Archive | April 21st, 2012


Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker
[Image by BH-ONE, via Flickr.]
[Image by BH-ONE, via Flickr.]

Since the start of the Arab Spring, which has led to many new seasons of protest in turn, the media has often gravitated to individual activists who have become leading figures in mobilizing the public during these revolutions. Tawakul Karman in Yemen, Ahmed Maher in Egypt and Moncef Marzouki in Tunisia—these are just three names that have resonated in the media over the course of protests. Their specific stories of perseverance in the face of brute force have galvanized people around the world.

While many of these advocates have been recognized by the media and rightfully protected for braving arrests, detention, and beatings, one man in Bahrain has been holding a protest of his own within prison walls, but without much attention. Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja is the most renowned human rights defender in Bahrain, known in virtually every household and revered for pressing on with civil disobedience for greater political rights.

Abdulhadi was arrested in April 2011 for his leading role in the pro-democracy movement that engulfed the country on Valentine’s Day last year. Along with seven other activists, he was sentenced to life in prison for conspiring to overthrow the monarchy. What followed were months of severe torture and abuse, without recourse to a free trial. The already-weakened activist, who had recently undergone surgeries to repair broken bones from beatings, started a fast for freedom on February 8, 2012. He has not consumed food since that evening.

His daughters Zainab al-Khawaja and Maryam al-Khawaja remain steadfast in their commitment to the pro-democracy movement in Bahrain. While Zainab continues to lead protests on the ground, Maryam has been reporting to international organizations and foreign governments about the state of affairs in Bahrain and her father’s rapidly deteriorating condition. Both continue to plead for greater support in having their father extradited to Denmark (as he is a Danish citizen) so that he may seek immediate and adequate medical attention.

On the seventieth day of Abdulhadi al-Khawaja’s hunger strike, as he lays on his deathbed with an irregular heartbeat, I as a journalist am dismayed over our collective lack of response. We have failed to pay heed to one of the most important stories to emerge over the Arab Spring, for almost the entire year of his detention and for several weeks of his “fast unto death.” We failed to inform. We failed to protect. We have had an inexcusably late start.

The longest fast that Gandhi ever undertook was twenty-two days, when communal riots took over the Indian subcontinent. And when he did, the different religious factions in the country came to his feet. Hindu and Muslim leaders vowed that they would stop killing each other, albeit for the time being. Had they not heeded Gandhi’s request and had the media decided that the situation was not dire enough to report, he would have died in vain.

Abdulhadi, in contrast, spent almost two months without food before the mainstream media rushed to cover his story. While the barrage of reports from outlets across the globe is much-needed relief after a long drought of coverage on Bahrain, Abdulhadi’s case—and the plight of thousands of political prisoners—deserved attention well before he started his second hunger strike, which he stated would either end with “freedom or death.”

From my own experience of approaching editors at different leading publications, the responses ranged from “We have someone on the case” to “However grave his situation might be, it is not urgent enough for our coverage,” and went as far as “It cannot be a responsibility for the world press to keep a Bahraini activist alive.” The first response did not follow up with coverage until Abdulhadi’s condition significantly worsened, and the last response came on the forty-first day of Abdulhadi’s fast. Forty days of fighting for rightful freedom were apparently not enough.

But, over the last week, since his condition rapidly deteriorated, I have noticed daily updates with stories from CNN to the Hindustan Times. Where were the reports for the past two months? Had there been such concerted media coverage and this level of exposure and critique in the very beginning or even at the half way point of the fast, perhaps he would have been extradited to Denmark well before nearing death.

Abdulhadi’s fast is no histrionic display of his suffering. It is a last resort. It is the desperation of a man whose freedom has been taken away, who has been threatened, humiliated, tortured, beaten, and sexually abused, who was denied a fair trial and silenced when attempting to speak in court, and who is expected to spend the rest of his life in prison for crimes he did not commit.

On April 6, in what he thought could possibly be the last letter to his family, Abdulhadi wrote:

Our pain is made more bearable when we remember we chose this difficult path and took an oath to remain on it. We must not only remain patient through our suffering, we must never allow the pain to conquer our souls.

At this point, his daughters have said their goodbyes and are prepared that his heart might stop within days or even hours. All the media hype, with journalists entering the country in stealth to report “live,” and stories calling for international pressure—it is too little, too late, and it is disingenuous.

While it is true that the media cannot take responsibility for the life of a man who has made a conscious decision to fast, his story is more than just his own. It is a story that resonates with the majority of people in Bahrain fighting for greater rights.

We, as a media community, failed to understand Abdulhadi’s fight. As his daughter Maryam explains, he is dying to live. Literally. As a citizen of Bahrain, one has few means to wage dissent against authority. And when one is left with no legal means of protest, jailed under a court that does not adhere to justice, beaten to the point of unconsciousness, tortured to the point of needing a four-hour surgery to “fix” broken bones, and sexually abused to the point of having to bang one’s head against a concrete wall to make it stop, living becomes a moot point.

Abdulhadi’s fast is no more theater than were the constant beatings he endured. The torture he experienced was corroborated by the Bahraini Independent Commission of Inquiry, initiated by King Hamad himself. (Please refer to #1720, on page 423 of the report). His suffering is the grim reality of a brutal prison system in Bahrain, where the King might present himself as willing and able to carry on reform, but can also authorize medieval forms of torture.

I am sorry to note that civil disobedience has lost its meaning in the eyes of leading vanguards of journalism, unless endorsed by a celebrity, unless strategically agreeable to influential states in the UN or unless there is the political will from countries like the US to make bold statements of “protecting democracy and the rights of individuals.”

The media community-at-large remained passive in the face of blatant injustice for a long time.  We failed to empower tens of thousands in Bahrain by highlighting the story of one man’s plight. We simply stood by until Abdulhadi’s penultimate moments before starting substantive coverage. With the Formula One Grand Prix expected to take place in Bahrain this weekend, a barrage of reports have emanated from international media outlets across the globe. But Abdulhadi’s story and that of the majority of the population protesting in Bahrainshould not be forgotten after this weekend. We must learn to look towards the larger implications of what is going on in this small island kingdom.


U.S. Republicans seek to provide IsraHell with $680 million for Iron Dome anti-missile system



The United States would spend an additional $680 million through 2015 to strengthen Israel’s short-range rocket shield under a plan crafted by Republicans from the House of Representatives, two congressional staff members disclosed on Friday.

The figure could put election-year pressure on President Barack Obama’s administration to spell out what it deems suitable support for the “Iron Dome,” which has played an increasingly important role in Israeli security.

Israel has so far deployed three operating units of the system, which helped thwart Palestinian rocket salvos during a flare-up in fighting around the Gaza Strip last month. It has spoken of needing a total of 13 or 14 units to protect various fronts.

The system intercepted more than 80 percent of the targets it engaged in March when nearly 300 rockets and mortars were fired at southern Israel, saving “many lives,” a U.S. Defense Department spokesman said on March 27.

The Obama administration plans to request an unspecified, “appropriate” level of funding from Congress to help expand the system based on Israeli requirements and production capacity, George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, said at the time.

There was no immediate official comment from the Obama administration on Republican plans to seek $680 million starting in the current fiscal year through fiscal 2015. It is not clear how the administration will view the proposal.

The matter may come up when panels of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee start crafting their version of the 2013 Defense Authorization Act next week or, failing that, when the full committee writes its bill in May.

So far, the United States has provided $205 million to support the Iron Dome effort, manufactured by Israel’s state-owned Raphael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The system uses small radar-guided missiles to blow up in midair Katyusha-style rockets with ranges of 5 km (3 miles) to 70 km (45 miles), as well as mortar bombs.

A Republican congressional aide said the proposed additional $680 million would provide the batteries and interceptors needed to defend Israel, based on the current coverage and the arsenal available to Hamas and Hezbollah Islamist militants.

The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the biggest pro-Israel lobbying group, did not immediately respond to questions about what it deems the scope of Israel’s need.

Republicans critical of funding level

 This year, Obama’s budget requests $3.1 billion in security assistance to Israel, part of a 10-year, $30 billion U.S. commitment to the Jewish state’s security. None of that is scheduled to fund Iron Dome.

Top Republicans have criticized Obama for what they described as inadequate funding of U.S.-Israeli missile defense cooperation in his 2013 budget request released in February amid deficit-reduction requirements.

“We are deeply concerned that at a time of rising threats to our strongest ally in the Middle East, the administration is requesting record-low support for this vital defense cooperation program,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard McKeon, wrote in a February 14 letter to Obama.

Political analysts said U.S. and allied defense needs were often treated as wedge issues in election years along with other potential vote-getters.

Congressional Republicans may hope their strong support for “Iron Dome” will help “crack the normal two-to-one advantage Democrats usually enjoy with Jewish voters,” said Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on U.S. Republicans seek to provide IsraHell with $680 million for Iron Dome anti-missile system

Who is the Real Enemy?

by E. Michael Jones

An edited extract from Francis’s Legacy, by E. Michael Jones.
(Pictures, captions, and Talmudic quotes supplied by Lasha Darkmoon). 

“If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.” — The Jewish high priests Annas and Caiphas to Jesus

If what is left of the WASP establishment wants to do something effective in the culture wars, they will have to understand just who the enemy is.

In order to understand this, they will have to go back well beyond the 1960s. In fact, they will have to go back beyond the 18th century: to be precise, 1800 years before that, right back to the opening shot in the culture wars.

This war began 2000 years ago at the foot of the cross, when the Jewish high priests, Annas and Caiphas, said to Jesus Christ, “If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.”

Needless to say, Jesus did not come down from the cross. And because he didn’t, the Jews rejected Him. Instead, they chose Barabbas, a bandit who had been condemned to death for his revolutionary activities.

At once, by doing this—by preferring a notorious criminal to a man of spotless innocence who had come to redeem them—the Jews became revolutionaries themselves: condemned to seek heaven on earth by following one false Messiah after another from Simon bar Kokhbar to Shabbetai Zevi, from Alex Portnoy to Paul Wolfowitz.

As my friend Sam Francis used to say, Who is the real enemy?

To answer that question, we need to turn first to Professor Kevin  MacDonald’s analysis of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples (NAACP), the premier organization of the Jewish-Black alliance.

Kevin MacDonald, America’s premier racial theorist, says pretty much the same thing as Benjamin Ginsberg in an article on the Jewish-Black alliance which appeared in Race and the American Prospect, the book my friend Sam Francis was editing before he died:

The record [MacDonald writes] shows quite clearly that Jewish organizations as well as a great number of individual Jews contributed enormously to the success of the movement to increase the power of blacks and alter the racial hierarchy of the United States. (p. 221).

Jews have played a prominent role in organizing blacks beginning with the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. The NAACP was founded by wealthy German Jews, non-Jewish whites and blacks led by W.E.B. Dubois. The Jewish role was predominant.

By mid-decade, the NAACP had something of the aspect of an adjunct of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee. . . . By 1920, Herbert Seligman was director of public relations and Martha Greuning served as his assistant. . . .  Small wonder that a bewildered [Black Nationalist leader] Marcus Garvey stormed out of NAACP headquarters in 1917 muttering that it was a white organization.

The NAACP, in other words, purportedly a black organization for the advancement of black civil rights, was in fact a Jewish organization.

It was a Jewish organization that mobilized America’s blacks to fight racial discrimination insofar as this was congruent with Jewish goals. Benjamin Ginsberg is remarkably frank in discussing the terms of the Jewish-Black alliance:

By speaking on behalf of blacks as well as Jews . . . Jewish groups were able to present themselves as fighting for the abstract and quintessential American principles of fair play and equal justice rather than the selfish interests of Jews alone. This would not be the last time that Jewish organizations found that helping blacks could serve their own interests as well.

[LASHA DARKMOON SAYS: A valued correspondent, Dick Chardet, has this morning sent me the following extremely apt 1912 quotation by ISRAEL COHEN which reinforces all the points made above. At his request, I add the quote here: 

We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.

—  Israel Cohen, ”A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century”, 1912.
Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957]

It turns out, then, that there is much more to this Black/Jewish alliance than that of simply fighting discrimination.

By allying themselves with the blacks, the Jews found that they could covertly attack the people they perceived as their main political enemies and weaken if not destroy their political influence, i.e., the power and cultural values of the WASPs—an ethos based on 2000 years of Christianity.

And so the real enemy, it turns out, was the old enemy who has dogged our footsteps for the last 2000 years: The Revolutionary Jew

*    *     *

The Revolutionary Jew, it must be emphasized, is not our enemy because of some occult racial inheritance. The Revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he has rejected Logos. This means that Jews, to the extent that they honor and revere Logos, are not our enemies.

Note. “Logos” may be defined as the Christ Principle, or the rule of law in a divinely ordered universe. Thus the Logos would seem to be an intrinsic feature of all the great world religions with the notable exception of Judaism—especially in its bizarre Talmudic manifestation.  (LD)

There are Jews who accept Logos fully by sincerely accepting baptism, and there are Jews who accept it in some lesser capacity by their docility to the truth. We all know Jews like this, and they should not be excluded from our fellowship, especially since many of them have suffered at the hands of “the Jews” themselves.

As the Gospel of St. John makes clear, the Jews became “the Jews” the minute they rejected Christ. As such, their only identity is negative. The minute they rejected Logos, which means reason, order, speech, and word, they became revolutionaries, determined enemies not only of Christ and the Christian social order, but any order in any society not of their own revolutionary making.

Thirty years after rejecting Christ, the Revolutionary Jew rose in rebellion against Rome. Seventy years later they united under Simon bar Kokhbar, one of their many messiahs, and tried the same thing again. Having failed to destroy Rome, they attempted to destroy the Europe which St. Benedict created out of the ruins of the Roman Empire and to replace it with one of their many deadly Utopias.

What does Jerusalem under Simon bar Kokhbar—what does the Soviet Union under Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamanev, and Radek—what does the short lived Soviet Republic of Bavaria under Kurt Eisner and Eugene Levine—what does Hungary under Bela Kun—what does the racial apartheid state known as Israel under terrorists like Menachem Begin or Itzhak Shamir—what does the neocon Never-Never Land known as the “free and democratic Iraq”—what do all these miserable abortions have in common?

Death is what they have in common!

Lots of people have to die to bring about the Revolutionary Jew’s version of heaven on earth.

Key figures in the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), and the subsequent Soviet Union of the Stalinist era, which claimed the lives (according to Solzhenitsyn) of 66 million Russian Christians between 1917-1953.

“With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.” — WINSTON CHURCHILL.

(Note. Churchill was unaware that even Lenin was partly Jewish).

*      *      *

The West which we seek to preserve is based on docility to Logos, the order of the universe which makes discourse possible. The essence of  Jewish Messianic politics which seeks to create heaven on earth, is rejection of Logos. It has nothing to do with DNA.

The essence of this Jewish rejection of Logos is found and known in the Talmud, which is anti-Logos in every sense of the word, from hatred of Christ all the way down to rejection of the practical logos known as morality.

We saw a good example of Talmudic thought in action during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (2006) when Charles Krauthammer and the Jewish rabbinic council attacked the Just War theory—in particular its ban on killing noncombatants and the principle of proportionality. This was apparently a “Christian” ideal and therefore non-applicable to Jews.

Christians, if they choose, may spare the lives of civilians and kill their enemies in a restrained manner—“proportionality”—but there is no obligation on Jews to copy the compassionate Christians.

Charles Krauthammer, torture advocate, argues in the Weekly Standard(December 5, 2005) that it is not only permissible to hang a suspect up by his thumbs to extract information from him, but that it is amoral duty” to do so, provided Israel’s security and the lives of a million imaginary people are at stake. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor and  torture expert, would have approved. He suggests it might be a good idea to torture suspects, even the innocent ones, by sticking needles under their fingernails.

The principles of the Just War theory are of course the basic principles of civilized conduct, the bedrock of human decency. Those who refuse to abide by these basic rules are barbarians and deserved to be treated as such. No country can implement Talmudic thought—as America has—and not suffer the catastrophic consequences of Logos rejection: that is to say, the rejection of reason, human rights, and the fundamental ethical principles that are inseparable from civilized behavior.

In France, in 1890, in the wake of the one hundredth anniversary of the French Revolution, the Jesuits who wrote for Civilta Cattolica explained how widespread rejection of Logos, in the form of the French Revolution, led to bondage: in particular, bondage to Jews.

The same thing is true of our country in the wake of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. We swallowed the bait of sexual liberation and ended up being enslaved by our enemies.

Lest anyone misunderstand me, I am saying that the Jews are our enemy insofar as we are partisans of Logos and they are not. They are the enemies of Logos, because their religion is based on hatred of Logos. And nothing makes this clearer than the Jews’  “holiest” book, the Talmud, a compendium of the most diabolical principles ever conceived by the mind of man.

Yeshiva student being taught the Talmud


Opening the Talmud at random, here are a dozen pearls of wisdom the impressionable young student is likely to encounter: (1) “It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles. All lies are good.” (2) “If a Jew has stolen something from a Gentile and the Gentile discovers it and demands it back, the Jew should simply deny it all. The Jewish court will stand by the Jew.” (3) “A Jew need not pay a gentile the wages owed him for work.”  (4) “When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.”   (5) “Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth. Gentiles prefer sex with cows.”  (6) “Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.”  (7) “A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old … When a grown-up man has intercourse with a litte girl it is nothing.”  (8) “A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated … A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.”  (9) “A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day:Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.” (10)“When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves.”  (11) “Jesus is in hell, being boiled in hot excrement.”  (12) “If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.”

(For all these quotes and more, see Elizabeth Dilling’s The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. (Formerly titled “The Plot Against Christianity”). See also Michael Hoffman’s monumental 1100-page  Judaism Discovered: A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit.)

Lytton Strachey and his friends once referred to the subversive movement we call Bloomsbury as the “higher sodomy.” Taking a page from his book, I will refer to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular as the “higher Logos.”

Those of us who follow the higher Logos know, however, that the only proper response we can make to our enemies is to love them, and the clearest manifestation of that love is our desire to bring them to the Truth, otherwise known as the Logos.

We should therefore work for their conversion to the Higher Logos.

*      *      *

At this point, it should be obvious that I am not just talking about Jews as the enemies of Logos. I am also talking about Christians who want to live and act like Jews. And lest this statement of mine be distorted and presented as evidence of my “anti-Semitism”, let me add that I firmly believe that there are many Jews who are better Christians than quite a few Christians are!

The Puritans spring immediately to mind as “bad Christians”, thanks to the toxic Judaizing influence they had on America from the moment of its birth.

I am also thinking of the many non-Jewish character assassins and apologists for usury, pornography and other Jewish forms of social control. Their name is Legion.  They earn their money by poisoning the public mind.

I am thinking of the likes of Alfred Kinsey, a nominal Christian, who to my mind was a far more evil influence than Sigmund Freud, an atheist Jew. (See “The Case Against Kinsey”, here).

I repeat: the revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not because of his DNA.

We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the machinations of the Revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians because of that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed.

Like St. Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race”  (1 Thess 1: 15).

We are now engaged in a war which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this war have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger. The Christians, specifically the Catholics, have never been weaker.

The outcome of this particular war however—and the war for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual war—is rarely predictable, no matter what the odds are.

If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong,”  (2 Corinthians 12:10) then the Revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite polarity, has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.”

We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair.

If we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, who was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, we can say with St Paul: “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed.” (2 Corinthians 4:8)

And so, as Theoden said, “We come to it in the end, the great battle of our time, in which many things will pass away. But at least there is no longer need for hiding.” (See Lord of the Ringshere.)

Nor, we might add, is there any place to hide.

Many of us are have already had our careers destroyed by the Revolutionary Jew and his goyische front men. The Jews spy on us through our computers. They suborn fellow Christians to betray us, get us fired, prevent us from speaking out.

Our backs are to the wall. We have never been weaker. And our enemies have never been stronger. But that is no reason for despair, because as Elrond says, “this quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong.” And why is that? Because “such is the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.”  (See Lord of the Ringshere.)

We have no common past. We have no royal family waiting in the wings. We have no established religion which can act as a source of order and identity. We have no racial identity. We have no common DNA. I am almost tempted to say that we have no We. We are a nation of nations, and that is all we have ever been.

All we have is various ethnic traditions and communities, united by the frail bonds of Logos, as perceived by the human soul beset by human passions.

If our souls are weak, remember that Logos is not. Logos is the glue that binds the universe together.

And so it is strong enough to unite us as Americans—whether it be the higher Logos which acknowledges Christ as Lord of the universe, or the lower Logos which honors him by detecting order in the works of creation and beauty in the moral law.

We are the party of Logos, and it is only as such that we can think of surviving.

If we do not survive, how can we hope to prevail over our enemies?


“What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.”— Friedrich Nietzsche

Posted in Education2 Comments

IsraHell’s Mental Illness



Beirut – It may be that researchers would want to examine as long ago as the period from the 3rd century BC until the beginning of the 17th century in order to find a regime so frenetically building walls and barriers in a hopeless quest to hold onto stolen lands as we in Lebanon may soon witness in the south of the country.  It was back in 221 BC that in order to protect China from the land claims of the Xiongnu people from Mongolia, the Xiongnu tribe being China’s main enemy at that time who sought the return of lands they claimed the Chinese had stolen, that the emperor Qin Shi Huang ordered the construction of a wall to guard China’s territorial gains.

Lots of walls have been built throughout history to preserve occupied lands.The Romans built Hadrian’s Wall in England  to keeep the Picts out and the East Germans built the Berlin wall to keep the people in. But no regime in history has built, in the span of six decades, the number of walls as the paranoid regime in Tel Aviv has erected. And it plans at least five more “anti-terrorist protective walls” including one slated to begin soon along the Lebanese-Palestine border at the Lebanese village of Kfar Kila. And that one may present a problem.

The decision to build a wall “to replace the existing Israeli technical fence” along the Blue Line near the town of Kfar Kila was announced last month by Tel Aviv.  The announcement followed a meeting between the Israel military and UNIFIL and both are keeping fairly mum about what it knows about this latest wall but UNIFIL spokesman Neeraj Singh hinted to this observer that the first section will be about half a mile long and approximately 16 feet high.

Some south Lebanon residents are strongly objecting for among other reasons that the high wall will block the scenic views into Palestine.  Others are ridiculing the reasons for the wall expressed by the US-Israeli lobby that will ask the American taxpayer to pay for it.

Israel firster, David Schenker, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, set up by AIPAC, told a Congressional hearing recently: “South Lebanon is obviously a very sensitive area [for Israel], being so close to Metula and the possibility of infiltration by Hezbollah and Palestinians is a legitimate concern. The Israeli government believes that this wall will prevent terrorists from launching direct line-of-sight firing of things like RPGs and mortars. Even the throwing of stones which some tourists visiting the area are in the habit of doing.”

Local observers, UNIFIL officials and experts like Timor Goksel, who worked as UNIFIL’s spokesman for 24 years along the blue line, expressed surprise at why Israel is claiming that Kfar Kila is a particularly dangerous area that needs a wall.

In point of fact the area has not been a particularly hazardous or “sensitive” one historically, even when the PLO controlled the area in the 1970’s.  Goksel explained; “In my 24 years’ experience, there were never any attacks there because it’s adjacent to a Lebanese village, so any attack there will make life for the Lebanese difficult. I don’t think anybody has ever thought of doing anything there. Moreover, even if you cross into Israel at Kifa Kula there, you’re not going to come across an Israeli position for a long time, so it doesn’t make sense for anyone to attack from there. What are you going to attack? There’s no target.”

Some local observers are speculating that the real reason Israel wants the barrier in Kfar Kila might be to stop its troops from bargaining for drugs in exchange for weapons and classified military information, as the IDF’s drug problem among its “northern command” soldiers has escalated since the battering it took in the July 2006 war.

Israel’s newest frontier wall will follow the one being erected along the 150-mile boundary between the Sinai and Negev deserts.  That wall building project is due to be completed by the end of this year of 2012. Once the Kfar Kila wall is finished, Israel will be almost completely enclosed by steel, barbed wire and concrete, leaving only the southern border with Jordan between the Dead and Red Seas without a physical barrier. But that too, may be walled in the future according to Shenker. He testified that the reason was due to the uncertainty in Jordan and its increasingly wobbly government.

Yet another wall, approximately seven miles from the Mediterranean along the southern border will meet the fence Israel has already been built around Gaza.  This wall runs for 32 miles, with a buffer zone, which Palestinians are forbidden from entering, and extends close to 1,000 meters inside the narrow Gaza Strip, walling off more prime Palestinian agricultural land. This   “security war” has caged Palestinians inside Gaza but did not prevent the cross-border capture of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in 2006.

Along the Palestine-Lebanon border, a barrier built by Israel in the 1970s along the boundary was reconstructed, after Israel was forced out of Lebanon in 2000 following a 22-year occupation. This barrier did not prevent Hezbollah in a cross-border ambush in 2006, capturing two Israeli soldiers in order to negotiate a prisoner exchange. Nor did it prevent Hezbollah from firing of thousands of rockets during the ensuing 33-day war in retaliation for Israel bombing much of south Lebanon.

And the “protective walls”  rise like mushrooms after a summer rain.

Further east from Lebanon, an Israeli barrier has been constructed on the ceasefire line drawn at the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, running between the Golan Heights, which Israel has illegally occupied for nearly 45 years, and Syria.  It was here that hundreds of pro-Palestinian demonstrators entered occupied Palestine last May, in the Golan and along the Lebanese border. More than a dozen people were killed and scores injured when Zionist forces opened fire on the unarmed civilians.

A crossing at Quneitra, now operated by the UN, does allow some movement of UN personnel, truckloads of apples, a few Druze students and the occasional Syrian bride in white.

A few miles north of Quneitra is Shouting Hill, where Druze families in the Golan yell greetings across the barrier to relatives in Syria.

Moving south through heavily mined fields and hills, the 1973 ceasefire line is bordered by Israeli military bases and closed military zones, and shells of tanks from past battles, until it connects with the border with Jordan. It then joins with one of Israel’s first walls, constructed in the late 1960s, which now stretches almost from the Sea of Galilee down the Jordan Valley to the Dead Sea. Most of this line is not Israel’s border, but rather a barrier separating Jordan from the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Around a third of the way down this stretch, the barrier joins the infamous huge steel-and-concrete West Bank wall. This runs along or inside the 1949 armistice line, swallowing up tracts of Palestinian agricultural land, slicing through communities and separating farmers from their fields and olive trees. As with its other 18 walls and barriers, the Zionist regime claims it is simply a security measure, but many believe it marks the boundaries of a future Palestinian state, consuming an additional 12 per cent of the West Bank. Approximately two-thirds of its 465-mile length is complete, mostly as a steel fence with wide exclusion zones on either side. According to the current route, 8.5 per cent of the West Bank territory and 27,520 Palestinians are on the “Israeli” side of the barrier. Another 3.4 percent of the area (with 247,800 inhabitants) is completely or partially surrounded by the barrier.

Two similar barriers, the Israeli Gaza Strip barrier and the Israeli-built  7-9 meter (23 – 30 ft) wall separating Gaza from Egypt (temporarily breached on January 23, 2008), which is currently under Egyptian control, are also widely condemned by the international community.

Returning to the subject of the latest wall project, increasingly the Zionist regime opposes discussions, hearings, visits, expressions of solidarity with Palestinians, and even the viewing its garrison state from south Lebanon.  Cutting off a view that people throughout history have marveled at represents a continuation of its isolation and xenophobia.

Following the joint meeting at Kkar Kila noted above, UNIFIL Major-General Serra said: “The meeting was called to assist Israel in putting in place additional security measures along the Blue Line in the Kafr Kila area in order to minimize the scope for sporadic tensions or any misunderstandings that could lead to escalation of the situation.”

In fact, the opposite with likely happen.  In a recent visit to Ahmad Jibril’s Palestinian camp in the Bekaa Valley, and in discussion with salafist groups in Saida, it’s plain the wall will likely become an object of target practice and further strain UNIFIL and Hezbollah efforts to keep the border calm.

In a scathing commentary in Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel’s biggest-selling newspaper, defense analyst Alex Fishman recently wrote: “We have become a nation that imprisons itself behind fences, which huddles terrified behind defensive shields.” It has become, he said, a “national mental illness”

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on IsraHell’s Mental Illness

Croatia’s Serb “Krajinas” – European Genocide

Most of you will not have heard of a place known as the Krajinas in Croatia? In fact, none of you will ever see this place, the Krajinas does not exist any longer, it ceased to exist in 1995. Over 30,000 Serbian Men, Women and Children disappeared and are still unaccounted today, yet neither the so-called [caring] International Community nor the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former-Yugoslavia (ICTY), have never called for an investigation of the circumstances that led to the largest case of Ethnic Cleansing in Europe of over 200,000 Serbs from the Krajinas, Genocide and total wiping out from all modern day Maps of the existence of the Serbian enclave in Croatia.

In late-1995, Kofi Annan who was the United Nations Head of Peace-keeping Operations was appointed by Boutros Ghali, the UN Secretary-General at the time as the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General (SESG), to the Former-Yugoslavia(UNPROFOR), where he ensured that no investigation would be recommended to the UN Security Council thus ensuring the role of the USA and President Clinton in the Ethnic Cleansing of the Serbs in the Krajinas and subsequent Genocide would never be referred to any International Legal Bodies, a fact that is true even today.

Kofi Annan was the Head of the UN’s Peace-keeping Operations during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, despite receiving warnings in advance he did not inform the UN Security Council of this imminent threat which led to the murder of over 800,000 Tutsis by the Hutu Tribe.

Regretfully Kofi Annan proved to be a useful idiot for some of the Members of the UN Security Council, specifically France, the UK and the USA, this is why Boutros Ghali was denied a full Second-Term as Secretary-General of the UN and Kofi Annan, an obedient and passive International Servant was selected and approved as Secretary-General and went on to serve Two full Terms.

The author of this article was serving in the UNPROFOR Mission in Zagreb during 1995-1996 period and travelled to Knin, the then Capital of the Krajinas shortly before the offensive in August 1995 and the again after one week and witnessed a sight that should never take place, ghost towns where only Croatian Military could be seen, bags, toys, clothes, kitchen utensils strewn all over the roads, homes burnt, and the absence of humanity. A few weeks earlier these places were full of life, children playing and people going about their normal every day lives. It now had a eerie sense of nothingness, very loud screams of helplessness despite the fact not a sound could be heard other than my own or the Croat Military laying Anti-Tank Mines all along the roads for some really bizarre reason, like they expected the Serbs to return and attempt to retake the towns and areas they were forcibly removed out of.

What is tragic is that Franjo Tudjman, the President of Croatia at the time who was a War Criminal for the Genocide conducted in the Krajinas and other conflict areas was never charged, he died a hero of the Croatian Republic. Kofi Annan was rewarded with a Nobel Prize, appointed Secretary-General of the UN and is now considered a respected Elder and Peace-maker. No investigation of the circumstances that led to the Ethnic Cleansing in Croatia, the disappearance of 30,000 Serbs nor Genocide has ever been conducted.

The Krajinas simply ceased to exist.

Posted in Europe1 Comment

Anders “Braveheart” Breivik – A Brilliant Military Tactician



Anders “Braveheart” claims to have procured ingredients for a 950-kgs crude Bomb, built it from scratch without it going off or testing if it will actually work, ensure it is stable for transportation, dress up on the morning of 22 July 2011, kitted-out with High powered Rifles, thousands of Bullets, nerves of Steel and drove to the Government Building in Oslo where he calmly parked the vehicle, walked away fully armed and dressed like a Waterproof Policeman, went on to steal a vehicle to drive North-West of Oslo toward Utoya Island where he would cross by Boat to the Island, remember he is fully armed with Two-Rifles and 3-Pistols, 6500-Rounds (Bullets), lands on the Island and proceeds to shoot and kill 69-Innocents, then calmly calls the Police to surrender and after a few hours, negotiates his own peaceful surrender.

Wow, I am out of breath just writing this, imagine how Anders felt on the day, what a man, what a hero.

So, now it is clear that “Braveheart” who has not served a day in the Military, but is an expert of Call-of-Duty, Modern Warfare-2, the sequel to the best-selling first-person action game of all-time, and, expert Bomb-maker, Military-Tactician and Logistician. This man should be a Full-Bird Colonel and a Senior Operational & Tactical Advisor in NATO.

Except that this is really a fantasy, Mr Breivik is the Norwegian Walter Mitty, he did not build the Bomb, it was built by an expert Ex-Army Ordnance Bomb-maker, he did not carry-out the killings on Utoya on his own, this is why he is still breathing, like Lee Harvey Oswald, Breivik is a ‘Patsy’ with multiples of “Grassy Knolls” to be found on Utoya, the real shooters got away and are probably dead now, leave nothing to chance, not even a ‘Jack Ruby’ to finish off Breivik because this type of thing just doesn’t happen in Scandinavia.

Even a highly trained Special Forces Team of 20-men would require hundreds of Logistical Troops to provide support for this type of Operation which in Military Terms was a success in it’s execution (if you forgive the Pun).

No, that’s right, you heard right, not possible for one man to carry-out these vile attacks, you can bet you very lives that this was a Conspiracy and a major cover-up is underway.

If this was a “Muslim” the conclusions would have been that this is a Major Operation planned, trained, financed in the Border-areas of Afghanistan-Pakistan, a Salafist-AQ-Taliban-Shia-Sunni-Donald Duck inspired Operation.

More attacks are on the way, the Far-Right Groups have carried-out their first major attack very successfully. The next one will be even more spectacular, we are all sleep-walking into believing Anders “Walter Mitty” Breivik planned, financed, carried-out this attack on his own.

Posted in EuropeComments Off on Anders “Braveheart” Breivik – A Brilliant Military Tactician

Ann Romney, Working Woman?


Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, right, listens as his wife Ann at his election night event in Schaumburg, Ill., Tuesday, March 20, 2012. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)

Has Ann Romney ever worked a day in her life? CNN pundit Hilary Rosen, not a Democratic strategist, said no way, prompting torrents of outrage from Fox, Republicans and New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, who loves his mother very much. Bertrand Russell, in his witty essay “In Praise of Idleness,” wrote, “What is work? Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so.” Clearly, between the houses and grounds, the five kids, the Cadillacs, the husband, the business socializing, the campaigning and, let’s not forget, that dog, Ann Romney has altered the position of much matter. Since it is not possible to run smoothly a multimillion-dollar multi-mansioned domestic establishment for seven people without at least some paid help, I’m guessing she probably instructed others in the proper positioning of matter as well. By Russell’s definition, Ann Romney has probably done a lot more work than I have. I sit at my desk and hours go by in which I seem to have hardly altered the position of anything, including myself.

If you had any doubt that Republicans have an even bigger anti-woman agenda than their love of compulsory vaginal probes might suggest, consider Wisconsin’s Senate Bill 507.

But the brouhaha over Hilary Rosen’s injudicious remarks is not really about whether what stay-home mothers do is work. Because we know the answer to that: it depends. When performed by married women in their own homes, domestic labor is work—difficult, sacred, noble work. Ann says Mitt called it more important work than his own, which does make you wonder why he didn’t stay home with the boys himself. When performed for pay, however, this supremely important, difficult job becomes low-wage labor that almost anyone can do—teenagers, elderly women, even despised illegal immigrants. But here’s the real magic: when performed by low-income single mothers in their own homes, those same exact tasks—changing diapers, going to the playground and the store, making dinner, washing the dishes, giving a bath—are not only not work; they are idleness itself. Just ask Mitt Romney. In a neat catch that in a sane world would have put the Rosen gaffe to rest forever, Nation editor at large Chris Hayes aired a video clip on his weekend-morning MSNBC show displaying Romney this past January calling for parents on welfare to get jobs: “While I was governor, 85 percent of the people on a form of welfare assistance in my state had no work requirement. And I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said, ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’” (Don’t be fooled by the gender-neutral language—he’s talking about mothers.) In 1994 he told the Burlington Business Council that “work is ennobling” and that “we will do everything in our power to make sure that people who are on welfare have an opportunity and an obligation to go to work, not after two years but from day one if we could.”

So there it is: the difference between a stay-home mother and a welfare mother is money and a wedding ring. Unlike any other kind of labor I can think of, domestic labor is productive or not, depending on who performs it. For a college-educated married woman, it is the most valuable thing she could possibly do, totally off the scale of human endeavor. What is curing malaria compared with raising a couple of Ivy Leaguers? For these women, being supported by a man is good—the one exception to our American creed of self-reliance. Taking paid work, after all, poses all sorts of risks to the kids. (Watch out, though, ladies: if you expect the father of your children to underwrite your homemaking after divorce, you go straight from saint to gold-digger.) But for a low-income single woman, forgoing a job to raise children is an evasion of responsibility, which is to marry and/or support herself. For her children, staying home sets a bad example, breeding the next generation of criminals and layabouts.

All of which goes to show that it is not really possible to disengage domestic work from its social, gendered context: the work is valuable if the woman is valuable, and what determines her value is whether a man has found her so and how much money he has. That is why discussions of domestic labor and its worth are inextricably bound up with ideas about class, race, respectability, morality and above all womanhood. You can talk all you want about equal parenting; nobody is raising his son from earliest childhood to see as the most important job in the world being a stay-home father dependent on a high-earning wife. Nobody says to men in college, “You can be a physicist, or you can be a homemaker—it’s your choice!” Sure, there are fathers who stay home with kids—about 150,000 of them, compared with 5 million stay-home mothers—but not as some socially hallowed mission. Society gives men all the parental kudos they need for showing up at the school play, making pancakes on Sunday and exuding some kind of vaguely benevolent authority. Do you think Mitt lay awake at night wondering if he was a bad person for slaving away at Bain Capital and making Ann change the stinkier diapers? If he was a woman, he’d never have gotten a good night’s rest.

We talk about employment or staying home as a matter of choice, which obscures what it takes to make that choice: money and a mate. Do books praising the stay-home life ever suggest that if it’s really best for children, the government, which supposedly cares about their well-being, should make that possible for every family? The extraordinary hostility aimed at low-income and single mothers shows that what’s at issue is not children—who can thrive under many different arrangements as long as they have love, safety, respect, a reasonable standard of living. It’s women. Rich ones like Ann Romney are lauded for staying home. Poor ones need the “dignity of work”—ideally “from day one.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Ann Romney, Working Woman?

الحفاظ على تراث طرابلس أطلقت حملة «الأبنية التراثية المتصدعة مسؤولية من؟»

Posted By: Siba Bizri

Shoah Arabic Editor in Chief

 روعة الرفاعي- صحيفة اللواء اللبنانية 

«الأبنية التراثية المتصدعة، مسؤولية من؟؟؟» عنوان المؤتمر الذي نظمته جمعية «الحفاظ على تراث مدينة طرابلس» في مركز «رشيد كرامي الثقافيالبلدي» (نوفل سابقاً) بالتعاون مع بلدية طرابلس والمديرية العامة للآثار ونقابة المهندسين.

{ بداية تحدث رئيس الجمعية الياس خلاط مؤكداً «أن الجمعية تألفت من مجموعة من الشباب سعت وتسعى دائماً للبقاء في هذه المدينة والصمود في هذا الوسط والذي نعتبره خط الدفاع للطرابلسيين، لأنه اذا ما سقطت ساحة التل اليوم فانه من السهل سقوط منطقة المعرض غداً وغيرها من المناطق، نحننخشى على مستقبل هذه المدينة ولذا نأمل أن تثمر هذه الاجتماعات عن النتائج المرجوة». 

{ ثم كانت مداخلة لرئيسة الجمعية الفرنسية للحفاظ على تراث طرابلس الدكتورة جومانة شهال تدمري، تلتها مداخلة لممثل نقابة المهندسين في طرابلس المهندس الدكتور خير الدين غلاييني والذي قدم عرضاً مفصلاً لاعادة ترميم الجامع المنصوري الكبير والذي تعرض للكثير من التشويه خلالا خمسينيات القرن الماضي حيث ازيلت عشرات الأزقة والأسواق والبيوت الحجرية القديمة وجمع الركام أمام الواجهة القبلية للجامع فدفنت واجهته تحت ركام فاق ارتفاعه 4 أمتار ولا يخفى على أحد ماذا سيتبع ذلك من غرق للجامع في المياه مع كل شتاء ومن انتشار للرطوبة والعفونة وحتى أعلى جدران الجامع لا بل قبابه. 

{ المؤتمر والذي شهد سلسلة من الجلسات التي تناولت شروحات واجابات عن الاشكاليات المطروحة بالمباني الأثرية، اختتم بمؤتمر صحافي حضره رئيس «جمعية التجار في طرابلس فواز الحلوة وحشد كبير من التجار وأبناء المدينة، تلا خلاله رئيس بلدية طرابلس الدكتور الغزال التوصيات الصادرة عنه واطلاق «الحملة الوطنية للحفاظ على التل» وتضمنت : اقامة حملة دعائية، واعادة طرح القوانين والتشريعات التي وضعت لحماية الأبنية التراثية، ووضع آليات لتفعيل دور هيئات المجتمع المدني، واستحداث صندوق مادي لدعم هذا المشروع، وتجاوز الفوقية وتطبيق القوانين، ووضع شرعة لمدينة طرابلس ليكون الجميع أمام مسؤولياتهم.

Posted in Arabic, LebanonComments Off on الحفاظ على تراث طرابلس أطلقت حملة «الأبنية التراثية المتصدعة مسؤولية من؟»

توقيف خضر سلامة وعلي فخري بتهمة «الغرافيتي» LEBANON USELESS PUPPET’S

Posted By: Siba Bizri

Shoah Arabic Editor in Chief

ألقت القوات الأمنية اللبنانية، مساء أمس، القبض على الناشطين السياسيين، خضر سلامة وعلي فخري، في محلة بشارة الخوري في وسط بيروت، أثناء قيامهما بكتابة بعض الشعارات ورسم رسوم غرافيتي على أحد الجدران.

وعلى الأثر، قامت القوات الأمنية باحتجاز سلامة وفخري في مقر المحكمة العسكرية في بيروت، حيث باتا ليلتهما، الأمر الذي يعتبر مخالفة قانونية، قبل أن يُنقلا، صباحاً، إلى مخفر السوديكو، ليصلا مساءً إلى سيّار الدرك في منطقة فردان.

يذكر أنه لا يوجد مادة واضحة في القانون اللبناني تمنع رسوم الغرافيتي.

وبعد الحادثة بوقت قصير، أنشأ ناشطون على موقع التواصل الإجماعي «فايسبوك» صفحة تدعو للإفراج عن الشابين، كما تظاهر العشرات، اليوم،

أماممبنى المخفر، للغاية نفسها.

وفي السياق، أكد الناشط السياسي، سعد كوردي، لـ«الأخبار» أن احتجاز سلامة وفخري في المحكمة العسكرية هو مخالفة قانونية، موضحاً أن «احتجازالمدنيين في المحكمة العسكرية هو انتهاك لحقوقهم الأساسية».

ورأى كوردي أن نقل الشابين إلى مخفر السوديكو هو بمثابة «محاولة من السلطات لتغطية الخطأ الذي ارتكبته أمس»، آملاً في أن يتم إطلاق سراحهمااليوم، على الرغم من أنه رجّح أن يبقيا قيد الاعتقال حتى الإثنين المقبل.

من ناحيتها، أكدت إحدى زميلات فخري في «حركة مناهضة العنصرية»، فرح سلقا، أن الأخير خضع لعملية في المعدة منذ ثلاثة أيام، وهو بحاجة إلى عناية طبية خاصة، مضيفة أنه لا يستطيع الأكل بل الشرب فقط، وأن الشرطة ترفض إعطاءه الأدوية «التي أحضرناها له».وشددت سلقا على أننا «نحن اليوم في التظاهرة حوالى 60 شخصاً، وسينضم إلينا المزيد».

ولا بد من الإشارة إلى أنه حتى الساعة يتعذّر الإتصال بالقوى الأمنية اللبنانية، لسؤالها عن الحادث.

وكان الرسام والشاعر اللبناني، سمعان خوّام، قد اتهم، في شباط/فبراير الماضي، بالإخلال بالأمن العام بعدما رآه عناصر من الشرطة يرسم صورة لجندي يحمل بندقية على جدار في حي الجميزة في بيروت.


Posted in Arabic, LebanonComments Off on توقيف خضر سلامة وعلي فخري بتهمة «الغرافيتي» LEBANON USELESS PUPPET’S

Robert Fisk: This is politics not sport. If drivers can’t see that, they are the pits


Supposing it was Assad shelling out £40m for a race. Would Ecclestone be happy to give him a soft sporting cover for his repression?

When the Foreign Office urges British motor racing fans to stay away from Bahrain, this ain’t no sporting event, folks, it’s a political one. The Bahraini authorities prove it by welcoming sports reporters but refusing visas to other correspondents who want to tell the world what’s going on in this minority-run, Saudi-dominated kingdom.

But what do our lads tell us from the circuit, 25 miles from the Bahraini capital, Manama? Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton are only in it for sport. Bahraini repression of its democratic majority? Nothing to do with us, governor. And Sebastian Vettel? “I think it’s a lot of hype.” Hype? HYPE? The Arab Awakening came to Bahrain a year ago, a majority Shia people demanding a democratically elected government – with a minority Sunni monarch still at its head, for heaven’s sake, as generous an Arab Spring as you could find – and it’s met with police gunfire, torture and death. And Master Vettel – is there anything left of the old cliché “moral compass”? – claims “it’s a lot of hype”. What a disgraceful man.

Supposing it was the Assad regime shelling out $40m to host the Formula One weekend (as well as shelling Homs). Would Bernie Ecclestone have been dining out in Damascus, happy to give the regime a soft sporting cover for its oppression? At least he seems to have some idea what is going on there. Sure, I know, the Bahrainis are not slaughtering their people like the Assad government. And there’s no armed rebellion in Bahrain, as there is in Syria (although all year the Bahrainis have been doing their best to persuade us that there is). Or Iran. Now here’s a Muslim nation that pretty much crushed all opposition in 2009. It’s not doing any more killing. So would Bernie slip over to Tehran to do a bit of Formula One if he got the invitation?

Or – a much easier one, this – what if Bahrain was oppressing a Jewish rather than a Muslim Shia community demanding democracy? Messrs Button and Hamilton and Ecclestone – not to mention the clueless Vettel – would be shouting their refusal to participate from the rooftops. And rightly so. So why do they want to go ahead now? Why is it “a lot of hype” when Vettel knows – unless he’s a complete git – that the Bahraini government’s own report on last year’s suppression describes deaths in custody, police torture and shooting deaths on the streets? Note that I haven’t mentioned apartheid-era South Africa, nor the Berlin Olympics, which gave cover to Hitler. Bahrain is not South Africa, nor is it Nazi Germany (and those who use such parallels are gits themselves).

The days have gone when sportsmen and sportswomen can dissociate themselves from the moral values in which we claim to believe in the 21st century. If they want to behave like the sporting clods of 50 years ago, they should be forced to drive round the Bahrain circuit in Alfa Romeo 6Cs, Triumph Roadsters and Crosley Hotshots. Cars of the past for men of the past.

Posted in BahrainComments Off on Robert Fisk: This is politics not sport. If drivers can’t see that, they are the pits

Shoah’s pages


April 2012
« Mar   May »