Archive | January 1st, 2013



Summary and Review of Chatham House paper – ‘Syria: Prospects for Intervention’
After assessing the balance of consequences of both non-intervention versus intervention and non- military versus military intervention, participants of the Chatham House Meeting determined three likely options for future action: increased provision of weaponry to the FSA and amplification of covert intervention; reprisal air strikes in response to widespread bloodshed in Aleppo; and an augmentation of sanctions on Syria. Regardless of the political implications of any of these three options, what is clear is that decisive action must be taken as the humanitarian crisis in Syria worsens and major cities descend into chaos. Near to 20,000 have already perished and more than 134,000 refugees are fled the country. The Meeting concluded with the argument that proactive action, though it will have immediate, and significant, consequences, may ultimately be preferable to simply waiting for further atrocities to happen.
Summary and Review of Chatham House paper – ‘Syria: Prospects for Intervention’
After assessing the balance of consequences of both non-intervention versus intervention and non- military versus military intervention, participants of the Chatham House Meeting determined three likely options for future action: increased provision of weaponry to the FSA and amplification of covert intervention; reprisal air strikes in response to widespread bloodshed in Aleppo; and an augmentation of sanctions on Syria. Regardless of the political implications of any of these three options, what is clear is that decisive action must be taken as the humanitarian crisis in Syria worsens and major cities descend into chaos. Near to 20,000 have already perished and more than 134,000 refugees are fled the country. The Meeting concluded with the argument that proactive action, though it will have immediate, and significant, consequences, may ultimately be preferable to simply waiting for further atrocities to happen.


Posted by a



riday, December 28, 2012

[[[[[If there were a prize for the Arab country that has done most to promote Arab-Israeli peace recently, I’d seriously consider nominating Saudi Arabia.]]]]] Admittedly, that’s a counterintuitive choice: Riyadh doesn’t even recognize Israel and shows no signs of doing so anytime soon; moreover, it finances the spread of extremist Islamic ideology. But Saudi-funded papers have been doing something that may be far more important than another handshake on the White House lawn: providing a platform for Arab journalists and public figures to challenge the dominant Middle Eastern narrative of Israel as the root of all evil.Consider, for instance, a column published last month in Asharq Al-Awsat, a paper owned by a member of the Saudi royal family and known for its support of the Saudi monarchy. Written by the paper’s then-deputy editor-in-chief, Adel Al Toraifi, and titled “Who holds Hamas’ terrorism to account?” the column blamed not Israel, but Hamas, for Palestinian casualties during both the second intifada and the recent fighting in Gaza.
During the intifada, wrote Al Toraifi, “Only a small number of Palestinians died in the first weeks.” But then, “Hamas and other factions decided to militarize the intifada through the use of suicide attacks, costing the Palestinians nearly 2,000 lives in less than two years.”Similarly, when smaller factions began “sabotaging the truce in Gaza,” Hamas “did not condemn their attacks, rather its leaders talked about the victory that was achieved through the missile fire.” Consequently, “a hundred Palestinians have died and what remains of the dilapidated infrastructure there has been destroyed.”Now contrast this with the reaction of Israel’s “peace partner,” Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas. In his speech to the UN last month, Abbas accused Israel of committing “barbaric and horrific” crimes in Gaza in retaliation for … his UN bid! The thousands of missiles launched at Israel weren’t even mentioned, much less condemned. And other senior PA officials openly praised the missile fire.
Moreover, the two Arab states with which Israel has peace treaties, Egypt and Jordan, similarly accused Israel of unprovoked aggression while refusing to condemn the rocket fire.In short, all told their people that Israel is simply an evil country that kills innocent Arabs for no good reason. And why would anyone make peace with a country like that?Al Toraifi, in contrast, told his readers that Israel isn’t inherently evil; it was just responding to being attacked. He also told his readers that Palestinians aren’t wholly innocent; their behavior, too, will have to change for peace to be possible. These are obviously messages far more conducive to peace.
An even more remarkable column appeared in October in another Saudi-funded paper, Arab News. Written by a former commodore in the Saudi navy, it posed a heretical question: “whether Israel is the real enemy of the Arab world and the Arab people.” Abdulateef Al-Mulhim’s answer was unequivocal:“The Arab world wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of innocent lives fighting Israel,” he wrote. “The Arab world has many enemies and Israel should have been at the bottom of the list. The real enemies of the Arab world are corruption, lack of good education, lack of good health care, lack of freedom, lack of respect for the human lives and finally, the Arab world had many dictators who used the Arab-Israeli conflict to suppress their own people.
These dictators’ atrocities against their own people are far worse than all the full-scale Arab-Israeli wars.”[ED NOTE:THESE ARE THE WESTERN(ZIONIST RAN)BACKED DICTATORSHIPS,AND GCC MONARCHIES WICH ARE REALLY PAGAN AND ZIONIST WHILE PRETENDING TO OPPOSE ISRAHELL] He also noted, correctly, that Arab states created the Palestinian refugee problem by launching wars against Israel in 1948 and 1967, and that even Palestinians “living under Israeli occupation … enjoy more political and social rights” and a “better situation than their Arab brothers who fought to liberate them from the Israelis.”Again, the message couldn’t be clearer: Israel isn’t evil, nor is it solely responsible for the conflict: Arabs need to change their own attitudes and behavior.Yet here, too, the contrast with Israel’s “peace partner” is stark.
In Abbas’s UN speech, the Arab assault on Israel in 1948 never happened: Israel simply embarked, unprovoked, on “one of the most dreadful campaigns of ethnic cleansing and dispossession in modern history” (a mind-boggling claim in itself, considering the competition). And ever since, Israel has perpetrated a litany of abuses (ethnic cleansing, apartheid, etc.) against innocent Palestinians, whose conduct was always in “harmony and conformity” with “international law” and “moral values.” There was no Palestinian terror, no serial rejection of peace offers. Israel is simply evil incarnate, and Palestinians bear no responsibility whatsoever for their suffering.
It is hardly a message conducive to peace.Granted, Al Toraifi and Al-Mulhim are still outliers. But Riyadh clearly has no problem with their views: Al Toraifi was just promoted to editor-in-chief of his paper; Al-Mulhim remains a regular columnist at his. Considering that in Egypt, Jordanand the PA, journalists unions prohibit and penalize “normalization” with Israel despite the existence of peace treaties, that is certainly nontrivial.[[[[None of this means the Saudis have become Zionists]]]].[ED NOTE;WRONG,THATS EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS AND ILL GIVE MORE EVIDNECE AT END OF POST] Rather, it reflects the fact that Riyadh currently views Iran as its greatest enemy.
Hence Iranian allies like Hamas are out of favor, while Israel benefits from a form of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”Nevertheless, as I’ve explained before, the Arab world’s [[[[[virulently anti-Israel rhetoric]]]] is a major impediment to Israeli-Arab peace – because as long as most Arabs view Israel as an irredeemably evil country that kills and dispossesses innocent Palestinians for no reason, they will understandably view peace with Israel as beyond the pale.By providing a venue for Arabs to finally start telling their countrymen the truth, Saudi papers may well be doing more to advance the cause of peace than all the Israeli-Palestinian talks ever held.
[ed notes:zionist  israhelli front and pro war advocacy jinsa,loves saudis…and saud monarchy are zionists as are most gcc monarchies anyway,further reading.. JINSA URGES US TO PROTECT GULF STATES  jinsa sympathizes with saudis on bahrain repressi… – thenakedfacts SAUDIS FUND ”ORIENTALIST CENTRES” !!! Subverting Islam: The Role of Orientalist Centres The strategy of the Saudi-Zionist
fabrications Saudi Arabia and Zionists, Brothers until victory or death An ancient document has revealed how Sultan Abdul Aziz, the founder of Saudi Arabia assured Britain of creating a Jewish state on Palestinian lands, a news report says .HOW ZIONIST ISRAELIS LOVE ZIONISTS SAUDI PRINCES AND VICE


Former MEK members ready to provide witness to Swedish Parliament


With the Swedish Parliament passing a resolution acknowledging the massacre of Kurdish people by Iraq in 1991, former Rajavi cult escaped members have sent a letter to Swedish Parliament Speaker, Per Westerberg to provide testimony to role played by Monafeqin Kurd genocide“We, the writers of this letter, are from Iran and living in Europe, defectors from this Iranian group MEK led by Masoud Rajavi. The majority of us have each spent more than twenty years of physical and mental prison,” reads the letter.“Recent humanitarian act by Swedish Parliament on condemning killing of Kurds by MEK members gives the impetus for us to provide witness to MEK crimes in Iraq in 1991,” says the letter. “We have been witness to Masoud Rajavi’s and Maryam Qajar Azdanlu’s order on killing Kurds. In those days of waging war against the Iraqi Kurds, Maryam Rajavi ordered the MEK armed forces to “run over the Kurds by tanks and save your bullets for killing of Iranian soldiers beyond borders”.“We declare that it was Maryam Rajavi’s voice giving orders.
In the brutal suppression of the Kurds, Masoud Rajavi told his followers in a meeting that Iraqi authorities hailed and thanked him for the killing of the Kurds and putting down their uprising in Kafra, Tuz Khormatu, Kara Teppe, Qasre Shirin, etc.,” claims the report.Furthermore, the letter adds that we, the defectors, having escaped the organization lead by Masoud and Maryam Rajaviin and its formal and horrific atmosphere governing it, decided to expose the crimes by this cult, in an attempt to stop killings of individuals by the cult.“Therefore; in order to shed light on Rajavi’s involvement in killings of the Kurds in Iraq during Saddam’s era, we are ready and willing to provide you with witnesses and documentation for this cause,” the letter continues.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on Former MEK members ready to provide witness to Swedish Parliament

Cop gets fine in the fire burning murder of Oury Jalloh

On January 7, 2005, Oury Jalloh, a young African from Sierra Leone/Guinea, was violently detained by police terrorists in the city of Dessau, Germany and taken to a holding cell in the basement of the local police station.Four hours later, his body was found in a charcoaled state, his corpse chained at the hands and feet to a fireproof mattress.On Thursday, December 13, 2012, the county court of Magdeburg, Germany failed to bring justice—with the police never having to face murder charges.The court’s only conviction was a fine of 10,800 Euros for negligence on one of the officers involved.Police terrorists, as well as the public prosecutor’s office, claim that Oury Jalloh set himself on fire.The police manipulated the securing of evidence by adding a lighter to the presentation of evidence.Oury Jalloh’s hands and feet were tied and handcuffed to metal handles that were attached to the wall and floor from the sides of the fireproof mattress.All the police’s attempts to reconstruct how he could have set himself on fire failed—Oury Jalloh was unable to move.Moreover, the police sabotaged the investigations by deleting the electronic data which documented who patrolled the cell block and the cell where Oury Jalloh was murdered.They also deleted important parts of the video documentation of the securing of evidence, including video showing the cell directly after the incident.They also got rid of the handcuffs Oury Jalloh was fixated with.The “public prosecutor’s office” decided that the autopsy of Oury Jalloh’s body didn’t need to include an x-ray examination in order to rule out bone injuries of the skull or limbs.It was only due to a second independently commissioned autopsy by the Initiative in Remembrance of Oury Jalloh, that it was ascertained that Oury Jalloh’s nose had been fractured and severe damage caused to his inner ear.The supervising police terrorist and doctor in charge of examining Oury Jalloh referred to Oury in a racist manner.Though recorded evidence documented this racist behavior, there were no actions taken at the colonial court to find out how Oury Jalloh received these injuries.
[ed notes;click link for rest,and whole expose,i’m just citing few excerpts!

Posted by

Posted in GermanyComments Off on Cop gets fine in the fire burning murder of Oury Jalloh

Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine

Seattle residents Matt Duran and Katherine Olejnik have been imprisoned in the SeaTac Federal Detention Center for weeks. Neither of them has been indicted, arraigned, or even arrested for a crime. They have been imprisoned for civil contempt by a federal prosecutor for refusing to answer personal questions during a secretive grand jury investigation of other people in the Occupy movement. During her examination by the prosecutor, Olejnik was asked about incidents of vandalism that took place in Seattle last May Day. 
She wasn’t even in the city on that date. When the prosecutor began showing her photographs of people and inquiring about her political beliefs, Olejnik exercised her constitutionally protected right to remain silent. That is why she was sent to prison on the orders of U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones. Duran’s case is nearly identical. They may remain in prison until the grand jury’s term expires in January 2014. Duran and Olejnik are political prisoners in every sense of the expression. However, they are not the only Americans who are current being indefinitely detained without criminal charges. Let us take back the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.


Posted by

Posted in USAComments Off on Indefinite Detention Without Trial: Completely Unconstitutional, Yet Routine



Posted by: i. Smith

Traitor Kamel Hawwash*


What is the PSC executive afraid of?

The question is whether or not to build a fighting mass movement in support of Palestine.

In an entirely unexpected turn of events, the CPGB-ML’s resolution was vociferously opposed by the Executive Committee of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign at its AGM on 22 January. Since a resolution containing many of the same points had been passed virtually unanimously at the Stop the War conference last autumn, this came as rather a surprise to the comrade who moved the motion.

The arguments posed against the resolution went like this:

– The list of actions is ‘too prescriptive’; we can’t agree to it.

This was a clearly disingenuous excuse. Most of the other resolutions that were passed without dissentalso had lists of actions attached, related to the specific spheres of action each resolution was dealing with (ie, boycott and divestment, trade-union work, student work, etc). In fact, resolutions are by their natureprescriptive. That doesn’t mean the movers expect the actions suggested in it to be carried out exclusively.

Quite clearly, in this case, the idea here was to be complementary to other work being done by the PSC. Equally clearly, this argument is just a cover – perhaps for reasons that the opposers didn’t feel comfortable sharing with the rest of the members.

– We can’t put resources into campaigning/fundraising for the Gaza protestors; it’s a diversion from what we do.

This is a shocking stance, especially considering that it was PSC who called the demo at which these young people were arrested. It also contradicts the ambition, constantly put forward by the PSC leadership, that we should be in the business of building a mass movement.

A big campaign to have the Gaza prisoners’ sentences overturned would be a fantastic way to draw attention to the British state’s role in supporting Israel. Not to mention highlighting islamophobia, bringing many more young people and muslims towards the PSC and generally highlighting the issue that people have been criminalised for merely objecting to war crimes!

– We can’t promise to support all those arrested for opposing Israel’s war crimes (including the Gaza protestors); we don’t know who they might be.

The clear implication here was that some of the people being targeted for their principled stand, whether direct-action activists or newly politicised young muslims, might somehow be ‘asking for it’!

– We can’t ask workers to refuse to cooperate with war crimes in the current climate, when they’re worried about losing their jobs.

Once more, a fairly shocking stance, with not much further comment needed, except to say that you could make the same argument about concentration camp guards! Either it’s a crime or it isn’t. Either we’re against the British state assisting in Israel’s crimes or we’re not.

The fact is that we can’t force anyone to do anything they don’t want to – but surely we should be doing everything within our power to take the arguments to British workers and to help them to make informed decisions? Why is it ok to campaign amongst union members as individuals around the boycott demands, but not to try to mobilise to take concrete action to prevent war crimes collectively?

It’s also worth bearing the student example in mind. Two years ago, students were occupying their universities in support of the people of Gaza. The confidence and experience they gained in these actions no doubt contributed to the militancy we’re seeing today in the anti-fees movement and occupations.

Far from making working people nervous, encouraging them to use their power to stop crimes against Palestinians might actually help them to get more militant in using their power against the current cuts in benefits, pensions, wages and public services!

What’s really going on?

It’s clear the above arguments don’t add up, so we have to ask ourselves, just what is it that the PSC national executive is really afraid of? If we really want to build a mass movement in support of Palestine, why would we be afraid to try to mobilise broad sections of the working class or muslim communities? And why are we avoiding the question of real, concrete solidarity with Palestine?

Jeremy Corbyn MP’s closing statement, in which he blethered on about Early Day Motions in Parliament, was a joke. Anyone who knows anything about how the House of Commons works can tell you that EDMs aren’t even relevant within its walls, never mind outside of them; they don’t even get debated!

We were sad to see that not only outgoing Secretary Betty Hunter, but also PSC’s deputy chair Kamel Hawwash spoke most shamefully against the resolution, causing much confusion amongst those present, who clearly wondered what could be the reason for such vociferous opposition to something so seemingly innocuous, and so obviously fundamental to our work as actively opposing Israel’s war crimes.

We were also sad at the way the whole debate was handled. It was clear from the inconsistency and illogicality of the opposing arguments that the reasons being put forward in such a hysterical fashion weren’t the actual reasons for the executive opposing the resolution. Several speakers said that “while there were many good things in the motion, it was impossible to support it all because of ”.

But if that was truly the case, why not contact the movers of the resolution about changing it, so as to let the good stuff through? Why not put forward amendments that we would all have had time to read and think about before the conference? Why wait and hijack everybody with an unexpected and baffling ‘controversy’ that many present were simply unable to unravel in the time available?

One possible answer is that the executive is afraid of attracting too much negative attention from the state if it openly supports either the Gaza protestors or the various direct-action anti-war-crimes activists, despite the fact that well publicised campaigns along these lines could do much to broaden the appeal of PSC and to extend the reach of our solidarity message (all of which could make a direct difference to Palestinians).

Another possibility is that the executive is afraid to upset the cosy relationship it has built with various Labour party and trade-union officials by raising the question of direct participation in war crimes by British workers – and their power to withhold that participation – within the unions, many of which spend their time trying to squash the notion of collective power, substituting instead the idea of individual pleas to the better judgement of managers and employers.

This fits with the current PSC strategy of spending much time and resources on ‘lobbying’ to ‘change the minds’ of MPs and MEPs, who are then allocated ‘good’ or ‘bad’ status according to whether or not they’re happy to sign up to one of the aforementioned Early Day Motions or similar. Instead of mobilising the real power of the British people from the street and demanding that the British state withdraw its support from Israel, many in the PSC leadership would like us to confine ourselves to going cap in hand to parliamentarians and asking them to be nicer.

And if nasty MPs, like those unreasonable employers who say no to trade unionists, decline to sign up to a ‘please be nicer to the poor Palestinians’ request? Well, we tried. Come back next year!

On a more optimistic note, despite the bullocking from the Executive Committee and their trade-union and Labour party friends, around a third of those present voted in favour of the resolution, and many members went away determined to discuss the issue in their branches. We hope they will make the arguments in favour there and come back determined to change the organisation’s policy next year.

No cooperation with war crimes: step up the campaign

In the last year, many important developments have taken place, which on the one hand make the work of actively opposing Israel’s war crimes more urgent, and on the other have created an atmosphere that is more receptive to our message.

In this context, conference notes the passing at the Stop the War conference of a motion calling on the coalition to “take the line of non-cooperation into as many arenas as possible”. This resolution included a detailed programme of activities that could take this work forward, some of which the PSC has already been taking the lead in.

Conference notes the attack on those condemning war crimes that was embodied in the draconian sentences handed down to the Gaza protestors. Conference further notes that these sentences were aimed not only at discouraging muslim youth from political activism, but also at dividing the anti-war and Palestine solidarity movements along racial lines, and branding Palestine solidarity as a ‘muslim’, rather than a human rights or anti-imperialist issue.

Conference condemns the murder by Israeli commandos of ten solidarity activists (nine at the time and one who died later) aboard the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May, despite the fact that the UN had called for the ships to be allowed to pass. Conference notes the UN’s recent findings that these murders were illegal – another war crime to add to the many being committed daily against the Palestinian people.

Conference commends the excellent work done by PSC in getting an enhanced boycott motion passed at the TUC following the flotilla attack, and notes that the acceptance of much stronger language than previously used reflects the sea change in the attitude of many ordinary British workers towards Israel.

Conference further notes that in the atmosphere of international outrage that followed the flotilla murders, even Israeli-friendly politicians such as Cameron and Hague were forced to make statements condemning both the murders and the siege on Gaza.

Conference reaffirms its support for all those who have taken the lead in active non-cooperation over the past year, in particular for the EDO Decommissioners, for the Gaza protestors, and for the many British participants in siege-busting missions by land and sea to Gaza.

Conference notes that the landmark acquittal in the case of the Decommissioners can only facilitate more actions of this kind, since it not only sets a legal precedent, but is a reflection of the general sense of disgust against Israeli war crimes.

Conference reaffirms its belief that the majority of people in Britain are opposed to British imperialism’s support for the criminal Israeli state, and considers that the time is ripe to make active non-cooperation a central theme of our work. Conference therefore calls on the incoming steering committee to work with Stop the War and any other organisations that are willing in taking the line of non-cooperation into as many arenas as possible, including:

1.    Putting on a fundraising concert to draw attention to the Gaza prisoners’ plight and to raise money towards a campaign to overturn their convictions.

2.    Giving full backing, including maximum possible publicity, to all those groups or individuals, whether affiliated to PSC or not, who, like the EDO Decommissioners and the Raytheon activists, are targeted by the state for refusing to cooperate with, or for actively attempting to prevent the many crimes of the occupation, including: the frequent bombings and shootings of civilians; the destruction of Palestinian homes, farms, schools, hospitals, mosques and churches; the crippling siege of Gaza; the building of the apartheid wall, and the seizure of ever more land in Jerusalem and the West Bank for jewish-only settlement construction.

3.    Building on our existing campaign inside the unions to draw attention to Israeli war crimes, and the complicity of the British government and corporations in those crimes, with the aim of passing in each of them, and then at the TUC, motions condemning those crimes and calling on workers to refuse to cooperate in their commission, whether it be by making or moving munitions or other equipment, writing or broadcasting propaganda, or helping in any other way to smooth the path of Israel’s war machine.

4.    Building on the excellent PSC campaign to draw attention to pro-Israeli propaganda in Panorama and working with such groups as Media Lens (see, for example, their recent alert drawing attention to the media’s total bypassing of evidence revealing Israel’s starvation policy in Gaza) and others to draw in as many members and supporters as possible to an ongoing campaign to hold the media to account for their pivotal role in apologising for, covering up and normalising Israeli war crimes.

5.    Continuing and increasing the work already done to make Britain a place where Israeli war criminals can get no peace, through the campaign on universal jurisdiction, through holding protests, through citizens’ arrests and through all other available channels, including using local, national and international courts to file charges and draw attention to the crimes of Israeli military, government and corporate leaders – and those in Britain who back them politically or financially.



Posted in ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on WHAT IS TRAITOR Kamel Hawwash AFRAID OF ?

Shoah’s pages