Archive | September 27th, 2013


Posted by 

Victory to Syria

Having failed miserably in its attempts to overthrow the Syrian government through its jihadist terrorist mercenaries, imperialism is in the final stages of its preparations for a direct military onslaught against the people of Syria and their lawful and popular government. By a concerted campaign, orchestrated by its political and ideological representatives, duly assisted by its gigantic propaganda machine – a veritable host of TV and radio stations and thousands of newspapers – which spews out non-stop lies about its intended victim, imperialism has built up an unstoppable momentum for yet another unlawful, unjust, bloody and predatory war. In the next few days, the Syrian people will find themselves to be the recipients of ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’, ‘human rights’ and ‘rule of law’ delivered by cruise missiles and other deadly weapons, which are bound to cause tremendous loss of life and material damage.

The pretext for this barbarous war is the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government against its own people – a charge that cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny. Why would the Syrian government use chemical weapons when its forces are inflicting decisive defeats on the bloodthirsty brutes unleashed by imperialism, just when a UN team is in the country investigating the use of these weapons, and that too in an area where the Syrian army is present in large numbers. Even the right-wing Zionist website WND expressed the view that the chemical attack was the work of the Syrian opposition forces.

All the evidence points in the direction of imperialism staging a provocation, through the use by its proxies of sarin and other nerve gases, so as to provide imperialism with an excuse for going to war against Syria with the hope of saving the skin of its surrogates who are on the verge of a complete rout.

Faced with this murderous war, the proletariat needs to know the unvarnished truth and not be palmed off with plausible lies. The proletariat needs to know:

• that the war presently being waged by imperialism and its stooges against the Syrian people did not simply and
spontaneously erupt in March 2011, but has actually been in preparation for at least a decade.

• that this war has nothing to do with humanitarianism, rule of law or democracy, which are merely catchwords that
imperialism uses to hide its real aims … it is a war for domination, for booty, plunder and brigandage;

• that in an effort to subvert the revolutionary movements of the people of the Middle East and the Maghreb, the
combined imperialist powers of Nato first targeted Libya and overthrew its government, murdering its undisputed
leader, Muammer Gaddafi, and are now intent on repeating their ‘humanitarian’ blitzkrieg against Syria;

• that Syria has become the target of imperialist subversion and aggression for pursuing independent economic
and foreign policies, for opposing the war in Libya, for its support for the Iraqi resistance, for its support for the
cause of the liberation of Palestine from zionist occupation, and for its alliance with Iran and the Lebanese resistance
movement, Hizbollah; in short, for its position in the axis of resistance that today stands in opposition to the
Zionist-imperialist axis of evil;

• that in the end this war is directed against China and Russia – the two countries which stand in the way of imperialist
domination of the world.

The proletariat must therefore condemn imperialism and its stooges in the most resolute terms and give its wholeheartedsupport to the Syrian people and their leadership, who are bravely defending the independence, sovereignty, honour and dignity of their country against imperialist brigandage.Those who claim to be socialist must take to the working masses the message of non-cooperation with imperialism’s predatory and criminal wars by refusing to play any part in moving materials, making munitions, pointing guns or
broadcasting imperialism’s warmongering propaganda lies.

From the very beginning of the counter-revolutionary rebellion in Syria, inspired, funded and aided by imperialism, we in the CPGB-ML have consistently called for the defeat of imperialism and the victory of the Syrian people led by President Assad, for we are firmly convinced that: “The revolutionary movement in the advanced countries would actually
be a sheer fraud if, in their struggle against capital, the workers of Europe and America were not closely and completely united with hundreds upon hundreds of millions of ‘colonial’ slaves who are oppressed by capital” (Lenin, The Second Congress of the Communist International, 1920).

We make a last-ditch appeal to our opponents in the working-class and ‘anti-war’ movement, especially the leadership of the Stop the War Coalition, who have hitherto deployed one excuse after another, one dishonest pretext following another, to undermine the anti-imperialist Syrian government, just as they did in the case of Libya, to join us in our
correct stance, if they do not want their hands to be dripping with the blood of the Syrian people, just as will be the hands of the imperialists. Failure to do so, whatever their intentions, objectively puts them in the camp of imperialism.

No cooperation with imperialism’s wars!
Victory to the Syrian people led by the Ba’ath Party and its progressive allies!
Death to imperialism and its Zionist and Arab stooges!


RT report: Protest against media bias in war for public opinion over Syria

Posted by 

The following is taken from the article on Russia Today concerning protests aimed at exposing media bias against Syria in the war for public opinion.

syrian electronic army

The New York Times’ website has been disabled for the second time in under a month, with the newspaper attributing the outage to a “malicious external attack” widely thought to have come from hackers affiliated with the Syrian Electronic Army.

“Many users are having difficulty accessing the New York Times online,” the paper wrote on its Facebook page. “We are working to fix the problem. Our initial assessment is the outage is most likely the result of a malicious external attack. In the meantime we are continuing to publish key news reports.”

Multiple screenshots online reveal that when a user attempts to visit, the only message that appears is “Hacked by the SEA.” The hacker collective regularly infiltrates media organizations it perceives to be aligned against the Assad government.

The Times has continued publishing news articles on since the main site began experiencing outages at approximately 3:00 pm EST.

This was the NYT homepage for a few minutes earlier
— Megan Hess (@mhess4) August 27, 2013
The SEA also claimed in a series of tweets that it hijacked the domain for Twitter, redirected the social media traffic to its own server and rendering the site unstable.

Twitter spokesperson Jim Prosser confirmed to journalist Matthew Keys that site technicians are “looking into claims” from the SEA.

Hi @Twitter, look at your domain, its owned by #SEA :)
— SyrianElectronicArmy (@Official_SEA16) August 27, 2013

The SEA, a shadowy group of hackers sympathetic to the Syria’s President Bashar Assad, has launched cyber-attacks on a number of media outlets in recent months including the associated Press’ Twitter feed, which falsely reported that US President Barack Obama was injured in an attack on the White House.

The Times’ page was last unavailable on August 14, although the several-hour outage was later blamed on “a failure during regular maintenance.”

“While it may seem a little bit like they’re doing it for lulz because it is kind of random, it is ideologically motivated in the sense that these are all supporters of the Assad regime,” Eva Galperin, a global public policy analyst at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Verge. “And they’re looking to get a message out about what they feel is bias in the media against Assad.”

This string of attacks comes as US leaders have publicly discussed the possibility of launching an attack against the Assad government, which they say used deployed chemical weapons on the Syrian people as the nation’s civil war passed the two-year point. US Secretary of State John Kerry has called Syria’s use of chemical weapons “undeniable” and “a moral obscenity” as government sources said a cruise missile strike was imminent.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on RT report: Protest against media bias in war for public opinion over Syria

Understand Capitalism – understand your life!



Capitalism is in crisis. On this point all are agreed. But what is the crisis? How can it be solved? Is capitalism the ‘end of history’, as Francis Fukuyama famously said after the counter-revolutions in the USSR and Eastern Europe in 1989-91? Will capitalism simply ‘sort itself out’? Is it the best of a bad lot, as Churchill and Thatcher maintain?

OR is it up to you and me, the working people to lay hold of the means of production – the factories, mines, banks, offices, warehouses, shopping empires, shipping, rail, trucking conglomerates, and run them ourselves; to plan production sustainably to satisfy OUR basic needs and to meet OUR pressing interests.

For what will be the cost exacted from the masses of working people of the world in ‘blood and treasure’ for capitalism’s ongoing existence? Can the world bear yet more “belt tightening”, poverty, misery, ill health, malnutrition, environmental degradation, unemployment – with all the physical and spiritual degradation that these entail – and deaths from economic and political causes – notably war and famine? And why? All so the few hundred billionaires can carry on amassing obscene amounts of wealth at our expense!

In this talk, Ella Rule explains the economics of capitalism, including the basics of Karl Marx’s Classic “Das Capital” and Lenin’s “Imperialism”. Only by understanding the problem, can we find a solution. How is value created? how is it amassed? Of what does exploitation consist (How are workers robbed of the values they create?)

Watching this video introduction is a vital step – that takes us closer to the goal of building a movement with the understanding to tackle our parasitic and decadent ruling class; place workers in control; and enable us to build an economy that serves the interests of the vast masses of humanity. Please watch and help to spread it far and wide. You are welcome to repost it, but please acknowledge your source.

“The capitalists are our implacable enemies. Their wealth is built upon our poverty, their joy upon our misery!”

There is not a crime that capitalists will not commit to preserve their monopoly over the means of production, distribution and exchange. The only fitting punishment is to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains.

Our revenge will be the laughter on the faces of our children. A better world is possible.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on Understand Capitalism – understand your life!

A “Nuclear-Free Zone” in the Middle East? Why I$raHell will not Join the Non-Proliferation Treaty


Iran’s New President Hassan Rouhani has requested that Israel to sign and become a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as he spoke for a second time at the United Nation General Assembly. “As long as nuclear weapons exist, the threat of their use exists,” Rouhani said, citing the American bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Rouhani is calling for “nuclear-free zone” in the Middle East. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that had not and will not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel would use nuclear weapons if it felt it was threatened by any nation in the Middle East.

The nuclear capability of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) defensive capabilities just reached another plateau this past April. It purchased its 5th nuclear submarine that can be deployed anywhere in the world with first strike capability. The Israel News Agency reported that Israel purchased a fifth Dolphin class submarine called the “INS Rahav” from Germany. The article headlined “Israel Launches Ninth Submarine, Ready To Strike Iran Nuclear Weapons.” Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said “The submarines are a strong, strategic tool for the IDF. The State of Israel is ready to act anytime, anywhere – on land, sea and air – in order to ensure the security of Israel’s citizens.” The submarines are equipped with Israeli-designed Popeye missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. It is no secret that Israel has nuclear weapons. Some estimates suggest that Israel has between 100 and 400 nuclear weapons. No one knows exactly how many nuclear bombs Israel possesses, but we do know they have the capability to produce them at a moment’s notice.

Mordechai Vanunu, a former Israeli technician at the Dimona nuclear research center in the Negev desert exposed Israel’s nuclear program to the world in the 1986 Sunday Times (UK). Vanunu was kidnapped in Italy by Mossad agents and brought to Israel to face an Israeli court. He was convicted and imprisoned for more than 18 years at Shikma Prison in Ashkelon, Israel. Half of his prison term was in solitary confinement. He was eventually released in 2004. Since then, Vanunu has been arrested and even imprisoned for violating his parole. He was also arrested for trying to leave Israel at one time. Former Israeli Prime Minister and Noble Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres said “he was a traitor to this country”.

Since Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; the Dimona Nuclear Research center is not subject to inspections from the international community such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). According to the Federation of American Scientists in a 2007 report, Israel has between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads, but some estimates have their nuclear warheads at less than 200. It is also known that Israel has the ability to deliver them by intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a range of 5,500 kilometers or 3,400 miles, the Jericho III missile named after the biblical city of Jericho, various aircrafts and of course submarines. The report stated the following:

By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, based on production estimates. The stockpile would certainly include warheads for mobile Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 missiles, as well as bombs for Israeli aircraft, and may include other tactical nuclear weapons of various types. Some published estimates even claimed that Israel might have as many as 400 nuclear weapons by the late 1990s. We believe these numbers are exaggerated, and that Israel’s nuclear weapons inventory may include less than 100 nuclear weapons. Stockpiled plutonium could be used to build additional weapons if so decided

Israel’s nuclear program began after World War II. Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion once said “What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel, for their own people”. David Ben-Gurion wanted to establish a Jewish State with a military force that would repel an attack by any of its adversaries especially in the Arab world. Ben-Gurion’s speech to the elected assembly of Palestine Jews on October 2nd, 1947 made it clear on the intentions of a new Jewish state:

Political developments have swept us on to a momentous parting of the ways – from Mandate to independence. Today, beyond our ceaseless work in immigration, settlement and campaign, we are set three blazing tasks, whereof fulfillment will condition our perpetuity: defense, a Jewish State and Arab-Jewish Cupertino, in that order of importance and urgency.

Security is our chief problem. I do not minimize the virtue of statehood even within something less than all the territory of the Land of Israel on either bank of the Jordan; but security comes unarguably first. It dominated our concerns since the Yishuv [Jewish community in Palestine] began from the start of colonization we knew we must, in the main, guarantee it ourselves. But recent upsets and upheavals in Palestine, in the Middle East and in the wide world, and in British and international politics as well, magnify it from a local problem of current safety into Zionism’s hinge of destiny. In scope, in intensity, in purport, it is entirely different now. Just think of the new factors that invest the problem with a political significance of unprecedented gravity – and I could add a dozen others: the anti-Zionist policy pursued by the Mandatory Government during the past ten years, the obliteration of European Jewry with the willing aid of the acknowledged leader of the Palestine Arabs, the establishment of an Arab League active and united only in combating Zionism, Bevin’s ugly war against the Jews, the crisis in Britain and its political and economic aftermath, the creation of armed forces in the neighboring States, the intrusion of the Arab Legion. And not a single Jewish unit exists.

We can stand up to any aggression launched from Palestine or its border, but more in potential than yet in fact. The conversion from potential to actual is now our major, blinding headache. It will mean the swiftest, widest mobilization, here and abroad, of capacity to organize, of our resources in economics and manpower, our science and technology, our civic sense. It must be an all-out effort, sparing no man.

Several months later on May 14th, 1948, the state of Israel became a reality with David Ben-Gurion as its first Prime Minister. Ben-Gurion, Executive head of the World Zionist Organization in 1946 until 1956 and the head of the influential Weizmann Institute of Science and Defense

Ministry Scientist Ernest David Bergmann recruited Jewish Scientists from abroad during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Israel recruited and funded Jewish scientists to help Israel establish a nuclear program. By 1949, the Israel Defense Forces Science Corps or ‘Hemed Gimmel’ was in search of Uranium in the Negev Desert, but only small amounts were discovered in phosphate deposits. Hemed Gimmel financed several students to study nuclear technology overseas. One of the students attended the University of Chicago to study under Enrico Fermi, who developed the Chicago Pile-1, the first nuclear reactor. Fermi also made scientific contributions to nuclear, quantum and particle physics among others.

By the late 1950s Shimon Peres had established LEKEM, or the ‘Science liaison Bureau’ a new intelligence service that would search for technology, materials and equipment needed for Israel’s nuclear program.

By 1952, Hemed Gimmel was under Israel’s Ministry of Defense to become the Division of Research and Infrastructure (EMET). By June 1952, The Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) was established with Ernest David Bergmann as the first chairman. Hemed Gimmel was renamed Machon 4 which became the “chief laboratory” of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). France was a major partner for Israel’s nuclear program. France also sold weapons to Israel. The France-Israel relationship was instrumental in the development of the Dimona Nuclear Research Center. Israel signed American President Dwight Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace, an agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and Israel along with Turkey to build a“small swimming pool research reactor” at Nachal Soreq.

It was the first step to building the Dimona nuclear research center in the Negev desert in collaboration with France who faced political turmoil in its former colonies in North Africa. Israel also faced Arab hostilities in the Middle East, so the cooperation on matters regarding new military technology complemented each other. On March 20, 1957 a public signing ceremony to build a “small swimming-pool research reactor” took place between France and Israel. But the reality was that France and Israel collaborated to build a larger facility at Dimona. In‘Israel and the Bomb’ by Avner Cohen, he describes Ben Gurion’s ambitious plan regarding Israel’s nuclear program was advanced through the Atoms for Peace Initiative:

With the return of Ben Gurion to power in 1955, nuclear energy became a matter of national priority. Ben Gurion gave political backing and financial support to those in the Ministry of Defense who were committed to promoting nuclear energy-Peres, Bergmann, Mardor, and the nuclear enthusiasts at Machon 4. There was also a change in the international climate concerning nuclear energy, in the wake of Eisenhower’s December 1953 Atoms-for-Peace initiative. Until then, nuclear energy in the United States, Canada, and Britain, the three major countries dealing with nuclear energy, was largely closed to other countries. The Atoms for Peace Initiative made nuclear energy technology available to the rest of the world.

The United States under President Eisenhower allowed Israel to seek a nuclear program that would advance its defense capabilities militarily. By 1958, the construction of the Negev Nuclear Research Center located in the Negev desert in secret through the Protocol of Sevres agreement. It was a secret agreement between Israel, France and Great Britain at Sevres, France to overthrow Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser through an invasion of Egypt after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Four days after the Sèvres meeting, Israeli forces invaded Egyptian territory. French and British forces invaded shortly after they vetoed a US sponsored UN Security Council resolution under the guise that they would separate both Israeli and Egyptian forces after Egypt refused their call to withdraw from the Suez Canal.

In 1958, Charles de Gaulle became President of France. Almost immediately after he assumed office, he wanted to end France’s assistance to Israel’s nuclear program. He would only support Israel’s nuclear program if international inspectors were allowed to inspect Dimona and that Israel would declare that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes and that under no circumstances reprocess plutonium. Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres negotiated with the French government allowing a window of opportunity for French companies to continue its work until 1966 with the Israeli government. Israel also had declared its nuclear program was “peaceful”.

BBC News received secret documents that the British government also supported Israel’s nuclear program by sending illegal and restricted materials that started in the 1950′s. In 1961, the Ben-Gurion informed the Canadian government that a pilot plutonium-separation plant would be built at the Dimona facility. By 1962, the nuclear reactor at Dimona went “critical” meaning a critical mass with a small amount of fissile material was needed for a sustained nuclear chain reaction. Shortly after, Israel secretly acquired more than 90 tons of uranium oxide (yellowcake) from Argentina to fuel the reactor. By 1965 the Israeli reprocessing plant was completed and ready to convert the reactor’s fuel rods into weapons grade plutonium for a nuclear bomb. After the Six-Day War, Israel went live producing nuclear weapons. A new era began in the Middle East. One that was a dangerous step to a nuclear disaster if Israel decided to use its nuclear weapons against an Arab country. 

In Seymour M. Hersh’s ‘The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy’ stated the concerns Israel’s leaders had, especially Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion if they did not obtain nuclear weapons. Hersh wrote:

“What is Israel?” he was quoted by an aide as asking. “. . . Only a small spot. One dot! How can it survive in this Arab world?” Ben-Gurion believed that he understood Arab character and was persuaded that as long as Arabs thought they could destroy the Jewish state, there would be no peace and no recognition of Israel. Many Israelis, survivors of the Holocaust, came to believe in ein brera, or “no alternative,” the doctrine that Israel was surrounded by implacable enemies and therefore had no choice but to strike out. In their view, Hitler and Nasser were interchangeable.

For these Israelis, a nuclear arsenal was essential to the survival of the state. In public speeches throughout the 1950s, Ben Gurion repeatedly linked Israel’s security to its progress in science. “Our security and independence require that more young people devote themselves to science and research, atomic and electronic research, research of solar energy . . . and the like,” he told the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, in November 1955.

Ernst Bergmann explicitly articulated the ein brera fears in a letter two years later: “I am convinced . . . that the State of Israel needs a defense research program of its own, so that we shall never again be as lambs led to the slaughter.”

Ben-Gurion, Shimon Peres, and Ernst Bergmann believed that Israel’s independent arsenal finally could provide what President Eisenhower would not—the nuclear umbrella.

Israel’s nuclear program was built on the belief that it had “no alternative” but to build a nuclear weapon to deter Arab aggression. Their experience with the Holocaust justifies their intentions on maintaining their nuclear weapons. Israel’s believes that another Holocaust can be prevented, this time not from Germany but from Iran. But many Israeli’s during the development stages of nuclear weapons were not keen on obtaining a nuclear bomb because of the Holocaust:

Less compelling to the military men was the moral argument against the bomb raised by some on the left and in academia: that the Jewish people, victims of the Holocaust, had an obligation to prevent the degeneration of the Arab-Israeli dispute into a war of mass destruction” Stated Hersh. “ Those who held that view did not underestimate the danger of a conventional arms race, but believed that, as Simha Flapan, their passionate spokesman, wrote, “the qualitative advantages of Israel—social cohesion and organization, education and technical skills, intelligence and moral incentive—can be brought into play only in a conventional war fought by men.”

Another aspect of Israel’s foreign policy one should consider is the ‘Samson Option,’ a policy that calls for a retaliation using nuclear weapons against an enemy who threatens the Jewish homeland of its existence. Hersh explains:

Dimona’s supporters had convinced most of the leadership that only nuclear weapons could provide the absolute and final deterrent to the Arab threat, and only nuclear weapons could convince the Arabs—who were bolstered by rapidly growing Soviet economic and military aid—that they must renounce all plans for military conquest of Israel and agree to a peace settlement. With a nuclear arsenal there would be no more Masadas in Israel’s history, a reference to the decision of more than nine hundred Jewish defenders—known as the Zealots—to commit suicide in A.D. 73 rather than endure defeat at the hands of the Romans.

In its place, argued the nuclear advocates, would be the Samson Option. Samson, according to the Bible, had been captured by the Philistines after a bloody fight and put on display, with his eyes torn out, for public entertainment in Dagon’s Temple in Gaza. He asked God to give him back his strength for the last time and cried out, “Let my soul die with the Philistines.” With that, he pushed apart the temple pillars, bringing down the roof and killing himself and his enemies. For Israel’s nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way of saying “Never again.”

[In a 1976 essay in Commentary, Norman Podhoretz accurately summarized the pronuclear argument in describing what Israel would do if abandoned by the United States and overrun by Arabs: “The Israelis would fight . . . with conventional weapons for as long as they could, and if the tide were turning decisively against them, and if help in the form of resupply from the United States or any other guarantors were not forthcoming, it is safe to predict that they would fight with nuclear weapons in the end. … It used to be said that the Israelis had a Masada complex . . .but if the Israelis are to be understood in terms of a ‘complex’ involving suicide rather than surrender and rooted in a relevant precedent of Jewish history, the example of Sarnson, whose suicide brought about the destruction of his enemies, would be more appropriate than Masada, where in committing suicide the Zealots killed only themselves and took no Romans with them.” Podhoretz, asked years later about his essay, said that his conclusions about the Samson Option were just that—his conclusions, and not based on any specific information from Israelis or anyone else about Israel’s nuclear capability.]

In a White House press conference on May 18, 2009, US President Barack Obama’s concern about “the potential pursuit of a nuclear weapon by Iran.” The United States and other Western nations have not announced any plans to disarm Israel’s nuclear weapons but rather focused its attention on Iran’s nuclear program. Obama said “Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.” Israel already won the arms race in the Middle East. What is to stop Israel’s “Zealot” mentality from using nuclear weapons in the Middle East? Israel has threatened Iran in the past.

In a 2006 interview with Reuters former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres “the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map.” It was a response after a false claim Israel and its allies made on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comment in a 2005 speech at the Ministry of Interior conference hall in Tehran called “The World without Zionism” when he said Israel must be “wiped off the map”which was misinterpreted. Earlier this year, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak said that the US and Israel would take action against Iran, “I don’t see it as a binary kind of situation: either they [the Iranians] turn nuclear or we have a fully fledged war the size of the Iraqi war or even the war in Afghanistan,” Barak continued “What we basically say is that if worse comes to worst, there should be a readiness and an ability to launch a surgical operation that will delay them by a significant time frame and probably convince them that it won’t work because the world is determined to block them.” Rouhani is seeking negotiations that would put Iran, the United States and Israel on a path to a peaceful resolution. One that will recognize Iran’s right to a “peaceful” nuclear program for its country so that they can export more oil and use the revenues it earned for the benefit of the Iranian people. But do not expect any significant breakthrough between Iran and the US/Israel alliance that seeks to dominate the Middle East politically, economically and militarily.

The Obama administration is not seeking any negotiations with Iran unless they stop its nuclear program which will not happen. Iran will insist that they are signatories to the NPT and have an “inalienable right” to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Israel will not be a signatory to the NPT because “This resolution is deeply flawed and hypocritical. It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world” according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Another reason Israel will not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty is because they are victims of the Holocaust which is why they have violated hundreds of U.N. Security Council resolutions and has used chemical weapons on the Palestinians. The talks between Iran and the US that will be held in Geneva will fail come this October because the US wants to dominate Iran. Iran has its principles it will stand by, but so will the US on Israel’s behalf. The US and its staunch allies want Syria, Lebanon, the Gaza strip and the West Bank and every nation on earth under their rule. That is the plan.

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on A “Nuclear-Free Zone” in the Middle East? Why I$raHell will not Join the Non-Proliferation Treaty

Russia Must Stop U.S. Aggression


Russia’s dream is coming true: The peace-loving people of the world support Moscow’s plan for resolving the Syrian crisis. What’s more, Group of 20 member states have split into two camps. Тhe majority, headed by President Vladimir Putin, favor a peaceful resolution and the minority, led by U.S. President Barack Obama, advocate military intervention. The Russian plan has the advantage of thwarting the West from bombing Syria, reducing the number of chemical weapons in the world and preventing Islamic extremists from coming to power in Damascus. Russia has no vested interests in Syria, but it does have principles that it is upholding with firm determination. And amidst the growing chaos in the world, this turns out to be a winning strategy.

Moscow has become particularly firm on its anti-war principle.

All U.S. interventions over the past decade have led to negative results.

Most important, everything must conform to the framework of international law. This is not only a matter of respecting the law, but also a means of curbing the ambitions of NATO and the U.S. In this way, a temporarily weakened world power appeals to the law to contain the actions of a rival that is, at least for now, more powerful. And that is achieved by strengthening the authority of the United Nations. All foreign actions against Syria must be approved by the UN Security Council.

Above all, we must avoid war at all costs, a conviction born of Russia’s suffering through the terrible war with Adolf Hitler. But Moscow has become especially firm on its anti-war principle during the last 10 years after seeing how readily the U.S. and NATO resort to military force. All U.S. military interventions over the past decade have led to negative results. These bombings deliver blows against not only the targeted countries but against the entire world order, as well.

Another principle is that the world community must respect the sovereignty of states. We must give each state the right to decide its own destiny. And the Syrians should be given the chance to negotiate peace and compromise. Russia defends its own sovereignty in the same way.

Another important principle is that the U.S. lied to Russia concerning Libya. Russia supported a no-fly zone, but not a massive bombing campaign and the overthrow of the regime. Our Western partners lied to Russian diplomats and then-President Dmitry Medvedev, an idealist who sincerely wanted Russia to be part of a united front with Western states. But in place of a united front, Russia was lied to and made party to an unauthorized use of force.

Moscow wants to avoid creating the military and political conditions in which jihadi can thrive, and which would prompt them to send militants from Iraq, Libya or Syria into Russia to continue their jihad. Confrontations with radical jihadi only tend to strengthen them. Russian analysts are convinced that Islamic extremists have become the dominant force among the Syrian rebels and that destabilizing actions by the West may let them seize power.

Russia is also opposed to the overthrow of governments. By contrast, the West works deliberately toward that goal, using a combination of soft power, like color revolutions, and hard power in the form of direct or threatened military intervention. This has been the case in Serbia, Georgia, Lebanon, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Who will be next? Belarus? Russia? That is why it is important that those advocating the overthrow of foreign governments pay the highest possible price for their actions and become mired down far away from Russia’s borders.

The West has lost its moral legitimacy in the eyes of Russian leaders and public opinion. Its lies concerning Iraq, South Ossetia and Syria make it impossible for Russia to expect that the West’s actions will be bound by any moral constraints or common sense. After all, they are strengthening their enemy, the jihadi, with their own hands. Many believe that the West is on a suicidal path toward the end of its civilization.

Chemical weapons were used in Syria, but by whom? Given the fact that the Syrian army is vanquishing the rebels, why would Syrian President Bashar Assad use chemical weapons? To do so on the very day that international inspectors arrived in Syria would make no political sense. Yet Russia is expected to take the word of the West that this is what happened, despite the fact that ample evidence indicates anti-government forces staged a provocation on Aug. 21. The West is unwilling to even discuss that, and it continues to block discussion of clear evidence that rebels used chemical weapons back in March.

That is why many observers believe that the U.S. and NATO are deliberately falsifying the facts, just as they did on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, intent on pressuring the international community and crushing Syria without regard to anyone or anything else. Why is Washington so persistent in its anti-Syria policy? Why is Obama willing to commit political suicide over Syria? A possible explanation is that he has become a hostage to his previous mistake of supporting the Syrian rebels and now cannot admit that they used chemical weapons. He spoke of a red line and fell hostage to his promises. What’s more, any war against Syria means war against Iran, a regime that Washington has long dreamed of overthrowing.

Many observers also believe that Washington has fallen too heavily under the influence of Saudi Arabia, a regime that wants to depose Assad as a secular military dictator that the Wahhabist monarchy has feared for decades. In Syria, Sunni-dominated Riyadh is waging battle against the Shiites and a proxy war against Shiite Iran. The problem is that the war between the Sunnis and the Shiites has the potential to destabilize the entire region for decades, even possibly spreading to Europe and Russia.

Could Washington bomb Syria even after the fiasco with the Iraqi invasion? Yes, because the U.S. has not stopped talking of intervention even after the Russian peace initiative and its proven incapability of garnering support for its policies from Congress, public opinion or its NATO allies. The U.S. will coerce others into lending support, just as it did when it was discovered that Baghdad did not possess chemical weapons.

The Russian response to a U.S. missile strike against Syria would be asymmetrical. The Russian army would not go anywhere. Moscow would deploy its best air defense systems to the likely targets of any future U.S. strikes, starting with Iran. Moscow would also take the opportunity to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, an agreement that many consider disadvantageous for Russia and one that it was pressured into signing in 1987.

In addition, Russia will move to rapidly upgrade its army with the latest weapons systems and reconstruct its military-industrial complex because such policies by the U.S. and its NATO allies will inevitably lead to a new war that is likely to expand in scope.

At the very least, Russia must have a strong army to avoid getting drawn into such a major new war. Ideally, Russia would work to prevent any actions that could undermine the current situation and set the world into a downward slide toward such a large-scale war. This is primarily what Putin is seeking to accomplish in the Syrian crisis, and he has the support of public opinion not only in Russia but in most countries of the world — including NATO member states.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on Russia Must Stop U.S. Aggression

USC cancels event with war criminal Gen. David Petraeus one day after veteran-led protest announced


By Mike Prysner, Iraq war veteran

The University of Southern California  Veterans’ Association recently announced in an internal email that General David Petraeus, former commander of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and CIA director, would be holding a private luncheon with student veterans on October 10—coincidentally marking the 12th anniversary of the U.S. war on Afghanistan.

Iraq war veterans in March Forward!, who are also members of the USC Veterans Association and received the internal email, quickly called for a picket outside the event. Momentum grew rapidly, as dozens of individuals and organizations—including ANSWER LA, the Worker Student Alliance and more—endorsed and began organizing for the action.

Within one day of the announcement of the picket, the USC Veterans Association cancelled the event with Petraeus.

Petraeus was recently hired by the City University of New York as a lecturer, and by USC as a veterans’ advisor.

Petraeus is a war criminal according to international law—from ordering and facilitating illegal torture, to intentionally creating civil war in Afghan villages, to covering-up the murder of Iraqis by U.S. defense contractors, to utilizing the “double-tap” method where drones conduct second strikes on rescue workers and victims’ funerals. Petraeus’s “leadership” (i.e., trying to advance his own career off the backs of enlisted personnel) also yielded the highest casualty rates for U.S. troops under his command in both Iraq and Afghansitan while he lived a rock star lifestyle.

Despite his known war crimes, Petraeus is raking in the cash from his post-retirement jobs.

In protest of his hiring by CUNY, students and activists held a rally outside one of his classes. Six students who confronted him were violently and unconstitutionally arrested. Now known as the CUNY 6, they were outrageously hit with several charges, including “rioting.”

That protest put Petraeus and CUNY in the public spotlight, highlighting the role of militarism in our schools and the lavish lifestyles of known war criminals. The protest against Petraeus at USC was announced amidst public outcry at his appointment at CUNY and the unconstitutional arrests of peaceful protesters. The second protest at USC, initiated and led by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, was not the type of publicity USC and Petraeus were looking for. So the brave General ran away scared.

The event’s cancellation is an acknowledgment of the public pressure on Petraeus, and on universities who see fit to have a war criminal teach their students. It is essential to always confront the generals and politicians who sent us to wars based on lies wherever they show their faces.

Despite the event’s cancellation, March Forward! will still be taking action against USC for the outrageous appointment of Petraeus as a “veterans’ advisor.” (Details will be announced soon)

  • JAIL for war criminals!

  • U.S. OUT of Afghanistan now!

  • DROP all charges against the CUNY 6!

  • Militarism OUT of our schools!

Posted in USAComments Off on USC cancels event with war criminal Gen. David Petraeus one day after veteran-led protest announced

The Ghouta Chemical Attacks: US-Backed False Flag? Killing Syrian Children to Justify a “Humanitarian” Military Intervention

Global Research

Mother Agnes Mariam de la Croix, author of the controversial ISTEAMS Report

The chemical attacks which took place in East Ghouta on August 21, 2013 could be the most horrific false flag operation in history.

To date, available evidence indicates that numerous children were killed by “opposition rebels”, their bodies manipulated and filmed with a view to blaming the Syrian government for the attacks, thus sparking outrage and galvanizing worldwide public opinion in favor of another bloody, imperial US-led war.

While confirming the use of chemical weapons against civilians, the UN report has failed to identify the authors of the attacks:

Instead of a non-politicized investigation and lab analysis, the UN investigation of alleged nerve-gas attacks inside Syria was led by Professor Ake Sellstrom, a man of mystery who keeps a veil of secrecy around his research and political-military relationships…

This cosmetic veneer of Swedish neutrality has been deftly exploited by Israel and NATO to perpetrate falsehoods throughout Sellstrom’s work for the UN, including denial of the chemical-and-biological causes for “Gulf War Syndrome” and the shipments of U.S. chemical weapons to the Saddam Hussein regime…

What is publicly known about Sellstrom is that the biochemist heads the European CBRNE Center [Center for advanced Studies of Societal Security and Vulnerability, in particular major incidents with (C)hemical, (B)iological, (R)adiological, (N)uclear and (E)xplosive substances], at Umea University in northern Sweden, which is sponsored by the Swedish Defense Ministry (FOI)…

Umea University is deeply involved in joint research with Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), the Haifa-based university that provides state-of-art technology to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and its intelligence agencies. Several departments, which are involved in joint Israeli research, participate in multidisciplinary studies at Sellstrom’s CBRNE center…

American ambassador to the UN Samantha Power made emphatically clear that the “nerve gas used in Syria was more concentrated than the nerve gas in Iraq.” Her statement should be rephrased as: “Saddam may have trans-shipped U.S.-supplied nerve gas into Syria, but it wasn’t our nerve gas used against Syrian civilians.”

That is the essential point of the Sellstrom report: To take Washington off the hook for being the major supplier of nerve gas precursors, formulations, delivery technology and storage systems to the Middle East, including Israel, Egypt, Libya, Iraq and very possibly Syria (during the Clinton era of good will).

The UN report of chemical weapons on Syria lacks basic credibility due to the duplicitous record of its chief inspector, Ake Sellstrom, who is politically and financially compromised at every level. (Yoichi Shimatsu, The Sellstrom Report: The United Nations’ Syria Inspector Shills for NATO and Israel)

A day before the release of the UN Mission report, another carefully documented report by Mother Agnes Mariam de la Croix and the International Support Team for Mussalaha in Syria (ISTEAMS) was released with minimal media coverage. (To read the full report in pdf click here large pdf slow download)

Its findings are unequivocal: the videos used by the US and its allies as evidence to blame the Syrian government were staged.

The study says:

From the moment when some families of abducted children contacted us to inform us that they recognized the children among those who are presented in the videos as victims of the Chemical Attacks of East Ghouta, we decided to examine the videos thoroughly…

Our first concern was the fate of the children we see in the footages. Those angels are always alone in the hands of adult males that seem to be elements of armed gangs. The children that trespassed remain without their families and unidentified all the way until they are wrapped in the white shrouds of the burial. Moreover our study highlights without any doubt that their little bodies were manipulated and disposed with theatrical arrangements to figure in the screening.

If the studied footages were edited and published to exhibit pieces of evidence to accuse the Syrian State of perpetrating the chemical attacks on East Ghouta, our discoveries incriminate the editors and actors of forged facts through a lethal manipulation of unidentified children. (Mother Agnes Mariam de la Croix and the International Support Team for Mussalaha in Syria (ISTEAMS), The Chemical Attacks in East Ghouta Used to Justify a Military Intervention in Syria)

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya who examined the report writes:

The independent ISTEAMS study contradicts the assertions of the Obama Administration and the entire US Intelligence Community […] through simple observations of the video material that has been put forward as evidence by the United States.

The ISTEAMS report does not deny that chemical weapons were used or that innocent Syrians have been killed. What the study does is logically point out through its observations that there is empirical evidence that the sample of videos that the US Intelligence Community has analyzed and nominated as authentic footage has been stage-managed. This is an important finding, because it refutes the assertions of the representatives of the US Intelligence agencies who testified that the videos they authenticated provide evidence that a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government took place in East Ghouda. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Look With Your Own Eyes: The Videos of the Chemical Attacks in Syria Show Tampered Scenes)

A lot of things do not add up in the footage presented by the US government.

The same little boy in red is in two different locations

At least nine of these children appear in different footage from different locations

A little boy that appears in two different videos with two different scenarios

Among a series of important findings, the ISTEAMS report notes that even though the attacks are said to have killed up to 1400 people, mostly children appear in the videos and several corpses are shown in different videos said to have been shot in various locations.

While this report seriously challenges the assertion that the Syrian government was behind the attacks, it was not covered by the Western mainstream media, toeing the imperial line and parroting Washington’s claims, which still lack evidence and credibility.

In addition, some controversy arose pertaining to allegations that the rebels were responsible for the attacks and used chemical weapons provided by Saudi intelligence. Dale Gavlak, the co-author of an article containing these allegations, now wants to dissociate herself from the article and is facing threats. Her career is in jeopardy:

The MintPress article, published on 29th August, through interviews with rebels, family members, and villagers in Eastern Ghouta, alleges that elements within the opposition were responsible for the alleged chemical weapons attack on 21st August, and that those chemical munitions had been supplied through Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan…

Dale is under mounting pressure for writing this article by third parties. She notified MintPress editors and myself on August 30th and 31st via email and phone call, that third parties were placing immense amounts of pressure on her over the article and were threatening to end her career over it. She went on to tell us that she believes this third party was under pressure from the head of the Saudi Intelligence Prince Bandar himself, who is alleged in the article of supplying the rebels with chemical weapons.

On August 30th, Dale asked MintPress to remove her name completely from the byline because she stated that her career and reputation was at risk. She continued to say that these third parties were demanding her to disassociate herself from the article or these parties would end her career. On August 31st, I notified Dale through email that I would add a clarification that she was the writer and researcher for the article and that Yahya [Ababneh] was the reporter on the ground, but did let Gavlak know that we would not remove her name as this would violate the ethics of journalism. (Phil Greaves, Syria: Controversy surrounding MintPress Chemical Weapons Ghouta Report)

The information according to which Saudi intelligence was allegedly implicated in the Ghouta chemical attacks was mentioned by a UN official who wished to remain anonymous:

A senior United Nations official who deals directly with Syrian affairs has told Al-Akhbar that the Syrian government had no involvement in the alleged Ghouta chemical weapons attack: “Of course not, he (President Bashar al-Assad) would be committing suicide.”

When asked who he believed was responsible for the use of chemical munitions in Ghouta, the UN official, who would not permit disclosure of his identity, said:“Saudi intelligence was behind the attacks and unfortunately nobody will dare say that.” The official claims that this information was provided by rebels in Ghouta…

The UN official’s accusations mirror statements made earlier this year by another senior UN figure Carla del Ponte, who last May told Swiss TV in the aftermath of alleged CW attacks in Khan al-Asal, Sheik Maqsood and Saraqeb that there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels had carried out the attack. Del Ponte also observed that UN inspectors had seen no evidence of the Syrian army using chemical weapons, but added that further investigation was necessary. (Sharmine Narwani and Radwan Mortada, Questions Plague UN Syria Report. Who was behind the East Ghouta Chemical Weapons Attack?)

All of the above leads us to believe that this attack was one of the most horrific crimes committed in modern history, a diabolical staged operation which consisted in killing small children, producing fake video footage and photo ops of the corpses, all of which was intended to fabricate a pretext for military intervention under a humanitarian mandate.

The mainstream media which has obfuscated these crimes bear a heavy burden of responsibility. The New York Times has smeared the findings of Mother Agnes and her team, accusing her of “defending the regime” and “playing the Christian card”. The NYT casually dismisses the evidence that the videos are fake. Read the ISTEAMS Report and then judge for yourself.

The war criminals who designed and launched this diabolical staged operation must face justice.

Procedures in the United Nations Security Council directed against the Syrian government must be suspended.

We invite our readers to consult the ISTEAM Report, as well as the following GR articles and video production: Please share these articles and the ISTEAM report!

GRTV VIDEO: How the Syrian Chemical Weapons Videos Were Staged By James CorbettMother Agnes Mariam, and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 19, 2013

The Full ISTeam Report The Chemical Attacks in East Ghouta Used to Justify a Military Intervention in Syria,Mother Agnes Mariam and the International Support Team for Mussalaha in Syria (ISTEAMS), Geneva, 15 September 2013 [pdf slow download]

The Chemical Attacks in East Ghouta Used to Justify a Military Intervention in Syria By Mother Agnes Mariam, September 16, 2013

One Nun Puts the US Intel Community to Shame Over “Stage-Managed” Syria Footage By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, September 24, 2013

Syria: Fabricating Chemical Lies. Who is Behind the East Ghouta Attacks? By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, September 17, 2013

The Sellstrom Report: The United Nations’ Syria Inspector Shills for NATO and Israel By Yoichi Shimatsu, September 18, 2013

The Syria Chemical Weapons Attack: Human Rights Watch is Manipulating the Facts By Richard Lightbown, September 24, 2013

Saudi Arabia’s “Chemical Bandar” behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria? By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, September 06, 2013

Syria: Controversy surrounding MintPress Chemical Weapons Ghouta Report By Phil Greaves, September 22, 2013

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on The Ghouta Chemical Attacks: US-Backed False Flag? Killing Syrian Children to Justify a “Humanitarian” Military Intervention

Saudi Women Renew Fight To Lift Driving Ban


Female driver Azza Al Shmasani alights from her car after driving in defiance of the ban in Riyadh, June 22, 2011. (photo by REUTERS/Fahad Shadeed)

Speaking before a plain orange background, a young woman started talking in a soft voice. “Hello,” she said. “This is a new campaign to gain our right to drive cars.”

That was Lujain al-Hathloul, a Saudi student in Canada who has become an online celebrity after posting a series of videos criticizing restrictions on women in the conservative kingdom. Wearing a short haircut and dressed in a black blazer over a purple top, Hathloul called on her fellow countrywomen to take to the streets on Oct. 26 to challenge the ban on driving. Her call quickly went viral, receiving more than 600,000 views in less than four days after it was posted on the video-sharing site Keek on Sept. 20.

“If you did not get a chance to participate in 1991 or 2011, there is a new chance in Oct. 26, 2013,” she said. “I hope that a huge number of girls take part this time to end this crisis.”

After two failed attempts separated by 20 years between them, Saudi women are gearing up again to challenge the ban with a new campaign.

“The campaign has no anti-Islamic or political agenda for neither Islam nor the official laws of Saudi [Arabia] prohibit women from driving,” said the website of the new Oct. 26 movement, where more than 8,000 people signed a petition to express their support. While it is true that there are no laws banning women in Saudi Arabia from driving, the police stop women they catch behind the wheel.

The young Hathloul was probably not born yet when 47 women challenged the ban on driving in the early 1990s. After driving in one of Riyadh’s main streets for half an hour, they were stopped by police. The female drivers paid heavily for their attempt to lift the ban. They were prohibited from traveling outside the country for a year, fired from their government jobs and denounced by hard-line clerics from mosque pulpits.

The second attempt came in mid-2011. As neighboring countries experienced uprisings to protest political and social stagnation, some Saudi women activists decided it was time to revisit the ban on driving. After using social media for weeks to organize and spread the message, more than 50 women around the country drove their cars on June 17, 2011. Except for two women who were stopped but shortly let go after signing a pledge, the day went by without major incidents. The police appeared to ignore the female drivers who posted videos and photos of themselves behind the wheel online.

The new campaign comes at an interesting time for Saudi Arabia. The country has largely managed to escape the wave of Arab uprisings without a major street-protest movement challenging the government, but the tech-savvy young population has become increasingly critical of official policies, using social-media sites like Twitter and YouTube to express their displeasure.

The Oct. 26 movement was launched only a few days after the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, aka the religious police, instructed its members not to chase female drivers. The daily Al-Hayat quoted an unnamed senior member at the commission who said, “There are no laws in place authorizing Haia members to pull over and arrest a woman who is caught driving a car on the streets.”

The chief of the religious police, Sheikh Abdulatif al-Alsheikh, came out to deny these statements, but he added, “Islamic Sharia does not have a text forbidding women driving.” According to Reuters, Alsheikh stressed that he has no authority to change Saudi policy on women driving.

His statements may give hope to some women, but in reality they fall in line with other statements made by Saudi officials in recent months, absolving themselves of responsibility for the ban but falling short of fully endorsing a decision to lift it.

Justice Minister Muhammad al-Isa said last April that there is no constitutional or regulatory barrier to prevent women from driving in Saudi Arabia. A few months earlier, Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that the issue of women driving is a social matter that has nothing to do with politics. In both cases, the officials did not explain why police are still arresting women who dare to drive despite the absence of legal grounds to do so.

Like many other decisions in the country, it appears that the one to allow women to drive must come down to a royal decree by the head of state. King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz has come to be seen as a reformer who believes in female empowerment. In addition to allowing women to vote and run in upcoming municipal elections, he appointed 30 women to the advisory Shura Council at the beginning of this year.

It is hard to say if the renewed activity surrounding the issue of women driving is any indication that a change in policy is going to happen anytime soon, but Saudi columnist Tariq al-Maeena says it appears that the tide has turned.

“In recent years there has been a dramatic shift towards a more tolerant position of acceptance of all things obviously not detrimental or conflicting with the teachings of Islam,” he wrote in Gulf News. “Such a shift also signals a separation of the often veiled cultural traditions that were deeply intertwined with Islam, making it difficult to separate one from the other.”

Saudi women remain optimistic and hopeful, even if their hopes in the past never materialized to lift the ban.


Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Saudi Women Renew Fight To Lift Driving Ban

Zionist group renews attacks on California professor

Submitted by Nora Barrows

A Zionist group based in California has renewed its vicious campaign against a mathematics professor at the California State University at Northridge (CSUN), claiming that he is violating the law by using university resources to express his personal and political views.

The professor, David Klein, an outspoken and unapologetic supporter of the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement, has told The Electronic Intifada that the renewed “harassment” has been disruptive.

But Klein says he is heartened by the broad and solid support he has received for his exercise of his free speech rights.

The Amcha Initiative, and its zealous co-founder, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, sent a letterto the California State University board of trustees last week attacking Klein for a  website he runs that lists resources on global BDS campaigns. Amcha has attempted to shut down Klein’s website for years without success.

In their latest claim, Amcha alleges that Klein’s actions and his website are “anti-Semitic,” and complains that he has violated state law.

They also add that he has “misused his CSUN email account” to promote a Green party congressional candidate who supports the BDS movement.

“Frivolous charges”

However, as the National Lawyers Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights point outin a summary of a formal letter they sent to the California State University’s board of trustees on 22 September,

[T]he law Amcha cites merely requires permission from trustees to use the Cal. State University name to imply an official endorsement of a boycott. As the Cal. State administration itself determined in an investigation into the matter, no reasonable person would interpret Prof. Klein’s “Boycott Israel” website as implying that the university officially endorses the views expressed.

The groups add:

Professor Klein’s website is political expression on a matter of grave public importance. He does not need permission. Universities must ensure that debate on Palestine/Israel remains unfettered and academic freedom is protected.

The formal letter urges the California State University’s board of trustees to reject Amcha’s “frivolous charges” which “are not new,” and to “unambiguously and swiftly … deter further instances of harassment and defamation to which Prof. Klein has been subjected for years by Amcha and allied groups.”

“Not in violation”

On Tuesday of this week, the Israel-aligned news website Algemeiner posted a response by the California State University’s interim general counsel which reiterated the previous position held by the university’s president regarding Klein’s website. The interim general counsel stated that:

[W]hile we do not endorse or support Dr. Klein’s views, the University’s review, conducted in consultation with the Office of General Counsel, determined that the content of the website does not violate California law and is constitutionally protected speech.

We have also consulted with the Anti-Defamation League which agreed that the website’s contents were not anti-Semitic. Finally, the California Attorney General’s office also reviewed the website in response to an external complaint it had received and determined there was no evidence to support a finding of misuse of the CSU name or state resources.


Speaking to The Electronic Intifada on Thursday, Klein said that Rossman-Benjamin’s resumption of attacks against him has been disruptive, which could be what she’s trying to accomplish. “It’s really harrassment,” he added.

“I’m just grateful that there were people and groups who came out in support of academic freedom and who protected my right to have my website,” he said. “It’s well-justified, because the academic and cultural boycott is properly in the domain of faculty discussion. I’m hoisting a flag to express my support for the BDS movement, and, in particular, the academic boycott component, and that should be allowed.”


At a meeting of the board of trustees earlier this week, Rossman-Benjamin gave a testimony demanding the university address Klein’s actions, which she said were of “great concern … to members of the Jewish community.”

Along with Carol Smith of the National Lawyers Guild, Estee Chandler of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) read a prepared statement in defense of Klein and his academic freedom and freedom of speech. Chandler’s statement, which was seen by The Electronic Intifada, read in part:

In our opinion, [the accusations] are merely an attempt by Amcha activists to revisit baseless charges, which CSUN has already rejected. As is true of [Jewish Voice for Peace], Amcha doesn’t represent the “Jewish community” — they represent themselves. I am not here today to oppose their positions, but to reject their attempts to limit free expression and robust debate on campuses by attacking groups and individuals in order to limit criticism of the policies of the State of Israel. Shamefully, they often do so by casting the accusation of anti-Semitism or self-hating Jew.

Chandler told The Electronic Intifada that others in the room who were there for a public comment session regarding budget cuts to African and Chicano studies programs “offered positive responses” to the statements read by Chandler and Smith in defense of Klein.

Repeated attacks

This is not the first time that Amcha and other Israel-aligned groups have targeted Dr. David Klein. In 2012, they demanded that the California State University system censor Klein’s political speech and pull down his website. The university refused.

The Global Frontier Justice Center, a front group for the lawfare” organization Shurat Hadin/Israel Law Center, then demanded that the California Attorney General prosecute Klein on the same basis. The Attorney General rejected their demands.

Earlier in 2012, as The Electronic Intifada reported, Amcha tried and failed to convince the California State University system to refuse to sponsor lectures by historian Ilan Pappe. Amcha’s request was rejected by three presidents of CSU campuses at which Pappe was scheduled to speak.

In his April open letter, CSUN then-interim President Hellenbrand said that if Amcha had its way, it would “eliminate nearly all political speech that had the slightest trace of public funding in higher education.”

Amcha and Rossman-Benjamin also led an attack campaign against another professor,Dr. David Shorter at the University of California at Los Angeles. They claimed that by listing non-required research material on the BDS movement, as well as a review of a book critical of Zionism published on The Electronic Intifada, Dr. Shorter was “in violation of university policy.”

Despite a lengthy and unprecedented academic review, the university did not find that Amcha’s claims were valid, and no punitive action was taken against Shorter.

Hate speech

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin has a history of virulent hate speech against supporters of BDS and of Palestinian and Muslim students. Earlier this year, it was revealed that she made inciteful and racist remarks against students involved in Palestine solidarity organizing, as well as Muslim and Arab students.

In a widely-circulated video, Rossman-Benjamin remarked that such students “are generally motivated by very strong religious and political convictions, they have a fire in their belly, they come to the university, many of them are foreign students who come from countries and cultures where anti-Semitism is how they think about the world … These are not your ordinary student groups like College Republicans or Young Democrats. These are students who come with a serious agenda, who have ties to terrorist organizations.”

Students at the University of California at Santa Cruz, where Rossman-Benjamin works as a lecturer, launched a campaign urging the University of California to take appropriate action to protect students against her slanderous and racist hate speech.

Failed attempts

Rossman-Benjamin has also attempted to use legal claims against the University of California, filing a complaint with the US government’s Department of Education alleging violations of Title VI — part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits discrimination against students based on race or ethnicity in federally-funded institutions. Israel-aligned groups and individuals have claimed that Jewish students face anti-Semitism, harassment and intimidation because of activism by Students for Justice in Palestine and Muslim student groups, and have filed claims with the US Department of Education alleging Title VI violations.

However, as we recently reported, the Department of Education threw out three of the Title VI claims against the University of California at Berkeley, Irvine and Santa Cruz (the latter filed by Rossman-Benjamin).


Klein said he was unsure if and when any further action would be taken by the university administration. But he said that since the university’s lawyer acknowledged that what he’s doing is well within the law, “I don’t know what more the trustees can do.”

In the meantime, he has noticed “an uptick” in the amount of hate mail he’s received in the past few weeks since Amcha launched this latest attack.

Following their repeated failed pursuits to shut down discussion critical of Israel and intimidate students, faculty and universities, are Amcha’s activists just causing themselves more embarrassment with this latest smear campaign?

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on Zionist group renews attacks on California professor

Endless War and the “Pictures in Our Heads”

Global Research


Over ninety years ago political analyst Walter Lippmann noted how the masses rely on independent conjectures–“the pictures in our heads,” or what he termed “stereotypes”–to make sense of the world. “The stereotype,” Edward Bernays similarly observed, “is the basis of a large part of the work of the public relations counsel.”[1]

These views mirror those of an elite class that Lippmann and Bernays were pleased to serve—an elite that, taken as a whole, now retains several thousand such minds throughout government and the private sector working under the broadly-held assumption that a long forsaken public condemned to flounder in the womb of Plato’s cave may be easily dismissed as more “qualified” parties proceed to enact realpolitik.

Along these lines, Australian propaganda researcher Alex Carey observed how among all countries in the world the United States has the greatest tendency for possessing a “Manichean” worldview—one where social and political phenomena are typically perceived as binary opposites of good-evil, sacred-satanic, and so on.[2] Such a belief system is anticipated and encouraged by the carefully-crafted propaganda and disinformation that pervades government pronouncements and corporate news reportage and commentary on both foreign and domestic affairs.

US public opinion is overall against military action against Syria. Yet this attitude obscures the fact that a similar majority doesn’t understand that the Obama administration and its allies have for over two years supported an intense guerrilla war in Syria that has killed close to one hundred thousand inhabitants and displaced over one million.

New York Times-commissioned public opinion poll reveals that while Americans are skeptical of President Obama’s attempt to sell them a new war, with seventy-two percent wishing to refrain from inflicting “US democracy” on Syria. A subsequent question suggests the American public’s unfamiliarity with the grave situation in that country.

“Based on what you have seen or read,” the poll asks, “do you think the Syrian government probably did or probably did not use chemical weapons against Syrian civilians?” An overwhelming seventy-five percent responded that it “probably did,” ten-percent said that it “probably did not,” and the remaining fifteen-percent had no opinion.[3]

In other words, nine out of ten Americans are unmindful toward the true geopolitical underpinnings of the Syrian crisis apart from White House propaganda and its heavy reverberation via the corporate media.

A Pew Research Center poll offers similar findings, with fifty-three percent replying that there is “clear evidence” that Bashar al-Assad’s government “used chemical weapons against civilians”, versus twenty-three percent responding that there was “not clear” evidence of such, and an amazing twenty-four percent claiming ignorance.[4]

Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry’s position that Assad is guilty of such crimes is based on doubtful evidence that initially included a photograph taken in Iraq in 2003 of a child leaping over piles of shrouded bodies.[5]

On the other hand, the “rebels” operating in Syria have clear chemical weapons capabilities. This was proven in May when members of the Al-Nusra front were caught by Turkish police preparing to deploy two kilograms of sarin gas inside Turkey and Syria.[6]

Yet such observations may be easily obscured or dismissed—particularly for the educated classes–as the guardians of proper thought deem them among the many “anti-American conspiracy theories,”[7] a term that intends to short-circuit any inquiry among those inclined think twice about conflicting information in news reports.

The experts who craft the “war on terror” propaganda recognize how truly effective publicity must be direct and unambiguous. The official narrative rests on the still broadly-held notion that that US and its allies are “the good guys.”

Proclamations concerning the triumph of genuinely independent fact-based analytical reports of the tragic situation in Syria are thus premature. Despite the cracks and fissures in the official “war on terror” narrative initiated by alternative media, it is still more or less accepted by a US populace that the western-backed Al-Qaeda mercenaries operating in Syria are indeed “protesters,” “activists,” and “rebels.”

The effectiveness of such propaganda rests in the fact that such figures are routinely depicted throughout mainstream news outlets wielding machine guns, grenade launchers, and other sophisticated weaponry while they frolic throughout the country.

9/11 and the subsequent brutal and calculated military onslaughts that have unfolded Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Syria cannot emerge as prevailingly uncontested historical events without a citizenry relegated to the hinterlands of what passes for today’s civil society—indeed, without a mass man willing to abandon his own reason and embrace the carefully constructed pictures in his head.


[1] Mark Landler and Megan Thee-Brenan, “Survey Reveals Scant Backing for Syria Strike,” New York Times, September 10, 2013.

[2] “Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Air Strikes,” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, September 3, 2013.

[3] “’CIA Fabricated Evidence to Lure US Into War with Syria,’”, September 9, 2013; Julie Wilson, “Bombshell: Kerry Caught Using Fake Photos to Fuel Syrian War,”, August 30, 2013.

[4] “Turkish Police Seizes 2 kg of Sarin Gas From Al-Nusra Militants,”, May 31, 2013.

[5] Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, New York: The New Press, 1997 (1922); Edward Bernays,Crystallizing Public Opinion, New York: Ig Publishing (1923), 115.

[6] Alex Carey, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda Versus Freedom and Liberty,Andrew Lohrey, ed., Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996.

[7] Jon Lee Anderson, “Putin and the Syria Conspiracy Theory Problem,” The New Yorker, September 6, 2013. See also, Jamelle Bouie, “Enough Already: Syria Wasn’t A False Flag Operation,” The Daily Beast, September 10, 2013.

Posted in USAComments Off on Endless War and the “Pictures in Our Heads”

Shoah’s pages


September 2013
« Aug   Oct »