Archive | November 9th, 2011

Palestine Inching Towards Statehood!



“UNESCO vote to admit Palestine as a member is regrettable, premature, and undermines its shared goal of a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East; United States remains steadfast in its support for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, but such a state can only be realized through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians”.By Air Commodore
(R) Khalid Iqbal                                                                                       

It is refreshing that United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) accrued the distinction to become the first UN agency to welcome Palestine as its full member. UNESCO has indeed kept up its apolitical mandate, while responding to the collective voice of international conscience.

A huge cheer erupted in UNESCO’s General Assembly after the vote. “Today’s victory at UNESCO is the beginning of a road that is difficult, but will lead to the freedom of our land and people from occupation,” Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki commented.

Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas said, “This vote is not directed against anyone, but represents support for freedom and justice…This vote is for the sake of peace and represents international consensus on support for the legitimate Palestinian national rights of our people, the foremost of which is the establishment of its independent state.”

Israel has called the vote a “tragedy”. “We regret that the organization of science has opted to adopt a resolution which is a resolution of science fiction,” said Nimrod Barkan, Israel’s ambassador to UNESCO. Barkan warned that those who voted for the resolution would lose influence over Israel. “It certainly will weaken their ability to have any influence on the Israeli position”. He slammed the countries that “have adopted a science fiction version of reality by admitting a non-existent state to the science organisation, UNESCO should deal in science not science fiction.”

However, he admitted that the vote, while symbolic, could have a knock-on effect: “There is potential for a cascading effect of this resolution on many other UN specialised agencies and in New York.” Israeli foreign ministry responded; “There is no Palestinian state and therefore one should not have been admitted…“This is a unilateral Palestinian manoeuvre which will bring no change on the ground but further removes the possibility for a peace agreement,”

In an ugly reaction, Israel has gone beyond diplomatic sabre rattling and initiated physical actions against Palestine. It has announced to build 2,000 settler homes and freeze the transfer of Palestinian tax remittance to punish them for successfully joining UNESCO. The decision to speed up construction in east Jerusalem and in nearby settlements was taken by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inner cabinet, which met a day after UNESCO’s general assembly voted to admit Palestine as a full member.“These measures were agreed … as punishment after the vote at UNESCO…We will build 2,000 housing units, including 1,650 homes in east Jerusalem and the rest in the settlements of Maaleh Adumim and Efrat” a senior Israeli official commented.

Furthermore, Israeli test fired a new nuclear-capable InterContinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) as a warning to regional states only two days after its diplomatic defeat. This missile was launched for the first time since Israel became a nuclear power two decades ago. Missile is an upgraded Jericho 3 which can deliver a 750 KG nuclear warhead to a distance of 7,000 kilometres.

On the economic side, Israel has decided to temporarily freeze the transfer of funds to the Palestinian Authority. Every month, Israel is required to transfers to the Palestinian Authority customs duties which are levied on goods destined for Palestinian markets that transit through Israeli ports. Israel often freezes the transfer of funds as a punitive measure in response to unfavourable diplomatic or political developments.

A statement from Netanyahu’s office said the decisions were taken during a “first discussion” of the UNESCO issue and further steps would be considered at the next meeting of the so-called ‘Forum of Eight’ comprising senior ministers. Israel is also reportedly considering withdrawing the special permits granted to top Palestinian officials that allow them to move between the West Bank and Israel with relative ease. “We won’t sit around idly in the wake of these moves that harm Israel and are a crude violation of the most elementary commitment the sides took upon themselves in the peace process – to solve the conflict between us through negotiations only,” Netanyahu retorted.

Palestinian internet servers across the West Bank and Gaza Strip were electronically attacked, cutting all Internet access. Palestinian communications minister Mashur Abu Daqqa suspected that Israel was involved in these disruptive activities. “I think from the manner of the attack and its intensity, that there is a state behind it,” he opined.

Punitive measures drew an angry response from the Palestinians, calling on the Middle East Quartet and the US administration to “put an end to this recklessness.”

The United States has commented that: “UNESCO vote to admit Palestine as a member is regrettable, premature, and undermines its shared goal of a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East; United States remains steadfast in its support for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, but such a state can only be realized through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians”.

The US ambassador to the UN said that UNESCO would suffer. America has stopped its obligatory financial contributions to UNESCO for granting membership to Palestine. A legislation of yesteryears stipulates that the US can cut off funding to any UN agency that accepts Palestine as a member. United States provides about 22 percent of the UNESCO’s funding, which is around $70 million. Canada and Israel have also announced to withhold their portion of funding.

The US has acknowledged that it could lose international influence as it would lose its right to vote in UNESCO, if it makes no payments over the next two years. During cold war era, America had boycotted UNESCO from 1984 to 2003 over what the State Department called “growing disparity between US foreign policy and UNESCO goals.”

Palestine got affirmative nod from two third of UNESCO’s members to become its 195th member. Of 173 countries that voted from a possible 185, 107 voted in favour, 14 voted against, 52 abstained and 12 were absent. The United States, Canada, Germany and Holland voted against Palestinian membership. Pakistan, Brazil, Russia, China, India, South Africa and France voted in favour. Britain and Italy abstained. Palestine needs to continue working on the 52 abstaining states and win over their support to make the crucial number of 129, when its request for UN membership moves to the General Assembly.

UNSC is to meet on 11th November to decide whether to hold a formal vote on Palestine’s application for statehood. It requires at least nine votes and no veto to succeed. Palestine has assurance from 8 SC members; Bosnia is yet to make up its mind. Muslim Ummah expects that Bosnia would vote in favour of Palestine to pay back the unclenching support it received from the Muslim Ummah during its difficult times.

It will be in the fitness of things that to offset the impact of politico-economic arm twisting of UNESCO, countries supporting the Palestinian cause should voluntarily enhance their contributions towards UNESCO.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Palestine Inching Towards Statehood!

Canadians face two months of incarceration in IsraHell without trial

Yesterday, Freedom Waves to Gaza activists detained in Israel – including Canadians David Heap and Ehab Lotayef – came before a judge and were told they could be held in prison for 2 months without charges or trial. 

To avoid this, the judge told them, they must sign a statement that they entered Israel ‘voluntarily’ and ‘illegally’ despite being violently kidnapped from international waters and taken to Israel against their will while trying to reach Gaza. While a handful of Freedom Waves to Gaza participants have been deported – including Canadian Karen DeVito – 18 activists and journalists have now been in Israeli prison for 5 days with no end in sight. DeVito is available for interviews. 

The Israeli military forcibly commandeered the boats Tahrir and MV Saoirse that journalists and activists were traveling on as part of the Freedom Waves initiative and brought them to Ashdod port in Israel. 

American journalist Jihan Hafiz was on the Canadian boat Tahrir, and was among those detained by Israel despite her press credentials. Israeli authorities ordered her and others not to talk about “anything negative or political” during their brief phone calls to home from Israeli detention. This censorship explains why some details are only just coming out now. She reported Tuesday about her experience during the Israeli takeover of the Irish and Canadian boats: 

“There were three warships […] four Zodiacs, four water cannon boats, as well as four regular gunboats. All of the commandos on all of these boats were heavily armed. It looked like they were taking on an army of a foreign country.” 

She added: “Two water cannons started to pour lots of water into the Irish boat, which flooded it, blew their sockets, and cut off all the electricity. And so, at that point, the Irish delegates I spoke to said they told the Israeli army, “We’re taking on water. We’re sinking. We’re going to go down at sea if you continue with the water.” 

Hafiz went on to describe the violent takeover during which guns were pointed at the heads of the boats’ passengers, how they were roughed up, mistreated, strip-searched, and filmed naked. She also tells of how the journalists’ equipment was confiscated, in a bid to silence any reporting that might contradict the sanitized Israeli account of what happened during the hijacking of the Tahrir and the MV Saoirse. 

For the full video interview and transcript, click here 

“Our friends have been assaulted, tasered, beaten, kidnapped, robbed, and imprisoned. Now Israel is threatening to illegally detain them for two months. What is it going to take for the Canadian government to actually do something about another country kidnapping Canadian citizens and refusing to let them go?” demands Wendy Goldsmith, an organizer with the Canadian Boat to Gaza. 

“We are disappointed, but not surprised, by the inaction of Baird and Harper,” said Canadian Boat to Gaza organizer Dylan Penner. “In its failure to speak out against Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the Canadian Government is condoning Israel’s disregard for the human rights of the citizens of Gaza and giving it impunity for its refusal to comply with its international obligations. It is this silence that compels citizens of good conscience, like David and Ehab, to act where our Government has so consistently failed to do so.” 

Organizers of the Canadian Boat to Gaza are demanding Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird step down for failing to do his job to stand up for the interests of Canadians.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Canadians face two months of incarceration in IsraHell without trial

Canadians detained in Zio-Nazi camp arriving home

Despite a threat from an Israeli judge that they could face 2 months in prison, Freedom Waves to Gaza activists David Heap and Ehab Lotayef are being released and deported back to Canada today. They will arrive on Thursday, November 10. 


What: Heap and Lotayef will arrive in Toronto after 5 days in Israeli prison, following their abduction from international waters en route to Gaza to challenge Israel’s illegal blockade.

When: Scheduled flight arrival time is 6:40am, with likely disembarkation completed by 7:20, Thursday, November 10, 2011.

Where: Arrivals Gate, Pearson International Airport, Toronto


What: Heap and Lotayef will discuss their experiences on Freedom Waves to Gaza aboard the Canadian ship Tahrir and their time in Israeli prison.

When: 1pm, Thursday, November 10, 2011

Where: Charles Lynch Room, 130-S, Parliament Hill, Ottawa

The third Canadian who was aboard the Tahrir, Karen DeVito, has also been released and will be returning home to Vancouver next week. The remaining delegates from Ireland and Australia are also expected to arrive home by the end of the week, but the status of UK journalist Hassan Ghani is still unclear.

The reason why those who were detained undertook this journey in the first place was to show solidarity with the ordinary people of Gaza who have lost their basic freedoms as a result of a blockade imposed by the military forces of Israel, and to take action that would contribute to the end of that blockade.

Freedom Waves was never intended to focus attention on the 27 people aboard the MV Saoirse and the Tahrir, but on the 1.6 million people of Gaza – half of whom are children under the age of 16 – who continue to suffer collective punishment at the hands of the Israeli military. While Canadian and international citizens were languishing in prison in Israel for the “crime” of coming to their aid, the population of Gaza continues to languish in what is, in effect, the world’s largest open air prison.

This latest of eleven attempts to break the blockade of Gaza via the sea demonstrates once again that Israel is able to act with impunity when it comes to the welfare of the Palestinian people and anyone trying to help them. It is because of the continuing inaction of governments around the world, including the Canadian government, that ordinary people feel compelled to act.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Canadians detained in Zio-Nazi camp arriving home




sraeli Ynet reported today that British Ambassador to Israel Mathew Gould, declared today that “Britain shares Israel’s concerns with regards to Iran, and stressed that the Islamic Republic must NOT be allowed to produce nuclear weapons.”

And yet, unlike the Guardian that was quick to print Israeli propaganda spin suggesting that ‘UK military stepped up plans for Iran attack’, Ambassador Gould was somehow hesitant. “An attack on Iran would carry a heavy price” he said and added,  “UK favours further economic sanctions against Iran.”

I guess that by now Britain also gathers that Israel puts our planet at risk.  Some people in this Kingdom do grasp that Britain better disassociate itself from Israeli aggression  in the current volatile climate.

Posted in UKComments Off on BRITAIN, ISRAEL AND IRAN




ed-Note ” looking at Dershowitz make the Nazi’s look good” ” Shoah’


Rabid Zionist Alan Dershowitz is devastated by the success of The Wandering Who. He just cannot accept that professors and academic sendorse the book “as ‘brilliant,’ ‘fascinating,’ ‘absorbing,’ and ‘moving’,” In his latest articlehe again misses an opportunity to debate the book, its message and its meaning. He prefers instead to indulge in the only things for which he possesses any talent at all – lying and bullying.

But why, I wonder, does Dershowitz insist on reducing a potentially ethical, intellectual and ideological debate to just one more Zionist exercise in mud-slinging? I can think of only two possible answers; First, Dershowitz lacks the necessary intellect to engage in a debate and second, that Zionism and Israel cannot be defended – ethically, morally or intellectually.

But there is also an amusing aspect to Dershowitz’s Zio-centric tantrum.  For some strange reason, he believes that it’s down to him, an ultra Zionist, to decide who his kosher enough to lead the Palestinian solidarity discourse. “There is growing concern that some of Israel’s most vocal detractors are crossing a red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing anti-Semitism,” he pontificates without really being able to point at any anti Semitism in mine or anyone else’s work. But is it down to Dershowitz or any other Zionist to define the ‘red lines’ of the solidarity discourse?

Dershowitz tries so hard to ‘prove’ that I am an anti-Semite but fails to even define what anti Semitism is. In the past, anti Semites were people who didn’t like Jews but on Planet Dershowitz, anti-Semites are simply those Dershowitz hates (or fears).  He mentions, for instance, the significant role of Austrian philosopher Otto Weininger in shaping my views  yet seems unable to suggest exactly what it is in Weininger’s influence that makes me into an ‘anti- Semite’.  He points at my contempt for the ‘the Jew in me’ but this leaves me wondering, why am I not permitted to hate myself?  

Why am I not permitted to loathe ‘the Jew in me’? I’ll try to expand on this. Why is it that when I hate ‘myself’ Dershowitz is so devastatingly and personally offended? Is it possible that my loathing of the ‘Jew in me’ exposes an inherent problem at the core of Jewish identity politics in general? And if this is indeed the case, why can’t we just discuss it openly? What is Dershowitz afraid of?

It’s obvious that, like other Zionists, Dershowitz lacks the elementary capacity to engage in proper intellectual debate. Instead he prefers to take quotes out of context – or if that fails, well, he just lies.

In his latest article, Dershowitz conceals from his readers the fact that my book deals solely with Jewish ideology. It avoids any reference to Jews as people, race or ethnicity and concentrates only on ideology and culture. He probably realises that my avoidance of any form of criticism of the Jews as people or ethnicity leaves him and his life’s-work on a path to nowhere.

For example, I do indeed call the recent credit crunch a  ‘Zio-punch’ (22) and I insist that by no means was it “a Jewish conspiracy”.  Because, as I clearly prove, “it was all in the open” (30).

So why is this anti Semitic? I neither blame, nor associate the ‘Jew’ or the ‘Jews’ with the financial turmoil. But I do make the necessary connection between that financial turmoil and the criminal Zionist wars in which we are engaged. If Dershowitz is unhappy with my reading of the situation, well, all he has to do is to produce a counter-argument. Clearly, this is the one thing he cannot do.

I also follow Israeli historian Shlomo Sand and argue that, as far as Israel is concerned, Influential Zionists had better stay right where they are in the Diaspora rather than make Aliya. Have not Wolfowitz, Rahm, Emmanuel, Dershowitz etc “proved far more effective for the Zionist cause by staying where they are”? (19). Is this an anti Semitic statement? Is it not rather an ‘astute political observation’?

And Dershowitz is right. I do insist that the American media“failed to warn the American people of the enemy within” (27), though it seems that those who now occupy Wall Street have certainly managed to grasp who the enemy are and where they may be found. But is it really anti-Semitic to oppose the influential lobby of a foreign State which dominates your country’s foreign policy? Is it anti-Semitic to oppose a politically motivated club that succeeds in driving your country to financial ruin?

Dershowitz writes “Atzmon has written that Jews are evil and a menace to humanity”. This does leave me a touch bewildered, because, first, it doesn’t represent my views at all. Second, it doesn’t sound even remotely like me or my writing. Third,  not one single sentence in my book or in my writing  refers to ‘Jews’ as people or an ethnic group but only to Jewish identity politics, Jewish culture or Jewish ideology. Far more significant is the fact that Dershowitz fails to support his bizarre statement with any contextual reference whatsoever. Instead of citing any criticism of ‘Jews’ or the “Jew’ he just provides us with examples of my criticism of Israeli behaviour.  “With Fagin and Shylock in mind Israeli barbarism and organ trafficking seem to be just other events in an endless hellish continuum.”

The truth is that, in my original text, the above sentence actually refers to Zionist lawyer Anthony Julius’ latest book. Here is the original quote in full: “It doesn’t take a genius to gather whyJulius and others are concerned with Fagin or Shylock. Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the bloodthirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind, the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians seems to be just a further event in an endless hellish continuum.” (51)

Harsh words indeed, but they refer clearly to Anthony Julius’ Zionist advocacy and his obsession with Jewish stereotypes such as Shylock and Fagin.  So what’s Dershowitz up to?

But, I’ll say this for him, he doesn’t give up. Again, he tries his luck – “The Homo Zionicus quickly became a mass murderer, detached from any recognised form of ethical thinking and engaged in a colossal crime against humanity.” – but again he fails. The ‘Homo Zionicus’ is not a ‘general’ reference to ‘Jews’ but a clear attempt to point at a particular form of Jewish national school of thought, namely Zionismus. Dershowitz should explain to us, once and for all why he believes that Zionism is beyond criticism.  

Now Dershowitz gets desperate. His article is going nowhere so now he decides to deceive his readers.  He quotes me as saying“[T]o be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or moral order” (20) and this commitment “pulls more and more Jews into an obscure, dangerous and unethical fellowship”(21).

I was slightly surprised to read this quote since such a statement would be for me completely out of character. So I decided to check my original text. And would you believe it, it was immediately clear that Dershowitz had deliberately and consciously decided to drop the first half of the sentence. He was, quite simply, trying to trick the reader. Judge for yourself.

“(Jodeph) Lapid, later a member of Sharon’s cabinet, makes it very clear: to be a Jew is a deep commitment that goes far beyond any legal or moral order.”  

Yes, the above sentence actually refers to right wing Israeli journalist Joseph Lapid’s perception of Jewishness. But in his article Dershowitz tries to attribute this view to me. Truly, Dershowitz does work ‘by the way of deception’.

I know Dershowitz is no fool. He knew what he was doing. He was lying in an attempt to score points. But the irony of this grubby little episode is that the above half-quote actually portrays Dershowitz’s true ethical attitude. For him at least, ‘to be a Zionist is a deep commitment that goes very far beyond any legal or moral order’. The question to ask here is whether Dershowitz’s deceitful attitude is symptomatic of the Zionist discourse. I am afraid that this may be indeed the case. After all, the Mossad’s mantra is plainly clear-“ by way of deception, thou shalt make war.”

Dershowitz continues. If Iran and Israel fight a nuclear war that kills tens of millions of people, “some may be bold enough to argue that ‘Hitler might have been right after all’” (179). Here, I obviously stand by my words.  I really don’t think that Germans, Italian and French will be all that pleased to learn that a lethal radioactive cloud is approaching their borders due to an Israeli pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran. This is not wishful thinking on my part, as I clearly state in the book, but a clear warning to Israel. If Israel proceeds with its plans to nuke Iran, the consequences may well include a serious shift in the view of the Jewish past.

Dershowitz says, “Atzmon regularly urges his readers to doubt the Holocaust and to reject Jewish history.” Here, correction is needed. I actually urge my readers to question every historical narrative and this obviously includes the Shoa and Jewish history. And yes, I do indeed oppose any notion of the primacy of Jewish suffering.

Dershowitz quotes me as saying “Even if we accept the Holocaust as the new Anglo-American liberal-democratic religion, we must allow people to be atheists.”  I must admit to being rather proud of my aphorism here so thank you Mr Dershowitz for sharing one of my gems with your Neo-con readers.

Anyway, he’s certainly not impressed by my idea that children should be allowed to question “how the teacher could know that these accusations of Jews making Matza out of young Goyim’s blood were indeed empty or groundless” (185). I suppose that Dershowitz hasn’t heard about Israeli professor Ariel Toaffs study of Jewish medieval blood libel. Toaff found that accusations of blood rituals levelled against Jews in the Middle Ages were not entirely without foundation, to say the least. I suppose that if Dershowitz had heard about Toaff, his reaction to my take on the subject might have been a little more tolerant.

Dershowitz kindly says on my behalf that “the history of Jewish persecution is a myth, and if there was any persecution the Jews brought it on themselves” and he even provides page numbers: (175, 182).  Well, this statement sounded foreign to me, so I searched the relevant pages but could find none of the above. I actually elaborate philosophically on issues to do with temporality, ‘being in time’, the meaning of the past and the significance of history. Is it possible that a professor at Harvard Law School would deceive so openly and repeatedly? I fear this indeed may be the case.

“Atzmon”, write Dershowitz,  “argues that Jews are corrupt and responsible for ‘why’ they are ‘hated’.” Again I’m puzzled because the book is not about ‘Jews’ but about Identity politics. So I was looking forward to seeing how Dershowitz supports this peculiar interpretation.  And yet again, it seems that it is Dershowitz himself who conflates the notions of the ‘Jew’ and ‘Israel’. Dershowitz quotes me saying- “[I]n order to promote Zionist interests, Israel must generate significant anti-Jewish sentiment. Cruelty against Palestinian civilians is a favourite Israeli means of achieving this aim.” It is totally clear that the above quote refers to Israel and Israeli politics. It doesn’t refer at all to the ‘Jew’ or ‘Jews’.

At one stage Dershowitz  just loses it. He starts to think that he can get away with downright deception. For instance, he accuses me of suggesting that “The ‘Judaic God’ described in Deuteronomy 6:10-12 ‘is an evil deity, who leads his people to plunder, robbery and theft’ (120).  But he deliberately fails to produce the most relevant quotes. Here they are, and I will leave it to you to come up with the appropriate judgment regarding Deuteronomy’s God:

 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations …you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.” Deuteronomy 7:1–2

“Do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them … as the Lord your God has commanded you …”Deuteronomy 20:16

I’m afraid that the above God does not appear to be the most compassionate and merciful around.

According to Dershowitz it is “Atzmon (who) explains that ‘Israel and Zionism … have instituted the plunder promised by the Hebrew God in the Judaic holy scriptures” (121).”

Here is the complete original quote. It makes a lot of sense to me, but is not in any way anti-Semitic. “The never-ending theft of Palestine in the name of the Jewish people is part of a spiritual, ideological, cultural and practical continuum between the Bible, Zionist ideology and the State of Israel (along with its overseas supporters). Israel and Zionism, both successful political systems, have instituted the plunder promised by the Hebrew God in the Judaic holy scriptures.” (121)

The above quote is certainly not very flattering to the Zionist project but it is, nonetheless, an attempt to understand the logos behind Israeli aggression. Dershowitz is entitled to present a counter-argument. But this is something, he never manages to do.

Rarely does Dershowitz manage to draw an appropriate and informed conclusion from the book. Here, somehow, he succeeded.  “The moral of the Book of Esther is that Jews ‘had better infiltrate the corridors of power’ if they wish to survive(158).”  This is, I believe, the primary moral of The Book of Esther. And in ‘The Wandering Who’ I do indeed establish an ideological continuum between The Book of Esther and the Book of AIPAC. Is it anti Semitic to trace the ideological background of an ethnocentric political aspiration?

Dershowitz also grasps that as far as I’m concerned, in some ways, Israel is indeed worse than  Nazi Germany. “Many of us including me tend to equate Israel to Nazi Germany. Rather often I myself join others and argue that Israelis are the Nazis of our time. I want to take this opportunity to amend my statement. Israelis are not the Nazis of our time and the Nazis were not the Israelis of their time. Israel is in fact far worse than Nazi Germany and the above equation is simply meaningless and misleading.”

For obvious reasons Dershowitz fails to provide a reference, and he also manages to forget to provide us with the next few lines which are crucial to the understanding of the above statement.“Unlike totalitarian Nazi Germany, the Jewish State is a ‘democracy’. In other words, the entirety of its Jewish population is complicit in IDF crimes against humanity. As if this is not enough, the fact that 94% of Israel’s Jewish population supported the IDF genocidal attack in Gaza just over a year ago makes the case against Israel solid like a rock.” It is a fact that Israel is a ‘democracy’ and that makes Israelis collectively complicit in the colossal and continuous Israeli crime against humanity.

Sad it may be, but in his entire article Dershowitz fails to provide a single example of ‘bigotry against Jews’. He instead tries to silence any criticism of Israel and Zionism. I would agree with Dershowitz that some of the things I say and write could be painful to both Zionist and Jewish ethnic activists, but here, Dershowitz may just have to come to terms with the fact that political, ideological and ethical matters are sometimes painful.

Perhaps one day Dershowitz might admit that he couldn’t find any real fault in the book. “(L)ike other classic anti-Semites, Atzmon doesn’t simply fault the individual Jews he names; he concocts a worldwide Jewish conspiracy motivated by a ‘ruthless Zio-driven’(27) ‘Jewish ideology’ (69) that finds its source in ‘the lethal spirit (122) of the Hebrew Bible.” Unfortunately Dershowitz is again not accurate. He’s right when he admits that I ‘do not fault individual Jews’, but surely he must also know that I oppose the notion of ‘Jewish conspiracy’. Every anecdote and reference in the book is subject to public and open scrutiny. In my work there is no Jewish conspiracy. Everything is done right out in the open. I indeed blame the ideology and look into the culture because I believe that Ideology must be subject to scrutiny and criticism.

But Dershowitz must believe that Jewish ideology is beyond criticism. On that I disagree. Being an anti-racist writer, I oppose any form of Jewish supremacy. Moreover, considering that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and bearing in mind the level of its criminality, surely scrutinising Jewishness must be a primary humanist task.

Dershowitz ends his empty drivel by challenging Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Richard Falk to a public debate “about why they have endorsed and said such positive things about so hateful and anti-Semitic a book by so bigoted and dishonest a writer.”

It’s pretty obvious that Dershowitz has failed to produce a single shred of evidence of myself being anti-Semitic. But it’s also embarrassingly clear that when Dershowitz speaks about a “bigoted and dishonest writer” he actually projects his own symptoms onto me – yes, he is speaking about himself. This Zionist bigot must be tormented by his own life of deceit.

I doubt if respected academics and humanists such as Mearsheimer and Falk would find the time for Dershowitz.  However, as I said before, I will find the time for this Zionist mouthpiece. I would just adore tearing  him apart in public. As I said before, Mr Dershowitz, any place, any time.

  The Wandering Who on  or


A letter from Michael Moore


 by  in US

Life Among the 1% …

Dear Friends,

Twenty-two years ago this coming Tuesday, I stood with a group of factory workers, students and the unemployed in the middle of the downtown of my birthplace, Flint, Michigan, to announce that the Hollywood studio, Warner Bros., had purchased the world rights to distribute my first movie, ‘Roger & Me.’ A reporter asked me, “How much did you sell it for?”

“Three million dollars!” I proudly exclaimed. A cheer went up from the union guys surrounding me. It was absolutely unheard of for one of us in the working class of Flint (or anywhere) to receive such a sum of money unless one of us had either robbed a bank or, by luck, won the Michigan lottery. On that sunny November day in 1989, it was like I had won the lottery — and the people I had lived and struggled with in Michigan were thrilled with my success. It was like, one of us hadmade it, one of us finally had good fortune smile upon us. The day was filled with high-fives and “Way-ta-go Mike!”s. When you are from the working class you root for each other, and when one of you does well, the others are beaming with pride — not just for that one person’s success, but for the fact that the team had somehow won, beating the system that was brutal and unforgiving and which ran a game that was rigged against us.

We knew the rules, and those rules said that we factory town rats do not get to make movies or be on TV talk shows or have our voice heard on any national stage. We were to shut up, keep our heads down, and get back to work. If by some miracle one of us escaped and commandeered a mass audience and some loot to boot — well, holy mother of God, watch out! A bully pulpit and enough cash to raise a ruckus — that was an incendiary combination, and it only spelled trouble for those at the top.

Until that point I had been barely getting by on unemployment, collecting $98 a week. Welfare. The dole. My car had died back in April so I had gone seven months with no vehicle. Friends would take me out to dinner, always coming up with an excuse to celebrate or commemorate something and then picking up the check so I would not have to feel the shame of not being able to afford it.

And now, all of a sudden, I had three million bucks! What would I do with it? There were men in suits making many suggestions to me, and I could see how those without a strong moral sense of social responsibility could be easily lead down the “ME” path and quickly forget about the “WE.”

So I made some easy decisions back in 1989:

1. I would first pay all my taxes. I told the guy who did my 1040 not to declare any deductions other than the mortgage and to pay the full federal, state and city tax rate. I proudly contributed nearly 1 million dollars for the privilege of being a citizen of this great country.

2. Of the remaining $2 million, I decided to divide it up the way I once heard the folksinger/activist Harry Chapin tell me how he lived: “One for me, one for the other guy.” So I took half the money — $1 million — and established a foundation to give it all away.

3. The remaining million went like this: I paid off all my debts, paid off the debts of some friends and family members, bought my parents a new refrigerator, set up college funds for our nieces and nephews, helped rebuild a black church that had been burned down in Flint, gave out a thousand turkeys at Thanksgiving, bought filmmaking equipment to send to the Vietnamese (my own personal reparations for a country we had ravaged), annually bought 10,000 toys to give to Toys for Tots at Christmas, got myself a new American-made Honda, and took out a mortgage on an apartment above a Baby Gap in New York City.

4. What remained went into a simple, low-interest savings account. I made the decision that I would never buy a share of stock (I didn’t understand the casino known as the New York Stock Exchange and I did not believe in investing in a system I did not agree with).

5. Finally, I believed the concept of making money off your money had created a greedy, lazy class who didn’t produce any product, just misery and fear among the populace. They invented ways to buy out companies and then shut them down. They dreamed up schemes to play with people’s pension funds as if it were their own money. They demanded companies keep posting record profits (which was accomplished by firing thousands and eliminating health benefits for those who remained). I made the decision that if I was going to earn a living, it would be done from my own sweat and ideas and creativity. I would produce something tangible, something others could own or be entertained by or learn from. My work would create employment for others, good employment with middle class wages and full health benefits.

I went on to make more movies, produce TV series and write books. I never started a project with the thought, “I wonder how much money I can make at this?” And by never letting money be the motivating force for anything, I simply did exactly what I wanted to do. That attitude kept the work honest and unflinching — and that, in turn I believe, resulted in millions of people buying tickets to these films, tuning in to my TV shows, and buying my books.

Which is exactly what has driven the Right crazy when it comes to me. How did someone from the left get such a wide mainstream audience?! This just isn’t supposed to happen (Noam Chomsky, sadly, will not be booked on The View today, and Howard Zinn, shockingly, didn’t make the New York Times bestseller list until after he died). That’s how the media machine is rigged — you are not supposed to hear from those who would completely change the system to something much better. Only wimpy liberals who urge caution and compromise and mild reforms get to have their say on the op-ed pages or Sunday morning chat shows.

Somehow, I found a crack through the wall and made it through. I feel very blessed that I have this life — and I take none of it for granted. I believe in the lessons I was taught back in Catholic school — that if you end up doing well, you have an even greater responsibility to those who don’t fare the same. “The last shall be first and the first shall be last.” Kinda commie, I know, but the idea was that the human family was supposed to divide up the earth’s riches in a fair manner so that all of God’s children would have a life with less suffering.

I do very well — and for a documentary filmmaker, I do extremely well. That, too, drivesconservatives bonkers. “You’re rich because of capitalism!” they scream at me. Um, no. Didn’t you take Econ 101? Capitalism is a system, a pyramid scheme of sorts, that exploits the vast majority so that the few at the top can enrich themselves more. I make my money the old school, honest way by making things. Some years I earn a boatload of cash. Other years, like last year, I don’t have a job (no movie, no book) and so I make a lot less. “How can you claim to be for the poor when you are the opposite of poor?!” It’s like asking: “You’ve never had sex with another man — how can you be for gay marriage?! I guess the same way that an all-male Congress voted to give women the vote, or scores of white people marched with Martin Luther Ling, Jr. (I can hear these righties yelling back through history: “Hey! You’re not black! You’re not being lynched! Why are you with the blacks?!”).

It is precisely this disconnect that prevents Republicans from understanding why anyone would give of their time or money to help out those less fortunate. It is simply something their brain cannot process. “Kanye West makes millions! What’s he doing at Occupy Wall Street?!” Exactly — he’s down there demanding that his taxes beraised. That, to a right-winger, is the definition of insanity. To everyone else, we are grateful that people like him stand up, even if and especially because it is against his own personal financial interest. It is specifically what that Bible those conservatives wave around demands of those who are well off.

Back on that November day in 1989 when I sold my first film, a good friend of mine said this to me: “They have made a huge mistake giving someone like you a big check. This will make you a very dangerous man. And it proves that old saying right: ‘The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang himself with if he thinks he can make a buck off it.'”


Michael Moore

Posted in USAComments Off on A letter from Michael Moore

Zionist fear missile attack on Iran will bring war to region



Four out of five Israelis expect a strike by its military on Iran to lead to war with Hamas and Hezbollah, shows a poll yesterday after media speculation about a possible attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities.

Yet despite the widespread assumption that the country would find itself in a war on at least two fronts in Gaza and Lebanon, the Israeli people are almost evenly divided over whether such a strike should be launched.

The poll came after Wednesday’s test of a ballistic missile and the military’s disclosure that three F16 fighter-bomber squadrons had exercised over Sardinia in the past week. Then yesterday, the Tel Aviv area held a drill to practice dealing with rocket attacks. The military was quick to say the drill had been arranged long before the present welter of media debate about whether the country’s political leadership was seeking to ramp up support for a strike designed to damage Iran’s nuclear capacity. But the publicity given to the test launch and the recent joint air exercise with Italy has helped renew the debate in Israel over whether a strike on Iran by its military is desirable or likely.

Some analysts have suggested this could be partly designed to increase pressure on the international community to tighten sanctions after next week’s International Atomic Energy Authority report on Iran’s nuclear programme and its widely perceived efforts to acquire atomic weapons.

Discussion between Britain and Israel over Iran intensified with a visit to Tel Aviv by the Chief of Defence Staff, General Sir David Richards, and the arrival in London of the Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak. Mr Barak saw Sir David – who was also holding talks with the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) chief of staff Benny Gantz – before flying to London for a trip which included meetings with Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, and William Hague, Foreign Secretary. Officials emphasised that Sir David’s visit was one of a regular series by UK defence chiefs to see their Israeli counterparts and had been arranged many months ago.

British and American sources say any military move in the foreseeable future by the Israelis would have to be sooner rather than later, because of the difficulties of winter conditions. Those in favour of an attack are said to be arguing that in a year the Iranian sites will be too well-protected for missile strikes. But some senior IDF officers are said to be arguing there is insufficient evidence to justify this claim and saying any decision on this basis would in fact be political rather than military.

Meir Dagan, the former head of Mossad, and Yuval Diskin, the former head of the domestic security service Shin Bet, are known to be opposed to any imminent strike. And yesterday Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said they were in favour of diplomatic means to resolve the dispute with Iran, adding: “Let me stress that Nato has no intention whatsoever to intervene in Iran, and Nato is not engaged as an alliance in the Iran question.”

Yesterday’s Ha’aretz-Dialog poll found 59 per cent of respondents thought it “highly likely” that war would occur with Hamas and Hezbollah and 21 per cent that it would be “fairly likely”. Forty-one per cent supported a military strike and 39 per cent were opposed with only 11 per cent having no opinion.

Perhaps more surprisingly, 21 per cent of Israeli Arabs support an attack with 54 per cent opposing one. Thirty-seven per cent of “Russian Israelis” and 50 per cent of ultra-orthodox Jews support an attack, according to the poll, compared with 45 per cent of observant Jews in general.

Two respected security commentators, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, wrote in Ha’aretz that the purpose of some of the military moves was “not necessarily an Israeli attack” but could be to spark international diplomatic manoeuvres to ratchet up sanctions on Iran. But they warned this was a “dangerous game” in which, in the event of several weeks of tension, “one party or another might make a fatal mistake that will drag the region into war”.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist fear missile attack on Iran will bring war to region

Palestinians face steep court fees in suing for justice against Zio-Nazi


Associated Press

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Dozens of Palestinians who lost relatives in an Israeli military offensive in Gaza three years ago have been forced to put their compensation claims on hold, saying Israel has placed near-impossible barriers to proceeding with their cases.

Israeli restrictions prevent Gazans from entering Israel to testify, undergo medical exams or meet with their lawyers. But the biggest obstacle, the victims say, are steep court fees that can reach tens of thousands of dollars.

“The victim must pay for justice,” said Gaza resident Mohammed Abdel-Dayim, whose son and three nephews were killed during a military assault. “Israel should be ashamed.”

Israel says the fees prevent frivolous lawsuits. They say they are imposed on many foreigners — not just Palestinians — because they don’t have local assets that the state could seize to cover legal fees and other court costs.

But Palestinians say the costs are part of a strategy to protect Israeli soldiers. If the fees aren’t reduced, lawyers representing Palestinians say they will have to drop most cases.

Abdel-Dayim is suing Israel over the deaths of four relatives: His son was a volunteer medic who died when Israeli tank fire struck the ambulance he was driving. Three nephews were killed the next day when Israeli shelling struck a mourning tent where the family was grieving.

An Israeli court asked Abdel-Dayim to post $22,000 in court fees, or just over $5,000 per victim. His annual income is under $6,000.

About 1,000 Gazans have prepared cases seeking compensation, mostly alleging wrongful deaths during Israel’s offensive in the territory, according to their lawyers.

Some 1,400 Gazans were killed during the three-week Israeli operation, including hundreds of civilians. Israel launched the offensive in December 2008 in response to heavy Palestinian rocket fire. Thirteen Israelis also died in the fighting.

Israel says Gaza’s Hamas rulers are responsible for the civilian casualties, claiming the militant group endangered civilians by firing rockets from near schools and residential areas.

In civil suits in Israel, the losing party must pay legal fees and court costs of the winning side. Because foreign nationals could bolt without paying, Israeli courts often demand a security deposit. The money is returned to plaintiffs who win their cases.

The sum of the guarantee is left to individual judges.

For example, in July, Judge Nehama Munitz of the District Court in the northern city of Nazareth demanded a $5,500 deposit from each of 42 Gazan plaintiffs in a case involving the bombing of the Abdel-Dayim mourning tent, according to legal documents. Mohammed Abdel-Dayim’s share was $22,000.

She said the fees are justified by the expensive and time-consuming investigative process, and dismissed claims of a financial barrier.

“The plaintiffs did not prove that they are unable to afford the expense of the court guarantee, and/or did not claim this in their brief,” she wrote in a court document obtained by The Associated Press.

Tameem Younis, a lawyer representing the families, is now appealing. If the fees aren’t reduced, “we will have to cancel the claims,” he said.

Iyad Alami of the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights, which takes on many cases, said they have raised money for some of the most important petitions, including a planned case where some two dozen members of the Samouni clan were killed after fleeing to what they thought was a safe house.

Nitzan Eyal, a spokeswoman for Israel’s courts system, said the fees are set based on the chances of success.

“The lower the chances of the claim, the higher the justification for charging the plaintiff a court deposit to ensure the legal expenses of the defendant,” she said.

Israelis, in contrast, typically don’t have to pay up front because the courts can put liens on their properties. Likewise, families of victims from friendly nations often don’t pay.

Hussein Abu Hussein, attorney for the American parents of Rachel Corrie, who was killed in Gaza in 2003 when she was run over by a military bulldozer, did not pay a deposit in their civil suit against Israel. He said it was waived because the U.S. and Israel enforce each others’ court rulings.

Israel and the Palestinians have no such understanding.

Michael Karayanni, a law professor at Israel’s Hebrew University, said the legal fees appeared excessive, given the impoverished circumstances of many Gazans. Some 40 percent of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents live on less than $2 a day, according to U.N. figures.

“The Supreme Court has said in one of its judgments that the court needs to be sensitive to the financial abilities of the plaintiff, but I don’t think from what I’ve seen that there is any kind of a serious attempt to have the costs be proportional to the plaintiff’s ability,” Karayanni said.

Israelis point out the practice of seeking upfront guarantees is also accepted in Europe. In the Netherlands, for instance, plaintiffs must pay 800 euros to 1,400 euros depending on the size of the claim. But the Dutch system lowers the fee to just 71 euros for indigent or low-income plaintiffs.

Karayanni said in Israel, only in rare cases have plaintiffs successfully appealed to reduce the fees.

In general, Israel says the system is fair to Palestinians.

“The fact that Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel routinely petition Israeli courts demonstrates more than anything else the stature of our courts,” said government spokesman Mark Regev.

In the last two years, Palestinians won about $6 million in damages from the state, according to the Israeli Justice Ministry.

In August, Israel’s Defense Minister settled a case related to the Gaza offensive out of court, paying about $137,000 to the family of a mother and daughter who were shot dead while waving white flags.

In the Iraq war, by contrast, Iraqis cannot claim civil damages from the U.S. under a 2008 agreement. In Afghanistan, the U.S. offers compensation to citizens when their property is damaged, but it’s unclear whether they can claim damages for deaths or injuries caused by the U.S.-led military alliance.

There are no known cases of Israelis suing in Palestinian Authority courts for damages, said Palestinian spokesman Ghassan Khatib.

There is hardly any reason to test the system that way: Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, an Israeli lawyer who represents victims of Palestinian violence, said some 150 cases against the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority were pending in Israeli courts.

The Palestinian government defends itself in these cases, and so far, there have been no rulings against the authority, Darshan-Leitner said.

She said Israelis had also successfully sued Gaza’s rulers, the militant Islamic group Hamas, which has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings. But it has been impossible to recover damages.

In other cases, Israelis have turned to U.S. courts, either because of joint American citizenship or under “crimes against humanity” laws. The Palestinian Authority has reached settlements in at least two cases, Darshan-Leitner said.

For most Gazans, just getting to the courtroom is a challenge.

Under restrictions imposed in 2002 at the height of violence between Palestinians and Israel, Palestinians have 60 days following an incident to file an initial letter of complaint with the Defense Ministry. After that, they have two years to take those claims to court.

Gazans are allowed into Israel only in rare cases, such as medical emergencies, and the state does not allow video testimony from Gaza, said Israeli attorney Michael Sfard, who frequently represents Palestinians in Israeli courts.

Israelis are also banned from entering Gaza, which means lawyers cannot meet clients and state doctors cannot give certified medical exams to verify claims.

The Israeli Arab advocacy group Adalah has filed a petition to allow Gazans entry permits to Israel for their legal proceedings. A court ruling is expected in the next few months. “It’s impossible to conduct a trial at all under these circumstances,” said Sfard.

Posted in Human RightsComments Off on Palestinians face steep court fees in suing for justice against Zio-Nazi

Russia and China warn America against Iran


 by crescentandcross in Uncategorized 

Daily Mail

Russia and China have expressed growing concern about a possible American military strike against Iran over its nuclear programme.
And this week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is to publish a damning report with ‘compelling evidence’ that Iran is secretly building an arsenal of nuclear warheads.

Fresh details suggest that Iran could even be ‘nuclear ready’ within months.

And laying bare the disturbing extent of the country’s atomic weapons programme will increase calls in the United States for pre-emptive action against the Islamic state.

And that plays into the hands of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is said to be pushing for an airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

However, Iran has threatened to retaliate by blocking the Strait of Hormuz, severing 40 per cent of the world’s oil supplies.

Russia’s foreign minister today became the latest critic of any proposed action against Iran warning it would be ‘a very serious mistake fraught with unpredictable consequences’.

Sergei Lavrov added: ‘The only path for removing concerns is to create every possible condition’ to resume the talks between Iran and six world powers, which broke down last December.

China has also expressed concern about a military strike against Iran, but has also urged Tehran not to be confrontational with the IAEA.
Moscow and Beijing have signaled concern that the report will box Iran into a corner and dim any chance of diplomacy resolving the dispute, which has the potential to spark a wider conflict in the Middle East.

‘The Russians in particular have been lobbying quite intensively,’ one senior Western diplomat said.

Meanwhile former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has weighed in to slam Iran saying the U.S. should consider even tougher penalties against the Iranian government and ‘be doing everything we can to bring it down.’

Rice told ABC’s This Week that the U.S. should never take the option of military force off the table when it comes to dealing with Iran.

The current Iranian government is trying to obtain a nuclear weapon and has repressed its own people, she said.

‘The regime has absolutely no legitimacy left,’ she added.

Israeli President Shimon Peres has also expressed a determination to launch a military strike against Iran.

‘The possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option,’ he said over the weekend.

‘I estimate that intelligence services of all these countries are looking at the ticking clock, warning leaders that there was not much time left,’ he added.

Republican candidate Rick Perry, last week came out to back an Israeli air strike on Iran.

The Texas Governor said he would support Israel on the matter if there is proof Tehran is moving closer to having a nuclear weapon.

The news comes as a former Soviet weapons expert and scientists in Pakistan and North Korea are all believed to have aided Iran in its nuclear quest, according to the United Nations.

Former Soviet weapons scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko allegedly taught Iranians how to build high-precision detonators that could trigger a chain reaction, according to UN evidence.

Danilenko was believed to have been contracted by Iran’s Physics Research Centre, linked to the country’s nuclear programme, in the mid 1990s.

He allegedly gave lectures and shared research on developing and testing bombs that Iran then incorporated into their warhead design, according to Washington Post sources with access to IAEA’s files.

However, while Danilenko acknowledged his role he also said he believe his work was limited to assisting civilian engineering projects, the sources added.

There is also no evidence that Russia knew of Danilenko’s Iranian activities.

Weapons experts added that Iran relied on foreign scientists for mathematical formulas and codes, some of which may have come from North Korea.

The design for a neutron initiator by father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was also discovered in Iran, sources said.

The latest intelligence provided to UN nuclear officials, due for publication on Wednesday and obtained by the Washington Post, suggests former Soviet weapons scientist Vyacheslav Danilenko allegedly taught Iranians how to build high-precision detonators that could trigger a chain reaction during the mid 1990s.’

But it makes clear the Iranians want to be able to build such weapons quickly if need be.

And thanks to outside help, the Iranians are now on ‘the threshold’ of making a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on top of a ballistic missile, says the study.

One key technical breakthrough, say the IAEA’s intelligence sources, is that Iran has learnt how to design a device known as an R265 generator.

It added there was also evidence to suggest other precision technology linked to experts in Pakistan and North Korea had helped advance Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Iranian officials appear unconcerned.

Iran’s foreign minister and former nuclear official, Ali Akbar Salehi, told the Mehr News Agency: ‘Let them publish and see what happens,’ adding that the uproar over the country’s nuclear programme was ’100 per cent political’ and that the IAEA is ‘under pressure from foreign powers.’

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Sunday the U.S. feared Iran’s growing military power because it is now able to compete with Israel and the West.

‘Yes, we have military capabilities that are different from any other country in the region,’ he said. ‘Iran is increasing in capability and advancement and therefore we are able to compete with Israel and the West and especially the United States.’

‘The U.S. fears Iran’s capability. Iran will not permit (anyone from making) a move against it.’

Iran is conducting its secret nuclear programme at the Parchin military base, near Tehran, according to sources close to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Iran has allegedly carried out experiments in the final, critical stage for developing nuclear weapons, including explosions real and simulated.
These have been carried out in a bus-sized container spotted on satellite photos, according to reports.

U.S. intelligence agencies are thought to have believed the base is suitable for developing nuclear weapons for around eight years.

The Iranians have rejected an IAEA request to visit Parchin in the past, arguing the IAEA rules allowed it to deny such visits to military bases.

Now the site is under scrutiny again as a suspected location for covert nuclear activity.

One part of the IAEA’s report is thought to reinforce concerns that Iran continued its nuclear programme after 2003 – the year that U.S. intelligence agencies believed it had bowed to international pressures to halt experiments.

One Iranian document suggests scientists had been discussing plans to start a four-year study of neutron initiators beginning in 2007 – four years after the 2003 deadline, according to sources.

‘The programme never really stopped,’ David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector who has seen the intelligence files said according to the Washington Post.

‘After 2003, money was made available for research in areas that sure look like nuclear weapons work but were hidden within civilian institutions,’ he added.

Tehran denies secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, insisting it is enriching uranium for reactors to generate electricity.

But Iran has become increasingly belligerent in recent weeks and tensions are continuing to mount over its ambitions.

The country’s history of concealing sensitive nuclear activity and its refusal to suspend work that can potentially yield atomic bombs have already been punished by four rounds of U.N. sanctions, and separate U.S. and European punitive steps.

Earlier this week, it was revealed Britain was drawing up contingency plans for any military action.

Commanders were working out how to deploy Navy submarines equipped with Tomahawk cruise missiles in case President Barack Obama decides to launch missile strikes against Iranian bases.

Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Ehud Barak are reportedly agitating for pre-emptive action.

Mr Netanyahu is seeking Cabinet support for an attack and earlier this week Israel test-fired a new long-range missile.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Russia and China warn America against Iran

Libya: ‘U.S. took a back seat’ myth takes another hit as Obama admits Americans flew French jets


by crescentandcross in Uncategorized 


by Martin Iqbal,

One of the many myths of the Libya war is the claim that the Americans took a ‘back seat’.  Discerning observers will acknowledge that U.S. niche capabilities such as Predator drones for bombings and intelligence gathering have played a crucial role.  On top of this, political skulduggery on the parts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have played a huge part in expediting the war, in tandem with CIA assets on the ground since very early on.(1)  These factors, coupled with a very revealing recent development, completely blow the ‘back seat’ myth out of the water.

The October 20 assassination of Muammar Gaddafi was preceded by an airstrike on his convoy, which was travelling in the Sirte area.  An American Predator drone performed the first strikewith a follow-up attack by French jets.(2)  In a revealing November 04 Department of Defense press release,(3) Barack Obama admits that American pilots flew French jets in Libya:

“He noted that American pilots flew French fighter jets off a French carrier in the Mediterranean Sea during the operation. “Allies don’t get any closer than that,” he said.”

Thus, it is highly probable that the airstrike on Muammar Gaddafi’s convoy was an entirely American operation, as were many of the ‘French’ airstrikes on Libya.

This is all the more significant because, as of August 4, French planes had flown a whopping 33% of all strike sorties.(4)

Further underscoring U.S. involvement in the airstrikes on Libya, an October 30 New York Times report(5)finds that American planes flew 25% of all sorties, while ‘French’ and British aircraft provided 33% of total sorties:

“While U.S. planes flew a quarter of all sorties over Libya, France and Britain flew one third of all missions – most of them strikes,”

The notion that the Americans took a ‘back seat’ in the war can now be added to the long list(6) of big lies that have characterised the criminal, genocidal destruction of Libya.


(1) ‘Libya: Barack Obama ‘signed order for CIA to help rebels” – The Telegraph, March 30, 2011
(2) ‘The ‘rebel’ assassination of Muammar Gaddafi: a NATO operation from A to Z’ by Martin Iqbal
(3) ‘Obama: Libya Mission Underscores NATO’s Effectiveness’ – U.S. DoD, November 04, 2011.
(4) ‘National Composition of NATO Strike Sorties in Libya’ – Atlantic Council, August 22, 2011.
(5) ‘NATO’s Success in Libya’ – The New York Times, October 30, 2011.
(6) ‘The Top Ten Myths in the War Against Libya’ by Maximilian C. Forte.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Libya: ‘U.S. took a back seat’ myth takes another hit as Obama admits Americans flew French jets

Shoah’s pages


November 2011
« Oct   Dec »