Archive | June 25th, 2012

The Ugly Truth Pod-Broadcast with Sammi Ibraheminterviews Alan Hart

June 25, 2012

Palestinian journalist Sammi Ibrahem interviews former BBC reporter/author Alan Hart, discussing Alan’s recent article debunking the Israeli lies concerning the ‘Six Days War’

Download Here


Posted in InterviewComments Off on The Ugly Truth Pod-Broadcast with Sammi Ibraheminterviews Alan Hart

Palestinian Journalist Sammi Ibrahem, interviewing former BBC journalist Alan Hart concerning the lies of the 6 Day War.

TUT Broadcast with Sammi Ibrahem LIVE today 4 pm eastern

by crescentandcross

Indeed there is a merciful God in heaven who has shown pity on the world by giving yours truly laryngitis, so today’s guest host is Palestinian Journalist Sammi Ibrahem, interviewing former BBC journalist Alan Hart concerning the lies of the 6 Day War.

Those wishing to listen live can do so by clicking here–

Those wishing to participate in the discussion can do so by calling 530.881.1300and then punching in the access code 179164#.

We also have a chat room which you can access here–

crescentandcross | June 25, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL:

Posted in InterviewComments Off on Palestinian Journalist Sammi Ibrahem, interviewing former BBC journalist Alan Hart concerning the lies of the 6 Day War.


Call for Applications

MEPI Student Leaders Institute Program (summer 2012)

Application Deadline: January 10th, 2012

What is the MEPI Student Leaders Institute?

  • It is a fully-funded five-week intensive leadership training program in the U.S. for undergraduate students. The program is held in the summer starting June 26 to August 7, 2012.
  • Participants develop leadership and collective problem-solving skills, while exploring U.S. history and culture.
  • The Institute consists of hands-on leadership training workshops, academic sessions, site visits, community service projects, optional home stays and other opportunities for interaction with Americans peers.


Can I apply for the MEPI Youth Summer Leadership Institute?

Yes you can, if…

þ  You are a Palestinian citizen, living and attending school in the West Bank, East Jerusalem or Gaza.

þ  You are not carrying an American passport or an American green card.

þ  You are a current university student, age 18 to 24 years old.

þ  You are proficient in English.

þ  You are mature, responsible, independent, open-minded, tolerant, and thoughtful.

þ  You have a strong interest in learning about the United States.

How do I apply?

Applications can be found at: (US Consulate website:

Nomination forms should be submitted electronically to (West Bank and Jerusalem) or (Gaza).


  • Deadline: No later than  January 20th, 2011



West Bank/East Jerusalem residents:

Tel: (02) 622-7172 or 0545-420953, or by email to

Gaza Residents:  Tel: 08-2864-623 or Mobile: 059-9677-317, or by email to



a. Last (family) name as it appears on passport;


b. First name(s) as it appears on passport;
c. Middle name(s) as it appears on passport;

d. Date of birth (month/day/year);


e. City of birth;

f. Country/place of birth;


g. Country/place of residence;


h. Country/place of citizenship;


i. Gender;


j. Candidate’s full address (include apartment number, street, city, state, and postal zone);



Postal zone: it is not existed!
k. Primary telephone number (home/mobile/work/etc)

l. Current email address;


m. Medical, physical, dietary or other personal considerations (please note, no physical examination is required to participate in the program);



n. Name of college/university;


o. Field of study; major and minor


p. Work experience, including positions and titles (if applicable):

I worked as:


q. Education, academic and professional training. Please include fields of specialization and any degrees earned (if applicable). Please also note any special honors or awards received;


r. Active memberships; Please list your membership in any other organizations

I am a volunteer in:

s. Special interests; Please describe any hobbies or special interests:

I am interested in:

t. Extracurricular activities; Please describe any activities, clubs, or organizations in which you participate. You may include volunteer and sports activities.


u. Previous travel and study or research experience outside of home country. Please describe any previous travel or study in the United States. Please include dates. If you have not traveled to the United States, indicate “none.”


v. Evidence of English language ability (e.g., personal interview, test score, etc.);

w. Future study or career plans; (1,000 words or less, to each of the following questions:


–          What are your career goals? How will leadership training help to prepare you to meet these goals?



–          Identify one political, social, or economic challenge facing your country today. What steps could be taken to solve the problem or improve the situation? What role can students play in this process?



–          Name one leader living today that you admires and explains why.



–          What qualities does he or she have that makes him or her effective leader?



–          How will your participation in the MEPI Student Leaders Program benefit you and others?



Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, GazaComments Off on C.I.A ZIONIST TRAINING PROGRAM FOR PALESTINIANS

The Lies About the 1967 Israeli War of Aggression Are Still More Powerful Than the Truth


By Alan Hart

Redress, Al-Jazeerah, CCUN,
Alan Hart views the Zionist-manufactured myth that the 1967 war was a defensive war – rather than a war of aggression – launched by Israel because it faced a threat of extermination by its Arab neighbours, and laments the lazy – or Zionist-motivated – journalism which continues to perpetuate this myth in the Western media.

In retrospect it can be seen that the 1967 war – the Six Days War – was the turning point in the relationship between the Zionist state of Israel and the Jews of the world (the majority of Jews who prefer to live not in Israel but as citizens of many other nations).

Until the 1967 war, and with the exception of a minority of Jews were politically active, most non-Israeli Jews did not have – how can I put it? – a great empathy with Zionism’s child. Israel was there and, in the sub-consciousness, a refuge of last resort; but the Jewish nationalism it represented had not generated the overtly enthusiastic support of the Jews of the world. The Jews of Israel were in their chosen place and the Jews of the world were in their chosen places. There was not, so to speak, a great feeling of togetherness. At a point David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, was so disillusioned by the indifference of world Jewry that he went public with his criticism – not enough Jews were coming to live in Israel.

So how and why did the 1967 war transform the relationship between the Jews of the world and Israel?

Part of the answer is in a single word – pride. From the Jewish perspective there was indeed much to be proud about. Little Israel with its small but highly professional defence force and its mainly citizen army had smashed the war machines of the frontline Arab states in six days. The Jewish David had slain the Arab Goliath. Israeli forces were in occupation of the whole of the Sinai and the Gaza Strip (Egyptian territory), the West Bank, including Arab East Jerusalem (Jordanian territory), and the Golan Heights (Syrian territory). And it was not much of a secret that the Israelis could have gone on to capture Cairo, Amman and Damascus. There was nothing to stop them except the impossibility of maintaining the occupation of three Arab capitals.

“…neither … Egypt nor any of the frontline Arab states had any intention of attacking Israel. And Israel’s leaders, and the Johnson administration, knew that.”

”Big, fat propaganda lie”

But the intensity of the pride most Jews of the world experienced with Israel’s military victory was in large part a product of the intensity of the fear that came before it. In the three weeks before the war, the Jews of the world truly believed, because (like Israeli Jews) they were conditioned by Zionism to believe, that the Arabs were poised to attack and that Israel’s very existence was at stake and much in doubt.

The Jews of the world (and Israeli Jews) could not be blamed for believing that, but it was a big, fat propaganda lie. Though Egypt’s President Jamal Abd-al-Nasser had asked UN Emergency Forces to withdraw from Sinai, had closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and had reinforced his army in the Sinai, neither his Egypt nor any of the frontline Arab states had any intention of attacking Israel. And Israel’s leaders, and the Johnson administration, knew that.

In short, and as I detail and document in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, the offensive Israel launched at 0750 hours (local time) on Monday 5 June was not a pre-emptive strike or an act of self-defence. It was a war of aggression.

The summary truth about that war is this.

Assisted by the regeneration of Palestinian nationalism, which became the tail that wagged the Arab dog despite the brutal efforts of the intelligence services of the frontline Arab states to prevent it happening, Israel’s military and political hawks set a trap for Nasser; and he walked into it, with eyes half-open, in the hope that the international community, led by the Johnson administration, would restrain Israel and require it and Egypt to settle the problem of the moment by diplomacy. From Nasser’s perspective that was not an unreasonable expectation because of the commitment, given by President Eisenhower that, in the event of the closure of the Straits of Tiran by Egypt to Israeli shipping, the US would work with the “society of nations” to cause Egypt to restore Israel’s right of passage, and by so doing, prevent war.

A large part of the reason why today rational debate about making peace is impossible with the vast majority of Jews everywhere is that they still believe Egypt and the frontline Arab states were intending to annihilate Israel in 1967, and were only prevented from doing so by Israel’s pre-emptive strike.

If the statement that the Arabs were not intending to attack Israel and that the existence of the Zionist state was not in danger was only that of a goy (a non-Jew, me), it could be dismissed by supporters of Israel right or wrong as anti-Semitic conjecture. In fact, the truth the statement represents was admitted by some of the key Israeli players – after the war, of course.

“I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May [1967] would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli Chief of Staff, 28 February 1968

Israel’s generals in their own words

On this 45th anniversary of the start of the Six Days War, here is a reminder of what they said.

In an interview published in Le Monde on 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin said this: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May [1967] would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmar contained the following statement by Mordehcai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”

On 4 April 1972, General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv as follows: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six Days War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”

In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizmann, Chief of Operations during the war and a nephew of Chaim Weizmann, was quoted as saying: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”

“The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”General Matetiyahu Peled, Israeli Chief of Logistical Command

In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, addressed a political literary club in Tel Aviv. He said: “The thesis according to which the danger of genocide hung over us in June 1967, and according to which Israel was fighting for her very physical survival, was nothing but a bluff which was born and bred after the war.”
In a radio debate Peled also said: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”

In the same programme General Chaim Herzog (former Director of Military Intelligence, future Israeli Ambassador to the UN and president of his state) said: “There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon – as the memoirs of President Johnson proved – believed in this danger.”

On 3 June 1972 Peled was even more explicit in an article of his own for the French newspaper Le Monde. He wrote:

All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilization of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our “defence” against the Egyptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Egyptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Egyptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.

The preference of some generals for truth-telling after the event provoked something of a debate in Israel, but it was short-lived. If some Israeli journalists had had their way, the generals would have kept their mouths shut. Weizmann was one of those approached with the suggestion that he and others who wanted to speak out should “not exercise their inalienable right to free speech lest they prejudice world opinion and the Jewish diaspora against Israel.”

It is not surprising that debate in Israel was shut down before it led to some serious soul-searching about the nature of the state and whether it should continue to live by the lie as well as the sword; but it is more than remarkable, I think, that the mainstream Western media continues to prefer the convenience of the Zionist myth to the reality of what happened in 1967 and why. When reporters and commentators have need today to make reference to the Six Days War, almost all of them still tell it like the Zionists said it was in 1967 rather than how it really was. Obviously there are still limits to how far the mainstream media is prepared to go in challenging the Zionist account of history, but it could also be that lazy journalism is a factor in the equation.

For those journalists, lazy or not, who might still have doubts about who started the Six Days War, here’s a quote from what Prime Minister Begin said in an unguarded, public moment in 1982. “In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Lies About the 1967 Israeli War of Aggression Are Still More Powerful Than the Truth

The Third Intifada Is Inevitable

Abbas Momani/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

EARLIER this month, at a private meeting with the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his security advisers, a group of Middle East experts and former intelligence officers warned that a third Palestinian intifada was imminent. The immediate catalyst, they said, could be another mosque vandalized by Jewish settlers, like the one burned on Tuesday, or the construction of new settlement housing. Whatever the fuse, the underlying source of ferment in the West Bank is a consensus that the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, has reached a dead end.

Mr. Abbas’s political strategy was premised on the notion that security cooperation between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government would make Israel feel safer and remove its primary justification for continuing to occupy the West Bank, thereby clearing the way for a Palestinian state. Ironically, owing to the success of his efforts, many Israelis have had the luxury of forgetting that there is an occupation at all.

Thanks to the American- and European-financed peace that Mr. Abbas’s government has been keeping in the West Bank, Israelis have come to believe they can eat their cake and have it, too. A majority of citizens polled earlier this year said their state could remain Jewish and democratic without relinquishing any of the West Bank. Years of peace and quiet in Tel Aviv allowed hundreds of thousands of Israelis to take to the streets last summer to protest the high price of cottage cheese, rent and day care without uttering a word about Palestinians in the West Bank. The issue has ceased to be one of Israel’s primary security concerns. Mr. Netanyahu would have to be either politically suicidal or exceptionally forward-thinking to abandon a status quo with which a vast majority appears satisfied.

By contrast, Palestinians today see their leadership banging its head against a wall, hoping against reason that a bit more good behavior will bring about an independent state. As a result, longstanding debates over how to achieve national liberation — by comforting Israel or confronting it — have now been resolved. Palestinians of all political stripes are no longer arguing about whether to make Israel’s occupation more costly, but how.

During the 1990s, Mr. Abbas was one of the key architects of the Oslo peace process, which envisioned a phased Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank leading to a permanent peace agreement (though not necessarily to a Palestinian state). Today, he is perhaps its last remaining believer. He has been forced to pay lip service to the demands of those who advocate confrontation by issuing repeated pledges to confront Israel — by dismantling the Palestinian Authority or refusing to negotiate unless Israel freezes settlement construction — only to renege on each one.

As the gap between the Palestinian president’s words and actions has grown, so has the distance of his policies from public sentiment, leading to his government’s turn to greater repression: torturing political opponents, blocking Web sites and arresting journalists and bloggers critical of Mr. Abbas. Even Mr. Abbas’s close advisers confide that he is at risk of becoming another Antoine Lahad, the leader of Israel’s proxy force during its occupation of southern Lebanon. The chief steward of Mr. Abbas’s policies, the unelected prime minister, Salam Fayyad, has acknowledged, “I think we are losing the argument, if we have not already lost.” And Mr. Abbas himself has admitted that the peace process is “jammed” and that his government had merely helped create “a good situation” for Israel, which, enjoying years of unprecedented cooperation with Palestinian forces in the West Bank, lacks incentives to agree to any change.

But these days, Palestinian security forces have little reason to believe their efforts are advancing national goals, and Israel can’t assume that the Palestinian Authority will provide security indefinitely. Last month, as gunfire returned to the streets of Jenin, and 1,600 Palestinian prisoners entered the fourth week of a hunger strike, Mr. Abbas said: “I cannot control the situation. I am afraid, God forbid, that the security system here will collapse.” That sentiment echoed remarks by Yuval Diskin, the recently retired head of Israel’s internal security agency: “When the concentration of gas fumes in the air is so high,” he said, “the question is only when the spark will come to light it.”

The root cause of this instability is that Palestinians have lost all hope that Israel will grant them a state. Each attempt to exert what little leverage Palestinians possess has been thwarted or has proved ineffective. Boycotts of settlement jobs and products haven’t gained mass support, and would not stop settlement growth even if they did. The Palestinians could have pushed for a vote last September in the United Nations General Assembly — a move that frightened Israel and America because of its implications for Palestinian accession to the International Criminal Court. Mr. Abbas abandoned that effort in favor of a petition for statehood at the Security Council, which was always guaranteed to fail, and then deftly sold his capitulation as defiance.

These failures have left Palestinians who hope to make present conditions untenable for Israel with only two options: popular protest and armed resistance. The first option faces enormous obstacles because of political divisions between Hamas in Gaza and Mr. Abbas’s Fatah in the West Bank. Each faction regards mass mobilization as a potential first step to its overthrow, as well as a means of empowering a new generation of leaders at the expense of existing ones.

If mass demonstrations erupted in the West Bank, Israel would ask Palestinian security forces to stop any protests near soldiers or settlers, forcing them to choose between potentially firing on Palestinian demonstrators or ending security cooperation with Israel, which Mr. Abbas refuses to do. As he knows and fears, mass protests could quickly become militarized by either side. For that reason, his government has offered little more than rhetorical support for the small weekly protests so beloved by foreign activists and the Western press, and has actively prevented demonstrators from approaching any Jewish settlements.

The second option is armed confrontation. Although there is widespread apathy among Palestinians, and hundreds of thousands are financially dependent on the Palestinian Authority’s continued existence, a substantial number would welcome the prospect of an escalation, especially many supporters of Hamas, who argue that violence has been the most effective tactic in forcing Israel and the international community to act.

THEY believe that rocks, Molotov cocktails and mass protests pushed Israel to sign the Oslo Accords in 1993; that deadly strikes against Israeli troops in Lebanon led Israel to withdraw in 2000; that the bloodshed of the second intifada pressured George W. Bush to declare his support for Palestinian statehood and prodded the international community to produce the Arab Peace Initiative, the Geneva Initiative, and the Road Map for Middle East Peace. They are also convinced that arms pressured Ariel Sharon, then Israel’s prime minister, to evacuate settlers and troops from Gaza in 2005. That pullout also had the effect of freezing the peace process, supplying “the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary,” as a Sharon adviser put it, “so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians.”

For more militant Palestinian leaders, who never believed in the peace process, the lesson was clear: “Not an inch of Palestinian land will be liberated,” Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy head of Hamas’s political bureau, told me, “while Israelis feel that controlling it exacts few costs.” Matti Steinberg, a former senior adviser to Israeli security chiefs, described Mr. Abbas as the most obliging, nonviolent Palestinian leader Israel has encountered and warned of taking him for granted. “The Israeli center is caught in a vicious cycle,” he said. “It argues that it cannot make peace while there is violence, and when there is no violence it sees little reason to make peace.”

History may credit Mr. Abbas with reigning over the more virtuous phase of this cycle, but he has likely laid the groundwork for the uglier one. Hamas, meanwhile, has already moved on. “Israelis had a golden opportunity to sign an agreement with Abbas,” Hamas’s health minister, Basem Naim, told me in Gaza last November. “But the chance has already passed. They will not get it again.”

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on The Third Intifada Is Inevitable

Mohammad Morsi, New Egyptian President, ‘Will Strengthen Ties With Iran’


The Huffington Post UK

 The newly-elected president of Egypt, Mohammed Morsi, has been quoted by the Iranian semi-state run news agency Fars as wanting to strengthen relations between the two countries.

According to an interview with Fars, Morsi, who was elected as president after his party, the Muslim Brotherhood, won on Sunday, will try to become closer to Tehran after three decades of icy relations.

Morsi reportedly said that “part of my agenda is the development of ties between Iran and Egypt that will create a strategic balance in the region,” in an interview that Fars say will be published at a later date.

Fars claim that Morsi was speaking only hours before he was named the victor in the election, beating former dictator Hosni Mubarak’s ex-prime minister Ahmed Shafiq with 51.7 percent of the runoff vote – a margin of only 800,000 votes.

mohammad morsi

Thousands lined the streets after Morsi’s victory, filling Tahrir Square

As the first Islamist to earn the presidency of Egypt, Morsi may have more natural inclination for creating a more cooperative dialogue with Iran, which in turn could threaten the political balance between Iran, Egypt and Israel.

The two countries have had no ties since the early 1980s, and relations between Israel and Iran have intensified the latter began its controversial nuclear program.

Hundreds of thousands crowded the streets and the now infamous Tahrir Square in celebration after Morsi was elected president on Sunday.

The 60-year-old’s victory came one and a half years after the bloody upheaval of Hosni Mubarak’s rule, and he called it “splendid vision of democracy” that represented the beginning of an “Islamic Awakening”.

Morsi Celebrations

Posted in EgyptComments Off on Mohammad Morsi, New Egyptian President, ‘Will Strengthen Ties With Iran’

Heavy Fire in the Gaza Strip Celebrating Mursi Winning the Egyptian Presidential Elections


A Palestinian Killed and 19 Others Wounded Due to Heavy Fire in the Gaza Strip Celebrating Mursi Winning the Egyptian Presidential Elections

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) condemns the opening of heavy gunfire in an unjustified manner throughout the Gaza Strip yesterday, celebrating the winning of Dr. Mohammed Mursi, the Freedom and Justice Party candidate, of the presidential elections in Egypt.  As a result of the heavy fire, 1 Palestinian was killed and 19 others were wounded.  It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Egyptians celebrated the winning of Dr. Mursi in al-Tahrir Square, but not a single bullet was fired there.  PCHR calls upon the government in Gaza to seriously investigate the circumstances of these incidents, to prosecute the perpetrators and to take necessary measures to ensure protection of civilian lives and maintain the safety of their property.

According to investigations conducted by PCHR, following the announcement of the Egyptian presidential elections’ results on Sunday, 24 June 2012, that Dr. Mursi, the candidate of Freedom and Justice Party, which is affiliated to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, won, demonstrators marched throughout the Gaza Strip.  These celebrations included heavy and indiscriminate firing by armed persons that had joined the demonstrations.  As a result, 1 Palestinian was killed and 19 others were wounded.

In Rafah, Mohammed Sameer Elayan Qeshta (25) was hit by a bullet in his head while riding his motorbike near his house in al-Salam neighborhood in the south of Rafah.  Qeshta was transported by a civilian vehicle to Abu Yusef al-Najjar Hospital in Rafah, but where he later died.  In addition, another 5 Palestinians were wounded, including a child and a woman, as a result of the celebrations.  Their wounds were described as moderate.

In the northern Gaza Strip, 4 Palestinians were wounded and transported to Martyr Kamal Odwan Hospital in Beit Lahia.  Their injuries ranged from light to moderate.  Palestinian police sources confirmed that these persons were wounded when they were hit by bullets fired from unknown directions while they stood in front of or on the roofs of their houses.

In Gaza, 10 Palestinians were admitted to Shifa Hospital with bullets wounds as a result of shots fired from unknown sources.  These individuals sustained wounds throughout their bodies from bullets while they stood in front of or on the roofs of their houses.

In view of the above, PCHR:

1.     Considers these incidents part of the security chaos prevalent in the occupied Palestinian territory; and

2.     Calls upon the government in Gaza to seriously investigate the circumstances of these incidents, to prosecute the perpetrators and to take necessary measures to ensure protection of civilian lives and maintain the safety of their property.

Posted in GazaComments Off on Heavy Fire in the Gaza Strip Celebrating Mursi Winning the Egyptian Presidential Elections

“Humanitarian Intervention” in Syria: Towards Regional War?

“Humanitarian Intervention” in Syria: Towards Regional War?
by grtv

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, weighs in on the insurrectionary nature of the Syrian conflict and its potential to generate a larger regional conflict in the Middle East.

As the Syrian crisis enters its 16th month, the recent massacres in Houla and Hama have revived calls for foreign intervention and the toppling of President Bashar al-Assad. US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice has recently hinted that the United States would soon take action outside of the Annan plan and the authority of the United Nations if the persistent violence in Syria continued unabated.

While the Syrian opposition severs its commitment to uphold Kofi Annan’s peace plan and openly calls for a UN- no-fly zone to replace the monitoring mission, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced a new transition plan that would remove Assad from power completely. As outside forces plan a post-Assad transition strategy, the people of Syria are fast approaching a historic crossroads, of which may lead to a broader sectarian conflict that would forever reshape the Middle East.

USAma Bin Laden says:

The American Empire is truly a sick nation and people.

Ever notice how Americans–including eveb the fake US “antiwar” movement–loves to paint other countries as a military threat, even as it’s their own country that is aggressively attacking one nation after another?

The United Snakes of America is a serial aggressor nation that, in typical Goebbelsian form, psychologically projects its own militaristic nature onto its opponents.

This is not just a pathology of the American regime or “Washington,” as these self-proclaimed US peace activists try to spindoctor the issue.

This is a pathology of the American people themselves since 1776,

After all, America was and is founded as a White colonizer empire since Jamestown and Plymouth Rock.

As such, Americans as a people have a desperate need to think of themselves as the “Good Guys” who are perpetually threatened by “evil-doers.”

They simply don’t have the balls to face the fact that the true evil-doers are looking at themselves in the mirror.

Americans are a pathetic excuse for human beings.

2012 / 06 / 08
Greg Cape says:

Thank you for providing commensurate coverage of events in Syria. I follow your site regularly. It has been my goal to spread your paradigm as far as possible.

See video
Chossudovsky: “Humanitarian” Wars Against Libya and Syria
See video
Syria: US ‘Diplomatic Solution’ Full of Contradictions
See video
Arab League Gives US-NATO Green Light to Intervene in Syria
See video
Pentagon Talks Peace, Then Arms Syria Rebels Via Gulf Allies
See video
NATO Proxies Behind Syria Massacre
See video
Military Intervention in Syria Will Lead to Extended War

Posted in SyriaComments Off on “Humanitarian Intervention” in Syria: Towards Regional War?

CONFIRMED: US CIA Arming Terrorists in Syria

By Tony Cartalucci

Global Research

As West berates Syria for “killing civilians” Western weapons flow into terrorist hands from NATO.

The New York Times in their article, “C.I.A. Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition,” confirms what many have already long known – that the West, led by the US and its Gulf State proxies, have been arming terrorists, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, while berating the Syrian government for “violating” a UN mandated ceasefire and for “failing to protect” its population.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been combated by nations across the Arab World to stem the tide of their sectarian extremism, violence, and their targeted erosion of secular nation-states. Ironically, the US which has claimed to have been fighting the forces of sectarian extremism and “terrorism” for over a decade now, have been revealed as the primary enabler of the most violent and extreme terrorist organizations in the world. These include, in addition to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in Libya, Baluch terrorists in Pakistan, and the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) currently based in Iraq and being used as proxies against Iran.

Video: Professor Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research gives perhaps the most comprehensive back-story on Syria’s conflict to-date. 

The New York Times claims that, “the C.I.A. officers have been in southern Turkey for several weeks, in part to help keep weapons out of the hands of fighters allied with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, one senior American official said,” a unsubstantiated claim that was similarly made in Libya before Al Qaeda flags were run up poles in Benghazi by rebels flush with NATO cash and arms used to collapse the government of Muammar Qaddafi. In fact, it is confirmed that Libyan LIFG rebels, led by Al Qaeda commander Abdul Hakim Belhaj, have now made their way by the hundreds to Syria (and here).

Despite months of the US claiming the “international community” sought to end the violence and protect the population of Syria, the New York Times now admits that the US is engaged in supporting a “military campaign” against the Syrian government aimed at increasing “pressure” on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Efforts to impose an arms embargo on Syria is now revealed to be one-sided, aimed at giving rebels an advantage in the prolonged bloodbath with the intent on tipping the balance in favor of Western proxy-forces – not end the violence as soon as possible as claimed by the UN, and in particular, Kofi Annan.

The Times also reported that Turkey has been directly delivering weapons to terrorists operating in Syria – Turkey being a NATO member and implicating NATO as now being directly involved in perpetuating bloodshed in the Middle Eastern nation. For months, Turkey has been allowing terrorists to use its border region as a refuge from which to stage attacks against Syria.

Despite this, however, the so-called “Free Syrian Army,” according to the New York Times, consists of only 100 or so small formations made up of  “a handful of fighters to a couple of hundred combatants,” betraying the narrative that the Syrian government faces a large popular uprising, and revealing that the “Free Syrian Army” is in fact a small collection of mercenaries, foreign fighters, and sectarian extremists, armed, funded, and directed by foreign interests solely to wreak havoc within Syria. It should be noted that these terrorist proxies were organized as early as 2007 by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, specifically to enact regime change and transform Syria into a Western client regime.

As the West’s propaganda campaign imploded after a torrent of unsubstantiated claims of “massacres” and “atrocities,” all unverified, some in fact being revealed as the work of the West’s sectarian proxies themselves,  it appears that sidelining Syria in headlines while pursuing a clandestine proxy war is now the tactic of choice for the time being.

For the United States to claim Syria has “failed” to protect it population while simultaneously fueling the very armed conflict it claims it is seeking to end is not only hypocrisy of the highest order, but a crime against world peace – punishable under the Nuremberg precedent.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on CONFIRMED: US CIA Arming Terrorists in Syria

Mondoweiss Online Newsletter


Circumcision deaths are a legalized non-scandal

Jun 24, 2012

Matthew Taylor

Sucking circumcision
Circumcision that involves sucking the blood

Kudos to the Times for reporting on the recent ultra-Orthodox sex abuse scandal. Here’s the NYT‘s latest:

The district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, alleged that the [four] men were part of an effort to protect a prominent member of the Satmar Hasidic community, Nechemya Weberman, who has been accused of 88 counts of sexual misconduct, including oral sex with a child younger than 13 years old.

It’s a travesty if the allegations are true. And yet, a routine violation of children inside the ultra-Orthodox community slides by with zero accountability. In the Daily Beast, Kent Sepkowitz writes, “Circumcision’s Deadly Fault Line: Rationality vs. the Metzitzah B’Peh” (emphasis mine):

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention just reported a fatal transmission of herpes from an infected ritual circumciser, or mohel, to an eight-day-old baby apparently related to a practice performed in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community called metzitzah b’peh.

What, you ask, is metzitzah b’peh? According to the CDC, it refers to the ritual when a mohel “places his mouth directly on the newly circumcised penis and sucks blood away from the circumcision wound (direct orogenital suction).”

The transmission of herpes is thought to occur when the mohel, with or without a visible oral herpes sore (herpes is well-known to be transmissible even in the absence of a visible sore), touches his lips to the infant’s newly cut skin—a golden and tragic opportunity for herpes or any infection to enter the bloodstream. The immune system of the infant is far too immature to handle much of anything and some babies are quickly overwhelmed. In the CDC series, infants in two of 11 cases gathered over the last decade died and others were left with long-term neurologic disabilities.

This is legal, repeat, legal to perform in this country.

Let’s review the relevant legal principles:

– The only body part of a child that may be legally amputated without medical necessity and without the consent of the child is the foreskin of the male;

– The one and only time it is legally permissible to perform oral-genital contact on a non-consenting minor is immediately after amputating a male’s foreskin;

– If anyone were to even prick a drop of blood from a non-consenting female minor’s genitalia (much less amputate part of the genitalia) – or put his/her mouth onto the female minor’s genitalia – they would face felony charges.

The NYT previously reported on the metzitzah b’peh-related deaths two weeks ago:

New York City health officials proposed on Tuesday that Orthodox Jewish parents be required to sign a consent waiver before they can take part in a circumcision ritual that is believed to have led to the deaths of at least two babies in the city over the past decade….

Among the more than 250,000 ultra-Orthodox Jews in the New York area, the ritual remains commonplace. In its study, the C.D.C. estimated that roughly 3,600 newborn boys a year in New York had circumcisions that included the procedure…. Ultra-Orthodox authorities have strongly defended the practice as a religious right. Some rabbis argue that there is not enough evidence to show that the procedure causes infection, while others say the practice is important enough that it should be continued anyway.

Here’s how the New York public health department reacted to the metzitzah b’peh-related deaths:

The city’s health department issued a statement last week strongly urging that direct oral-genital suction not be performed during circumcision.

A statement? Strongly urging? That and $12 will buy you a Manischewitz bottle to drink yourself into oblivion at the next Bris.


Here’s what the Canadian Children’s Rights Council has to say about circumcision:

It is the position of the Canadian Children’s Rights Council that “circumcision” of male or female children is genital mutilation… There is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children. Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to this aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children.

Not only is metzitzah b’peh a violation, so is forced circumcision of any kind. Should not all unnecessary, harmful amputation of genitalia be illegal regardless of gender? Do not males deserveequal protection?

On the question of religious freedom, Sepkowitz writes:

Perhaps the only thing more intensely held than a person’s religious beliefs is a guy’s thoughts about his [penis]. It is just about all we think about. Given this, how completely and bizarrely ridiculous it is that men, millions and millions of men, that brutal tribe that spends all day thinking about it, worrying about it, protecting it, comparing it, agree to give up their foreskin and even that of their sons to the cold blade. That’s the point though—it is the ultimate leap of faith. The church-and-state issue remains unresolved…

If a consenting adult wishes to give up his foreskin to the cold blade, let him; this is indeed his right. If a consenting adult wishes to allow someone to then suck blood out of the wound, let him; this is also his right.


But the aforementioned adult’s religious rights should end where his child’s body begins. It’s my body, it’s my foreskin, shouldn’t the choice have been mine?

For parents who wish to practice a religious form of welcoming a child into the world without harming him, try Brit Shalom. See more on Jewish opposition to circumcision here and here, and secular opposition here and here.

Jewish Federation branch cancels Pamela Geller event after interfaith outcry

Jun 24, 2012

Alex Kane

FedScreenshot of the Jewish Federations site advertising the Pamela Geller event. The page has apparently been scrubbed.

The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles has canceled an event this afternoon that was set to feature anti-Muslim activist and blogger Pamela Geller.

The event attracted attention last night when an interfaith coalition of activists sent out a press release denouncing the decision by “a mainstream Jewish organization” to host “one of the nation’s leading Islamophobes.” The LA branch is part of the Jewish Federations of North America, an establishment Jewish organization that has 155 branches across the country.

Geller promptly took to her blog to denounce the “craven capitulation of the Jewish Federation to Islamic supremacist Jew-haters.”

Geller posted what the Zionist Organization of America, which organized the event, announced to supporters this afternoon:

Unfortunately, with just a few hours notice, the Jewish Federation has backed down on its agreement to let us host Ms. Geller in their conference room. The topic: “Islamic Jew Hatred as the Root Cause of Failure to Achieve Peace.” As tenants of the Jewish Federation, the ZOA has the privilege of using the conference room with advanced notice, which the ZOA has with secured with the management weeks in advance.

While the Jewish Federation has expressed security concerns (which in and of itself bespeaks the intimidation tactics of Muslim groups), we believe that the Jewish Federation has succumbed to political pressure by Muslim and Left-wing Jewish groups not to let a rational voice of criticism of Islam and its war against Israel be heard on its premises. These Muslim and Jewish groups have blown up the blogosphere with lies about Ms. Geller and harsh criticism of the ZOA for hosting her at the Jewish Federation.

Geller and the ZOA are now encouraging people to protest outside the Federation building.

It would have been the second time a Jewish Federations branch has hosted Geller. In March of this year, Geller spoke in Philadelphia at the Jewish Community Services Building. The building is owned by the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, according to the Jewish Exponent, which reported that Geller was “shocked Federation was allowing her to speak in this space and that she is usually shunned by Jewish groups.”

As the Electronic Intifada‘s Ali Abunimah notes, the events are an “example of the marriage between pro-Israel advocacy and open incitement against Muslims.”

Geller’s event was on “Islamic Jew-Hatred: The Root Cause of the Failure to Achieve Peace.”Mondoweiss last reported on Geller when she helped scuttle the naming of a day to celebrate Palestine in Oakland’s Alameda County.

Her group Stop Islamization of America has been labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and she was a main force behind the anti-Muslim fervor over Park 51, the planned Islamic community center in lower Manhattan. As the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) noted in a press release, Geller

once bragged that she uses a Quran, Islam’s holy text, as a doorstop. She also called for the demolition of a mosque in Florida, and she will be speaking along with the violent racist group English Defence League’s Tommy Robinson at an international event later this summer.

Geller is also an ardent right-wing Zionist. She told the New York Times that the “prism of Israel” is a “very good guide…because, like I said, in the war between the civilized man and the savage, you side with the civilized man.”

Here’s the statement from the coalition denouncing the Geller event. The groups include Jewish Voice for Peace, CAIR, American Muslims for Palestine and more:

We are extremely shocked and alarmed to see a mainstream Jewish organization associating itself with one of the nation’s leading Islamophobes who doesn’t hesitate to share the podium with European racists and whose admirers apparently include Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik. Religious leaders and institutions have an increased and urgent responsibility to promote tolerance and mutual understanding among all Americans, instead of giving aid and comfort to fear-mongers like Geller. Imagine how hurt Jewish community members would be, and rightly so, if they discovered American Muslims hosting an anti-Semitic speaker.

Military dictatorships are good for Israel

Jun 24, 2012

Jim Harris

That’s what the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), an international news agency serving Jewish community newspaper and media around the world seem to be promoting.  The headline was clear:

“Egyptian military’s anti-democratic moves may benefit Israel”

The article by JTA staffer Uriel Heilman went on to say “Egypt’s military coup is now nearly complete. That may be distressing for Egyptian democracy, but it could help the Israel-Egypt relationship.”

This may also be distressing for millions of Egyptians and the cause of freedom and human rights, but there is no mention of that in the article, of course.  No, the only focus here is that what is “good for Israel.”

What do they mean by the phrase “good for Israel”? I suggest that they have not the good of the Israeli people at heart, but it is good for the preservation of an unjust status quo that enables Israel to oppress Palestinians without consequence, while still enjoying “normal” relations with a neighboring state (that just happens to be under a military dictatorship, for now).

If the editors at JTA really had the good of the Israeli people as their prime objective, or if they really cared about Israel’s international status, it would work tirelessly to end all oppression and support full freedom for all people, including Palestinians and Egyptians.

It is tragic that they instead chose to declare beneficial moves toward continued oppression of the Egyptian people because it is politically expedient to preserve Israel’s apartheid rule over Palestinians.

What makes this cheering for military dictatorship even more ironic and even irrational is that they seem oblivious to the fact that this move by the Egyptian military is quite possibly a very temporary arrangement that may be overthrown by the collective will of the Egyptian people.  Tens of thousands are on the streets in Egypt and are not taking this military coup lightly. The people of Egypt do not seem they are going to throw away the hard-won gains from earlier this year without a massive struggle. Even if the military wins in the short-term this is clearly not sustainable.

Finally, have the editors at JTA not given any thought to the millions of Americans, especially young people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who will ponder why stalwart supporters of Israel find it so necessary to support all sorts of oppression, not only of Palestinians, but also now clearly, and without apology, of Egyptians?  What kind of system are they supporting that it can be so indifferent to, indeed, even dependent on, the suffering of others? Don’t be surprised if the answers many come up with are not so beneficial to the status quo.

Rally ’round the flag

Jun 24, 2012

Philip Weiss

Great Neck
Great Neck

I got this photo from a friend. It is of a private Jewish day school in Great Neck, N.Y. He wrote to me: What kind of message does this send to the kids, and outsiders for that matter?

As an answer, let me quote Douglas Rushkoff, writing of his youth going to Larchmont Temple in NY, in “Rally Round the Flag” (an essay in this great book edited by Alisa Solomon and Tony Kushner):

“The flag on the left was American, and the one on the right was Israeli. Which one was I suppose to be looking at when I worshiped? Which one deserved our allegiance? Why were they even in the temple, to begin with?… I figured the one we Jews really believed in was the Israeli flag. The one with the Jewish star… But then why did we have an American flag up there, too? This, I concluded, was a precaution in case a gentile walked in during the middle of services and wanted to know why we were all worshipping a Jewish flag. Weren’t we Americans?”

Pursuing the question into his adult life, and a critical stance toward Israel, Rushkoff concluded on a very hopeful note:

“If I had to pick a flag that best represented the spirit and law of my Torah, it’d be the one on the left.


NYT dares to answer a vital question: ‘What does Adelson want?’

Jun 24, 2012

Philip Weiss

There is a beautiful editorial in the New York Times today called, “What Sheldon Adelson Wants.” It is beautiful because this has been a crushing political issue for our country since 2000 at the very least, when Adelson, one of the richest men in the world, set out to scuttle the Camp David “peace process” and pack the next administration with neoconservatives, and achieved both ends; and for years our journalists have avoided the question, but now they’re not avoiding it. The Times says Adelson’s Israel agenda is “wildly at odds with” the country’s needs. Bravo:

No American is dedicating as much of his money to defeat President Obama as Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who also happens to have made more money in the last three years than any other American. He is the perfect illustration of the squalid state of political money, spending sums greater than any political donation in history to advance his personal, ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation’s needs….

[What does he want?] The first answer is clearly his disgust for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supported by President Obama and most Israelis. He considers a Palestinian state “a steppingstone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people,” and has called the Palestinian prime minister a terrorist. He is even further to the right than the main pro-Israeli lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which he broke with in 2007 when it supported economic aid to the Palestinians.

Mr. Romney is only slightly better, saying the Israelis want a two-state solution but the Palestinians do not, accusing them of wanting to eliminate Israel. The eight-figure checks are not paying for a more enlightened answer.

Writes a wise friend:

I think this editorial in today’s NYT about Sheldon Adelson is powerful evidence of the extent to which the discourse on Israel is changing. The fact that they say he is having a major influence on the campaign — probably more than any other individual — and that his main concern is Israel is quite amazing. And, they are also subtly making the point: it’s really all about money.

I don’t know whether my mind is playing tricks on me or what, but I am struck these days by how out of touch with reality Israel’s staunchest defenders seem to be and how rational-legal its critics appear. I read stuff by Foxman and Dershowitz and I just shake my head. They seem delusional. And contrast Robert Wright with Jeffrey Goldberg. One operates in our world; the other outside it. And it is not because I agree with Wright and disagree with Goldberg on most issues; no, Goldberg is operating in another universe. I can’t help but think lots of people understand this, as reflected in the transformation of Sullivan’s and Wright’s thinking over time.

So, three cheers for the Times. The newspaper also speaks of Adelson’s financial interests in a Republican regime but emphasizes his Israel agenda. I don’t find the financial interest significant because a, this guy is going to make money regardless, and b, he is a dual loyalty case who says he regrets wearing an American uniform and wants his son to be an Israeli sniper. I.e., he’s a zealot. And now the Times is opening the door on his motivation.

Why did the Israeli military kill 13-year-old Ma’moun al-Dam?

Jun 24, 2012

Hama Waqum

Blood-stained pieces of Ma’moun’s clothes were splayed
across the olive grove (Photo: Hama Waqum)

Shreds of black and blue cloth stained in red lay scattered across an olive grove on the outskirts of Gaza City.

The remains of 13-year-old Ma’moun al-Dam’s t-shirt lay hooked into an olive bush and his sandals flung five meters away from where he was killed.

Nobody is talking about what happened at 2.30pm on Wednesday afternoon, and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), as usual, are not being questioned bout their actions.

An untouched picnic and bloodstained cushion.
(Photo: Hama Waqum)

Ma’moun was killed by a bomb dropped by the IDF while he was having a picnic with his parents in a garden in the area between Zeitoun and Tal Elhawwa neighbourhoods.

One of Ma’moun’s neighbors- a man in his 20s who didn’t want to be identified- recalled the events, “I heard a scream and came to the olive grove. I could see black smoke. I froze when I arrived- I couldn’t do anything for five minutes. I saw a young mother screaming over her son’s body.”

A pock marked fence thrown back by the force of the blast. (Photo: Hama Waqum)

The hole where the bomb fell was shallow, and Ma’moun was around a meter and a half away when it landed. His right arm was cooked to a crisp and his body riddled with small holes. His clothes were burnt and lay in shreds in the bushes, sprawled across the olive grove and into neighboring land.  The force of the bomb sent the nearby metal fence flying two meters. The metal is riddled with tiny pea-sized holes.  Ma’moun’s neighbors believe that the bomb held metal pellets, which exploded in a cluster, causing his torso to be dotted with waves of small wounds.

Pellet-sized holes damaged both Ma’moun’s body and
the surrounding area. (Photo: Hama Waqum)

Ma’moun’s school tests and notes were scattered around the picnic site, out of reach of the explosion, which melted the olive grove’s plastic fence. The neighbor recalled, “Ma’moun always likes to write, he brings papers with him everywhere.”

The olive grove has barely been touched in 24 hours. The family’s picnic lies untouched on a plastic table. Next to the dried pickles are a mattress and cushion- both now stained in blood as Ma’moun’s mother moved her son into the shade, laying him in front of his father, who is blind and was injured in the head during the attack. Shrapnel hangs in the bushes and Ma’moun’s phone split into three pieces, intertwined in the brambles.

The neighbor explained that Ma’moun’s mother “put his body down in front of her husband and said to her husband, who cannot see, “Say mashallah; you have a martyr for a son.”

Ma’moun’s death is one of 16 since escalations began on Monday. The 13-year-old’s death has gone largely unreported and the IDF have made no official statement on his death, except by responding to tweets asking for an explanation with a deflection. :

.@welshingaza@sarahcarr Why does Hamas use teenagers on picnics as human shields?

— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) June 22, 2012

Neighbors have said that no missiles were launched from the area and if they had, the family would certainly have left their picnic, especially during an escalation.

No proof of a rocket launch has been offered by the IDF and nobody is asking questions about why a 13-year-old was killed.

Put pressure on the IDF to explain why they killed Ma’moun al-Dam.

Contact them here

Tweet the IDFSpokesperson

Muhammed al-Dam grieves over the body of his son, Ma’moun.
(Photo: Ashraf Amra/APA images via Electronic Intifada)

Posted in Nova NewsletterComments Off on Mondoweiss Online Newsletter

Shoah’s pages