Archive | June 21st, 2012

Illuminati Planning Another Financial Crash?



The PBS Documentary “The Warning”
proves the Illuminati bankers
deliberately sabotaged the financial
system before 2008.  This was not the
first time nor will it be the last.

“Economic crises have been produced by us for the goyim by no other means than the withdrawal of money from circulation.”
— Protocols of Zion, 20

by Henry Makow Ph.D.

As the talk of sovereign debt defaults roil the markets, it appears the Illuminati bankers may cause another financial breakdown as a way to enact their New World Order. This certainly was their mantra during the 2008 crisis.

The PBS Frontline Documentary “The Warning” proves the Illuminati bankers deliberately sabotaged the financial system.

Shortly after Brooksley Born became Chair of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission in Aug.1996, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan summoned her to his office.

He told her that being a regulator did not include preventing or policing fraudulent activity. He said the “market” would take care of that.  Remember this is from the Rothschild’s point man in America!

It stands to reason, doesn’t it? The Fed itself, and central banks in general, are the biggest fraud in the history of the world. They create our currency in the form of a debt to themA medium of exchange should belong to no one.

When Born tried to regulate the $495 trillion derivatives market, the four Illuminati Jews running the US financial system — Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Arthur Levitt stonewalled her proposals and read her the riot act.

In Congressional hearings, Born insisted she was trying to protect the people’s money from the reckless practices of US banks.

But the “committee of four” assured Congress that regulation itself would bring down the system. Congress, dependent on bank campaign contributions, supinely agreed.

In 1998, right on schedule, the financial system almost collapsed when a hedge-fund, “Long Term Capital Management”  went belly up.  In a harbinger of the future housing bubble, the banks had made huge derivative bets on the Russian economy with LTCM.

The Fed forced 13 US and international banks to purchase the hedge-fund. Altogether $4.6 billion was lost.

The documentary demonstrates that although the American (and world) economies were at stake, and despite this near catastrophe, the Clinton and Bush Administrations refused to regulate the derivative market, and allowed it to grow to an eventual $595 Trillion during the housing bubble.


Not only did they refuse to regulate the industry, they forced  Brooksley Born (left) out of her job by removing her powers.

Her prophesy came true in 2008. Because of derivatives called credit default swaps, the US taxpayer was forced to indemnify US and foreign banks for more than two trillion dollars.


At this time, Alan Greenspan was hauled before Congress and asked why he had rejected regulations.

The documentary shows him confessing that he had been “mistaken.” The “world view” that had guided him for 40 years — that markets were self regulating — had been wrong.

What is shocking, and you can see this for yourself in this amazing documentary, Greenspan is making a Masonic “triangular” hand sign as he offers this confession.

He is signaling to his fellow Illuminati that he knew exactly what he was doing. His confession was bogus.

Similarly, Arthur Levitt, the Chair of the SEC at the time, makes the same sign while confessing he should have listened to Brooksley Born.

In other words, this dangerous high wire act is Illuminati policy. Brooksley Born says that we can expect more financial turmoil until markets are regulated. Or until world government is instituted, I might add.


Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers were in charge in 1998. Their then-deputies, Timothy Geitner and Ben Bernanke are in charge now. All are Fed or Goldman Sachs alumni. This is like asking cocaine addicts to regulate drugs.

The hand signs and the fact that no significant regulation has taken place, suggests market turmoil again will be used to bring down the US (and world?) economies, cause a depression and usher in the New World Order.

The 2008 credit crash was immensely profitable for the central bankers. The US national debt has increased $5 trillion under Obama, representing roughly a 33% increase. Most of that has gone to the bankers.  


PBS is virtually a province of the Rockefeller empire. Yet this Frontline documentary is superb, what journalism should be. Apparently, the Illuminati is willing to operate “in plain sight,” after the damage is done. They are also willing to stoke public anger at their mainly Jewish underlings.

Born seems to be a Gentile. Her opponents were all Illuminati Jews. The optics are bad.


(This graphic suggests Obama has been even more useful to his masters)

Essentially, the American people are being disenfranchised, disinherited and enslaved. Their leaders are Freemasons and Illuminati Jews who are dedicated to integrating the country into a world government run by the central bankers.

This is the promise of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And it’s happening right on schedule.   

Posted in EducationComments Off on Illuminati Planning Another Financial Crash?

Terrorism Arithmetic


by Philip Giraldi

The most recent issue of the National Counter Terrorism Center’s annual Report on Terrorism [.pdf] came out last week, covering the year 2011. I would like to say that it is well worth a read, but actually it is quite tedious. For those who are interested, it is essentially a statistical and analytical breakdown of the terrorism phenomenon derived from the U.S. government–maintained Worldwide Incidents Tracking System, or WITS, which is based on publicly available open-source material reporting alleged terrorist activity around the globe.

Most often the analysis is bare bones and avoids political coloration, not, for example, going deeply into the motives of the various terrorist groups but instead providing information in a pie chart and chronological fashion. This year’s report is 33 pages long.

The United States is engaged in what most Americans still refer to as a global war on terror or, in shorthand form, a war on terror. The Obama administration avoids the expression because it is a legacy of the Bush years and because it uses the expression “war,” so it refers to “overseas contingency operations,” which has a nicer sound and does not appear to be so preemptive or premeditated. It also fudges the reality of what is taking place by pretending that the process is reactive, which it is not. The unrelenting expansion of U.S. military intervention is in response to many diverse overseas developments, most of which are not genuine threats. This was recently demonstrated by the White House decision to extend the U.S. terrorism fight to the entire continent of Africa.

Terrorism is clearly a dying profession, both literally and metaphorically. The Report on Terrorism does not list how many terrorists were killed in 2011, perhaps fearing that the definitions and numbers could easily be challenged, but it does provide detailed breakdowns of the terrorism victims, a number around which there is considerably more consensus. Worldwide terrorist attacks in 2011 were down 12% from 2010 and 29% from 2007. Most attacks, and most victims, roughly 65%, came from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Somalia.

Al-Qaeda, the gold-standard terrorist group, is in sharp decline, staging far fewer attacks worldwide except in one country, Somalia. Somalia’s al-Shabab claims to be an al-Qaeda affiliate, though that means little in practical terms. Engaged in what is essentially a civil war, it bombs and executes its opponents. Each shooting or bombing is therefore counted as a terrorist attack. Its ability to threaten the United States is close to nil, however, and even Washington is waking up to the fact that the threat al-Shabab does pose is largely because the group has been radicalized by U.S. involvement in the conflict.

For me, the report’s statistics always invite a cost/benefit analysis. So how many Americans were actually victimized by terrorism in 2011 and what is Washington spending to deal with the threat? First of all, a definition of American is not so simple. Some American citizens who have been terrorism victims are in fact dual nationals who have a U.S. passport for one reason or another but who are natives of another country and have chosen to live there. Far from being singled out as American targets, the dual nationals are generally perceived as indigenous to their countries of residence.

But even including all U.S. passport holders or permanent residents, the numbers are disappointing for those who have imagined a world awash with militants all of whom are seeking Americans to kill while planning to travel to the United States so they can blow themselves up. No Americans were killed by terrorists inside the United States. Only three American citizens were kidnapped by overseas terrorists in 2011 (in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, all of which were war zones), and only 17 were killed in foreign lands (15 in Afghanistan, a war zone).

Not to minimize in any way the horror of becoming a terrorist victim, the numbers are only 0.3% of all terror-related kidnappings and only 0.1% of terror-related killings. Most, possibly 97%, of people killed or kidnapped are Muslims targeted by indigenous terrorist groups that are fighting to change or take control of their own governments. Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations has determined that the number of Americans killed in terrorist attacks is comparable to the number crushed to death by falling television sets or furniture each year.

The insight that only a minuscule number of Americans actually become terrorism victims raises a question: how much does the United States government spend to counter the threat? The numbers are not precise as overall budgets tend to roll many items in together, but a useful way of addressing the problem is to subtract the federal budget in 2001 from the budget today in the key areas relating to defense, intelligence, and homeland security. The ongoing intervention in Afghanistan, justified by President Obama as a war to prevent terrorism, runs more than $8 billion per month.

The federal government employs 2,100,000 today compared to 1,500,000 in 2001, not including the military, which has itself grown by 100,000 personnel to 2,300,000, including reserves, with more increases planned through 2013. Most of the new hires were directly related to the War on Terror for manning the 200 new military and CIA bases that have sprung up around the world and to serve as Fortress America’s defenders. The number of reported federal employees does not include contractors, who add considerably to the payroll. More than half of the employees in key sectors within the intelligence community and at the Defense Department are contractors.

Uncle Sam will spend $3.796 trillion in 2012 compared with $1.863 trillion in 2001, $1.327 trillion of which was borrowed, reversing 2001’s budget surplus of $127 billion. The Department of Homeland Security gets $57 billion and employs 180,000, the intelligence agencies get an estimated $100 billion and employ 100,000, the FBI gets nearly $9 billion, and the Department of Defense gets $671 billion, which does not include the war in Afghanistan. In 2001, the Pentagon budget was $277 billion. When all the increases are added up and compared to the baseline of 2001, the war on terror currently costs the American taxpayer more than $500 billion per year. As there may be only 100 or so terrorists interested in attacking the United States directly, that works out to something like $5 billion per year per terrorist.

And that is only at the federal level. Most states now have their own departments of homeland security, and most have dramatically increased both the numbers and firepower of their police forces. There is full-time security manning the entrances of nearly all federal and state and even some local office buildings. The total costs of state and local expenditures to counter the essentially bogus terrorist threat might well exceed the federal expenditures, and then there is the spending on security, often mandated by the government, in the private sector. But as bad as all those numbers are, consider for a moment the legacy costs and institutional damages that are not so readily visible.

Professor Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University estimates that Iraq will cost as much as $5 trillion when all the costs, including interest paid on borrowed money and medical treatment for life for the tens of thousands of wounded soldiers, are paid off. The bill for Afghanistan will be proportionate, depending on how long the U.S. stays there and at what commitment level. All of the deficit-feeding spending for the War on Terror and associated military actions has gone down into a deep, dark hole, as there have been no terrorist attacks to justify the spending since 2001.

I don’t suppose statistical analysis of an official government report really means anything as President Barack Obama is expanding his little wars and presidential aspirant Mitt Romney appears to be intent on turning the little conflicts into much bigger ones. When Osama bin Laden announced his intention of breaking the United States economically by enticing it to overreact to terror attacks, he surely knew a good thing when he saw it. More to the point, he might even have understood that politics as usual in the United States would mean that the two parties would try to outdo each other in being tough about the terrorist threat.

That is precisely what has occurred. Breaking the pattern does not appear to be in the national DNA, even though continuing to do as we have been doing is a recipe for ruin. The ultimate irony in U.S. politics is that fearmongering always appears to be a good card to play for a politician even when the numbers and analysis say otherwise. It seems safe to say that neither an Obama nor a Romney will do anything to disrupt that pattern.

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Terrorism Arithmetic

Obstacles in Pak-US Agreement


By Sajjad Shaukat

In the last few weeks, conflicting are coming about the success of Pak-US negotiations in order to reach an agreement in connection with the reengagement of Pakistan with America as last year, Pakistan closed ground supply routes through its territory to Afghanistan to protest a cross-border NATO air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

On June 12, this year, Pentagon Spokesman George Little said that the United States is withdrawing its team of negotiators from Pakistan without securing a long-sought deal with Islamabad to allow trucks to again supply NATO troops in neighboring Afghanistan. But at the same time, he clarified that a deal with Pakistan remained a priority, remarking that the team of negotiators could return at any moment. Next day, the Pentagon dismissed the impression that negotiations with Islamabad had been cut off, disclosing that the US continued discussions with Pakistan towards re-opening the supply routes.

On the other side, Pakistan’s Foreign Office Spokesman Moazzam Khan pointed out on June 14 that both sides are trying to resolve the issues and bring the relationship back on track. But he also admitted, “The issues the two countries were trying to deal with were difficult ones.”

Although Islamabad and Washington claim that both the countries seek to move their talks in positive direction, yet controversy continues between the two as American duplicity and pressure tactics are creating obstacles in reaching an agreement.

One of the major obstacles is that America is pressurising Islamabad for earlier restoration of NATO route unilaterally by setting aside other issues, while Pakistan wants to discuss all the inter-related subjects namely drone attacks, rate of charges of NATO trucks, border’s coordination mechanism, apology by US over Salala incident etc. So, it is owing to US illogical approach that the negotiating teams of both the countries did not agree to each other’s demands.

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar reiterated that seeking apology from the US on Salala incident is essential for reopening the NATO supplies. But top US officials time and again said that “apology is not possible.” The negotiating team from the US fails to fulfil Pakistani demand.

Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta allegedly said on June 7 that the United States was reaching the limits of its patience with Pakistan. He explained, “It is difficult to achieve peace in Afghanistan as long as there are safe havens for terrorists in Pakistan.” At a critical moment in negotiations with Pakistan, Panetta’s tough comments created complication to narrow the differences between both the countries.

Another major impediment between the two countries is drone attacks. The US side was not accepting Pakistani stance that these predator’s strikes were counterproductive by provocating the tribal people, thus causing more recruitment of insurgents, resulting into more suicide attacks inside the country. These strikes also incite the insurgents of FATA against Pakistan’s the security forces. Besides, Pakistan considers the action against its sovereignty.

At this delicate hour, when Pakistan’s diplomats were negotiating a complex issue of resumption of NATO supply routes in wake of the heightening political noise inside the country, in the last 16 days, CIA-operated drone attacks killed more than 50 people in North Waziristan besides South Waziristan. Notably, during his visit to India, on June 6, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has repeatedly pointed out that drone attacks would continue on Pakistan’s soil. Earlier President Obama has also defended these strikes as part of American so-called counterinsurgency strategy.

On May 21, US President Barack Obama also met Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari on the sidelines of NATO summit amid widespread reports that the US deliberately pressurised Pakistani president to meet US-NATO demands for reopening the supply route. But President Zardari told Obama that strikes by the US spy planes must be stopped, while pointing out Pakistan’s demand for US apology over the November 26, 2011 unprovoked Salala check post incident.

We cannot see American predator’s strikes in isolation, because these are not only part of the US other pressure tactics on Islamabad to obtain favourable terms and conditions regarding new relationship with Pakistan, but are also scheme of anti-Pakistan campaign. Firstly, as part of US shrewd diplomacy, America wants to fail the ongoing negotiations with Pakistan, and intends to show other NATO countries that Islamabad is not willing to open the NATO supply lines, thus it created obstacle in the way of completing the exit schedule of foreign troops from Afghanistan in 2014. Secondly, US can convince other NATO states to conduct full-fledged air strikes on Pak tribal areas or Haqqani network, based in North Waziristan as American top military officials have continuously been blaming Pakistan in this regard in order to conceal their misadventure in Afghanistan.

Besides, US high officials have been employing coercive diplomacy on Islamabad in relation to Dr. Shakeel Afridi who has been sentenced 33 years imprisonment by the order of a tribal court due to his close association with the banned terrorist group Lashkar-e-Islam led by Mangal Bagh. The evidence produced by the Joint Investigation Team before the court proved Dr. Afridi’s clandestine collaboration with the CIA in connection with the May 2 US raid in Abbottabad which violated Pakistan’s sovereignty.

Moreover, to further blackmail Islamabad for Dr. Shakeel Afridi’s release, US Senate cuts $33m aid to Pakistan. On May 29, a US Conservative Senator Rand Paul suggested to suspend all Pak aid until Dr. Afridi was set free.

It is mentionable that on June 8, a US Senate panel voted cuts in aid to Pakistan and threatened to withhold even more cash, if Islamabad does not reopen its supply routes for NATO soldiers in Afghanistan.

By bypassing Pakistan, recently, US-led NATO signed agreements with Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, allowing the military to evacuate hardware from Afghanistan. Notably, the reliance on a longer Central Asian route to transport supplies is costing Washington $100 million a month as pointed out by US Defence Secretary Leon E. Panetta.

While concealing real hindrances in Pak-US accord, American high officials have been propagating that during negotiations with the US for reopening NATO supply routes, Pakistani government had been demanding $5,000 per truck. And the US refused the demand. Since then, negotiations have been underway; the government has now proposed a fee of between $1,800 and $2,000.

In this respect, on June 13, dispelling the impression that Pakistan had set extraordinary high tariffs as pre-requisite for reopening NATO supply routes to Afghanistan, Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar clarified that talks with the United States on reopening the supply routes were not hostage to any Pakistani demand for high tariffs on the supplies.

Quite contrary to his earlier statements, on June 13, Panetta stated that the US should examine setting conditions for aid to Pakistan, but not cutting it off, as he disclosed that Islamabad’s closure of supply lines to the Afghan war costs American taxpayers millions of dollars a month.

Sources suggest that stalemate still exists between Pakistan and US to conclude agreement because by rejecting US duress for earlier restoration of NATO transport routes, Pakistan’s civil and military leaders remain firm on their stand that the issue of NATO supply lines would be decided in light of recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on National Security and the Defence Committee of the Cabinet after negotiating reengagement with the US as approved by the parliament.

Nonetheless, Pakistan seeks to discuss all the related issues instead of resumption of NATO supply unilaterally. So it is due to American power-diplomacy, blame game, drone attacks etc. which are creating real obstacles in reaching an agreement between Pakistan and the US.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in USA, Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Obstacles in Pak-US Agreement

TUT Pod-Broadcast: Right wing elements in IsraHell supporting Romney

TUT Pod-Broadcast June 21 2012

by crescentandcross

Organized Jewish interests at war with each other–

–Right wing elements in Israel supporting Romney

–Left-wing elements support Obama

–The rest of us left hanging in the middle between war and peace/life and death.

We are joined by the ONE AND ONLY Michael Collins Piper to discuss this and other relevant topics.


Download Here

Posted in InterviewComments Off on TUT Pod-Broadcast: Right wing elements in IsraHell supporting Romney

‘Tell Brits to remove Cameron and see what happens’ – Assad’s adviser


Supporters of the Syrian President’s regime hold portraits of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as they demonstrate in front of the Syrian cultural center (AFP Photo)

Colonial hegemony prevents the west from believing that Arab peoples are equal to westerners and have the right to choose their own system, Bouthaina Shaaban, political and media adviser to the Syrian president, told RT.

RT: Peacekeeping forces have confirmed that Syria is in a state of civil war, what would you say to that statement?

Bouthaina Shaaban: It is irresponsible to say that Syria is in a state of civil war, especially as we’re fighting terrorism. I think some media have a war on Syria.

RT: Do you think there can be trust restored between the western media and the Syrian government or will this media war only escalate?

BS: There are hundreds of journalists who came to Syria during the crisis. It is not true that we don’t give access to foreign journalists. Foreign journalists from all over the world came to Syria. But also there are satellite channels that made themselves part of the war on Syria, inciting sectarian violence, fabricating facts about what is happening in our country.

RT: But the media war itself – can it do any damage?

BS: The media war can do a lot of damage. Because when you have some religious man inciting sectarian hatred among the Syrian people – there are many people who fall victim to this incitement. Unfortunately, media wars have proved to be very effective throughout history.

RT: Do you feel like the Syrian government could lose in this conflict because of the media war?

BS: I don’t think so. Not to this extent but definitely it is costing lives of our people.

RT: We often see, especially lately, the Syrian government pointing the finger at others for supplying guns to terrorists. Who are these “others”, could you name the countries?

BS: I don’t know but I would like to say that the Syrian government is not the issue. The issue is Syria, the unity, the safety, the sovereignty and prosperity of Syria.

RT: Your surely have your own, not official, vision of those who are helping those terrorists to kill peaceful people? 

BS: Even the UN observers say there are groups in every area (of Syria), and nobody knows who these people are. We don’t know to whom they belong, and who are their leaders. This is the most important problem in Syria: you don’t know who your adversary is.

RT: The UN is critical to safeguard Syria against a military invasion. How big is the threat of foreign intervention in Syria? 

BS: The UN observers have made many statements that the Syrian government cooperated very well. They did not stop, they suspended their mission. We also fear for their safety, because as the Syrian people are targeted, we’re also afraid that some observers could be targeted by armed groups and we would hate that to happen.

RT: How do you assess the chance of a foreign invasion? 

BS: I don’t think that is possible, in a sense. Russia and China double-vetoed (UN resolutions on Syria) twice. Russia has a stand that it is the Syrian people that should decide the future of Syria. I don’t think a military strike (against Syria) is possible. If you look at what happened in Libya or Yemen – you can see the consequences. I think the west is quite aware of what things are in the Middle East. I hope they are people reasonable enough to act very carefully. I think there is no consideration for such a thing.

RT: You do have Russian and Chinese support in the UN Security Council, but it did not help much in the Iraq scenario. They went around a UN Security Council resolution and invaded Iraq. What other means do you have except Russia and China?

BS: I think the west has learnt from the Afghanistan and Iraq experience, and from Libya’s, too. They know that a military strike does not always come with the result they hope for. I think the world is different now and it is no longer a unipolar system. I think that Russia and China now have a say in the international arena to the relief of most people in the world. Because we have suffered from one polar system and we’re happy with the emergence of the bipolar system and the BRICS. The world is changing.

RT: The US and their partners have a perfect, 100 per cent track record when it comes to removing the heads of foreign states that they want to remove. What makes you think that Syria has a different scenario?

BS: Russia has learnt from the Libyan scenario. Russia has changed the political scene of the world by making an excellent stand in support of people who decide their future. Is it democracy when foreign countries decide to move a ruler? Is this the way democracy should work? Or should it be people to decide, I mean in every country, not only Syria. Is it democracy to say to British people “you should move (PM) Cameron”, or is it the British people who should decide? Why does this not apply to Arab countries? Is it because of colonial hegemony and because the west does not believe Arab people are equal to western people and have the right to choose their own system? This is a question I pose. Democracy means people of a country should decide their future and who rules them.

RT: Why does so much weaponry go to Syria? What happens when the conflict is over and we have all these uncontrolled arms on the streets, the way it happened in Libya?

BS: You can’t say that the conflict is over unless all those arms are withdrawn from the streets and people. These arms are part of the conflict and they were smuggled into Syria to ignite the conflict. Smuggling money and arms is a huge part of the problem in Syria.

RT: Can you do something about this at the moment?

BS: The international community should also do something about this. Kofi Annan’s peace plan’s first item is stopping armaments and stopping violence from all parties and in all forms.

RT: Some skeptics say the reason the Syrian government is not allowing a humanitarian corridor in Homs is because it fears along with humanitarian aid will come something else. Is that true?

BS: No, we’ve been cooperating with humanitarian agencies all along but have not seen any humanitarian aid arriving in Syria. We cooperated absolutely in full.

RT: So if the humanitarian corridor opens in Homs right now?

BS: No, there is no need for a humanitarian corridor. Assistance that is coming is being distributed by the Red Cross.

RT:So allegations about people being badly in need of food and medical aid are an exaggeration?

BS: Yes, extremely exaggerated.

RT: You’re on the US blacklist of Syrian officials – how does that feel?

BS: Since 2005 they sent me many invitations from the US – I did not go because I don’t like (the way) they treat people at American airports. They “froze” my assets though I don’t have a single dollar, not just in the US – anywhere in the world. They may freeze as many assets as they like.

Two of my books are being sold in the US. I taught at Duke University, I taught at Eastern Michigan University. I should not be embarrassed

Posted in SyriaComments Off on ‘Tell Brits to remove Cameron and see what happens’ – Assad’s adviser

Iraqi ‘dictatorship’


Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!

Among the many excuses made by the imperialists for their war on Iraq were the removal of Saddam Hussein and the establishment of democracy. As Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki consolidates his power, many in the country believe one dictator has been replaced by another. Kurdish journalist Zakia Al Mazouri, persistently threatened by Al Maliki’s regime, said, ‘This government that came now is not better than the old one. There is no real democracy.’

Following the disputed elections of March 2010, Al Maliki took personal control of the interior and defence ministries. He also created a new post for himself as Commander-in-Chief, from which he was able to fill senior posts in the military with his own supporters. Maysoon Al Damliyi, an MP for the mainly Sunni Iraqiya Party, said, ‘He [Al Maliki] controls the budget; he’s controlling the military, internal security, defence, intelligence. He’s controlling the judicial authorities; he’s controlling the media; he broke the constitution several times. What can you call him, if not a dictator?’ Iyad Allawi and Moqtada Al Sadr, leaders of two other groups in the Iraqi parliament, have threatened a vote of no confidence unless the government stops its ‘autocratic decision making’.

In December, Al Maliki issued an arrest warrant for Vice-President Tareq Al Hashemi, accusing him of running Sunni death squads. Deputy Prime Minister Saleh Al Mutlaq and finance minister Rafie Al Issawi, were also threatened with arrest and there were mass arrests of former Sunni members of the Ba’ath Party. Al Hashemi fled to the Kurdish region of Iraq and later sought sanctuary in Turkey. He claims that three of his body guards who were arrested at the same time have since been tortured to death.

To strengthen his international credibility, Al Maliki hosted a conference of the Arab League in March: the first time the organisation has met in Iraq since 1990. In May, international talks on Iran’s nuclear programme were held there. Although having close ties with Iran (he visited the country in April and has plans for a gas pipeline from Iran to Syria to pass through Iraq), Al Maliki has maintained US support. However, in May, a Baghdad court released Musa Daqduq, a Hezbollah liaison officer accused of assisting the Shia League of Righteousness and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in killing US soldiers and kidnapping and executing western contractors. Daqduq was transferred from US to Iraqi custody when US forces left the country in December 2011 as a gesture of co-operation between Obama and Al Maliki. His release has inflamed the US administration. Al Maliki would do well to remember that Saddam Hussein was also once a trusted US ally.

Posted in IraqComments Off on Iraqi ‘dictatorship’

IsraHell: A rotten racist state


By: Revolutionary Communist

Israel: A rotten racist state

On 7 June an Israeli court in Jerusalem rejected appeals from human rights organisations that had delayed the implementation of an order from the Interior Ministry, issued on 1 April, which called for the deportation of around 1,500 refugees from the South Sudan. The Interior Minister, Eli Yishai a member of the Shas party, at the beginning of June had expressed clearly the racist ideology behind the Order when he declared, ‘Muslims that arrive here do not even believe that this country belongs to us, to the white man’!

There are an estimated 60,000 African refugees in Israel, mostly from Sudan and Eritrea. The vast majority have been granted temporary status visas and are not legally allowed to work in Israel, although up to now in the majority of cases, the state has been turning a ‘blind eye’ to their exploitation by Israeli firms. The state gives no benefits or aid to these asylum seekers. A report just issued by the Hotline for Migrant Workers in Israel showed that the Israeli state deliberately prevents refugees from being granted official asylum. Last year out of the thousands of applications for asylum only eight were granted.

The government and media label all refugees as ‘infiltrators’, a term used to describe Palestinian resistance fighters who engage with the Israeli occupation forces. On 4 June, at a Cabinet meeting,  Prime Minister Netanyahu called for the building of ‘holding camps’ in the Negev desert for refugees from Sudan and Eritrea and the deportation of 25,000 refugees from countries Israel has diplomatic relations with such as Ghana, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Israel’s Defence Ministry has said that five camps will be built comprising of up to 25,000 tents; three of these camps will be connected to the Ketzoit prison. The plan is for all refugees to be placed in these camps to prevent them entering Israeli cities. These are the actions of a brutal, racist apartheid state.

On 23 May race riots took place in South Tel Aviv following an anti-immigrant rally addressed by members of the Israeli Knesset. Miri Regev, an MK from the Likud party, declared at the rally that refugees from Sudan were a ‘cancer’. Ronit Tirosh, an MK from Kadima, called for all ‘African infiltrators’ to be deported. People left the rally and attacked African-run shops, a car with African passengers had its windscreen smashed and the Central Bus Station, which is a meeting place for refugees, was attacked.  This was just the largest organised attack on African refugees which have been taking place over a number of years, and which have followed an agenda set by Israeli politicians and religious leaders.

At the end of April, four petrol bombs were thrown into apartments in South Tel Aviv that housed African refugees and one into a kindergarten used by African families. An arson attack was carried out on 4 June on an apartment in Jerusalem housing ten refugees from Eritrea. Four were hospitalised, and graffiti was left saying, ‘leave the neighborhood’. In the summer of 2010 twenty five Jewish rabbis in Tel Aviv issued an edict which aimed to prevent the renting of property to African refugee ‘infiltrators’. Ten estate agents that work in South Tel Aviv publicly agreed to refuse to let property to ‘infiltrators’ and not to renew any expiring leases. In December of 2010, hundreds of rabbis signed an edict forbidding the leasing or selling of land or property to Arabs and non-Jews.

The racism that runs to the core of Israeli society flows from the setting up of a ‘Jewish’ state at the expense of the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and the continuing denial of their right to return. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the continued expansion of the colonial settlements across the West Bank is fueling the rise of racism and fascism within Israel. On 6 June 2012, the Knesset agreed to go ahead with the High Courts decision to evacuate five homes in Ulpana, an illegal settlement near Ramallah, as a sop to the settlers, Netanyahu announced the building of 851 new homes in the West Bank. This didn’t stop the fascist settler movement from attacking Palestinian homes and property in a village near Jerusalem spraying ‘revenge’ and ‘death to Arabs’ on Palestinian vehicles.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on IsraHell: A rotten racist state

Syria: UN peace plan set up to fail


Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!

On 10 May two huge car bombs exploded in Damascus outside a military intelligence building, killing 55 people and injuring 400 more. It was the deadliest attack in a string of bombings throughout Syria. Despite claims by the imperialist-backed opposition that these attacks are orchestrated by the government to discredit the resistance – repeated in the western media – it is becoming clear that Islamic forces are gaining influence.

Heavily armed militias of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) now control territory, and have escalated attacks with improvised explosive devices. Despite a UN ceasefire and multi-party elections, the NATO-GCC (Gulf Co-operation Council) alliance is stepping up pressure on Syria, arming the opposition, threatening intervention and tightening sanctions. TOBY HARBERTSON reports.

Suicide bombings were largely unknown in Syria before the current 14-month uprising. The secular Ba’athist government has protected the rights of minority faiths, and many Syrians are wary of the sectarian violence and persecution in neighbouring Lebanon and Iraq. Since December, five huge suicide attacks have hit Damascus, killing approximately 100 people. Others have struck Aleppo. The attacks have targeted security and intelligence buildings and many of the dead have been soldiers and police. Al Qaeda- affiliated groups, including the Al Nusra front, have been blamed by western and Syrian intelligence. After calls from Salafist and Wahhabi leaders, followers have been travelling to Syria to fight the government. Reuters reported on 30 April that the FSA now favours home-made bombs to target military institutions. A huge explosion in Hama on 26 April – blamed on a Scud missile by the opposition and the BBC – showed the scale of these bomb factories. There is no clear line between these Islamic militants and the militias which make up the FSA.

The GCC countries are funding this sectarian struggle. The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has emerged as the main force in the Syrian National Council (SNC) which loosely directs the FSA. Donations of $100 million from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, alongside $33 million from the US, are paying SNC and FSA salaries. Kamal Lebwany, ex-SNC member, explained: ‘The Muslim Brotherhood monopolises everything – the money, the weapons, the SNC. The SNC has a liberal peel covering a totalitarian, non-democratic core.’ The Washington Post reported on 16 May that arms supplies to the FSA were increasing; paid for by the GCC and ‘co-ordinated by the US state department’.

Sectarian street fighting has broken out in Tripoli in Northern Lebanon. Close to the opposition stronghold of Homs in Syria, much foreign intervention is channelled through Lebanon. Tripoli was the intended destination for two huge arms shipments from Libya which were recently intercepted. The arms and militias which have been poured into the region threaten to force Lebanon back into bloody civil war. The chaos left by the imperialist destruction of Iraq is a warning for the entire region.

Kofi Annan, as the UN-Arab League envoy to Syria, put a ceasefire and peace plan into place on 12 April. It was set up to fail and was condemned by NATO governments before it started. A successful ceasefire would pave the way for de-militarisation of the situation: with 300 UN observers on the ground, covert imperialist intervention and government repression would be under a degree of scrutiny. Dismissing the ceasefire as a failure is key to the imperialist-GCC strategy of pouring arms, special forces and foreign fighters into Syria. Despite the initial decrease in violence, within a month the FSA had resumed large scale attacks and throughout May government forces were attacked escorting UN observer convoys. An opposition offensive on 14 May in Rastan, near Homs, overran a military base killing 23 soldiers. The ceasefire allowed the consolidation of the FSA’s hold on territory in Idlib province. An FSA commander told The Independent, ‘Idlib is our Benghazi.’

With areas of the country in chaos and the UN peace plan collapsing, the threat of overt imperialist intervention is never far away. The US has led large military exercises in Jordan just south of Syria, involving 12,000 troops from 17 countries. Turkey has threatened to invoke Article IV of the NATO Charter, allowing military intervention to protect Turkey’s borders. The EU has imposed more sanctions, compounding those in place since 1980. Their effects are inflicted on the working class; millions are going hungry due to the government’s inability to buy grain to produce the subsidised bread they rely on.

Food and fuel prices have risen 50%, and unemployment has risen drastically, whilst the Syrian pound has devalued by 50%. Attempts at reform and multi-party elections have been doomed amidst this chaos being orchestrated by the imperialists. Vicious sanctions have repeatedly been shown to be a prelude to imperialist invasion, forcing the victim to its knees. If NATO and the GCC get their way the people of Syria will suffer much more barbarity.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Syria: UN peace plan set up to fail

Egypt: threats and tensions


Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!

Egypt’s presidential election of 23/24 May has resulted in no overall winner and threatens the potential advances from the revolt that removed former President Mubarak in February 2011. A run-off between the Muslim Brotherhood, with its Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) candidate Muhammud Mursi, and Mubarak’s last Prime Minister, General Ahmad Shafiq, is scheduled for 16/17 June. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), which has ruled Egypt since Mubarak’s overthrow, has said it will hand over power to the newly elected President by the end of June. If Shafiq is the President it will effectively retain power – he is their candidate.

Shafiq is an outright counter-revolutionary, backed by sections of the military with substantial economic holdings. The SCAF-led state mobilised funds and its administrative machinery to get Shafiq elected. As we go to press he got 23.7% of the vote to Mursi’s 25.3%. Shafiq’s campaign spending far exceeded those of his rivals. The Muslim Brotherhood’s vote was down by 40% on the winter’s parliamentary election, when it gained nearly half of the seats. Aboul Fotouh, a former Muslim Brotherhood member and student leader, jailed under Mubarak, gained 17.9% of the votes and Hamdeen Sabahi, Egypt’s leading adherent of Nasserist ideas, received 21.6%. Overall turnout was 43.4%, down nearly 20% on the parliamentary elections.

Fotouh and Sabahi are closest to the youth and workers who made the revolt and if their supporters switch allegiance to Mursi he should win comfortably. However, they may be loath to do so. The Muslim Brotherhood distanced itself from the revolutionaries and sought to compromise with the SCAF.

In fifth place with 11% of the votes was Amr Moussa, a former foreign minister and head of the Arab League. Moussa joined the Tahrir protests just before Mubarak was toppled and has had US and European advisers for his campaign. Moussa was the only candidate seen by US Senator John Kerry on his recent visit to Egypt. His supporters are likely to vote for Shafiq in June.

The SCAF’s priorities are to preserve its economic ownership, up to 30% of the economy, retain immunity from prosecution, maintain its special status in the constitution, control its own budget and have veto powers on strategic issues, including war and peace. Reports indicate that army recruits, police officers and state employees were instructed to vote for Shafiq, and Mubarak’s banned National Democratic Party and its millionaire backers paid to ensure votes went to him. Shafiq presented himself as a strong man able to protect the Christian population from the ‘Islamists’ and as standing for ‘security and prosperity’.

The Muslim Brotherhood/FJP supports the market economy and its delegates have met representatives from many countries and multinational companies. France has offered it guidance on judicial reform, Britain on restructuring the security services and South Africa on transitional justice. To beat Shafiq and the entrenched interests he represents, the Muslim Brotherhood will have to reach out to the people who made the revolt and to Fotouh and Sabahi and their supporters and include them in any future government. This would be seen as a real threat by the SCAF. The coming weeks will be tense in Cairo and across Egypt.

The youth and workers that overthrew Mubarak are not yet organised sufficiently to win this election. Strikes and protests continue across Egypt. A quarter of Egypt’s 85 million people live in shanty towns. Youth under 30 constitute 60% of the population and 85% of the unemployed. New unions now claim over two million members. The main political contenders do not have the political or economic programme to meet the people’s demands. The struggle over the Presidential election may be one step along the way to that programme emerging.

Trevor Rayne

Posted in EgyptComments Off on Egypt: threats and tensions

Palestine: New Israeli coalition spells no change on occupation


Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!

On 8 May Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu made the surprise announcement that his Likud party had formed a coalition with Kadima, a centre-right breakaway from Likud, and that elections planned for September were cancelled. The new coalition has an overwhelming majority of 94 out of the 120 seats in the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. Shaul Mofaz the leader of Kadima is now deputy prime minister to Netanyahu and part of the government’s Security Commission that oversees Israel’s military actions.

Mofaz and Kadima are portrayed in the mainstream media as being from the centre ground of Israeli politics and so are expected to have a moderating effect on Netanyahu, specifically in relation to possible military action against Iran. Mofaz has lined up with most of Israel’s military class in opposing any military action at the present time, against Netanyahu’s threats of an imminent military strike.

The present head of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), Benny Gantz, also supports diplomacy over military action, declaring that he thinks Iran is ‘rational’ and is not constructing a nuclear weapon. Both the current and former heads of Mossad oppose military action, as does the former head of Shin Bet who argued that an attack on Iran would accelerate rather than prevent its development of nuclear weapons. In the end, the determining factor in any Israeli attack on Iran will be the position of the US, and at present deepening and extending economic sanctions on Iran is President Obama’s preferred political strategy.

Domestic politics within Israel provide the motives for forming the coalition. It enables Netanyahu to undermine the influence of the ultra-orthodox religious parties in his existing coalition and also their growing influence within Likud, and to tackle their exemption from military service – over 60% of ultra-orthodox males do not engage in any work, spending their days studying religious tracts. For Kadima it was simple: accept the invitation or, according to polls, lose 25 of their 28 Knesset seats in a fresh election.

However the media portrays him, Mofaz is no moderate. He is a retired General, a former head of the IDF and a former Defence Minister under Sharon.  He was in charge of the IDF at the beginning of the Intifada in 2000 and he directed the brutal assault on Jenin in 2002 which saw over 50 Palestinians killed as the refugee camp was virtually demolished. The coalition government is united on most policies and it will not alter one bit in its racist and barbaric policies towards Palestine.

Settlement construction continues to advance in the West Bank; at the end of April Netanyahu established a special ministerial committee to get round legal barriers and provide the necessary permits to legalise three settlement ‘outposts’: Bruchin, Rechenim and Sansana. On 10 May it was announced that building plans had been approved for the Gilo settlement in the West Bank that will increase its size by 2,242 housing units. On the same day Israeli troops threatened people in Yatta, south of Al Khalil (Hebron), distributing notices ordering people to evacuate the area within a month so that Israeli forces could demolish their homes and property. The area has been designated by Israel as a military zone.

On 14 May the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported the Israeli destruction of humanitarian efforts and structures in the West Bank, many of them funded by the European Union. The report stated that 620 structures, 62 funded by the EU, had been demolished in 2011, including homes, water cisterns and farm buildings built with European money. On the same day the EU issued its own report, which warned that the acceleration of settlement construction, evictions and house demolitions in East Jerusalem, settler violence and worsening conditions for Palestinians in most of the West Bank ‘threaten to make a two-state solution impossible’.

Palestinian hunger strikers win concessions from Israel

On 14 May the representatives of the approximately 2,000 Palestinian prisoners on hunger strike agreed to end the strike in return for various concessions from Israel. The majority had commenced their hunger strikes on 17 April but two prisoners, Bilal Diab and Thaer Halahleh, had gone without food for 77 days and were close to death.

The main demands of the prisoners were for an end to administrative detention which gives Israel the power to imprison Palestinians indefinitely without trial, an end to the extensive use of solitary confinement against prison leaders and the right to family visits. The previous hunger strikes by Khader Adnan and Hana Al Shalabi, which had led to their eventual release from administrative detention, gave the impetus for the mass hunger strike. The deal was brokered by Egypt with the Egyptian Ambassador to Israel, Yasser Rida, reportedly presenting the agreement to the Palestinian prisoners’ hunger strike committee in Ashkelon prison, Israel.

The agreement reached was, in the words of Qaddoura Fares, head of the Palestinian Prisoners’ Club, satisfactory in the present circumstances:

‘[It] doesn’t meet all of our expectations, let alone our aspirations. This is a bitter struggle between two unequal parties and our brothers (the prisoners) in the Zionist bastilles and dungeons have made maximum efforts to obtain a semblance of condi-tions that would grant them some dignity and human decency. Any concession we extricate from Israel’s parsimonious hands is an achievement… No one is euphoric or ecstatic, but at least some of prisoners’ demands have been met, Israel is an enemy, not a friend, and we should not expect our arch enemy to behave charitably towards us.’

Israel has agreed to allow family visits for prisoners from Gaza; these visits were stopped in 2006 after the capture of Gilad Shalit by the Palestinian resistance. It has released some, but not all, prison leaders from solitary confinement and agreed to present evidence if administrative detention orders are renewed after six months. Israel guaranteed to release both Bilal Diab and Thaer Halahleh but only when their current terms of administrative detention ended. Only days before reaching the agreement Israel extended, for the fourth time, the administrative detention of Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) member Nayef Rajoub. This will make a total of two years incarceration in an Israeli prison without trial. At present Israel holds 26 members of the PLC without trial.

The prisoners have won a victory by resisting to the very limits of their lives but we know the word of Israel is not worth the paper it is written on. More battles will come and we need to build real solidarity with the Palestinian movement on the streets of Britain and the world.

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Palestine: New Israeli coalition spells no change on occupation

Shoah’s pages