in our axis, if they accept from me, to call it the Wahhabi terrorist organization. Because what Daesh is doing is the result of this school of thought that accuses the other of being an infidel. One can accuse the other of being an infidel, but he does not spill one’s blood and take his money and honor. A doctrinal disagreement, a certain person says that so-and-so is an infidel and does not believe in a specific cause. But what is more dangerous than takfir [accusing another Muslim to be an apostate] is spilling blood and taking someone else’s money, honor, and social public safety. It is this school of thought that led to these results throughout the world, especially in our Arab and Islamic world.
The one who also bears the responsibility is America. Before the Americans left Afghanistan and on more than one occasion, I mentioned to you in the media and in speeches that we and others have information that the Americans are moving Daesh from the east of the Euphrates and from the Al-Hol camp. They even transferred some from Iraq to Afghanistan. At that time, many were wondering what the Americans wanted from Daesh in Afghanistan? Of course, at the time, even when they transferred them to Afghanistan, Daesh did not carry out a single operation against the American forces there. Rather, they fought those who were fighting the Americans, including the Taliban. But today, the goal has appeared more, to be sure.
I am an enemy of the Americans and I am accusing them. A few days ago, Turkey’s foreign minister, who is an ally of the Americans but has a problem with them, also said that the Americans had moved Daesh from the east of the Euphrates and eastern Syria to Afghanistan. That’s the Turkish foreign minister, a country that is not a small one in the region. He is a friend of the Americans. This is well known. Why did the Americans take Daesh to Afghanistan during the year they were negotiating with the Taliban in Doha to withdraw?
They were preparing for a post-withdrawal phase. What is the post-withdrawal phase? It is preparing for a civil war in Afghanistan. They had two tools. The first tool was the Afghan state and the Afghan army, which they spent hundreds of billions of dollars on. This collapsed, but the alternative was ready, which was Daesh. Today, Daesh’s work in Afghanistan is to drag the country into a civil war. They carried out operations against non-Shiites in Jalalabad and Kabul. But targeting the mosque in Kunduz, where Shiite Muslims pray, is also to create a state of internal tension that will lead to a civil war in Afghanistan.
The Americans are responsible. The American policies, the American administration, the American army, the CIA, and all those who are working on the issue of Daesh and Afghanistan, we also hold them responsible for the innocent blood that was shed in Afghanistan. The responsibility of the current authorities – whether the world recognizes them or not – now that it is an authority that exists in Afghanistan, is to protect these citizens regardless of their affiliation to any religion or sect.
There is another matter that I must talk about from a moral standpoint, even though it has been a while since it transpired. An incident took place a while back in Palestine where a group of security services affiliated to the Palestinian Authority arrested, beat, and tortured martyr Nizar Banat, a Palestinian brother, a resistance fighter, and a thinker who had brave and courageous positions, which led to his martyrdom.
Of course, one may ask why are you talking about this now and that this story is old? At that time, although we saw that all the Palestinian factions took a position, we preferred to wait because the issue was not very clear, and we considered that it could be an internal affair. But today, it is my duty to pay tribute, even for a few minutes, to this resistant martyr, mujahid, thinker, and bold, brave, and oppressed martyr Nizar Banat. I am one of the people who during the previous period – I mean during his life and not after his martyrdom – I usually and for security reasons do not have internet, but every once in a while, the young men give me recorded summaries, I listen and watch what this person said, how he spoke, and how he expressed a position?
At various times, I listened and gave time to Brother Nizar. I was very impressed by his clarity, his pure thought on the issue of resistance, the issue of “Israel”, the issue of the situation in the region, the position on the axis of resistance, the conflicts in the region, and targeting the axis of resistance. I was amazed by his courage – he lives in the West Bank and it is possible that he might be attacked, arrested, or killed at any moment. Of course, I had in mind that the “Israelis” would kill him and not anyone from the PA. In fact, I would like to say a couple of words first to shed light on this bold, courageous, clear, authentic, and strong figure as well as his position on the issue of resistance, the Palestinian cause. He had courage until his martyrdom. Secondly, as this is the first time I am talking about the subject, we share with honorable family, all his family members, his loved ones, his friends, and his companions the pain and the unending grief. I know that to them this matter has not ended.
The third point is to demand justice and truth from the Palestinian Authority, the Palestinian judiciary, and all the Palestinian people for martyr Nizar must. Time will not stop this, and this blood must not be wasted just because those who have wronged him or committed crimes against him belong to a certain security apparatus. This is regarding martyr Nizar. I wanted to talk about him.
I said at the beginning of the speech that in a few days we will have a great and very dear occasion, which is the anniversary of the birth of the greatest Messenger of God. Of course, celebrations and commemorations take place in different regions of the Islamic world. But in the past years, what must also be noted with admiration and pride is how the dear and oppressed Yemeni people are commemorating this occasion. We are talking about the areas under the control of what they call the Sana’a government, meaning in the areas where Ansarullah is present. Huge crowds gather in all governorates and cities at the same time.
The whole world saw how they’ve been commemorating the birth of the Messenger of God Muhammad during the past two years despite the war, destruction, difficult economic conditions, difficult living conditions, rampant diseases, great dangers, and siege. But it is really amazing the way they commemorate this occasion, and as a Muslim, I tell you that I feel ashamed. Despite the circumstances and situation, these people mark the occasion in such a way, while we, the rest of the Muslims in different parts of the world, how do we commemorate this anniversary even though our circumstances are much better than theirs, even if there are some difficulties.
First, salutations to the dear and oppressed Yemeni people, who love and adore the Messenger of God, for what they will do during the next few days.
I consider the way the Yemenis mark [this occasion] as an argument for all of us as Muslims in the Islamic world.
In the past few years, we used to hold celebrations. It is possible that during the last two years, we’ve eased down on celebrations a little because of the coronavirus. This year, we want to hold a decent and respectful celebration. That is why starting from now I invite the lovers of the Messenger of God to make the marking and celebration of this year’s occasion appropriate and to the level of their love, adoration, and loyalty to the Messenger of God.
May God give you wellness. We’ll talk about the rest later, God willing, if God keeps us alive. May God’s peace, mercy and blessings be upon you.
– لسنا بصدد مناقشة الموقف الأميركي المعروف بانحيازه للمصالح الإسرائيلية، والعاجز عن لعب دور الوسيط النزيه في كلّ قضية تكون «إسرائيل» طرفها الثاني، كما هو حال ملف لبنان وثروته من النفط والغاز، الذي أثارت «إسرائيل» حول الحقوق اللبنانية في مياهه الإقليمية عاصفة لم تهدأ، ولا حول التاريخ الشخصي لدايفيد ساترفيلد كسفير أميركي سابق لدى كيان الاحتلال وقد عمل سفيراً في بيروت، وفي المهمّتين كان يعبّر بحماسة عن التزامه المصالح الإسرائيلية، ويتقن تحويل المكانة الدبلوماسية الأميركية إلى منصة لخدمة المصالح الأميركية.
– القضية هي في سؤال أمني عسكري حمله ساترفيلد للمسؤولين اللبنانيين، يتصف بوضوح بالطابع التجسّسي لحساب «إسرائيل»، ولم يتورّع فحمله بتكليف إسرائيلي بكلّ وقاحة ودار به على المسؤولين اللبنانيين، والسؤال هو:
هل سيطلب مجلس الدفاع الأعلى من حزب الله مباشرة أو بصورة غير مباشرة إيقاف منصات النفط والغاز الإسرائيلية إذا تعرّض العمل في البلوك التاسع لمعوقات أمنية وعسكرية إسرائيلية؟ وإنْ لم يطلب وقام حزب الله بالردّ هل سيقوم لبنان بتغطية هذا الردّ؟
وهو سؤال يشكل الجواب عليه هاجس القيادة العسكرية والاستخبارية في كيان الاحتلال وتحاول جمع المعلومات حول الجواب عليه، فتطوّع الجاسوس ساترفيلد لحملة والعودة بالجواب.
– من الطبيعي أن ينفتح لبنان على وساطات مثل الوساطة الأميركية في ملف النزاع النفطي المفتعل من جانب «إسرائيل» رغم الإدراك بحجم الانحياز الأميركي لـ«إسرائيل»، لكن من الطبيعي أيضاً أن يحذّر لبنان أيّ مسؤول دولي يلعب دور الوساطة من تحويل مهمّته لعمل تجسّسي لخدمة الحسابات العسكرية والأمنية الإسرائيلية، وصولاً لرفض مواصلته القيام بمهام الوسيط. ولا ينفع هنا الحديث عن نظريات من نوع التحسّب الأميركي لمخاطر التصعيد، وهو تحسّب يصبح مشروعاً لو كان عنوانه الجهة التي يمكن أن تبدأ بالعمل الأمني والعسكري، وهي قطعاً ليس لبنان، وليس الجهة التي تجزم بعزمها على الردّ فقط وهذا هو حال لبنان، والتحقق من صيغة وطبيعة الردّ لا وظيفة له في السياسة، والوساطة، بل هو سعي لجلب الاطمئنان الإسرائيلي في حال الإقدام على الاعتداء بماهية السيناريو الذي سيعتمده لبنان. وهو سيناريو عسكري أمني يُعتبر من أسرار الدولة ويشكل كشفه جريمة، عنوانها نقل أسرار الدولة لجهة عدوة.
– آن الأوان ليعلم ساترفيلد أنّ الموقف الذي لم يتوقعه من لبنان هو ورئيس الدبلوماسية الأميركية ليس صدفة، ولا موقفاً عابراً، بل هو تعبير عن خيارات استراتيجية ثابتة للدولة اللبنانية في الدفاع عن حقوقها السيادية، وله مندرجات تخصّ لبنان وحده في حال وقع العدوان، لأنّ مهمة الوساطة تنتهي مع أول طلقة إسرائيلية تستهدف لبنان براً وبحراً وجواً، ومهمة الوسيط التحقق من صدقية المنطلقات القانونية والتقنية التي يقدّمها كلّ فريق حول خلفيات موقفه والسعي للمواءمة بينها وبين معطيات القانون الدولي، وإبلاغ مَن يخرق هذا القانون بأنه لن يلقى أيّ تفهم في حال العدوان، وأنّ العالم سيقف مع المعتدى عليه، وأنّ الإصرار على رفض الحلول المنسجمة مع قواعد القانون الدولي سيعرّض المرتكب للعقاب الدولي، وإعلان وقف الوساطة. أما إذا وقع العدوان فكلّ وسيط ملزم بالوقوف في صف المعتدى عليه، وليس التجسّس على كيفية ردّه لينقلها للمعتدي كي يكمل خططه وحساباته قبل القيام بالعدوان.
– ساترفيلد ليس جاسوساً إسرائيلياً وحسب، بل وقح أيضاً.
Roger Waters’ “Us and Them” tour is scheduled to perform this Friday and Saturday night at Nassau Coliseum, on Long Island, in Uniondale, New York. Apparently Nassau County officials have backed down on their plans to shut down the show (see article below). Waters was interviewed on “Democracy Now” with Amy Goodman and co-hosts.
Roger Waters Shows Will Go On Despite Nassau County Anti-BDS Law
The New York Civil Liberties Union is urging lawmakers in Nassau County to repeal a bill denying county contracts to any companies participating in the Boycott, Divest and Sanction [BDS] movement, which seeks to pressure Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
“Nassau County cannot be in the business of telling people what to say or think,” Susan Gottehrer, the NYCLU’s Nassau chapter director, wrote in a letter to County Executive Edward Mangano on Monday. “The BDS movement is a form of protected political speech.”
The letter comes in response to County Attorney Carnell Foskey’s threat to take “appropriate legal action” against the Nassau Events Center (NEC) if it does not cancel upcoming concerts by Roger Waters, a vocal BDS supporter and longtime critic of Israel’s settlement expansions. During a Facebook Live chat in July, Waters said that he expected the county’s attempts to fail.
“You would have to tear up the Constitution of the United States of America, particularly the First Amendment, and throw it into the Hudson River, or the East River if that’s closer, in order for that to happen,” he noted.
Just a week earlier, Nassau County Legislator Howard J. Kopel wrote in a Facebook post that “the Nassau County Attorney confirms that Roger Waters’ proposed upcoming tour dates at the Nassau Coliseum are indeed in violation of Local Law 3-2016.” That law was passed passed in 2016, one month before Governor Cuomo signed a similar order stipulating that any entity boycotting Israeli businesses would also be boycotted by the State of New York.
According to the NYCLU, the law itself is a violation of the constitution. “The law targets political boycotts, which the Supreme Court has long held as a form of political speech,” Zachary Ahmed, policy counsel at NYCLU, told Gothamist. “Here we had an example of the county threatening to enforce this law, and that’s what prompted us to respond.”
Asked to comment on the letter, the county attorney said that they would not be pursuing legal action against the events center, after all. “After extensive legal review, we had determined that factual issues and a lack of legal precedent had precluded success if the County were to litigate,” the county attorney said.
Neither the attorney nor County Executive Edward Mangano responded to questions about whether the decision applies just to Roger Waters, or enforcement of the bill as a whole. The executive also did not respond to a question, initially posed by the NYCLU, about whether the county had previously enforced or threatened to enforce the anti-BDS law.
“As long as law remains on books, there’s a possibility that the county could enforce it against other businesses,” Ahmed added. “We believe that would be unconstitutional.”
Waters will perform at Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum this Friday and Saturday nights.
To see “The Occupation of the American Mind,” narrated by Roger Waters, click here.
“Folded Flags” by Roger Waters
UPDATE
Though unsuccessful at getting his venues shut down (at least so far), Jews nonetheless are holding protests at Waters’ concerts. According to a report in the pro-Zionist Washington Free Beacon, Stand With Us, along with another Jewish organization, identified as “Artists 4 Israel,” are planning to follow the tour from city to city. Their plans reportedly include setting up a 15-foot inflatable Pinocchio doll as well as deployment of a van with a billboard which reads, “”Roger Waters, Don’t Need Your Hate and Censorship Against Israel.” The article includes a quote from a Stand With Us official who smears Waters as an “antisemite” and a “bigot.”
Woodrow Wilson was a bastard when it came to black people but he put the first Jew on the Supreme Court, 100 years ago. It is said that Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous conversion to Zionism in 1912 came about because Wilson planned to nominate him but needed a representative Jew, and all the Eastern European Jews who had come to New York were Zionists.
Since then there have been seven other Jews on the Supreme Court per Wikipedia: Cardozo, Frankfurter, Goldberg Fortas and the three who are on there now, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Two others have been nominated to the Supreme Court, Douglas Ginsburg and Merrick Garland. Ginsburg withdrew after it came out that he had smoked weed; Merrick Garland is of course President Obama’s nominee of this week, who faces an uphill battle in an election year. At his unveiling, Garland referenced his ancestors who fled anti-semitic persecution in Europe.
What do these numbers tell us about the Jewish place in America? A hundred years ago it required a real expenditure of political capital (by a racist) to nominate a Jewish justice. Today it’s not just old hat, but Jews are the liberal establishment in Washington. If Garland is confirmed, four out of five justices named by Democrats will be Jewish. That’s a lot. There have been only two black Supreme Court justices. And one Hispanic.
I knew Merrick Garland a little bit at the Harvard College newspaper in the 70s (guess what, he had judicial temperament, I didn’t; but he couldn’t write this article if his hair was on fire). I sought out the Jewish club of the newspaper in part because I believed anti-Semitism was regnant in America and at Harvard, and so did Alan Dershowitz: he threatened to leave the Harvard Law faculty in the early 70s unless it finally got a Jewish dean. Harvard did name a Jewish dean to the law school, and there have been several Jewish deans and presidents since. Now it’s ho-hum.
Again, the Garland nomination is a reminder that Jews are the blue state establishment. In fact, Garland is seen as the safe pick over various ethnic-er picks that Obama could have made– notably Sri Srinivasan.
And speaking of the establishment, it was said that Wilson was trying to shore up the allies’ claims on Jewish financiers in the First World War when he approved the Balfour Declaration, a year after he nominated Brandeis, and committed the U.S. to Zionism.
Oy what an error. From Brandeis to Garland, our presence in the most exclusive corridors of the power structure should tell Jews that our place in the west is safe; we don’t need so-called Jewish sovereignty in another country halfway around the world that is more than half non-Jewish anyway, though most of them don’t have any rights, can’t even vote, to be safe. No, we need to celebrate the freedom a democracy grants to minorities.
Power is a fluid thing in society, I reflected yesterday as I looked out of a window at the National Press Club at the slate roof of Treasury during the annual Israel influence conference. Scholar Kirk James Beattie had just finished up a discussion of his study showing that legislative staffers fear the Israel lobby but have never been visited by the “oil lobby.” American Jews have real social/political power in this moment in American life. It’s about time we broadly acknowledged this fact, with humility, and praise.
…However flawed his framing might have been, Estrin’s reporting makes one thing clear: The Israeli crackdown is poised to escalate its campaign to unprecedented levels. An unknown number of Israeli tech companies are threatening to unleash a wave of cyber-attacks, including “sly algorithms to restrict these online activists’ circle of influence” as well as “forensic intelligence gathering, such as detecting digital or semantic signatures buried in activists’ coding so they are able to track and restrict their online activity.”
Those acts of sabotage will take place alongside a flood of “content that puts a positive face on Israel.”
The non-profit Firewall Israel, sponsored by a government-linked think tank known as the Reut Institute, is “building an online platform to help pro-Israel activists around the world communicate about anti-Israel activism in their communities,” the article states.
This is how the BBC website introduces a report by its BBC Panorama’s Syria correspondents Ian Pannell and Darren Conway on August the 30th, 2013. The story contained a video, ostensibly shot near Aleppo, Northern Syria, by an anonymous school headmaster, and documenting the aftermath of a napalm attack on his school, supposedly perpetrated by the Syrian armed forces on August 26th. According to the story, the “evil” forces of Bashar al-Assad, at a time when they had just about established their strategic advantage over the anti-government rebel forces and the foreign mercenaries they had been fighting for over two years, had found nothing better to do than attack a school, a target which presented no military interest whatsoever, with napalm – no less – just so the international media, and BBC Panorama in particular, could pick the story and broadcast it to Western audiences, in perfect timing to coincide with the British Parliament’s vote on the so-called “humanitarian intervention” in Syria, which was being pushed for by Prime Minister David Cameron, ostensibly to prevent precisely this kind of atrocities.
Were Assad’s forces really that stupid? Of course not.
It did not take long before several international commentators and observers pointed out the many implausibilities in the video and the story in general. Among them, Italian author Francesco Santoianni, showed how incongruent the whole story was, sparking the suspicion that the entire video might have been a fabrication. What follows is his analysis.
First of all, Napalm is a substance which generates temperatures between 800 and 1,200 degrees Celsius: in other words, no one has ever survived direct exposure. These physical characteristics mean that when Napalm was utilised in theatres of war, it was primarily used to defoliate areas covered with thick vegetation, and not urban areas, where white phosphorus is more often used, as the United States Armed Forces did in Falluja in 2005, and the Israeli Defence Forces did in Gaza in 2008. Nevertheless, the BBC expected its viewers to believe that Assad’s forces had employed the obsolete napalm on a school. Of course, a school with no teaching resources in sight, but somehow a swimming pool in the back. Oh, and a swing. Case closed: it MUST be a school. Although, we are told by our sources in Syria that the school year did not start until September 15: so what exactly were all those people doing in a locked-up school?
In the video, we were also shown a pair of winter shoes – not clear how they ended up there: it was after all August – and a woman’s shoe. Was all this footwear worn by the victims? How did it remain intact?
Almost every British newspaper which reported the story informed us that “The attack killed more than ten pupils and left many more seriously injured”: and yet, despite the warning against graphic images, we are not shown the bodies, or the grieving parents.
There is – to be sure – a child, seeing shaking in one scene. His skin is actually intact, and so is his hair: certainly not consistent with napalm, or anything like it. And what is the white stuff on his body? Surely, it cannot be the chemical fired from the fighter jets – that wouldn’t have left his hair intact – therefore we must assume that it’s some kind of first-aid ointment, of sorts? Whoever administered it could not even be bothered to remove the watch from the kid’s wrist. In fact, no one seems to be attending this child: the only person with some kind of interest is the cameraman.
Somewhat less convincing is a couple, seen in the video going through the well-rehearsed motions of cursing in Arabic. There is a problem though: the woman’s face is covered in that same white stuff: and the couple has just arrived to the so-called hospital, so it cannot be “some kind of first-aid ointment”. It must be the “napalm-like chemical”. We are expected to believe that a “napalm-like” chemical, fired from a fighter jet, somehow ended up sprayed on this woman’s face leaving her veil intact?
We also see what is supposed to be a makeshift hospital. On the floor, five adult males are shaking – three of them still have their clothes perfectly intact, of course – although one of them at some point stands up and walks off, having presumably decided that he’s had enough.
By the way, we keep seeing paramedics from the so-called charity Hand in Hand for Syria supposedly handling chemical burns victims without any gloves on – but wearing gas masks, for some reason. And even a dust mask: what’s that? The woman in question is of course Dr. Rola, the star of this video [segment introducing Dr. Rola]
Then, of course, we get the obligatory segment showing a distraught local, venting his powerless rage at the International Community, invariably denounced as inefficient and perennially locked in futile negotiations. The Public Relations rules dictate that such a character must be somehow connected with the tragedy (no details given), and that, when he addresses the camera, he must not speak in the local language – which would only sound like terrorist gibberish to most Western audiences: rather, he has to produce an impromptu speech in an impeccable English, so impeccable to the point of sounding scripted and well-rehearsed, or even read off a prompter. After all, these PR rules did work for Libya.
All these absurdities were exposed almost immediately after the release of the video on the BBC’s channels. So why talk about them again now?
Well, one reason is that the BBC itself, presumably after receiving dozens of complaints from viewers who didn’t appreciate their intelligence being insulted, decided to salvage what little they could from the story, and delete the biggest blooper of all. And this is where it gets creepy. Because what follows leads one to believe that this was not the case of the BBC naively buying into a story packaged and sold to them by the anti-Assad PR machine (it wouldn’t have been the first time), but rather that the BBC itself actively created a product that was intended to steer the public opinion towards a more interventionist position. For such a product, there can only be one definition: propaganda.
What happened was that Human Rights activist Craig Murray, among others, realised that, between the first and the second release of the video, something was different in the lines spoken by Dr. Rola. Listen to the original one, containing references to napalm.
The reference to napalm has disappeared in the redacted version.
Both audio clips have the same identical sound quality: of course, there is very little that cannot be accomplished with the kind of technology that’s available to the British Broadcasting Corporation, thanks in part to the fact that Dr. Rola was wearing her exaggerated dust mask, which conveniently did away with all the challenges involved in dubbing, lip-synch, etc. However, the redacted audio clip must have been added at a much later stage, for reasons we have just explored, which prompts us to ask: how can we even be sure that the original audio clip was not scripted and recorded in a studio? Also, Robert Stuart, writing on the Media Lenses Forum, points out that Dr Saleyha Ahsan, featured in the new version of the video, is a filmmaker with a military background: a former Captain in the Royal Army Medical Corps and a freelance current affairs journalist. Was she involved in packaging this product?
The background of Dr. Rola herself is also interesting. Of course, she’s no stranger to the BBC:here she can be seen appearing on a political programme, advocating for the bombing of Syria.
Also of interest is the fact that the Charity Hand in Hand for Syria, where Dr. Rola supposedly works as a volunteer medic, happens to sport a flag of the French colonial era on its logo – a flag now adopted by the Anti-Assad Coalition. This is an affiliation which the BBC did not see fit to disclose to its viewers.
For those who still believe in whatever is left of the BBC’s reputation for upholding the mediatic standards of fair and balanced reporting, here is some useful information about another so-called “charity”. The BBC Media Action (formerly the BBC World Service Trust), with its catchy slogan: “Transforming Lives through Media around the World”.
In an interesting report available on its website, BBC Media Action explains: “In 2008, BBC Media Action launched its three-year project ‘Socially Responsible Media Platforms in the Arab World’ with funding from the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Syria News was the official Syrian partner, endorsed by the Ministry of Information on behalf of the BBC. The project aimed to set up an interactive online training platform, the Ara2 [opinions] Academy, for Syria’s journalistic and blogging communities, creating networks between the two. This reflected the changing status of bloggers in the regional media and responded to their aspiration to be seen as credible social commentators. The project also supported Syria News as an example of a sustainable independent media organisation, with managerial staff taking part in study tours in London and in business development training. BBC Media Action did not work with a local partner on blogger training, as this could have alienated and excluded parts of the blogging community. Instead, the BBC collaborated with an informal network of bloggers from across the country and recruited mentors for the distance learning system (the Ara2 Academy) who were trained at workshops in London and Damascus”.
One could not have wished for a clearer description of a Trojan horse, funded by one government in order to destabilize another. Just to go over the timeline again: the three-year BBC Action Syria Project started in 2008. The “Syrian uprising” began in February 2011.
We usually hear the boastful assertions of the leaders of the Western mainstream media that their media outlets are ideologically, financially and politically independent of their respective governments and what they put forward as packages of information to be consumed by the readers or viewers are unbiased, realistic, unprejudiced and objective.
The Western mainstream media conventionally boast of being professional and attached to the morals of journalism; however, the only thing which is missing in the coverage of these media of the international developments is ethical values, honesty and straightforwardness.
One of the most striking examples of the Western media’s indifference towards the aptitude of their audiences was their coverage of the 2008-2009 Gaza Massacre. From BBC to Reuters, from CNN to Sky News and from Washington Post to New York Times, all of them tried to put a lid on the felonies of theIsraeli regime and by astutely playing with words, downgraded the scale of atrocity and violence exercised by the Israel Defense Forces. They refused to admit that what Israel was committing was an all-out massacre, so they simply eliminated the term “massacre” from their reports and in one of the most controversial cases, the state-run BBC, of whose deceitful tricks we are used to hearing, refused to broadcast the Disasters Emergency Committee’s humanitarian appeal for Gaza under the growing pressure of the Israeli lobby.
This refusal to air an appeal for humanitarian aid for the crisis-hit Gaza was something which even the British public complained about. On January 23, 2009, Douglas Alexander, the International Development Secretary, wrote a letter to the BBC, Sky and ITV, expressing his “disappointment” that the appeal would not be broadcast. On Sunday, January 25, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams called on the BBC to air the appeal, along with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Minister Shahid Malik. According to a report by the Guardian, BBC admited on the same day that it had received 11,000 complaints from the public about its pro-Israeli decision.
In the same year and while the conflict in the beleaguered Gaza Strip was culminating to a humanitarian crisis, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution, condemning Israel for perpetrating war crimes and killing unarmed civilians in Gaza who hadn’t any access to the outside world to even meet their most essential needs, including medicine, foodstuff and stationery for students. Reuter’s report of the UNHRC’s decision was flagrantly lopsided and showed that Reuters and media outlets similar to it, follow nothing but the dictated trajectory of their respective governments. The report, dated January 12, 2009, started like this, “The United Nations Human Rights Council, dominated by Muslim states and their allies, condemned Israel on Monday for “grave violations” of human rights of the people of Gaza.”
It’s interesting that Reuters and their cronies perpetually fail to realize that UNSC, composed of 5 permanent members which hold a right of veto, itself an insult to humanity, is dominated by those who have the least respect for the opinion of 190 countries which are not members of this discriminatory council. In its coverage of the sanctions imposed by the UNSC on Iran, Reuters never used the phrase that “the UNSC, dominated by the US and its European stooges” has passed a new resolution against Iran over its nuclear program; but at the same time, it blatantly described the United Nations Human Rights Council as an organization which is dominated by the Muslims and their allies – one of the tactics of propaganda which the Western mainstream media usually exercise. But the question is: who controls and governs these media outlets? Are they really representatives of the public opinion and people, or simply the puppets of a limited number of governments who want to brainwash the people around the world and distort, falsify and misrepresent the realities before their eyes?
The answer to the first question is that, TV channels such as BBC, France 24, CNN and Fox News are absolutely state-owned and state-run. Aside from the fact that the key figures in all of these media channels are well-off, influential Jews who advertise the interests of the Israeli regime, these outlets are inescapably responsible for advocating and propagating the mindset of the statesmen and their respective governments in order to survive and remain on the stage.
The BBC World Service is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the British government department responsible for promoting the interests of the United Kingdom abroad. According to the BBC’s 2008-2009 Annual Report, the network received £294.6 million of governmental grants which simply constitutes a small portion of the total budget which is allocated to the BBC World Service by the UK government.
The same goes with Fox News. This TV channel is controlled by the media conglomerate News Corporation which is owned by the Jewish Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch. News Corporation is the world’s third largest media conglomerate after the Walt Disney Company and Time Warner. However, the funding of Fox News and News Corporation comes from the US Department of Defense. Fox News has always claimed that it’s an independent media outlet which gives room to both conservatives and democrats to speak out their mind. It denies any allegation of pro-Israeli bias and refuses to admit that it’s controlled by Pentagon. But the reality is somewhat different. A small number of affluent and prosperous Jews who have ties with the high-ranking US officials control the mass media in the United States.
An interesting report by the US National Alliance showed that a striking majority of the US media, including magazines, newspapers, TV channels, radio stations and news websites are run by the extremist Zionists who are very close to the White House.
The largest media conglomerate in the world today is Time Warner. Among its subsidiaries are New Line Cinema, Time Inc., HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW Television Network, TheWB.com, Warner Bros., Kids’ WB, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Adult Swim, CNN, DC Comics, Hanna-Barbera, Cartoon Network Studios and Castle Rock Entertainment. Each of these subordinates possesses hundreds of magazines, news networks and TV stations which has made the company a giant which seems to be totally undefeatable and indissoluble.
“Warner, founded by the Jewish Warner brothers in the early part of the last century, rapidly became part of the Jewish power base in Hollywood, a fact so well-known that it is openly admitted by Jewish authors, as is the fact that each new media acquisition becomes dominated by Jews in turn,” reads the report by the National Alliance institute.
The second-largest media conglomerate today, with 2003 revenues of $27.1 billion, is the Walt Disney Company. Its leading personality and CEO who chaired the company from 1984 to 2005, Michael Eisner, is a Jew.
“Another Jewish media mogul is Edgar Bronfman, Jr. He headed Seagram Company, Ltd., the liquor giant, until its recent merger with Vivendi. His father, Edgar Bronfman, Sr., is president of the World Jewish Congress,” the report adds.
Lo and behold, it’s said that Zionists control more than 95% of the world’s mainstream media. Robert Chernin who was until 2009 President and Chief Operating Officer of News Corporation, and Chairman and CEO of Fox Entertainment Group is an ardent Jew. He played an important role in laying the groundwork for the 2003 invasion of Iraq by staging a rigorous and severe media propaganda through Fox News. He advocated the invasion of Iraq and brainwashed the American public to convince them that a military expedition was necessary in Iraq.
Other names can be found who are among the most powerful figures of the mainstream media in the United States and run several newspapers, TV channels and radio stations. Mortimer Zuckerman, the 148th wealthiest American by 2008 is the owner of NY Daily News, US News & World Report and chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, one of the largest pro-Israel lobbying groups in the United States.
American journalist, Jeffrey Blankfort has written in an article published by Rense.com that Leslie Moonves, president of CBS television, is a great-nephew of David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of the Israeli regime and co-chair with Norman Ornstein of the Advisory Committee on Public Interest Obligation of Digital TV Producers.
Overall, the claim that the American or British media outlets are free, independent and reliable is an empty claim for which there is no prooft. American and British media are funded by their respective governments and controlled by a number of fervent Zionists who seek nothing but the promotion of the interests of Israel in the Middle East. River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
The section of the EU statement concerning “heeding the aspirations of the people in the region” appears to juxtapose those of “the Palestinians for statehood” with “those of Israelis for security” because the Palestinian need for security is never mentioned in EU pronouncements. Yet the statement considers security to be “a crucial element for lasting peace, stability and prosperity in the region.” While the statement acknowledges Israel’s role in the “prevention of peaceful Palestinian cultural, economic, social or political activities” it fails to observe that such activities are also requirements for Palestinian security.
While undeniable reality forces the EU statement to recognise the applicability of international humanitarian law in occupied Palestinian territory, including the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilians, the EU does no more than “urge” and “call for” Israeli compliance. While the EU is “appalled by recurring rocket attacks from Gaza and condemns in the strongest terms violence deliberately targeting civilians” it fails to comment on attacks (sometimes fatal and always economically damaging) by the Israeli Navy on Palestinian fishing boats.
It would appear that the EU does not regard these attacks as “appalling” and, worse, does not even believe they are worth mentioning. EU bias is demonstrated further when it merely expresses “deep concern” regarding settler extremism and incitement by settlers in the West Bank (aided and abetted by the Israeli state) from whence no missiles are fired. It is true that the EU does condemn “continuous settler violence and deliberate provocations against Palestinian civilians” but similarly only “calls” upon the occupying power “to bring the perpetrators to justice and to comply with its obligations under international law.”
The EU’s statement carefully avoids mentioning Israel’s illegal annexation Wall in the West Bank and the segregated, Jewish-only, roads and the holding of Palestinian prisoners without charge or trial. The organisation recognises that Israel, the belligerent occupying power, is in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention yet does nothing to encourage the world community to force Israel to comply with international law. On the contrary, the EU joins with Western governments and requires the defenceless, occupied, Palestinian people to negotiate under extreme duress with their oppressor.
As for the proclaimed ‘negotiations’ goal of two states living side-by-side in peace, it should be remembered that one of Israel’s non-negotiable pre-conditions (besides those concerning the permanence of illegal settlements and the “eternal indivisibility” of Jerusalem) is the de-militarisation of the so-called future Palestinian state and the complete surrender of its air space and borders to Israeli control. Well aware of this, the EU is nevertheless quite prepared to abandon the Palestinian people to both their present condition and the developing Zionist plan for Palestine. This is a betrayal that threatens all humanity. EU complicity, along with the duplicity and hypocrisy that accompanies it, must be tirelessly exposed and challenged.
Leslie Bravery – 15 May 2012
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
Michael Lerner, the editor of Tikkun Magazine, is known for his frequent condemnations of Israeli violence against Palestinians. He is labeled “pro-Palestinian” for such statements and is regularly attacked by pro-Israel zealots who charge that he is disloyal to the Jewish state. Yet, in reality, Lerner frequently speaks of his devotion to Israel and states that his actions are taken in considerable part to protect it.
A while ago Lerner explained the difference in his feelings about Israelis compared to his feelings about Palestinians. “[T]here is a difference in my emotional and spiritual connection to these two sides,” Lerner said. “On the one side is my family; on the other side are decent human beings. I want to support human beings all over the planet but I have a special connection to my family.”
This statement comes to mind when one considers the New York Times bureau chiefs who cover Israel-Palestine. The most recent person to be chosen for this powerful post at arguably the most influential newspaper in the United States is Jodi Rudoren. She takes the place of Ethan Bronner, who was preceded by Steven Erlanger, who was preceded by James Bennet, who was preceded by Deborah Sontag. All, according to an Israeli report, are Jewish.
Most Americans — particularly those who would object to only white reporters covering racial issues or only male reporters covering gender issues — are reluctant to discuss the potential bias in such a profoundly un-diverse system, having been conditioned to fear that such discussion would be “anti-Semitic” or would open the commentator to this extremely damaging accusation.
In Israel, however, it is considered appropriate to discuss the Jewish roots of American politicians and journalists since Israel was created specifically to be “the Jewish state,” Jews have elevated status in it, and the vast majority of Israeli land is officially owned by “world Jewry” (although some individuals have publicly opted out).
An article on the Jerusalem Post website, a major Israeli newspaper, focuses on this aspect. The article, “Judaism at the New York Times”, reports that “all New York Times’ bureau chiefs for at least the last fifteen years have been Jewish.”
The article’s author, Ashley Rindsberg, notes that “the Times doesn’t consistently send Russian Americans to its Moscow bureau… or Mexican Americans to lead its Mexico City bureau…” and asks, “Why does the New York Times consistently send Jewish journalists to head their central office in the Jewish State?”
Rindsberg, who like many conservative Israelis considers the Times’ reporting anti-Israel, provides a somewhat convoluted answer. The Times’ Jewish owners, Rindsberg posits, are uncomfortable with their Jewish identity. Therefore, he claims, they “would just as soon as not have reporters who could be identified for their Jewishness. And to prove it, they send Jews to the Jewish State to report in a most un-Jewish way.”
The Times’ history of pro-Israel coverage
Despite Rindsberg’s view of Times, analysis shows its coverage to be consistently pro-Israel. A 2005 study found that the Times reported on Israeli deaths at rates up to seven times greater than its reports on Palestinian deaths, even though Palestinian deaths occurred first and in far greater numbers. A 2007 study of the Times’ coverage of various international reports on human rights violations by Israelis and by Palestinians found that the Times covered reports condemning Israeli human rights violations at a rate only one-twentieth the rate that it covered reports condemning Palestinian human rights violations. The investigation found that during the study period there had been 76 reports by humanitarian agencies condemning Israel for abuses and four condemning Palestinians for abuses. The Times carried two stories on each side.
In its early years the Times specifically avoided assigning Jewish reporters to cover Israel out of concern that such journalists would have an inherent conflict of interest. This policy was reversed in 1979 after Abe Rosenthal became the paper’s executive editor and explicitly decided to choose Jewish journalists for the position.
While his first attempt failed (he had thought his choice, David Shipler, was Jewish), the Columbia Journalism review reports that most of the journalists who succeeded Shipler, beginning with Thomas Friedman, have been of Jewish ethnicity. The article notes that “for a century [the Times] has served, in effect, as the hometown paper of American Jewry.”
Former NY Times executive editor Max Frankel, who was an editor at the Times from 1972 through 2000, admitted in his memoirs: “I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert … Fortified by my knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognized, I wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.”
An article by star reporter and author Grace Halsell describes her firsthand experience with pro-Israel bias at the Times in the early 1980s.
Halsell had written books about the plight of Native Americans, African Americans, and undocumented Mexican workers. She was a great favorite of New York Times matriarch Iphigene Ochs Sulzberger, whose father had acquired the Times in 1896, whose husband and then son had run it next, and whose grandson is now in charge. When Halsell next wrote a powerful book describing the Palestinian plight, she incurred Mrs. Suzberger’s displeasure and was quickly dropped by the Times. Halsell writes: “I had little concept that from being buoyed so high I could be dropped so suddenly when I discovered—from her point of view—the ‘wrong’ underdog.”
In her article Halsell quotes a revealing statement by an Israeli journalist following Israel’s 1996 shelling of a U.N. base in Lebanon that killed more than 100 civilians sheltering in it: “We believe with absolute certitude that right now, with the White House in our hands, the Senate in our hands and The New York Times in our hands, the lives of others do not count the same way as our own.”
Since 1984 New York Times bureau chiefs have lived in a house that was acquired for the Times by then Jerusalem Bureau Chief Thomas Friedman (now the Times’ lead foreign policy columnist). The building originally belonged to a Palestinian family forced out in Israel’s 1947-49 founding war. Israel afterward prevented the family from returning and reclaiming their home. Therefore, Times’ bureau chiefs are in the strange position of living in a home that was stolen from Palestinians (acquiring property by violent conquest is illegal in today’s world).
Rudoren’s predecessor as Jerusalem bureau chief, Ethan Bronner, has a son who enlisted in the Israeli military. When this conflict with impartiality was exposed, even the Times’ own ombudsman suggested that journalistic ethics required that Bronner be moved to a different beat. Yet, Times then-editor Bill Keller insisted that this gave Bronner “special sophistication” and kept him in his position.
Bronner’s colleague at the bureau has been Isabel Kershner, who will apparently be staying on. J.J. Goldberg, editor of the Forward, writes: “Isabel Kershner immigrated to Israel from her native England as a young woman and spent a couple of decades in Israeli journalism and Jewish education before joining the Times a few years ago. By now she’s thoroughly Israeli (and, for full disclosure, a friend).”
While pro-Israel Zealots vehemently attack Bronner and Kershner when they cover Palestinian victimization, the truth is that they overlook a great many instances. For example, a 33-year-old Palestinian father of two young girls (another child is on the way) was on a hunger strike that lasted for 66 days. He was was near near death when he finally decided to end it on Feb 21. The young man, Khader Adnan, was protesting his imprisonment by Israel – he was never charged with a crime – and the beatings and humiliations he endured from Israeli interrogators. There was an extended international campaign about him that grew even more urgent when doctors began warning after 45 days that he was at risk of death. Eventually, there was so much pressure world wide (including by UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton) that Israel announced it would release Adnan at the end of his “sentence.”
Yet, Bronner and Kershner – and Times columnists who frequently bemoan the alleged lack of a Palestinian Gandhi – did not publish a single story on Adnan until the 66th (and last) day of his hunger strike – after the Washington Post had finally carried a report two days before. The Times’ headline was the very bland, “Hearing for Palestinian on Hunger Strike Is Set.
While Adnan’s is the longest Palestinian hunger strike on record, through the years there have been hundreds of hunger strikes by multitudes of Palestinians in Israeli prisons; the Times almost never reports on them. It’s revealing to compare their numerous stories on the Israeli tank gunner captured by Palestinians, Gilad Shalit, to the sparsity of their reporting on Adnan and others.
Overall, the thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel seem largely to have been invisible to Times’ reporters. While there have been gruesome reports of their torture for decades, there is little indication that Bronner or Kershner have investigated this or made much, if any, effort to visit Palestinians in Israeli prisons.
Who is Jodi Rudoren? Now that Bronner’s four-year term has come to an end (he says he initiated the transfer himself and was not pushed out over conflict of interest), it is not clear what went into new editor Jill Abramson’s decision to choose Rudoren for this powerful position.
A cum laude graduate from Yale, Rudoren’s journalistic experience appears to be limited to domestic subjects. Most recently she had been head of the Times’ Education bureau. She speaks what she calls “functional Hebrew” but no Arabic. It’s unknown how much time, if any, she has spent in Israel, whether she has family there, or whether she has family members in the Israeli military.
When Rudoren received a tweet by Palestinian-American author Ali Abunimah, who noted that she would be moving into stolen Palestinian property, she responded: “Hey there. Would love to chat sometime. About things other than the house. My friend Kareem Fahim [a New York Times associate] says good things.” This friendly but somewhat flip response to a serious subject has caused Israel zealots to attack her. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg somewhat hysterically equated Abunimah, an author known for his intellectual analysis, with Israeli Jewish supremacists known for their violence.
Goldberg suggested that Rudoren should have “twinned” her tweet to Abunimah by reaching out to Kahanists — a group listed by both Israel and the U.S. as terrorists. Goldberg should be pleased to learn that Rudoren said she had done just that, telling the Jerusalem Post, “One of the people I followed before reaching out to Abunimah was David Ha’ivri.”
Ha’ivri is an extremist settler rabbi who was involved with Jewish Defense League founder Meir Kahane’s Kach terror group, celebrated the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when he had begun to make peace with Palestinians, and was convicted some years ago for desecrating a mosque.
Rudoren’s knowledge of Hebrew may have been bolstered by her summertime attendance at Camp Yavneh, a Jewish camp in New Hampshire that has an Israeli flag at the top of its website and boasts of its “strong Israeli programming.” It features a six-weeks “summer in Israel” program, though it’s unknown whether Rudoren attended this.
The camp website states that the current boys’ head counselor “grew up in Gush Etzion, Israel, and has served as a Lieutenant Commander in the Israeli Army in charge of 150 soldiers in the Givatti Brigade.” Another counselor is a resident of the Israeli settlement of Efrat, which, like all Israeli settlements, is built on confiscated Palestinian land and is illegal under international law. Despite an upbringing that appears to have included considerable immersion in Zionist mythology, indications are that Rudoren may be working to widen her view. She raves about a book by Peter Beinart called “The Crisis of Zionism” and retweeted a message by blogger Sami Kishawi. It’s interesting to note that the Times’ only other female Jerusalem bureau chief, Deborah Sontag, often provided exemplary coverage; her term seems to have ended early.
Tweeting like a J-Street official?
Jeffrey Goldberg – who moved to Israel, became an Israeli citizen, joined the Israeli army, and worked as a prison guard at one of Israel’s most brutal prisons – assures readers that Rudoren is still within the pro-Israel fold, commenting, “I don’t know Rudoren… I do know her sister, from synagogue, mainly, and I don’t think Jodi is some sort of anti-Israel activist…”
Goldberg is concerned, however, that she is tweeting “as if she’s a J Street official.” For Goldberg this veers dangerously toward anti-Israelism.
In reality, however, J Street is a pro-Israel organization whose positions are dictated by what is good for Israel. Its founder has just published a book entitled “A New Voice for Israel.” If Goldberg’s assessment of Rudoren is accurate, then it appears that once again the Times has a person at the helm of its reporting on Israelis and Palestinians for whom Israelis are “family.” Quite possibly, literally. Rudoren may be intending to cover the region accurately and with fairness. To do so, however, it appears that she will need to overcome enormous ingrained bias, relentless and vitriolic objections of the organized pro-Israel community (quite likely including friends and family), and pressure by many powerful Times advertisers and colleagues.
On top of this, unless she chooses a different lifestyle than her predecessors’, she will be living in Israel, her children will go to Israeli schools, and her home will be one of the thousands confiscated from Palestinians who are now living and suffering largely out of sight, their daily humiliations and victimization for the most part invisible.
These winds may be so strong that even when Rudoren believes she has stood upright against them, an outside view may show her tilted far over in the Israeli direction, her reporting on Israel-Palestine, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, covering the gamut from A to C. Let us hope that this doesn’t occur.
Let us hope Rudoren understands that good reporting does not equate a false narrative with a factual one; that she will not be, in Abunimah’s words, yet “another New York Times reporter for whom Palestinians are just bit players in someone else’s drama.”
Let us hope she understands that living in stolen property is not a good base from which to report honestly; that “balance” achieved by under-reporting Palestinian suffering while exaggerating that of Israelis is not balance, it is distortion. Let us hope, most of all, that she does not view some human beings as more important than others, but instead views all, regardless of their religion or ethnicity, as family.
River toSeaUprooted Palestinian The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
In a December 2 letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council, UN Watch wrote that
the Security Council must end its shocking silence on Syria’s atrocities. It must take urgent action to protect the civilian population before thousands more are beaten, tortured and killed.
A few lines later, the NGO undermined its purported concern for Syrian civilians when it condemned the UN Human Rights Council for
its policy of supporting Syria’s cynical and transparent ploy each year to condemn Israel for alleged violations of human rights, which should not be repeated this March.
The letter did not mention, however, that UN Watch is affiliated with the American Jewish Committee, a key component of the Israel lobby.
In February, the pro-Israel NGO organised 70 non-governmental organisations to send letters to President Obama, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban-ki Moon demanding international action against Libya invoking the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine. Clearly buoyed by that “humanitarian” success in North Africa, UN Watch is now determined to “protect” Israel’s nearer Arab neighbours. In case you missed it: The Road to Hell: Libya and Now Syria?
Filed under: Human Rights | Tagged: Bias, Zionist Lobby | Comments Off on UN Watch statement on Syrian human rights situation reveals pro-Israel motivation
Posted on September 24, 2011 by uprootedpalestinians
On 15 September 2011 Great Britain changed its UJ law to allow the government, in the person of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to veto any arrest warrant referencing universal jurisdiction issued by a British judge.
Now we have proof of this process of erosion. On 15 September 2011 Great Britain changed its UJ law to allow the government, in the person of the Director of Public Prosecutions, to veto any arrest warrant referencing universal jurisdiction issued by a British judge. What that means is that when crimes against humanity are committed by representatives of a power friendly to Britain, the government can negate any risk of arrest for those persons while visiting British soil. This happens to be the British government’s response to warrants issued for the arrest of Israeli personages such as former foreign minister Lzipi Livni in 2009. The British UJ law exists by virtue of Great Britain being a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention but that does not seem to matter. For the sake of friendly relations with Israel, the British government is willing to render its obligations under international law moot.
Of course the British government does not explain its actions that way. Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke insists that the government is “clear about our international obligations.” This change in the law is simply designed to “ensure…that universal jurisdiction cases are only proceeded with on the basis of solid evidence that is likely to lead to successful prosecution.” The fact that Israeli crimes against the Palestinians are among the best documented seems not to be part of Clarke’s judicial world. Indeed, according to Matthew Gould, Britain’s ambassador to Israel, warrants issued against Israelis for war crimes and crimes against humanity are only “abuses” of Britain’s judicial system carried out “for political reasons.”
Part II – Double Standards
Israeli Major General Yoav Galant
In truth, what the British government has done is institutionalize double standards. Just imagine what would happen if the head of the Izz ad-Din al-Qassem Brigades (Hamas’s military wing) flew into Heathrow to see some sick friend. The British Zionists would have a judge issue a warrant within the hour and the British government would enforce it without question. Now imagine that at about the same time Israeli Major General Yoav Galant arrived. Galant was Israel’s Chief of Staff during Operation Cast Lead and publically stated that the operation turned Gaza into an “ideal training zone” to test new weapons that were often themselves banned under international law. With this new qualification of the UJ law, nothing at all would happen to Galant. And that double standard is absolutely in place “for political reasons.”
This is a disastrous precedent because other countries will almost certainly follow the British example. However, it is not the only case of erosion of international law. The international law referencing behavior on the high seas has recently been called into question and guess who forced that issue. Israel again. This is function of the fact that all the major powers, and the UN as well, proved willing to let the Israelis off the hook for attacking an unarmed Turkish vessel in international waters and killing nine passengers. Only Turkey has taken a stand for international law. Then there is the U.S. corruption of the International Criminal Court (see my analysis “International Law and the Problem of Enforcement” posted on 4 June 2011) and finally the repeated use of a U.S. veto at the Security Council to protect its ally–again Israel–when that country violates international law by moving its own population into occupied territory and commits daily crimes against the Palestinians.
Part II – Conclusion
Generally speaking, if it is a great power or allied to one, a government can do just about any horrible thing it wants as long as it does it to its own citizens and within its own borders. Thus, if Hitler, as chancellor of a great power, had just stuck to killing every last German Jew, communist, retarded person, etc. he almost certainly would have gotten away with it. That is the power of sovereignty. If Saddam Hussein, as a U.S. ally, had confined himself to killing Iraqi Kurds and Shiites by the tens of thousands no one would have intervened. But in both of these cases the dictators made the mistake of incurring the wrath of great powers by crossing a border for reasons other than blatant self-defense. Now the Israelis have shown that this criterion (sticking to your own territory when you do your killing) to be an arbitrary one. They cross borders all the time (as does their great power patron). My guess is that, unlike Iraq, the Israelis could have invaded Kuwait and gotten away with it! That is because they are more than just protected by the United States. Washington does not control its ally, its ally controls Washington.
Israeli front organizations such as AIPAC control the information flow and dictate relevant Middle East foreign policy to the government of the “greatest power on earth.” That is why joint resolutions, standing ovations for the likes of Netanyahu, and such stupid proclamations as “Israel has the right to annex the West Bank” flow uninterrupted from the halls of Congress.
It is odd. The only thing that stands between all of us and the next holocaust is international law and treaty provisions such as universal jurisdiction. But who cares? Not the U.S. or British governments and not the Zionists. No. Memory fades and double standards are, after all, a universal human failing. So it is just a matter of time before it happens all over again. Not in some far away place like the Balkans or Africa or the Far East, but once more right here in the West. Just as if the primary civilian disaster of World War II never happened.
Lawrence Davidson is a Professor of Middle East History at West Chester University in West ChesterPennsylvania.He is the author of America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (University Press of Florida, 2001), Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 2003), and, co-author with Arthur Goldschmidt of the Concise History of the Middle East, 8th and 9th Editions (Westview Press, 2006 and 2009). His latest book is entitled Foreign Policy, Inc.: Privatizing American National Interest (University of Kentucky Press, 2009). Professor Davidson travels often and widely in the Middle East. He also has taken on the role of public intellectual in order to explain to American audiences the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East
We all saw Khamis al-Qathafi killed and resurrected five or six times by the “mainstream” media, we all saw William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, lying through his teeth by affirming that Colonel Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela, then not even issuing an apology after such a blatant example of disinformation and slander. They are quick to tell you everything, it seems, except the truth.
And what is the truth? We all know what they did tell you, now let’s see what they didn’t. For a start, let us see the reply from the British Ministry of Defence to a perfectly simple and straightforward question:
Question:
Have French and British special forces been operating inside Libya at any time since the beginning of the conflict?
Reply:
“We do not normally comment on Special Forces matters and we see no reason to change that policy on this occasion.”
So, no categorical denial. No vehement or indignant affirmation that such would be a violation on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions covering the case (1970 and 1973 – 2011) and so of course not. And why?
function openPrint(url) { var printWin = window.open(url, “print”, “width=800,height=600,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes,status=yes” ) printWin.focus(); return false; } var _php_url_send = ‘/?area=popupSendToFriend&t=a&id=119029’; var fs = new FontSizer(‘article’);
Let us see the news coming out of Libya from sources either inside the country or linked to sources outside with credible information. Obviously, one cannot be everywhere and one does not have the gift of omniscience; however, the “credible” “mainstream” biased media sources which were in situ and have been reporting from Libya have been reporting what? Lies. Remember the “air strikes” by the Libyan Air Force against civilians? There weren’t any.
They said nothing about the democratic nature of the Jamahiriya system of Government (a Google search will make interesting reading, as will Muammar al-Qathafi’s Green Book), they said nothing about the terrorist and foreign nature of this so-called rebellion, they said nothing about where these “rebel” flags suddenly came from, they did not explain why the “rebellion” started on the western and eastern frontiers and not among the youth in the capital Tripoli.
They tried to play down the world’s largest demonstrations in support of their leader, 1.7 million residents of Tripoli coming out to support Colonel Gaddafi, which in comparative terms would be 20 million Britons or 100 million Americans. Would a fraction of these turn out to support Cameron or Obama? Probably to throw eggs and tomatoes, yes. To support, no.
So what is the information coming out of Libya?
There are reports that in recent days, NATO-backed Terrorist forces have been repelled in Bani Walid and Sirt – and that over a thousand terrorist elements have been liquidated (pending confirmation). There are reports that two NATO helicopters have been brought down over Sabah and that all the NATO mercenaries inside were destroyed. A group of terrorists heading towards Bani Walid to terrorise its citizens was intercepted by the Alassabaa tribe and 35 of these elements were destroyed.
A ratfight (fight among terrorist groups) took place in Tripoli, today leaving 30 of this scourge dead.
There are reports that 35 British SAS operationals were liquidated in a successful defence against this illegal aggression by the Libyan Armed Forces and in Abu Saleem district at the weekend, 7 British special force elements were destroyed. On Tuesday, a large number of terrorist forces were liquidated by the members of the Al Magarra tribe south of Tripoli as they headed south. In Ghadamis, there are reports of two French special forces captured.
On the eastern front, 50 terrorists who tried to enter al-Brega were eliminated. The manipulated and biased press are saying nothing of NATO war crimes, violations of the UNSC Resolutions or the fact that the NATO/terrorist forces control around 30% of Libyan territory, at most.
On the legal front, David Cameron and William Hague have been aiding and abetting the LIFG group inside Libya which is proscribed on the FCO lists as a terrorist group. Therefore under the UK’s own Terrorism Acts (2006), surely a crime has been committed by the British Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary?
The biased media has said nothing of NATO’s continued war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Conventions, strafing civilians with helicopters, taking sides in an internal conflict, violation of the terms of the UNSC Resolution, attacking civilian structures and supplies with military hardware.
The result is that NATO and its political and military leaders have lost all credibility, as they face the call from millions of people around the world to put them on trial for their war crimes.
As some biased Medias continue to distort facts and spread incitements, Al Jazeera satellite TV channel fabricated on Friday an eye-witness saying he is a dentist named Mohammad Abdul Rahman.
Abdul Rahman provided false information about clashes that supposedly took place between the security forces and protesters in the Syrian city of Homs.
A few minutes later, the real dentist Mohammad Abdul Rahman called the Syrian Satellite Channel, and strictly condemned the exploitation of his name and status as doctor to provide false information and fabricated stories regarding Homs events.
“I was surprised when one of my friends called me saying that my name was aired on Al Jazeera as an eyewitness…. I didn’t call that channel. The broadcast statement is false and is in the framework of the huge media incitement campaign targeting Syria by this channel”, the real Mohammad Abdul Rahman added.
That was not the only time Al Jazeera falls into this trap.
Ammar Wahud, most probably an alias of a Syrian citizen, called Al Jazeera satellite channel claiming he was one of the protesters and he has information to tell about the protests in the city of Baniyas. Al Jazeera believed Ammar would be a perfect catch to add to its collection of “eyewitnesses”.When Ammar was on air with the anchor, he started at first thanking Al Jazeera channel for the opportunity he was given to speak, and later talked about the Baniyas demonstrations saying“There are mass protests in Baniyas but they are all in support of President Bashar Assad”.
The Syrian “eyewitness” then criticized the satellite channel for its biased coverage of the events in Syria, yet he couldn’t continue his comments, for the call was “ended” amidst the anchor’s stupor for what just happened.
Al Jazeera continues to fabricate the truth, for when it installed four live cameras covering the events in Syria, it appeared that the videos broadcasted from the Baniyas are of a “zoomed in” damaged resolution, and were shot via a mobile phone camera live through the TV channel’s satellite moons.
Furthermore, 5 minutes after Ammar Wahud’s live remarks, an alleged protester (claiming to be present at that time among the protesters) in Baniyas went live on Al Jazeera to deny what Ammar has stated. If he really were among protesters, how would the remarks of Ammar reach him so fast? Unless this so-called protester was “recruited” by Al Jazeera TV to fabricate all stories and events that are truly taking place in the Syrian areas. ====
Beirut, (SANA)-Lebanese As-Safir newspaper quoted reliable sources as saying that journalist Ghassan bin Jeddo, Director of al-Jazeera TV in Beirut, resigned after the TV station had shifted from being a media source into an operation room for instigation.
“Bin Jeddo tendered his resignation several days ago,” the sources said, adding that the reason behind this step was because al-Jazeera has abandoned profession and objectively and turned into “a room for instigation and mobilization.
” The sources underlined that one of the reasons that pushed Bin Jeddo to resign is the provocative policy of al-Jazeera which is unacceptable, particularly in light of the historical juncture the region is passing through.
Mazen
Bin Jeddo Confirms Resignation to Al Manar Website
Head of Al Jazeera TV Station Office in Beirut Ghassan Bin Jeddo resigned from his post a few days ago, as “Al Jazeera has abandoned professionalism and objectivity, turning from a media source into an operation room that incites and mobilizes,” Lebanese As-Safir newspaper reported on Saturday.
Bin Jeddo confirmed this step in an interview with Al Manar website. He pointed out that “the reasons published in As-Safir behind the resignation are true, however they are not the full reasons”, adding that various other issues urged him to take this step that he will talk about its details later.
The Lebanese daily has quoted reliable sources saying that the unprofessional inciting attitude that Al jazeera is adopting at this historic phase in the region is unacceptable.
The sources indicated to As-Safir the ethical base of Bin Jeddo’s resignation, as he cannot accept the station’s full coverage to the situation in Libya, Yemen, and Syria, while completely blacking out the crisis in Bahrain.
As for the policy Al jazeera is following on the Syrian situation, the sources clarified that this case is a matter of morals and principles for Bin Jeddo.
As-Safir pointed out that former Al Jazeera journalist supports the Syrian people’s demands; however, he recognizes the important national role that Syria plays in the region.
Filed under: Popular Revolutions | Tagged: Al-Jazeera, Bias | Comments Off on Bin Jeddo resigns from al-Jazeera TV, Bin Jeddo Confirms Resignation to Al Manar Website
We deceive ourselves in thinking that the Beeb has a left-wing bias.
The corporation is in thrall to the same interests as Rupert Murdoch’s New Corp and the saviour of Iraq, Tony Blair.
Britain is said to be approaching its Berlusconi moment. That is to say, if Rupert Murdoch wins control of Sky, he will command half the television and newspaper market and threaten what is known as public service broadcasting. Although the alarm is ringing, it is unlikely that any government will stop him while his court is packed with politicians of all parties.
The problem with this and other Murdoch scares is that, while one cannot doubt their gravity, they deflect from an unrecognised and more insidious threat. For all his power, Murdoch’s media are not respectable. Take the current colonial wars. In the United States, Murdoch’s Fox Television is almost cartoon-like in its warmongering. It is the august New York Times, “the greatest newspaper in the world”, and others such as the once-celebrated Washington Post,that have given respectability to the lies and moral contortions of the “war on terror”, now recast as “perpetual war”.
In Britain, the Observer performed this task in making respectable Tony Blair’s deceptions over Iraq. More importantly, so did the BBC, whose reputation is its power. In spite of one maverick reporter’s attempt to expose the so-called dodgy dossier, the BBC took Blair’s sophistry at face value. This was made clear in studies by Cardiff University and the German-based Media Tenor. The BBC’s coverage, said the Cardiff study, was overwhelmingly “sympathetic to the government’s case”. According to Media Tenor, a mere 2 per cent of BBC news in the build-up to the invasion permitted anti-war voices to be heard.
Coded message
So when the BBC director general, Mark Thompson, used the recent Edinburgh International Television Festival to attack Murdoch, his hypocrisy was like a presence. Thompson is the embodiment of a taxpayer-funded managerial elite, for whom political reaction has come to dominate public service. He has even laid into his own corporation, Murdoch-style, as “massively left-wing”. He was referring to the era of his 1960s predecessor Hugh Greene, who allowed artistic and journalistic freedom to flower at the BBC.
Thompson is the opposite of Greene; and his aspersion on the past is in keeping with the BBC’s modern corporate role, reflected in the rewards demanded by those at the top. Thompson was paid £834,000 last year out of public funds and his 50 senior executives earn more than the prime minister, along with enriched journalists such as Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce.
Murdoch and the BBC share this corporatism. Tony Blair, for example, was their quintessential politician. Before his election in 1997, he and his wife were flown first-class by Murdoch to Hayman Island in Queensland, where he stood at the News Corp lectern and, in effect, pledged an obedient Labour administration. His coded message on media cross-ownership and deregulation was that a way would be found for Murdoch to achieve the supremacy that now beckons.
Blair was embraced by the new BBC corporate class, which regards itself as meritorious and non-ideological – the natural leaders in a managerial Britain in which class is unspoken. Few did more to enunciate Blair’s “vision” than Andrew Marr, then a leading newspaper journalist and today the BBC’s ubiquitous voice of middle-class Britain. Just as Murdoch’s Sun declared in 1995 that it shared the rising Blair’s “high moral values”, so Marr, writing in the Observer in 1999, lauded the new prime minister’s “substantial moral courage” and the “clear distinction in his mind between prudently protecting his power base and rashly using his power for high moral purposes”. What impressed Marr was Blair’s “utter lack of cynicism” – along with his bombing of Yugoslavia, which would “save lives”.
No laughing matter
By March 2003, Marr was the BBC’s political editor. Standing in Downing Street on the night of the “shock and awe” assault on Iraq, he rejoiced at the vindication of Blair who, he said, had promised “to take Baghdad without a bloodbath, and that in the end the Iraqis would be celebrating. And on both of those points he has been proved conclusively right.” As a result, Marr said, “tonight he stands as a larger man”. In fact, the criminal conquest of Iraq smashed a society, killing up to a million people, driving four million from their homes, contaminating cities such as Fallujah with cancer-causing poisons and leaving a majority of young children malnourished in a country once described by Unicef as a “model”.
So it was entirely appropriate that Blair, in hawking his self-serving book, should select Marr for his “exclusive TV interview” on the BBC. The headline across the Observer‘s review of the interview read: “Look who’s having the last laugh.” Beneath this was a picture of a beaming Blair sharing a laugh with Marr. The interview produced not a single challenge that stopped Blair in his precocious, mendacious tracks. He was allowed to say: “Absolutely clearly and unequivocally, the reason for toppling [Saddam Hussein] was his breach of resolutions over WMD, right?” No, wrong. A wealth of evidence, not least the infamous Downing Street memo, makes clear that Blair secretly colluded with George W Bush to attack Iraq. This was not mentioned. At no point did Marr say to him, “You failed to persuade the UN Security Council to go along with the invasion. You and Bush went alone. Most of the world was outraged. Weren’t you aware that you were about to commit a monumental war crime?”
Instead, Blair used the convivial encounter to deceive, yet again, even to promote an attack on Iran, an outrage. Murdoch’s Fox would have differed in style only. The British public deserves better.
John Pilger, John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest film is The War on Democracy. His most recent book is Freedom Next Time (Bantam/Random House, 2006).
In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. “John Pilger,” wrote Harold Pinter, “unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him.” Read other articles by John, or visit John’s website.
ATLANTA, (PIC)– Anti-Arab CNN on Friday announced it fired anchor Rick Sanchez a day after he assailed The Daily Show Jewish host John Stewart as a “bigot” and suggested that CNN and the other media outlets are run by Jews.
Sanchez made his remarks Thursday on the Sirius XM radio show “Stand Up! with Pete Dominick”.
CNN acted within 24 hours and declared Sanchez was no longer with the network. “We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well,” according to its statement.
The Daily Show retaliated and considered Sanchez an intellectual lightweight compared to CNN stars Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blizter and made him the butt of jokes, which Sanchez resented and described as racist.
CNN has always fought perceptions that it is pro-Arab and anti-Israel. In July, CNN fired veteran Middle East correspondent Octavia Nasr after she tweeted about the passing of Hezbollah’s Mohamed Fadlallah saying that she respected him a lot.
I must point out that Rick Sanchez, who was unceremoniously fired by CNN today for talking some trash about Jon Stewart and the Jewish ownership of networks, was one of the few network anchors to give any attention to the Palestinian side of the story. He was plainly alarmed by the Israeli assault on Gaza in 08-09. He interviewed Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu. And below, he interviewed Mustafa Barghouti, and showed that Israel broke the cease-fire ahead of the Gaza onslaught.
As for his recent comments about Jews not being an oppressed minority and Jews owning the television networks– it seems to me that these are legitimate subjects for discussion. Maybe his tone was inappropriate, maybe he should have gotten out the kid gloves. But they are legitimate subjects; and the manner of Sanchez’s dispatching is only likely to feed uninformed debate about the nature of the American establishment. Let’s talk about it. Of course I hope that in his next incarnation Sanchez looks more deeply into the Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Somehow I sense that’s not in the cards…
When Synagogues are attacked with graffiti it’s worldwide front page news. Usually 20 more articles can be found on the same incident and the “Anti Defamation League” is shouting at the top of it’s collective lungs. Immediately hundreds more articles are written, usually with theses types of headlines: “Rise In Hate Crimes Against Jews”, “Jewish Fears of More Attacks” or “Jews Under Attack” then they invariably go on to say that they are being persecuted worldwide.
Now,compare to the following tiny minuscule local report, which does not even come up in a search, and as usual, flies totally under the radar because no one gives a shite in the mainstream media. After all, it’s only Muslims and they don’t matter:
link Worshipers at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida are offering special prayers this morning after a small explosion and fire at the mosque Monday night.
“There was a lot noise outside,” the center’s Vice Chairman of the Board Ashraif Shaikh tells WOKV. “They opened the back door and there was fire outside.” “worshipers heard a loud noise outside the mosque as preparations were being made for the evening (isha) prayer at about 9:35 p.m.”
Tom Francis with JFRD says the arson unit was called to the mosque on the 2300 block of St. Johns Bluff Road around 10 p.m. and immediately discovered obvious signs of foul play, though Francis stopped short of saying what was found behind the Islamic Center, saying only it was “a combustible substance that had no business being here.”
CAIR reports early last month a white man in his 40s entered the Islamic Center during prayer services and shouted “stop this blaspheming.” The man was chased away by worshipers, but was reported to say “I will be back.”
“A possible bias-motivated attack on a house of worship should be of great concern to Americans of all faiths, and particularly to our nation’s religious and political leaders,” CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said. “Those who shape public opinion must begin to speak out against the rising level of anti-Muslim sentiment in our society.”
We all saw Khamis al-Qathafi killed and resurrected five or six times by the “mainstream” media, we all saw William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, lying through his teeth by affirming that Colonel Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela, then not even issuing an apology after such a blatant example of disinformation and slander. They are quick to tell you everything, it seems, except the truth.
UPROOTED PALESTINIANS: SALAM ALQUDS ALAYKUM 