Archive | September 13th, 2010



Wikileaks needs an army to stop it?

Posted: 13 Sep 2010

This would be funny if it weren’t so serious. One website, Wikileaks, now requires so much American power to try and stop/manage/control it. If only the same effort was spent on actually stopping the wars in the first place:

In a nondescript suite of government offices not far from the Pentagon, nearly 120 intelligence analysts, FBI agents, and others are at work—24 hours a day, seven days a week—on the frontlines of the government’s secret war against WikiLeaks.

Dubbed the WikiLeaks War Room by some of its occupants, the round-the-clock operation is on high alert this month as WikiLeaks and its elusive leader, Julian Assange, threaten to release a second batch of thousands of classified American war logs from Afghanstan. Thousands more leaked documents from another American war zone—Iraq—are also reportedly slated for release by WikiLeaks this fall.

Although outsiders have not been allowed to inspect the “war room” in suburban Virginia and see its staff at work, national-security officials offered details of the operation to The Daily Beast, including the identity of the counterintelligence expert who has been put in charge: Brig. General Robert A. Carr of the Defense Intelligence Agency.


The moral role of an artist in the modern world

Posted: 13 Sep 2010

The growing number of mainstream figures waking up to the evil of the Israeli occupation is welcome and it’s moving to the heart of the American arts world. Once more Americans realise what is happening, Israel’s day are numbered.

Here’s Theodore Bikel, a Tony and Oscar-nominated actor and musician, explaining why:

There are weighty reasons why I find myself in full support of the artists’ refusal to perform in the territories. And it should be noted that I am not alone in supporting the courageous stand of our Israeli colleagues. There is a growing list of over 150 prominent artists and arts leaders from the U.S. who have expressed similar concerns to mine.

The cause celebre regarding the new performance facility in Ariel has given rise to statements from the leaders of that community as well as from Prime Minister Netanyahu and the culture minister, Limor Livnat. While the latter asserts that “political disputes should be left outside cultural life and art,” both the prime minister and the settlers’ council make it clear that the matter is not about art at all, but about what they call an attack on Israel “from within.”

The declaration of conscience signed by prominent Israeli artists − among them recipients of the Israel Prize, the highest cultural accolade given by the state − is characterized as emanating from “anti-Zionist leftists” and is described by the prime minister as being part of an “international movement of delegitimization.”

Clearly, anything that is connected to the settlers or to the settlements’ presence beyond the Green Line is political. And, if the refusal of the artists to perform in the territories is tantamount to delegitimization, it follows that any agreement to perform there would amount to legitimizing what many of us ‏(in and outside of Israel‏) believe to be the single most glaring obstacle to peace.


MSM regulation is above the pay scale of MPs?

Posted: 13 Sep 2010


The Commons is not the place for the media to be on trial over phone-hacking allegations, the former chairman of the Press Complaints Commission has told followers on Twitter. MPs are too cowardly when it comes to tackling newspapers – and that empowers their editors, Sir Christopher Meyer said.

Meyer, a former British ambassador to Washington who tweets as @SirSocks, tweeted: “The conflicts of interest are so extreme that MPs should be recused from judging the media. But if not the Commons, who? Newspapers and their editors are empowered by the pusillanimity of MPs who attribute to them powers they simply do not have.”

Meyer defended the PCC’s handling of the phone-hacking allegations. He was chairman of the watchdog during its original investigation into phone hacking by newspapers after the News of the World royal editor, Clive Goodman, and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed for hacking the phones of royal aides and celebrities. Andy Coulson, now the Conservatives’ communications chief, resigned as editor of the paper despite insisting he had no knowledge of the hacking. He was not questioned during the original PCC inquiry.

Meyer had stepped down as chairman by the time the PCC reopened that investigation last year following the Guardian’s revelation that the tabloid had since made secret payments of £1m to three victims of the practice.

That report concluded there was no new evidence to suggest that the News of the World executive knew of the practice.

Its conclusions were heavily criticised by MPs on the cross-party parliamentary select committee inquiry into press standards. They described the PCC as toothless and dismissed its findings as simplistic and surprising. The PCC inquiry had not fully or forensically considered all the evidence, said the committee in its 167-page report.

The PCC was criticised at the time for not questioning key executives face to face and for accepting written statements as evidence, including one from the present editor of the News of the World, who was not even at the newspaper at the time of the Goodman hacking.


Mandela knows about ethics and Blair has no idea

Posted: 13 Sep 2010

What a true statesman said about a war-monger:

Nelson Mandela expressed fury to the British government over Britain’s decision to join with the Americans in invading Iraq, it emerged yesterday.

The former South African president picked up the phone and called London to spell out his anger about the decision to join the US-led mission to topple Saddam Hussein.

He might be famed for his politeness, but in an extraordinary call to a member of Mr Blair’s Cabinet, Peter Hain, Mr Mandela’s angry feelings boiled over.

Diplomatic niceties were abandoned as he warned that Britain’s reputation around the world would suffer “huge damage” because of the invasion and that all the Blair administration’s good work in Africa would be forgotten.

Details of the call are disclosed in a new biography of Mr Mandela by Mr Hain, a long-standing friend who was Welsh Secretary at the time.

Mr Hain recalled: “He said: ‘A big mistake, Peter, a very big mistake. It is wrong. Why is Tony doing this after all his support for Africa? This will cause huge damage internationally’.”

He said last night that he had never encountered his old friend as angry as he was during that conversation: “He was virtually breathing fire down the phone on this and feeling a sense of betrayal.”


Wanting to kill Gideon Levy via the Zionist mainstream

Posted: 12 Sep 2010

What kind of Jewish newspaper would publish a letter like this?

Having written a book The Punishment of Gaza – with an obvious content – Jewish Israeli Gideon Levy took great pleasure in making a vile speech at a meeting hosted by the Manchester Palestinian Solidarity Campaign.

I ask several questions about this hideous man:

1. Why hasn’t be been expelled from Israel?

2. Why hasn’t Mossad been ordered to eliminate him? After all, this group gained recent notoriety for targeting an enemy of Israel. And isn’t the worst enemy a citizen?

3. Why hasn’t this man been arrested on a charge of treason?

Arab members of the Knesset frequently attack Israel – and I find it incredulous they can remain MPs.

It would not be tolerated in this country.

Israel also tolerates the loathsome Neturei Karta and even pays them to spread their message that the country which gives them freedom and safety, can tour the world, siding with the Palestinians to proclaim that Israel shouldn’t exist.

They have expressed horror that a senior Israeli rabbi had suggested it was OK to kill Palestinians, yet they never express outrage when Israel Jews are murdered by their Palestinian friends.

Crazy standards.

Brian Lux,
49 Abbey Road,

Britain’s Jewish Telegraph has, a literal incitement to murder.

Yet another sign of ever-worsening Zionist extremism in the Diaspora.


What the MSM wants to forget about Iraq

Posted: 12 Sep 2010

L. Craig Johnstone writes in the Washington Post about Western responsibility for what we have created in Iraq:

Thirty-five years ago, two young Foreign Service officers went AWOL from Henry Kissinger’s staff at the State Department to go to Vietnam in the days before the collapse of Saigon. I was one of them. Our action drew stern rebukes and orders that we be arrested and returned to the United States. We had each been posted in Vietnam. We went back there at our own expense and in defiance of our superiors because we were alarmed at the lack of planning on the part of our government regarding the well-being of our Vietnamese employees and allies as the end to the war approached. We believed that the United States had a moral obligation and a humanitarian responsibility to rescue those who had worked and sided with us on the battlefields of that unwinnable conflict.

If I remain today appalled by the callous disregard the government had for our allies in the lead-up to the collapse of Saigon, those feelings are trumped by the extraordinary pride all Americans must feel at the response of both our government and the American people once Saigon fell and the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis struck home. The outpouring of support and the open-arms welcome from Americans for hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees was a magnificent demonstration of the strong moral fiber of our country.

We face an analogous situation in Iraq today. We are pulling our troops out of this war. But as we leave, our humanitarian obligations remain. Our war in Iraq has uprooted more than a half a million refugees who have fled to neighboring countries. And we are leaving behind more than a million and a half people who have been forced from their homes within Iraq. Many of these were middle-class workers, merchants, small-business owners — not unlike people you would find in the towns across America. Today they live in squalor, in cardboard shanty towns with open sewers and without clean water. They beg most for the opportunity to educate their children to the levels they themselves achieved before the war. For these families, the war has been a disaster. Americans are not solely responsible for the tragedy that has befallen them, but we bear a measure of responsibility, and we cannot leave them and our responsibilities behind.

What we need to do first is provide our share of the funding necessary to help those in the most dire circumstances. The United Nations humanitarian appeal for aid for vulnerable and displaced Iraqis this year calls for just over $700 million. The United States needs to fund at least half of that amount this year. As the oil infrastructure improves in Iraq, oil revenue will follow in five or six years, and the Iraqis can take on the burden themselves. The U.S. contribution would not be a small sum, but would be trifling in comparison to what this war has cost us to date.

Next, we need to increase the resettlement of Iraqis who have no prospect for returning to Iraq or whose situations are so perilous that life in Iraq is simply not possible. This includes, among others, Iraqis who have worked with U.S. institutions and whose lives have been compromised by this association.

And the latest Amnesty report finds a judicial system in Iraq that is filled with torture and abuse. Welcome to US-imposed liberation.


Decolonialism, socialism and radicalism from a right-wing President?

Posted: 12 Sep 2010

Forbes is a mainstream magazine.

But this week its cover story is about the supposed socialist revolution being wrought by Barack Obama.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on A.LOEWENSTEIN ONLINE NEWSLETTER



The Difference Between Mike Vick and George W. Bush is…

September 13, 2010

by Johnny Punish  

Bush Torture and Michael Vick

Torturing Dogs and Humans

  • Michael Vick was indicted and found guilty for torture

  • George W. Bush has never been indicted and never found guilty for torture

Yesterday, the back-up Quaterback for the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles lit up the TV screens with patented amazing runs and passes igniting a massive call for him to be the starting Quarterback over the hand picked and highly touted Kevin Kolb who, in 2 quarters of play, threw for a pedestrian and pathetic 25 yards.

Worse, with Kolb on the field, the team looked lethargic and listless.  Upon Mike Vick entering after the first half, the Eagles looked faster, happier, motivated and generally believed they could win.  Down by 20 or so, they came back and almost beat the highly favored Super Bowl contenders, the Green Bay Packers.

Vick said after the game “I felt like if I had 4 quarters to play, we could have beat them”.  To this writer, that this was very true.  It was very clear that the best Quarterback on that team is Vick yet, after the game Coach Andy Reid said “Kolb is our starter” as if to re-inforce his decision to go with the inexperienced Kolb over 3 time pro-bowler Vick who now holds is in the top 3 rushing QB’s of all time  just behind Randal Cunningham and Steve Young.  If this was Steve Young who came in and took over the game like that, would he being saying the same thing?

Worse, many of friends who witnessed this clear difference between an average player and a super star could NOT admit that Vick was clearly superior and the diference maker in that game.  

So I started asking why and it become painfully clear that, still after Vick served time in prison for what society decided was ample punishment for enabling the torture of dogs at venues supported by Vick’s money, many won’t let it go and really think that he does NOT belong on the field of play.  It may be overt or sub-conscience, but this fact truly bothers many and thus getting past it to judge Vick the player is cloudy, murky, and unreachable.

Of course, with Coach Andy Reid and those who have this sub-conscience bias, that’s their perogative.

In this writers view, when someone pays their debt to society, it’s over with and that’s it.  But some just do NOT agree and thus it clouds their mind when making a reasonable judgement on who’s the better player.  Thus, they justify it by saying that Vick is not a pocket passer or Vick is this or that.  And then, when presented with facts like Vick ran for over 100 yards and threw for 175 yards in 2 quarters of play while Kolb ran for zero and threw for 25 yards, they dismiss it. 

So What does Mike Vick have to with George W. Bush? 

Well, George W. Bush admitted to torturing human beings while Mike Vick admitted to torturing dogs. Vick was indicted, found guilty, and paid his debt.  George W. Bush has never been indicted, never found guilty, and has never paid his debt. 

  • What does this say about us?

  • Do we value dogs more than people?

  • Why is Vick the  bad guy that cannot be forgiven while Geoge W. Bush gets a Presidential Library?

  • Hey Obama, why hasn’t George W Bush been indicted?

Please don’t tell me that Vick is worse than the man who brought us waterboarding!     To this writer, Vick should be the starting QB for the Eagles based on merit.  His debt has been paid. And for George W. Bush?   Well, somebody take the handcuffs off  President Barack Obama and put them on Dubbya!

We need to get our priorities straight.  We’re all human beings!

2010 Copyright by Johnny Punish




September 13, 2010 

by Debbie Menon

The current U.S. standoff against Iran, like the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, was instigated by the neoconservatives of the Bush Administration based on their doctrine of “maintaining U.S. pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to U.S. interests”.

By Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMI) via My Catbird Seat


The current U.S. standoff against Iran, like the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, was instigated by the neoconservatives of the Bush Administration based on their doctrine of “maintaining U.S. pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to U.S. interests”. In the case of Saddam’s regime, its fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and its alleged links to Al-Qaida were used in the U.S. propaganda war to first impose U.N. sanctions and eventually invade Iraq. We now have a déjà vu situation in which the U.S. and its allies, prodded by Israel, demonize Iran as a threat to world security and accuse it of having a program to develop nuclear weapons.

As with Iraq, the real aim is a regime change in Iran to set up a U.S. puppet government in this oil- and gas-rich country in the key strategic Persian Gulf region. This has also happened before in the 1953 U.S.-British coup in Iran. The same forces in U.S., U.K., Israel and allies today distort the truth and engage in deceit, coercion and aggression to achieve their goals. We will briefly examine some of the key facts in the standoff.

Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

Iran was among the first of 190 countries to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in order to “prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States”. As a party to the NPT Iran has an “inalienable right” to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. The NPT further requires that all parties to the treaty should help other members wishing to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. But Western pressure has blocked Iran’s access to such cooperation, forcing the country to strive for self-reliance in nuclear technology.

There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. now nominally recognizes Iran’s legal right under the NPT to develop nuclear technology for civilian use, but charges that Iran’s nuclear program is a cover for developing nuclear weapons. There is absolutely no proof to back up this charge. Thousands of hours of United Nations inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the most intensive and intrusive ever undertaken in its history, have not produced one shred of evidence of nuclear weapons planning in Iran. Every IAEA report on Iran to date, including that of May 31, 2010, has stated that the “Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran”. Nuclear power plants and atomic weapons both require enriched uranium. But militarization requires uranium enriched to very high degree (above 90%), unlike “low-enriched uranium” (LEU) suitable for power plants (up to 5%) or for medical applications (up to 19.75%).

And yet the U.S. demands that Iran terminate its enrichment process altogether, in essence denying Iran its inalienable right to pursue civilian nuclear technology under the NPT. Further, Western leaders and media often quote from the IAEA reports that “Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities. However they never mention in public that this kind of arbitrary accusation is applicable also to dozens of other NPT members, including South Africa, Egypt and Brazil, that have not agreed to the optional NPT Additional Protocol to allow extra-intrusive inspections.

The U.S. and its allies have singled out Iran and demand that Iran prove it is not intent on developing nuclear weapons now or in the future. That is a logical impossibility, like when the U.S. demanded that Iraq prove it was not making weapons of mass destruction; charged Iraq with fabricated evidence that it had purchased “yellow cake” uranium powder from Niger; and that it had links with Al-Qaeda. Nothing Iraq said or did could stop the 2003 catastrophic invasion of that country – after which the U.S. had to admit that the charges were false. In an exact replica of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. and its allies now allege that Iran has engaged in “nuclear weaponization studies,” but have even refused to hand in their alleged evidence to the IAEA so Iran can investigate them and give a response. Iran has insisted categorically that these documents are fabricated and are forgeries.

Iran’s need for nuclear energy and technology is real.

Iran’s population has more than doubled in three decades and its per capita energy consumption has grown even faster. Demand has outpaced production so much that electricity is rationed with rotating scheduled cuts in Tehran during peak periods of summer heat, and in July 2010 most public sector agencies in 20 of Iran’s 30 provinces are shut down intermittently for conservation. So the country needs to diversify its energy sources to keep up with demand and still have enough oil and gas for export and for future generations. This need was recognized years before the 1979 Revolution, when Iran, under prodding from the U.S. government which was acting in the interests of U.S. energy-related companies such as General Electric and Westinghouse planned multiple nuclear power stations.

Iran’s dependency on Western-dominated global markets, as well as on the refining and importation of petroleum products, make Iran vulnerable to foreign economic warfare. Iran has the largest fleet of oil tankers in the Middle East, but these ships are easy targets for attack or sabotage. It is in Iran’s legitimate security interest to develop alternatives to oil for domestic consumption. With global oil derivatives such as gasoline and petrochemical items shrinking in availability and increasing in price, Iran truly needs to reduce its dependency on imports. Iran’s need for nuclear technology is not limited to economic and security aspects.

The country also needs nuclear fuel for its medical purposes. The Tehran Research Reactor (TRR), which produces isotopes for the treatment of more than 800,000 cancer patients and people with other complicated diseases, is running out of fuel this year. More has to be produced by Iran itself, because not only the half-life of the radioisotopes used by the TRR is too short to be imported from other countries but also because the U.S. and its allies have a history of blocking Iran’s right to purchase fuel for the TRR from the international market. All these considerations fully justify the urgency of Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

UN Security Council’s involvement and sanctions against Iran are illegitimate.

Since there has never been any evidence of a nuclear weaponization program in Iran and because Iran has cooperated with the IAEA, the two votes in 2005 and 2006 in the Governors’ Board of the IAEA to report Iran’s nuclear file to the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) were coerced and politicized moves that were legally untenable, as explained by a leading international lawyer. – Therefore, the UNSC’s imposition of sanctions on Iran violates the IAEA’s own statute and lacks legitimacy. The process that led to the UNSC’s involvement also was flawed because, under Western pressure, the IAEA’s expectations of Iran exceeded NPT’s Safeguards requirements.

To boost confidence in its nuclear program during the course of two years of negotiations with the EU3 (France, U.K., Germany) , the Iranian government voluntarily suspended its nuclear enrichment program and in December 2003 also voluntarily implemented the IAEA’s Additional Protocol that allows more intrusive inspections than those required under the NPT. However, under U.S. pressure, Iran received nothing in return and a new administration decided to resume the enrichment program and dropped its adherence to the Additional Protocol. When the public is told that Iran did not disclose the construction of a new enrichment facility in Qom, it is important to remember that the expectations would be valid only if Iran were still bound by the optional Additional Protocol.

Under the NPT, Iran was only required to disclose the facility six months before it intended to introduce uranium fuel. In fact, it did so 18 months in advance, but still was accused of violating its international responsibilities under the NPT. Iran has offered to implement the Additional Protocol again if its file is returned from the Security Council to the IAEA. The politicized nature of the IAEA’s referral of Iran’s case to the UNSC and the resulting sanctions is evident in the support by the U.S. for Israel’s open secret “nuclear deterrence” and the fact that U.S. allies South Korea and Egypt were not punished after revelations in 2009 that they had experimented with near-weapons-grade nuclear material.

Iran is not a threat to the U.S

In order to justify depriving Iran of nuclear technology, many U.S. political figures portray the Iranian leadership as irrational and hell-bent on using nuclear weapons as soon as they can develop them. But Iran has not attacked any country in more than 200 years and its military spending per capita is among the lowest in its region. On the contrary, it is Iran that has been attacked on many occasions, including an Iraqi invasion in 1980 which led to eight years of full-scale conflict at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. Iraq used chemical weapons during its Western-backed invasion of Iran, but Iran never retaliated in kind.

In fact, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa (religious decree of the highest order) banning the production, stockpiling and the use of nuclear weapons and any other weapons of mass destruction as anti-Islamic. He has reiterated this fatwa in his message to the Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Conference in Tehran in April 2010. On the other hand, the U.S. and Israel with vastly superior military capabilities, including massive nuclear arsenals, and U.S. military bases in most of the countries around Iran and a constant naval presence off the southern coast of Iran, constantly threaten Iran with military attack and destruction.

Iran is under constant threat of illegal foreign intervention.

All leading U.S. politicians, including President Obama, have stated that in dealing with Iran “all options are on the table,” which is the code phrase for threatening Iran with military intervention, including a nuclear attack. The new Nuclear Posture Review of the United States singles out only one non-nuclear armed country, namely Iran, as a possible target for American nuclear attack. Israeli officials have also threatened to launch war on Iran. The U.S. has funded anti-Iranian terrorist groups both in and outside Iran and has itself engaged in kidnapping and sabotage operations inside Iran in direct violation of that country’s sovereignty.

Under the Obama administration, the U.S. has intensified its covert military operations in Iran. In addition, the U.S. government annually spends millions in public funds in anti-government propaganda operations directed at Iranians. All these are violations of the Article 2 of the U.N. Charter, which calls for respect of national sovereignty and forbids member countries from threatening or using force against other countries. U.S. interference in Iran’s internal affairs also is specifically banned by the bilateral Algiers Accord of 1981.

The 2009 Iranian presidential election and its aftermath are being exploited by pro-war forces

Many Western commentators point to the disputed 2009 Iranian elections and claim that, since there is a domestic opposition to the Iranian government, Iranians would support foreign intervention or an attempt at regime change. This is false and disingenuous. No opposition figure in Iran has ever asked for any kind of war, sanctions or even monetary help from outside the country. While the idea of “targeted” sanctions may have some currency among a minority of exile-based Iranians, it is strongly opposed by the overwhelming majority of Iranians in general. There were reports of similar “popular support” for threats and “smart” sanctions against Iraq by exile groups like Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress. Those claims were cynically cultivated by the U.S. and British neoconservatives to justify their drive toward war.

The Obama Administration has backtracked on its own engagement pledge and now actively opposes peaceful solutions.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign included promises to move U.S. policy away from confrontation with Iran and toward “direct and unconditional negotiations.” Disappointingly, the Obama administration has backed away from that position. Its current policy is virtually the same as that of the Bush/Cheney administration: i.e., before there can be any negotiations, Iran must first give up its nuclear program altogether. Washington’s intransigence under the Obama administration is most evident with regard to the Iranian nuclear fuel swap proposal in May of 2010. Before the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran received U.S. assistance under the Atoms for Peace program to build a nuclear research reactor in Tehran.

As previously stated, the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) is used for producing medical isotopes for the treatment of some 800,000 cancer patients. The reactor is fueled with uranium enriched to a higher degree than fuel needed for a nuclear power plant, but still far below the level required to build a nuclear weapon. That reactor is now running out of fuel. In the fall of 2009, the Vienna Group (U.S., France, Russia and the IAEA) proposed that Iran swap 1,200 kilograms of its low-enriched uranium (LEU) for fuel rods with the higher-enriched uranium needed to fuel the TRR. Iran accepted this offer in principle, but insisted on guarantees to ensure it would actually receive the fuel rods. The Obama administration walked away from the negotiating table, adopting a “take it or leave it” position. Iran, on the other hand, emphasized its readiness for more negotiations over the fuel swap proposal.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva stated their willingness for mediating the Iranian nuclear swap deal in a meeting with President Obama during the Nuclear Security Summit in New York in April 2010. Accordingly, President Obama stated in a letter to President Lula that, for the U.S., “Iran’s agreement to transfer 1,200 kg of Iran’s low enriched uranium (LEU) out of the country would build confidence and reduce regional tensions by substantially reducing Iran’s LEU stockpile.” President Obama further stated that “this element is of fundamental importance for the United States. For Iran, it would receive the nuclear fuel requested to ensure continued operation of the TRR to produce needed medical isotopes and, by using its own material, Iran would begin to demonstrate peaceful nuclear intent.”

On May 17, 2010, after 18 hours of negotiations in Tehran, Turkey, Brazil and Iran signed a third-country swap agreement (the “Tehran Agreement”) in which Iran compromised in every area it considered vital to its interests along the lines that President Obama had mentioned in his letter. And yet, regardless of initial support for the Iran-Turkey-Brazil Agreement, President Obama decided to dismiss the Tehran Agreement and push for a new round of sanctions against Iran in the UNSC. This fourth round of UNSC sanctions was thus imposed against Iran while Turkey and Brazil cast negative votes and Lebanon abstained.

The sanctions policy is deeply flawed, as well as counter-productive.

The stated goal of what are now four sets of Security Council-imposed sanctions as well as unilateral sanctions imposed by the U.S. is to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program. In reality, the sanctions are meant to promote “regime change” in Iran. This policy is not only criminal, but also flawed. People rarely engage in anti-government activity when their countries are threatened, as shown by the examples of both Cuba and Iraq, as well as the 1.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip. With Iraq in particular, sanctions resulted in a genocidal level of civilian casualties, but still did not produce the intended results.

Sanctions are a gateway to war.

Sanctions are not only a form of warfare but they can also lead to actual war. The only way to make sanctions viable would be to impose a total military blockade of all Iranian trade and forcefully intercept Iranian shipping. By any definition, that would be an act of war. In retrospect, many Iraqis now see the sanctions of the 1990s not simply as “pressure” designed to force Iraq to end its non-existent WMD program, but as a cynical ploy to physically disrupt and weaken Iraq for an eventual military action. Those sanctions did succeed – costing the lives of 1.5 million civilians, including at least a half-million children. The U.S. and Israeli advocates of sanctions are fully aware of the clear and direct risk of war. Indeed, some of the most vocal advocates for sanctions are the same ones who promoted the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq.

A catastrophic war or a peaceful resolution of the stand-off?

From the standpoint of the neoconservatives, sanctions on Iran must lead to a U.S. or Israeli military strike on Iran. This is a direct and gross violation of the U.N. Charter, which forbids military aggression on another country. Further, the Iranian government has vowed to respond to any attack with full force. Many analysts warn of a quick chain reaction that could lead to a devastating regional war, from Afghanistan to Gaza, as Iran and its regional allies would retaliate against the U.S., Israel and their allies, resulting in unprecedented human and economic costs for both the region and the interfering forces. A peaceful resolution of the conflict can only be achieved by rejecting the current illegitimate course of threats and sanctions.

The U.S. policy of aggression should be replaced with unconditional and comprehensive negotiations between Iran and the U.S. based on mutual respect to build trust between the two sides and to find a solution to the standoff that recognizes Iran’s sovereignty and national rights. Please see the PDF documents here for full citations and Persian language version.

References and Notes

1 Ebrahim Afsah, “Creed, Cabal, or Conspiracy – The Origins of the Current Neo-Conservative Revolution in US Strategic Thinking”, The German Law Journal, No. 9 (September 2003), n. 5,

2 NPT, UN Office for Disarmament Affairs

3 NPT Article IV, Section 1

4 NPT Article IV, Section 2

5 IAEA chief El Baradei, quoted “I don’t think Iran is developing, or we have new information that Iran is developing, a nuclear weapon today,” BBC, April 9, 2010

6 IAEA chief El Baradei, “’No credible evidence’ of Iranian nuclear weapons, says UN inspector”, Guardian September 30, 2009 –

7 IAEA report on Iran, May 31, 2010. [parag. 46]

8 IAEA report on Iran, May 31, 2010. [parag. 46]

9 Bruno Tertrais, “Back to Earth: Nuclear Weapons in the 2010s (ARI)” Real Instituto Elcano, June 25, 2010 and for the Additional Protocol view

10 White House: Iran must prove it is not developing nukes”, Haaretz, September 29, 2009.

11 FRASER NELSON and JASON BEATTIE, “British officers knew on eve of war that Iraq had no WMDs”, Scotsman, February 4, 2004.

12 Generally, in recent IAEA reports (e.g., the May 31, 2010 report), the phrase “lran has not provided the necessary cooperation”, the IAEA is referring to “Alleged Studies” documents received from Western intelligence agencies purporting to show studies of nuclear weapon systems. But the authenticity of many of these documents has been challenged even by officials of the IAEA and some Western intelligence agencies. Even the IAEA does not possess these documents, as it stated in its 2008 report:

“Concerning the documents purporting to show administrative interconnections between the alleged green salt project and a project to modify the Shahab-3 missile to carry a nuclear warhead, Iran stated that, since some of the documents were not shown to it by the Agency, it could not make an assessment of them. Although the Agency had been shown the documents that led it to these conclusions, it was not in possession of the documents and was therefore unfortunately unable to make them available to Iran.” [IAEA report on Iran, May 26, 2008, parag. 21]; See also Gareth Porter, “Leaked Iran paper exposes IAEA rift”, Asia Times Online, October 8, 2009. Gareth Porter, “Outgoing UN Nuclear Inspector Pushed Dubious Iran Nuclear Weapons Intel”, Antiwar, July 3, 2010.

13 US Department of State, “Atoms for Peace Agreement with Iran,” Department of State Bulletin 36 (15 April 1957), p. 629; in Daniel Poneman, Nuclear Power in the Developing World (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982), p. 84; “US-Iran Cooperation,” Department of State Telegram, 11 April 1974, in Digital National Security Archive,; “US-Iran Joint Statement,” Unclassified Briefing Paper, 3 November 1974, in Digital National Security Archive,; “Past Arguments Don’t Square With Current Iran Policy,” Washington Post, March 27, 2005.

14 US Energy information administration, January 2010 –

15 Interview with Iran’s IAEA Ambassador, Ali Asghar Soltanieh (by Mohammad Kamaali), CASMII, June 29, 2008. and Interview with Iran’s IAEA Ambassador, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Press TV, February 9, 2010.

16 Siddharth Varadarajan, “The Sawers letter: The game plan on Iran is becoming clearer”, March 25, 2006.

17 This has been confirmed by Stephen Rademaker, a senior US official involved in the process; See Siddharth Varadarajan (Interviewed by Abbas Edalat), “US Coercion of India against Iran at IAEA”, CASMII, March 7, 2007.

18 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) News Center, Oct. 21, 2003

19 Pepe Escobar, “Iran knocks Europe out”, Asia Times Online, September 7, 2005.; “Majlis Seeks to Suspend Additional Protocol Implementation if Iran Referred to UN,” Fars News Agency, 9 September 2005, in FBIS Document IAP20050909011017.; 29 September 2005: Majles [i.e. Iranian parliament] passes a draft law that directs the government to suspend the Additional Protocol of the NPT. “With the goal of guaranteeing the rights and national interests of Iran, the Majlis obliges the government to suspend the supplemental protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty until the right of Iran to use atomic energy for peaceful purposes is acknowledged.”; Safa Haeri, “Iran Confirms Stopping Additional Protocol of the NPT,” Iran Press Service, 9 October 2005.

20 Daniel Joyer, “The Qom Enrichment Facility: Was Iran Legally Bound to Disclose?”, Jurist, March 5, 2010.; Gareth Porter, “Secrecy shrouds Iran’s contingency centers”, Asia Times Online, November 19, 2009.

21 CASMII Press Release, “Chance for peace: UN should accept Iran’s offer to implement Additional Protocol”, CASMII, February 29, 2008.

22 “Weapons grade uranium found in Egypt”, Press TV, May 6, 2009. Kang, Jungmin; Hayes, Peter; Bin, Li; Suzuki, Tatsujiro; Tanter, Richard. “South Korea’s Nuclear Surprise”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. January 1, 2005.

23 Joost R. Hiltermann, A poisonous affair : America, Iraq, and the gassing of Halabja, New York,

NY : Cambridge University Press, 2007; “Chemical Warfare In The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988” – SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) Fact Sheet, May 1984

24 Ali Khamenei (message), “Message to the Tehran International Nuclear Disarmament Conference “Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for None”“, Monthly Review, April 18, 2010.

25 Juan Cole, “Hitchens the Hacker; And, Hitchens the Orientalist And, “We don’t Want Your Stinking War!” – translation of Ahmadinejad’s remarks, Informed Comment, May 3, 2006.

26 President George W. Bush, “Bush: ‘All options are on the table’ regarding Iran’s nuclear aspirations”, USA Today, August 12, 2005.; Vice-President Dick Cheney, “Where We Are and Where We Are Going”, Craig Barnes, February 24, 2007.; Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, “McCain: Military Option on Iran Remains”, Fox News, August 14, 2005.,2933,165666,00.html; Presidential candidate Barack Obama, CBS News, February 2007;

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, February, 2007; and Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, January 22, 2007.

27 Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, “The nuclear posture review and American credibility in Iranian eyes”, The Race for Iran, April 13, 2010.; and Jake Tapper, Huma Khan, and Karen Travers, “New US Nuclear Policy Sends ‘Strong Message’ To Iran, North Korea, Officials Say”, ABC World News, April 6, 2010.

28 Dan Williams, “Israel threatens to attack Iran unless enrichment stops: minister”, Reuters, June 6, 2008.

29 Seymour Hersh, “Preparing the battlefield”, The New Yorker, July 7, 2008.; and William Lowther and Colin Freeman, “US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran” – Telegraph, Feb. 25, 2007.

30 Seymour Hersh, “The Coming Wars”, The New Yorker, January 24, 2005.

31 Mark Mazzetti, “U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast”, The New York Times, May

24, 2010.

32 Seymour Hersh, “The Coming Wars”, as cited above, and Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger, “Bush plans huge propaganda campaign in Iran”, Guardian, February 16, 2006.

33 UN Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2.4 –

34 Algiers Accord: Point 1: “The United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran’s internal affairs.”

35 Quote from Hashemi Rafsanjani, “US will fail in ‘bullying’ Iran: ex-president”, AFP, July 3, 2010.

36 US Department of State, “Atoms for Peace Agreement with Iran,” Department of State Bulletin

36 (15 April 1957), p. 629; in Daniel Poneman, Nuclear Power in the Developing World (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1982), p. 84; and Peter Grier, “It was Uncle Sam who first gave Iran nuclear equipment”, Christian Science Monitor, October 2, 2009.

37 Interview with Iran’s IAEA Ambassador, Ali Asghar Soltanieh (by Mohammad Kamaali), CASMII, cited above and Interview with Iran’s IAEA Ambassador, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Press TV, cited above.

38 Parisa Hafezi, “Iran rejects sending uranium abroad”, Reuters, November 18, 2009.

39 “Obama’s Letter to Lula Regarding Brazil-Iran-Turkey Nuclear Negotiations”; CASMII, April 20, 2010,

40 “Nuclear Swap Agreement between Iran, Turkey and Brazil”, CASMII, 17 May 2010

41 Glenn Kessler, “US, Brazilian officials at odds over letter on Iranian uranium”, Washington Post, May 28, 2010.

42 “Brazil slams UN Security Council Sanctions Resolution against Iran”, CASMII, June 9, 2010.

43 “The debate over UN sanctions”, Frontline (PBS), November, 2002.; and Andrew Cockburn, “The Human Price of Sanctions”, Counter Punch, July 16-18, 2010.

44 Discussing the Iraq sanctions on May 12, 1996 on the CBS program “60 Minutes,” interviewer Lesley Stahl asked US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, “We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.”

Posted in WorldComments Off on FACT SHEET ON US-IRAN STANDOFF



The Sabra-Shatila Massacre: 28 years later does anyone remember? Does anyone really care?

By crescentandcross Quantcast

(Originally posted on Counterpunch and also on the news-fix list on September 14, 2007)

A Letter to Janet

Franklin Lamb

Martyrs Square

Sabra-Shatilla Palestinian Refugee Camp


September 12, 2007

Dearest Janet,

It’s a very beautiful fall day here in Beirut today. Twenty-five years ago this week since the September 15-18, 1982 Massacre at the Palestinian refugee camps at Sabra-Shatila. Bright blue sky and a fall breeze. It actually rained last night. Enough to clean out some of the humidity and dust. Fortunately not enough to make the usual rain created swamp of sewage and filth on Rue Sabra, or flood the grassless burial ground of the mass grave (the camp residents named it Martyrs Square–one of several so named memorials now in Lebanon)) where you once told me you that on Sunday September 19, 1982, you watched, sickened, as families and Red Crescent workers created a subterranean mountain of butchered and bullet riddled victims from those 48 hours of slaughter. Some of the bodies had limbs and heads chopped off, some boys castrated, Christian crosses carved into some of the bodies.

As you later wrote to me in your perfect cursive:

“I saw dead women in their houses with their skirts up to their waists and their legs spread apart; dozens of young men shot after being lined up against an ally wall; children with their throats slit, a pregnant woman with her stomach chopped open, her eyes still wide open, her blackened face silently screaming in horror; countless babies and toddlers who had been stabbed or ripped apart and who had been thrown into garbage piles”.

Today Martyr’s Square is not much of a Memorial to the upwards of 1,700 mainly women and children, who were murdered between Sept. 15-18. You would not be pleased. A couple of faded posters and a misspelled banner that reads: “1982: Saba Massacer”, hang near the center of the 20 by 40 yard area which for years following the mass burial was a garbage dump. Today, roaming around the grassless plot of ground is a large old yellow dog that ignores a couple of chicken hens and six peeps scratching and pecking


Since you went away, the main facts of the Massacre remain the same as your research uncovered in the months that followed. At that time your findings were the most detailed and accurate as to what occurred and who was responsible.

The old 7-storey Kuwaiti Embassy from where Sharon, Eytan, Yaron, Elie Hobeika, Fradi Frem and others maintained radio contact and

monitored the 48 hours of carnage with a clear view into the camps was torn down years ago. A new one has been built and they are still

constructing a Mosque on its grounds.

I am sorry to report that today in Lebanon, the families of the victims of the Massacre daily sink deeper into the abyss. No where on earth do the Palestinians live in such filth and squalor. ‘Worse than Gaza!” a journalist recently in Palestine exclaims.

A 2005 Lebanese law that was to open up access to some of the 77 professions the Palestinians have been barred from in Lebanon had no

affect. Their social, economic, political, and legal status continues to worsen “It’s a hopeless situation here now,” according to Jamile Ibrahim Shehade, the head of one of 12 social centers in the camp. “There are 15,000 people living in one square kilometer,” Jamile runs a center which provides basic facilities such as a dental clinic and a nursery for children. It receives assistance from Norwegian People’s Aid and the Lebanese NGO, PARD.

“This whole area was nothing before the camps were here and there has been very little done in terms of building infrastructure,” Shehade explained.

Continued misery in the camps has taken a heavy psychological toll on the residents of Sabra and Shatila, aid workers here say. Tempers run high as a result of frustration from the daily grind in the decrepit housing complex.

In all 12 Palestinian camps in Lebanon, tensions and tempers rise with increasing family, neighborhood, and sect conflicts. Salafist and other militant groups are forming in and around Lebanon’s Palestinian camps but not so much here in the Hezbollah controlled areas where security is better.

In Sabra-Shatilla schools will run double shifts when they open at the end of this month and electricity and water are still a big problem.

According to a 1999 survey by the local NGO Najdeh (Help), 29 percent of 550 women surveyed in seven of the 12 official refugee camps

scattered across Lebanon, have admitted being victims of physical violence. Cocaine and Hashish use are becoming a concern to the


There is some new information about the Sabra-Shatilla Massacre that has come to light over the years. Few Israelis, but many of the Christian Lebanese Forces, following the national amnesty, wanted to make their peace and have confessed to their role. I have spoken with a few of them.

Remember that fellow you once screamed at and called a butcher outside of Phalange HQ in East Beirut, Joseph Haddad. At the time he denied everything as he looked you straight in the eye and made the sign of the cross.

Well, he did finally confess 22 years later, around the time of his youngest daughter’s Confirmation in his local Parish. Your suspicions were indeed correct. His unit, the second to enter the camp, had been supplied with cocaine, hashish and alcohol to increase their courage. He and others gave their stories to Der Spiegel and various documentary film makers.

Many of the killers now freely admit that they conducted a three-day orgy of rape and slaughter that left hundreds, as many as 3,500 they claim, possibly more, of innocent civilians dead in what is considered the bloodiest single incident of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a crime for which Israel will be condemned for eternity.

Your friend, Um Ahmad, still lives in the same house where she lost her husband, four sons and a daughter when Joseph, a thick-set

militiaman carrying an assault rifle bundled everyone into one room of their hovel and opened fire. She still explains like it was yesterday, how the condoned slaughter unfolded, recalling each of her four sons by name, Nizar, Shadi, Farid and Nidal. I asked Joseph if he wanted to sit with Um Ahmad and seek forgiveness and possible redemption since he has now become a lay cleric in his Parish. He declined but sent his condolences with flowers.

Do you remember Janet, how we used to walk down Rue Sabra from Gaza Hospital to Akka Hospital during the 75-day Israeli siege in ‘82, as you used to say “to see my people”? Gaza Hospital is gone now. Occupied and stripped by the Syrian backed Amal militia during the Camp Wars of ‘85-87. Its remaining rooms are now packed with refugees. One old lady who ended up there recited how it’s her 4th home since being forced from Palestine in 1948. She survived the Phalangist attack on and destruction of Tel a Zaatar camp in 1976 fled from the Fatah al Islam Salafists in Nahr al Bared Camp in May of this year and wore out her welcome at the teeming and overwhelmed Bedawi camp near Tripoli last month.

Most of your friends who worked with the Palestine Red Crescent Society are gone from Lebanon. Our cherished friend, Hadla Ayubi has semi-retired in Amman, Um Walid, Director of Akkar Hosptial, finally did return to Palestine following Oslo, still with the PRCS. And its President, Dr. Fathi Arafat, your good friend, passed away in December of 2004 in Cairo less than a month after his brother Abu Ammar died in Paris.

They both loved you for all youhad done for their people. That trash dump near the Sabra Mosque is now a mountain. Yesterday I did a double take as I walked by because I saw three young girls-as sweet and pretty as ever I have seen–maybe 7 to 9 years old in rags picking thru the nasty garbage. Their arms were covered with white chemical paste. Apparently whoever sent them to scavenge sought to protect them from disease. As I climbed thru the filth to give them my last 6,000 LL ($4) they managed a smile and giggle when I slipped on a broken thin plastic bag of juicy cactus fruit skins and plunged to my knees.

In some areas of the camps there are mainly Syrians. Selling cheap ‘tax free’ goods. Still some Arafat loyalists. Mainly among the older

generation. Palpable stress among just about everyone it seems. One young Palestinian explained to me his worry that with the upcoming Parliamentary election to choose a new President scheduled for September 25, there may be fighting and his October 6th SAT exams may be cancelled and he won’t be able to continue his studies.

When you and I last spoke Janet, it was on April 16th of that year, and I was en route to the Athens Airport to catch a flight to Beirut to be

with you, you told me you were working on evidence to convict Sharon and others of war crimes.

Twenty years later, lawyers representing two dozen victims’ and other relatives attempted to have Ariel Sharon tried for the massacre under Belgian legislation, which grants its courts “universal jurisdiction” for war crimes.

There had been great expectations about the case among the Palestinians and their friends, since as you remember, Sharon had already been found to bear “personal responsibility” in the massacres by an Israeli commission of inquiry which concluded he shouldn’t ever again hold public office. But hopes were dashed when the Belgium Court, under US and Israeli pressure, decided the case was inadmissible.

I regret to report that all those who perpetrated the Massacre at Sabra-Shatilla escaped justice. None of the hundreds of Phalange and Haddad militia who carried out the slaughter were ever punished. In fact they got a blanket amnesty from the Lebanese government.

As for the main organizers and facilitators, their massacre at Sabra-Shatilla turned out to be excellent career moves for virtually all of them.

ARIEL SHARON, found by the Israeli Kahan Commission Inquiry “to bear personal responsibility” for allowing the Sabra-Shatilla massacre resigned as Minister of Defense but retained his Cabinet position in Begin’s Government and over the next 16 years held four more ministerial posts, including that of Foreign Minister, before becoming Prime Minister in February, 2001. Following the Jenin rampage US President Bush anointed him “a man of peace.”

RAFAEL EITAN, Israeli Chief of Staff, who shared Sharon’s decision to send in the Phalange killers and helped direct the operation was elected to the Knesset as leader of the small ultra rightwing party, Tzomet. In 1984 he was named Agriculture Minister and Deputy Prime Minister in1996. He currently serves as head of Tzomet and is jockeying for another Cabinet position in the next government.

Major-General YEHOSHUA SAGUY, Army Chief of Intelligence: found by the Kahan Commission to have made “extremely serious omissions” in handling the Sabra-Shatilla affair later became a right-wing Member of the Knesset and is now mayor of the ultra-rightist community of Bat-Yam, a little town near Tel Aviv.

Major-General AMIR DRORI, Chief of Israel’s Northern Command: found not to have done enough to stop the massacre, a “breach of duty”, recently was named as head of the Israeli Antiquities Commission.

Brigadier-General AMOS YARON, the divisional commander whose troops sealed the camps to prevent victims from escaping and helped direct the operation along with Sharon and Eitan was found to have” committed a breach of duty”. He was immediately promoted Major-General and made head of Manpower in the army, served as Director-General of the Israeli Defense Ministry and Military Attaches at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. He is currently working for various Israeli lobby groups as a scholar in ‘think thanks’.

ELIE HOBEIKA, the Chief of Lebanese Forces Intelligence, who along with Sharon master-minded the actual massacre fell out with the Phalange in 1980s under suspicion that he was involved in killing their leader, Bachir Gemayal. He defected to the Syrians, acquired three Ministerial posts in post-civil war Lebanon Governments, including Minister of the Displaced (many thought he knew a lot about this subject) of Electricity and Water and in 1996, Social Affairs.

On January 24, 2002, twenty years after his involvement at Sabra-Shatilla he was blown up in a car bomb attack in East Beirut. Two of his

associates who were also rumored to be planning to “come clean” regarding Sharon’s role were assassinated in separate incidents.

A few days before Hobeika’s death he stated that he might reveal more about the massacre and those responsible and according to Beirut’s Daily Star staff who interviewed him, Hebeika told them that his lawyers had copies of his files implicating Sharon in much more than had become public. These files are now is the possession of his son who following Sharon’s death may release them to the public.

They still remember you in Burj al Buragne camp. A few weeks ago one old man told me: “Janet Stevens? No, I didn’t know her”. He paused and then said, “Oh!.. you mean Miss Janet! She spoke Arabic… I think she was American. Of course I remember her! We called her the little drummer girl. She had so much energy. She cared about the Palestinians. That was so long ago. She stopped coming to visit us. I don’t know why. How is she?”

And so, Dearest Janet, I will be waiting for you at Sabra-Shatilla , at Martyrs Square, on Saturday, September 15, 2007. You will find me patting and mumbling to that old yellow dog. He and I have become friends and we will pay our respects to the dead and I will reflect

on these past 25 years and we will watch for and wait for you. You will find us behind the straggly rose bushes on the right as you enter.

Come to us, Janet. We need you. The camp residents need you, one of their brightest lights, on this 25th anniversary of one of their darkest hours. You were always their mediator and advocate… and until today you are their majorette for Justice and Return to their sacred Palestine.




Janet Lee Stevens w as born in 1951 and died on April 18, 1983, at the age of 32, at the instant of the explosion which destroyed the American Embassy in Beirut. Twenty minutes before the blast, Janet had arrived at the Embassy to met with U.S.A.I.D. official Bill McIntyre because shewanted to advocate for more aid to the Shia of South Lebanon and for the Palestinians at Sabra, Shatilla, and Burg al Burajneh camps,stemming from Israel’s 1982 invasion and the September 15-18 massacre. As they sat at a table in the cafeteria, where she had planned to ask why the US government has never even lodged a protest following the Israeli invasion or the Massacre, a van stolen from the Embassy the previous June arrived and parked just in front of the Embassy. Almost directly in front of the cafeteria. It contained 2,000 pounds of explosives. It was detonated by remote control and tons of concrete pancaked on top of Janet and Bill, killing 63 and wounding 120. Remains of Janet’s body were found two days later, unidentified in the basement morgue of the American University of Beirut Hospital by the author. She was pregnant with our son, Clyde Chester Lamb III. Had he lived he would be 24 years old. Hopefully taking after his mother he would, no doubt, be a prince of a young man.

Franklin Lamb’s book on the Sabra-Shatilla Massacre, now out of print, was published in 1983, following Janet’s death and was dedicated to Janet Lee Stevens. He was a witness before the Israeli Kahan Commission Inquiry, held at Hebrew University in Jerusalem in January of 1983.

Lamb, Franklin P.: International legal responsibility for the Sabra-Shatila-massacre Franklin P. Lamb – Montreuil: Imp. Tipe, 1983 – 157 S. Ill.,Kt. Franklin Lamb is Director, Americans Concerned for Middle East Peace, Beirut-Washington DC, Board Member of The Sabra Shatila Foundation, and a volunteer with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign, Lebanon. He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon and is doing research in Lebanon for his next book. He can be reached at

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on THE SABRA-SHATILA ZIO=NAZI MASSACRE



by Flora Nicoletta


September 13, 2010This is the narrative of a 22-year old Palestinian who returned recently to Gaza. Among his misfortunes he was apprehended and arbitrarly detained by the mukhabarat (General Intelligence) in Jordan. 

“I was born in Sinai Rafah, as is called the part of Rafah City situated in Egyptian territory. In this section of the town 99 percent of the inhabitants were 1948 refugees and most of them were originally from the Palestinian port city of Isdud [today Ashdoud in Israel].

“In 1993 the Egyptian authorities expelled all of us to the Gaza Strip. If you want to see these refugees today they all are in Tall Es-Sultan, on the Palestinian side of the border with Egypt. All the Palestinians were expelled from Sinai Rafah. The Egyptian government gave them some money to resettle and build a house in Tall Es-Sultan. Some refugees remained in El-Arish in Egypt but they have just a residence permit: they have neither the Palestinian passport nor any kind of official document.

“When I came to live in the Strip I was 5-year old. I had a sort of normal life for some years in Tall Es-Sultan till I moved to Gaza City with my family. It was in 2000 and the second Intifada erupted. Despite all the hardships I got the Tawjihi [matriculation exam] in 2006 with a high mark, 90 out of 100… and I’m sure you are aware what sort of hell we passed through.

“After the Tawjihi I applied for a kind of scholarship to obtain the Bachelor’s degree in a Jordanian university. It’s called ‘Cultural Exchanges’, that means we pay the fees like the Jordanian students, not more.

“I studied at the University of Karak, southern Jordan. I finished my study in three years instead of four. Why? Because I worked very hard… and there was another reason too. In Karak most of the students were from the capital Amman and other areas. For the weekend they returned home and I remained alone… In summer I spent one month or one month and a half in complete loneliness in the university dormitories. During the last Ramadan I was fasting alone and I was alone for Eid El-Fitr and Eid El-Adha festivals.

“There are neither supermarkets nor shops in this area. It is a university in the desert. When 28,000 students go home it’s empty. Who can remain there? The city of Karak is far around 30 km. It took 25 minutes by car to go there through the mountains and the desert. Furthermore, there is no transportation from the university during the vacation. So I used to go to the capital to buy plenty of food for one month or one month and a half and I kept it in my fridge. To go to Amman it takes between one hour and a half and two hours by bus, it is far 135 km.

“To have a harsh life is normal for us. How could I endure it? I was telling me that it would last only for a few years and I would have the Bachelor’s degree and a better life after that. And finally came the last semester at the university… and the last day came…

“I passed all the exams and I was going to take my certificate. I was certain of a good result, although I didn’t know officially the results yet. I wanted to celebrate with my friends… We went by car to the Jordan Valley, in the north, we were in four. It was January 2010. Two days before there had been an attack on the convoy of the Israeli Ambassador to Jordan in the Jordan Valley [a roadside bomb, on Thursday 14 January, in the Allenby Bridge area], but I was not aware of it.

“When we were going to return to the university and celebrate there my graduation and have a lot of fun, the security stopped our car… they were stopping all the cars…. It was in the evening, between 17:00 and 19:00.

“I studied in a military university but in the civilian section, the other three friends were Jordanian nationals and studied in the military section. When the security saw my passport, a Palestinian passport on which is written Gaza, they told me: ‘Come!’.

“They took me to several places. First to the Criminal Investigation Division, then to the Preventive Security and from there to the mukhabarat [General Intelligence]. I remained there for 32 days, blindfolded all the time. Till now I don’t know where was this place. I had to wear the blue prisoner uniform. I was alone in the zinzana, an extremely narrow isolation cell. When I was out of the zinzana I was always handcuffed and my ankles were shackled.

“They tortured me… they badly tortured me… and they tortured me even with electricity… You can see here the scars on my left forearm… and also here on my left arm… I have cicatrices all over my body. I don’t want to speak about it… I cannot speak about it… They wanted to extract from me information about the attack on the Israeli ambassador… but I knew nothing about it.

“With regard to the three friends who were with me in the car nothing happened to them… because they were Jordanian nationals.

“I spent thirty-two days without seeing a lawyer or being able to call my family in Gaza… The mukhabarat used also the detector of lies. Finally they were convinced I had nothing to do with the attack on the Israeli ambassador. At that point they started to interrogate me about Hamas in Gaza.

“They asked me about Hamas people… They wanted me to give them names, to tell them where they live, their addresses… although I had left Gaza three years before and at that time Fatah was in power, not Hamas!!

“An investigator proposed me to work with them and said they would give me 200 dinars monthly. I replied that my father was giving me every month 400 dinars as pocket money. He said: ‘We’ll give you a temporary passport to remain in Jordan, you’ll be protected here and you’ll be free to travel to Gaza whenever you want. Don’t worry about anything, you’ll be our man.’ I replied that I preferred to die rather than to do this.

“During my detention friends searched about my whereabouts and found out that I was with the mukhabarat. A close friend of mine called my father in Gaza. My father in turn contacted some Palestinian officials and asked them to intervene for my release. Only because I had a strong wasta [connection] I was released!

“The mukhabarat decided to expel me through the Allenby bridge and they gave me an official paper about my detention in relation to the attack on the Israeli ambassador in Jordan. As you know at the Allenby Bridge in Jericho, West Bank, the Israeli authorities control the crossing point. Imagine if the Israeli security would have seen such a paper! I would still be in an Israeli jail today!

“My father managed to obtain a visa for me for Dubai. The mukhabarat took me to some offices and put me on the plane for Dubai. Till the airport I was handcuffed in their vehicle, but not blindfolded. They removed the handcuffs just before entering the airport, but three security men escorted me till the departure hall before I boarded the plane for Dubai… They were surrounding me. Only there they gave me back my passport. The ticket had been sent by my brother.

I torn all the papers concerning my detention in Jordan. In Dubai I rented a flat with friends and I tried to start my professional life. I was trained for two months by one of the biggest companies to be a sales consultant. I was the first at the end of the training. I got a three-month trial contract with a very high monthly salary: 35,000 dirham which are equal to 10,000 dollars and with the commissions I could doubled and even tripled my salary.

“Unfortunately, I had only the time to work for one month out of three. What happened is that a Hamas leader was assassinated in Dubai [on Tuesday 19 January 2010]. Following his assassination of Mahmoud El-Mabhoub, a decision was taken to expel all the Palestinians from the region, unless they were residents in one of these countries: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE… all the Arab Gulf. But it took time to implement the decision.

“At that time my employer wanted to give me a five-year residence permit because I was good in my job. However, my three-month visa was going to expire, so at the end I was obliged to depart.

“In my childhood I was expelled from Egypt and now I was expelled from Jordan and Dubai… In Cairo Airport they treated us like animals. They put all the Palestinians in a large room, fifty or sixty people… elderly, babies, women… till the day after when they put us in a bus for the Rafah border. We were sitting on the floor, there was a bad smell, no ventilation… the WC were so durty… only two WC for sixty people or so…

“The counter intelligence in Cairo took me for a couple of minutes, maybe it was a sort of investigation. So far I don’t know the reason. They asked me: “Why have you been to Jordan? Why have you been to Dubai? Why do you return from Dubai?”

“The first day I arrived in Gaza I already tried to leave. I put my luggage at home and search the way to leave Gaza. For us it is extremely difficult to get a visa for studying abroad. However, in one way or another I’ll find the way to get a visa because I was dreaming to return to Gaza with something, not empty-handed.

“I was a suspect just because I am Palestinian and because the word Gaza is written on my passport. During the interrogation sessions the mukhabarat said: ‘Gaza! Fuck you! You’re from Gaza?! You’re a terrorist and you come to our country to spread terror! Fuck you, Gazans! Why do you come to our country, you, the Gazans!’ When they pronounced the word Gaza they were full of disdain. Further, they never called me by name. They always called me: “Ya! Ghazzawi!” [Hey! Gazan!]

– Flora Nicoletta is an independent French journalist living in Gaza. She is currently working on her fourth book on the Palestinian question.

:: Article nr. 69751 sent on 14-sep-2010 20:00 ECT



Posted in PoliticsComments Off on ZIONIST REGIME IN JORDAN: ‘FUCK YOU, GAZANS!’



The Ugly Truth Podcast

Sept 12, 2010

By crescentandcross Quantcast

Nashid Abdul Khaaliq of joins the program along with guest Anisa Abd El Fatah of the National Association of Muslim American Women to discuss Muslim innocence in the criminal activities of 9/11/2001.

Posted in USA1 Comment


NOVANEWS       Ofra Yeshua-Lyth: National Jewish State: Not a Good Idea, for Palestinian and Jews Alike
September 13, 2010So many bags are going to be packed and unpacked all over again in the present round of Israeli Palestinian Peace talks. According to the special American envoy George Mitchell, the rivaling leaders have agreed to meet every two weeks over the coming months, with U.S. representatives attending at least some of those meetings. One may look enviously on the lavish gatherings, the next one due this Monday at the enchanted Egyptian-Bedouin Sharm El Sheikh resort. At the same time respect is due for the perfect candor sizzling out of the off-record briefings: no, nobody expects real progress to come out of the discussions, thanks for asking.

President Barack Obama made a special festive plea to Israel and the Palestinian Authority “to move beyond their differences”. However the luggage of the Israeli Prime Minister contains some two thousand year old axioms that would guarantee no such “move” will not occur in any foreseeable future.

“Moving beyond the differences” between a mini-superpower and a semi-functioning civil administration totally controlled by it is already a great challenge. Any symmetry between the two parties will be limited to the sizes of the delegations’ respective presidential suites. The good food and elegant settings might help to forget that Benjamin Netanyahu is the elected leader of the occupying might, fully backed by his relevant constituency, while Mahmoud Abbas’s presidency over an exasperated population with no citizenship or even valid travel documents is much contested.

Still, just for the case that the Palestinians should accept too many Israeli security demands and expect some gesture in return, a real effort was made by the Israeli delegation to secure the breakdown of the negotiations with null results. Benjamin Netanyahu inserted a trump card with an old-new mantra to take the center stage: “we expect you to be prepared to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people”, Netanyahu reportedly told President Abbas in Washington, making headlines and rallying supporters to the customary indignant Israeli complain: what about our right for self-determination?

What most supporters will not see, and the majority of supposedly impartial observers fail to notice, is that this demand has nothing to do with self-determination; In fact it represents the opposite of this very idea. The basic right of every person to choose and declare his or her own national identity is denied to Israeli citizen and residents alike.

There is no such thing as “Israeli Nationality”. Israeli citizens are categorized according to “nationalities” that in fact represent their religion affiliations or ethnic origins. Rare challenges to this anomaly from within Israel are crushed (if raised by Arabs) or ignored (if the challengers are Jews). The state accords a privileged status to the “Jewish Nationality” which may be certified only by the authorities of the Orthodox rabbinate.

As Netanyahu, a seemingly secular, smart and sophisticated modern man, and the overwhelming majority of Israeli-Jewish citizens know only too well, the concept of the “nation state for the Jewish People” entails green light for human rights violations sanctioned by the strict, undemocratic and openly xenophobic decries of a very ancient, unreformed and outdated religion.

The Orthodox Jewish establishment that exclusively decides “who is a Jew” is far removed from the majority of the Jewish religious institutions in the US (in fact many American Jews are not even as eligible to call themselves Jewish according to the orthodoxy). But it had mastered the reverence and the full cooperation of the Israeli state and its supporters, enabling a perfect instrument for the practice of blatant discrimination against non-Jews who happen to live in the land, mainly the indigenous population.

In the National State for the Jewish People residential rights as well as property claims have their limits for the non-Jewish population. Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel are expected to accept a second-class citizenship. In the occupied territories, the discrimination becomes even more painfully obvious, while its origins are seldom noticed. The flourishing Israeli settlements, resided by Jewish nationals only, are enclaves of state-financed welfare and prosperity. Their dwellers may roam the space between the river Jordan and the sea unhindered by the military checkpoints. Their elevated status is a direct derivation of their religious affiliation. In fact, any complete foreigner landing in these regions from abroad is entitled to the lavish subsidies that make life in the occupied areas so attractive to many Israeli Jews. Provided, of course, that he or she can display the mandatory religious affiliation credentials.

It is hardly surprising that feeble calls for secularization of Israel – a mere separation of politics and religion (“Church and State”) are greeted with panic and libeled as “calls for the annihilation” of the Jewish State. Non-religious Israelis often resent the extent at which the Jewish religion interferes with their personal affairs, down to the consumption of food, leisure patterns, transport and matrimony. They dislike most aspects of the orthodox religious education system and the generous funneling of tax money to sponsor non-working religious populations. Israeli women know that law of the land does not accord them the same rights as men, and on some Jerusalem buses their place is in the back as not to interfere with the view of pious Jewish men. Still, the concept of the “National Jewish State” remains a sacred taboo.

However there is no reason in the world why a Palestinian leader should endorse this taboo and not regard it for what it really is: a basic fault of the Israeli political entity. Perhaps he should remind his Israeli interlocutors that they would certainly recoil were he to present them with a parallel demand to recognize a future Palestine as a “National Moslem State”. Advocates of a Two States Solution should think twice before accepting that one of the desired future political entities would be allowed to be fully identified with any version of an ancient religion.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on NATIONAL JEWISH STATE ?



The BBC’s one sided coverage of the conflict between the state of Israel and the Palestinian people has long been a bone of contention amongst fair minded people throughout the world. If anything in recent years far from improving it has become even more one sided. During Israel’s 2009 military incursion into the Palestinian enclave of Gaza, which left 1417 Palestinian’s dead, the BBC covered the conflict almost entirely from the Israeli side, relying mainly on Israel Defense Force (IDF) spokespersons for information about the situation on the ground within Gaza. 
Earlier this year after Israel committed an act of international piracy in the Mediterranean which resulted in the loss of nine lives, when its military attacked an international aid convoy bound for the port of Gaza; and boarded in international waters the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, the BBC coverage sank to new depths, when in a BBC Panorama programe Jane Corbyn reported on this issue in the most biased manner.
Corbyn’s BBC Panorama report among a number of inaccuracies, included a faked recording of a voice, ‘purporting’ to come from the Mavi Marmara before Israeli special forces boarded the ship, saying ‘go back to Auschwitz’, even though the IDF had already been forced to admit it was not broadcast by any of the ships in the international aid convoy.
The Campaign to end BBC Bias on Palestine, decided to publish a Statement condemning the BBC as both unethical and immoral after being outraged by the corporations decision to broadcast Israel’s doctored and faked “evidence,” when it was fully aware that Israel’s military had stolen all photographic evidence to the contrary, as well as the recording equipment and personal possessions of those it had illegally detained, witnesses to Israel’s attack.  
 Tony Greenstein on behalf of the group approached the Guardian to publish the Statement, but the fee at £7500 was felt to be to exorbitant. He settled on the Independent, who agreed to publish the statement for a fee of £3500, but only if a number of changes were made. After Tony made a number of valiant attempts to come to a reasonable accommodation with the Independent, and after consulting with the signatories, he concluded the newspaper had no intention of publishing the Statement. It will now be carried by the New Statesman, Spectator and the Blogger-Sphere.
So much for a free press.
                  The Campaign to End BBC Bias on Palestine
PO Box 164, Brighton BN1 7WB
( 01273-540717/07843350343         Fax       01273-540797
The BBC’s Biased & Shameful Coverage of the Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla is a Betrayal of its Charter
On 16th August BBC Panorama’s ‘Death on the Med’ was, in its own words, ‘given unique access to Israel’s Naval Commando 13, the unit which seized a ship in the Gaza flotilla in May resulting in the deaths of nine activists.’ In return, the BBC broadcast a half hour justification of the murder of 9 humanitarian aid workers and the wounding of 50 more aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.  The BBC’s Orwellian production portrayed the victims of Israel’s premeditated attack on the ships as the ones guilty of violence.  The BBC even broadcast an obviously faked voice, purporting to come from the Mavi Marmara, saying ‘go back to Auschwitz’.  Even the IDF admitted on June 5th that this had been ‘edited’ and was not from the MM.
Whilst the rest of the world expressed incredulity at Israel’s claim that its commandos had acted in self defense, BBC’s radio and TV news broadcast, without comment, Benjamin Netanyahu’s absurd claim that “Israel did all it could to avoid violence”.  Likewise Mark Regev, Israeli government PR chief, went unchallenged as he justified the murders and vilified the victims.
For the BBC to broadcast Israel’s own doctored and faked “evidence”, when it was fully aware that Israel’s military had stolen all photographic evidence to the contrary, as well as the recording equipment and personal possessions of those it had illegally detained, witnesses to Israel’s attack, was both unethical and immoral.  It is an incentive to other states to behave similarly.
By the time the flotilla survivors were free to tell their side of the story, the BBC news agenda had conveniently moved on, leaving imprinted on the minds of their viewers and listeners Israel’s fable of the aggressor having become the victim.
Anyone relying on BBC news would not have heard world famous Swedish novelist Henning Mankell, explain the beatings inflicted on activists after they were detained.   They would also have missed the photographs smuggled past Israel’s pirates, showing activists giving medical treatment to those aboard the Mavi Marmara.
Nor did the BBC’s viewers hear about the American Jewish  student, Emily Henochowicz, who lost an eye on May 31 during a protest against the attack on the Flotilla, when Israeli soldiers fired a teargas canister directly at her.  Emily has now been told that the Israeli Army refuses to pay for her medical treatment because she ‘put(ting) herself at risk by voluntarily participating in a breach of the peace’.
Knowledge of Israel’s routinely violent attacks on Palestinians and their Jewish supporters would provide meaningful context to its news reports. Instead a BBC correspondent fatuously stated on May 31st: ‘Of course the Israeli military is very well experienced at dealing with crowd control.”
If Iranian, North Korean or Somali pirates, had carried out an attack, in international waters, on a ship flying another country’s flag, can one imagine BBC broadcasting uncritical interviews with apologists for the murderers?
The BBC’s decision to broadcast uncritically Israeli propaganda film reflects a consistently pro-Israeli bias in its coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, something highlighted in a report presented to the corporation’s Governors in April 2006.  The report stated that “BBC coverage does not consistently constitute a full and fair account of the conflict but rather, in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture.”
The Report noted that historical and other context was frequently absent and coverage failed to reflect “the fact that one side is in control and the other lives under occupation.”  It also found that “the death of an Israeli killed by the Palestinian side was more likely to be reported by the BBC than the death of a Palestinian killed by the Israeli side.”  These failings have been highlighted by the BBC’s coverage of the siege of Gaza
There needs to be a fundamental sea change in the BBC’s news coverage in order that the context of events is always present in its coverage.  For example Israel’s habitual violence against and repression of peaceful protest should have served as the backdrop to its coverage of Israel’s murderous attack on the Mavi Marmara.  Why did Panorama not investigate the attack from the standpoint of those who were killed and injured instead of allowing itself to be bought off with ‘unique access’ to the killers?
And how was Panorama’s ‘Death on the Med’ able to gain exclusive interviews with Israel’s naval commandos when the Israeli government has told the UN inquiry and their own Turkel Commission into the attack that they will not allow them to testify?  Why is it that the BBC is trusted more than its own tame inquiry?
We wish to see the BBC stand up to threats from Israel instead of caving in, as occurred when the government of Ariel Sharon targeted correspondents Orla Guerin and Jeremy Bowen. (BBC Says Sorry to Israel, 12.3.05. The Guardian,  BBC appoints Middle East tsar, 11.11.03.)
Let us see no more of the blatant bias exhibited by the BBC’s refusal, in January 2009, to broadcast the
Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for Gaza.
1.                        Professor Abby Lippman, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec 
2.                        Dr. Vahitha Abdul-Salam, Imperial College London , ,
3.                        George Abendstern
4.                        Dr Shadi Abu-Hayyeh, Imperial College, London
5.                        Jackie Alsaid LLM,
6.                        Beatrice Andrieu,
7.                Mike Arnott, University of Dundee and Secretary of Dundee Trades Union Council
8.                        Malcolm Bailey, Luton & Bedfordshire Green Party,
9.                        Dave Baker, Visiting Research Fellow Reader in Numeracy/Maths, London Institute of Education,
10.                    Professor Mona Baker, Professor of Translation Studies, University of Manchester,
11.                    Fiona Balaban (UK/Turkey)
12.                    David Bangs, Environmentalist,   
13.                    Frank Barat, (Russell Tribunal on Palestine)
14.                    Geoff Barr,
15.                    Jinan Bastaki, (UAE)
16.                    Dr. A.F. J. Bell (Australia)
17.                    Paul Bemrose, GMB Trade Union,
18.                    Tony Benn,
19.                    Richard Berks – Centre for Immunology & Infection, University of York,
20.                    Greta Berlin (USA/France) (co-founder, Free Gaza movement)
21.                    Jo Bird,
22.                    Rica Bird,
23.                    Patrick Black,
24.                    Dr. Susan Blackwell, National Executive Committee member, University and College Union,
25.                    Prof. Haim Bresheeth, University of East London,
26.                    Andy Brown, Secretary, Leeds Palestine Solidarity Campaign,
27.                    Dr.Chris Burns-Cox Physician Gloucestershire,
28.                    Dave Campbell,
29.                    Val Cane, Brighton NUT,
30.                    Jean Calder, journalist,
31.                    Patricia Chaffee, (USA)
32.                    Linda Clair 
33.                    Nigel Clark, Southampton,
34.                    Ruth Clark, Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh (retd),
35.                    Jerrold Cohen, PhD (USA)
36.                    Sheila Colman
37.                    Prof Andrea Cornwall, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex
38.                    Mike Cushman, London School of Economics,
39.                    Martin Cutler,
40.                    Dr Adam Darwish, University of Sussex,
41.                Teresa Delaney , Green Left
42.                    Lilian Joan Dell
43.                    Barbara Denuelle,
44.                    Dr Merav Devere, Brighton, East Sussex,
45.                    Professor James Dickins, Prof. of Arabic, University of Salford,
46.                    William Dienst Jr. M.D., Washington, USA
47.                    Carol Diggle
48.                    Greg Dropkin,
49.                    Dr John Drury, Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology, University of Sussex,
50.                    Professor Mick Dunford, University of Sussex
51.                    Professor Mohamed El-Gomati, University of York
52.                    Mark Elf,
53.                    Tom  Eisner,
54.                    Dr Catherine Farnworth, Cornwall,
55.                    Dr Abdul Ashraf Fattah, Lecturer, University of Westminster,
56.                    Mrs Jackie Fearnley, Radio 4 programme listeners panel,
57.                    Jonny Feldman
58.                    Alf Filer,
59.                    Mark Findlay,
60.                    Deborah Fink, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods [JBig],
61.                    Sylvia Finzi,
62.                    Pete Firmin,
63.                    Naomi Foyle,
64.                    Linda Frank, (USA)
65.                    Garth Frankland
66.                    Kenneth Fryde,
67.                    Terry Gallogly, York PSC
68.                    Jasmine Gani,
69.                    Charles Gate, Calderdale Green Party,
70.                    Dr Ramez J. Ghazoul,
71.                    Dr Sarah Glynn, Scottish Jews for a Just Peace
72.                    Olga Gora
73.                    Nina Gora,
74.                    Tony Greenstein, Brighton Unemployed Centre, UNISON,
75.                    Dr Anne Gray
76.                    Mick Hall, Organized Rage,
77.                    Ann Hallam, Brighton & Hove Palestine Solidarity Campaign,
78.                    Peter Hallward, Professor of Modern European Philosophy, Kingston University London,
79.                    David Halpin, Dove and Dolphin Charity,
80.                    Mira Hammad,
81.                    Keith Hammond,
82.                    Fajr Harb (Palestine)
83.                    Peter Harvey, Hants?
84.                    Dr Rumy Hasan, Senior Lecturer, University of Sussex
85.                    Abe Hayeem, RIBA
86.                    Martin Hemingway, Green Party Leeds,
87.          Andy Hewett, Green Left,
88.                    David Hillman,
89.                    Prof Richard Hudson, FBA, Emeritus Professor of Linguistics, UCL,
90.                    Gaynor Hudson
91.                    Mary Hughes-Thompson, U.S./UK (co-founder, Free Gaza movement)
92.                    Fazia Hussain, Regional Officer, Unite,
93.                    Bob Jarrett, Amnesty International Activists,
94.                    Marilyn Jarrett, Amnesty International Activists,
95.                    Michael Kalmanovitch, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network , UK,
96.                    Samira Kawar,
97.                    Judith Kazantzis, writer, Lewes,
98.                    Dr. Paul Kelemen, University of Manchester,
99.                    Hudda Khaireh,
100.                 Sadia Kidawi
101.                 Reem Kelani, Palestinian singer & musician,
102.                 David Landau, anti-racist activist
103.                 Dr Stephen Leah 
104.                 Joe Lee, ISM, London.
105.                 Leah Levane,
106.                 Dr Les Levidow, Open University,
107.                 Bruce Levy
108.                 Ros Levy, Labour Party, Amnesty International
109.                 Caroline Lucas MP
110.                 Ziyaad Lunat (Portugal)  
111.                 Jenny Lynn
112.                 Phelim MacCafferty,
113.                 Bill MacKeith, Oxford,
114.                 Moshé Machover Professor (emeritus), Kings College, London
115.                 Ms. Iman Mahmoud, 
116.                 Beryl Maizels,
117.                 Naeem Malik <
118.                 Michael Mansfield QC, Barrister,
119.                 Mike Marqusee,
120.                 Zoe Mars, Chairperson, Brighton & Hove Palestine Solidarity Campaign,
121.                 Professor Nur Masalha, Professor of Religion and Politics, St. Mary’s University College and SOAS
122.                 Ian Mason, Professor Emeritus, Heriot Watt University
123.                 Dr. Willem Meijs, freelance translator,
124.                 John Metson,
125.                 Martine Miel, J-Big,
126.                 Muna Mohamed
127.                 Keith Mollison
128.                 Patrick Montague, Service Desk Manager, Lancaster University,
129.                 Dr Dalia Mostafa, Middle Eastern Studies, University of Manchester,
130.                 Mohamed Ibrahim Mostafa, 
131.                 Patricia Morrison
132.                 Siobhan Mooney, Labour Party
133.                 Kevin Moore, Executive Committee Member, IHBC Scottish Branch
134.                 Shena Moore
135.                 Ms JJ Moore-Blunt
136.                 Bahadur Najak
137.                 Simon Natas, partner, Irvine Thanvi Natas solicitors,
138.                 Diana Neslen, Jews for Justice for Palestinians (personal capacity),
139.                 Kathleen O’Connor Wang, USA (Free Gaza volunteer,  passenger on Free Gaza boat, August 2008)
140.                 Safiya O’Donnell,
141.                 Annie O’Gara,
142.                 Dennis O’Malley, ‘Stop the War Coalition- Cambridge Branch’
143.                 Nicola Oestreicher,
144.                 Ernesto Paramo,
145.                 Felicia Parazaider, (USA)  
146.                 Dr Susan Pashkoff,
147.                 Janet Pavone,
148.                 Professor David E Pegg, University of York,
149.                 Romayne Phoenix,
150.                 Susan Pike
151.                 Veronica Planton,
152.                 Shae Popovich, (USA
153.                 Caroline Poland
154.                 Penny Porter Brighton and Hove Palestine Solidarity Campaign,
155.                 Dr Natasha Posner
156.                 Jawad Qasrawi, NUJ,
157.                 Mr M A Qavi
158.                 Dinah Raman, Imperial College, London,
159.                 Roland Rance, Jews Against Zionism
160.                 Andrew Read, University of Manchester
161.                 Roger Reeve
162.                 Professor Dee Reynolds, Professor of French, University of Manchester,
163.                 Dr John Richardson, Loughborough University
164.                 Dr Chris Roberts, Reader, University of Manchester
165.                 Professor Hilary Rose,
166.                 Professor Jonathan Rosenhead, London School of Economics
167.                 Leon Rosselson, Songwriter
168.                 Sandra Ruch,
169.                 Daniel Russell, Halifax
170.                 Liz Russell, Halifax
171.                 Michael Sackin, Green Party, Jews for Justice for Palestinians,
172.                 Professor Myriam Salama-Carr, University of Salford,
173.                 Dr Gabriela Saldanha, Lecturer, University of Birmingham,
174.                 Ariel Salzmann, Associate Professor, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada,
175.                 Professor Donald Sassoon, History, Queen Mary College, University of London,
176.                 Dominic Saunders
177.                 David K. Schermerhorn (USA)
178.                 Alice Severs,
179.                 John Severs
180.                 Sue Shaw, Brighton, East Sussex,
181.                 Professor Avi Shlaim FBA,  Professor of International Relations, St Antony’s College, Oxford University
182.                 John Siddique,
183.                 Andrew Silver, USA,
184.                 Peter Smith
185.                 Chris Soames-Charlton,
186.                 Mary Starkey
187.                 Heather Stroud, Malton,
188.                 Steve Stroud, Malton
189.                 John Strover, 
190.                 Dr Derek Summerfield, Honorary Senior Lecturer/Consultant Psychiatrist, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College, London
191.                 Simon Tate,
192.                 Ruth Tenne, Israeli peace activist resident in UK
193.                 Baroness Dr Jenny Tonge, Liberal Democrat Peer,
194.                 Dr Norman Traub , Southend Stop The War Coalition,
195.                 Patricia Tricker
196.                 Pip Tindall, Green Party,
197.                 John Tymon
198.                 Yvette Vanson,
199.                 Stanley Walinets,
200.                 Pam Walton,
201.                 Dr Peter Watt, Sheffield University,
202.                 Irving Weinman, Novelist,
203.                 Lee Whitaker
204.                 Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, [JBig], NUT
205.                 Devra Wiseman, Jews for Justice for Palestinians,
206.                 Pam Wortley ,
207.                 Dr Monica Wusteman, Research Fellow, University of York




by Jeff Davis

The continuing collapse of the US economy and high unemployment gives us a hint that Obama and his light-weight, heavily minority regime are staggeringly incompetent, but this latest story makes me wonder if Obama can get anything right.

The “Magic Negro” in the Oval Office is so astonishingly ignorant he can’t even find a legitimate quote from a Black historical figure, that wasn’t plagiarized from a White man. So much for that expensive Harvard education he got courtesy of Affirmative Action. The Washington Post reports: “A mistake has been made in the Oval Office makeover that goes beyond the beige. President Obama’s new presidential rug seemed beyond reproach, with quotations from Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. woven along its curved edge.

‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’ According (to) media reports, this quote keeping Obama company on his wheat-colored carpet is from King. Except it’s not a King quote. The words belong to a long-gone (White) Bostonian champion of social progress. His roots in the republic ran so deep that his grandfather commanded the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington.”

One major problem with Martin Luther King Jr. was that he was a prolific plagiarist. One article notes “A Boston University committee reports that while 45% of the first half and 21% of the second half of King’s (doctoral) thesis was plagiarized, it was still an original contribution to scholarship, and his degree should not be revoked. The true extent of King’s plagiarism is much greater, and comparing his thesis with its sources, one can only conclude that BU’s conclusion was purely political and academically dishonest.” For anyone else any amount of plagiarism is a major scandal, but we still have liberals making excuses for King.

The Post article notes “For the record, Theodore Parker is your man, President Obama. Unless you’re fascinated by antebellum American reformers, you may not know of the lyrically gifted Parker, an abolitionist, Unitarian minister and Transcendentalist thinker who foresaw the end of slavery, though he did not live to see emancipation. He died at age 49 in 1860, on the eve of the Civil War.”

The mistake no doubt arose from the fact that King later plagiarized the Parker quote in a number of his own speeches. King was nailed for plagiarism on numerous occasions, but the liberal media gave news of that plagiarism as little attention as possible so people would continue to worship the false god, they helped create, just like they buried his penchant for White prostitutes and drunkenness.

So instead of quoting an obnoxious black hypocrite and lecher on his Oval Office carpet, Obama quoted an obnoxious Yankee liberal. Oh well, …close enough.




Zionist Maariv summarizes a news item from the Lebanese A-Safir. It’s unclear, however, whether the report on the Mitchell visit is also from that source.The byline is unusual. Bardenstein is the junior diplomatic affairs correspondent and probably does not speak Arabic. Items based on direct monitoring of the Arab press are usually bylined by the Arab or Palestinian affairs correspondent. Bardenstein’s sources are almost exclusively in the Zio=Nazi Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister’s Office.

Effort to resume negotiations with Syria

Eli Bardenstein, Maariv, September 13 2010 [page 5; Hebrew original here and at bottom of post]

Along with the direct talks between Zionist and Ab-A$$, France and the US are acting to put in motion the political negotiations between Zionist and Asad. Over the course of the holiday and yesterday, two top officials visited the racist Zionist state of ‘Israel’ who are responsible for talks on this channel. They met with top Zio=Nazi officials and in the next few days will go to Damascus for meetings with American puppet Bashar Assad and his Foreign Minister Walid Muallem.

The Lebanese As-Safir newspaper wrote that the French official was Jean Claude Cousseran, French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s special envoy to the Zionist-Asad talks, and Fred Hoff, deputy to special US envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, who is responsible for the Syrian-Lebanese desk for Washington. Cousseran and Hoff met with Zio=Nazi Defense Ministry officials, including Nazi Defense Minister Barak.

The paper further reported that in his visit to Damascus, Cousseran will try to clarify to what extent Asad will agree to be flexible in its demands of Zionist even though, at every opportunity, Assad is firm about stressing that without a withdrawal from the Golan Heights, there will be no peace. Cousseran will also try to help get the dialogue moving on this track by means of putting pressure on the Zionist side to enter into the negotiations. France believes that if this works, the US will take on itself the role of patron of the talks.

Envoy Mitchell is also expected to visit Damascus and will try to get the support of Puppet Assad for the direct talks between Zionist regime and Ab-A$$ and to relay a message in the matter of the importance that the US attributes to talks on the Zionist-Asad track.


Shoah’s pages


September 2010
« Aug   Oct »