Archive | April 20th, 2014

نارام سرجون عن الاعلام المملوك خليجياً في مصر

NOVANEWS
حال بعض الاعلام المصري والاعلاميين المصريين يشبه مواعظ جحا التي لايفهم منها شيء .. فهم لايزالون لايقولون للجماهير في مصر أي شيء عن الحقيقة في سورية وكأن الاعتراف بالحقيقة سر من أسرار القيامة .. بل لايزال هؤلاء يقعون في التهافت .. ويصح اليوم القول ان نصف اعلام جحا بأنه يستحق عنوان “تهافت التهافت” .. وفي اعلام “تهافت التهافت” لاتستطيع أن تفهم كيف أن المصريين من الاعلاميين الكبار يقولون للشعب المصري بأنهم يتعرضون لمؤامرة من قطر وتركيا كراعيتين للتنظيم العالمي للاخوان المسلمين وان قيادة حركة حماس متورطة في المؤامرة على شعب مصر .. ولكن عندما يأتون على ذكر الوضع في سورية تغيب قطر وتركيا وقادة حماس وسفالتهم ويصبح الأمر عن ثورة وشعب وديكتاتور يقتل شعبه .. رغم ان عدو عدوي هو صديقي .. اي ان سورية عدوة لتركيا ولقطر ولقادة حماس .. وبالمنطق يجب أن تكون مصر صديقتها ..ولأنه بالمنطق لايمكن أن تكون قطر تقوم مع تركيا بأعمال خيرية في سورية ولكنها في مصر تقوم بأعمال دنيئة ..أو بالعكس 
الغريب ان الاعلام المصري في قسم كبير منه لم يرتق الى مستوى الحدث المصري ولايزال يمارس كل شيء الا مايمكن تسميته اعلام الثورة .. فهو اعلام أسير لكل شيء وليس فيه ثورة .. ولاأدل على ذلك من اللقاء الذي أجراه عماد اديب مع الصبي اللبناني سعدو الجريري منذ فترة وكان من الواضح ان اللقاء معد بعناية فائقة لتقديم أتفه زعيم سياسي في الشرق الأوسط على أنه من الركائز الأساسية للسياسة العربية في الشرق الاوسط .. وبأن الثورة المصرية تريد ان تستمع لثائر من ثوار القرن الكبار لتتعلم منه .. ولكن اللقاء بصراحة لم يكن عن لبنان ولا عن مصر بل أريد له ان يكون عن الثورة السورية والترويج لها بالافك .. وترك عماد أديب الميكروفون مستسلما لقدره أمام سعدو الحريري ليقول الأخير بلا توقف كل الكذب الكثيف الذي يريده دون اي اعتراض او مقاطعة أو جدل أو عتاب خفيف أو اعتراض .. مثل المونولوج .. وكان ماقدمه للجمهور عبارة عن وصلة من وصلات الجزيرة التي أهدر المصريون دمها بسبب ماافترته عليهم .. دخلت الجزيرة على المصريين من على منصة مصرية .. جزيرة مكثفة بكل نكهة الافتراء والكذب .. ومن يعرف ماتقوله الجزيرة عن سورية وماقاله سعدو الحريري للمصريين من على منصة عماد اديب يستغرب كيف يتبنى الاعلام المصري خطاب الجزيرة كاملا عبر مقابلة مع سعدو الحريري ولكنه يهاجم ماتقوله من افتراء في الشأن المصري .. عملية انتقائية معيبة مثل أن ترفض أن يقتطع شايلوك رطلا من لحمك لكنك تعطيه رطلا من لحم انسان آخر بكل الرضا وأنت تثني عليه
وقد أطنب عماد أديب في الثناء على الصبي اللبناني الذي تباركت بزيارته ثورة 30 يونيو .. وركز اديب بشدة على الاستقبال الحار الذي خص به الجنرال السيسي الزعيم اللبناني والمعاملة الخاصة التي لقيها سعدو بين يدي السيسي .. بالطبع من يتابع اللقاء يعرف أنه لقاء متفق عليه وأن عماد كان يمثل النفاق السياسي الخالص وانه كان يمثل أنه يسأل أسئلة لأن الحقيقة هي أنه كان يؤدي دوره مثل كومبارس للبطل سعدو الحريري .. (نحن نسأل وسعدو يجيب) .. ولكن الأهم من ذلك كله ان المشهد يدل للأسف على أن استقبال الصبي على أنه زعيم كان لارضاء السعودية ليس الا .. وان المبالغة في تدليله والمسح على غرته ورأسه كان كمن يستقبل ابن الجيران المدلل ويلاطفه طالما انه ابن جار ثري والولد معاق عقليا .. ولكنه يعامله بلطف وظرف ملاطفة لأبيه الثري .. أليس من العار أن تقدم ثورة مصر بملايينها لتستعمل كحقنة مقوية لسعد الحريري وليستحم من أوساخه المذهبية في نهر النيل وفي ترع الفلاحين المصريين الفقراء الذين تركوا قراهم وترعة الماء ليصنعوا ثورة 30 يونيو ليأتي هذا الصبي المدلل التافه ليعلمهم الثورة ؟؟.. وهو الثري المدلل الذي يسكن القصور .. ويتسلى في بارات باريس .. ويرسل شحنات الطوائف الى الشرق .. أليس من العار أن يستدعى الى مصر ليعلم المصريين الديانة الثورية الجديدة وليعلمهم أن الشمس تتعامد على وجه القديس رفيق الحريري كما تتعامد الشمس على وجه رمسيس الثاني في معبد ابي سنبل
وبالأمس كانت لميس الحديدي على محطة أخرى تلتقي الاستاذ محمد حسنين هيكل الذي كان يقول لها ويكرر في كل الحلقة ان الدولة السورية ليست مسؤولة عن الهجوم الكيماوي في الغوطة وان كل القرائن المثبتة تشير الى أن من ارتكب الهجوم هم الثوار أنفسهم بالتواطؤ مع تركيا لاستدعاء أميريكا .. ومع ذلك تتجاهل لميس الحديدي هذه المعلومة الخطيرة جدا التي تشير الى تورط الثوار والدعم الخارجي في قتل الشعب السوري وتسأل مستهجنة ان كان يمكن للرئيس السوري أن يرشح نفسه بعد ان قتل نصف الشعب السوري .. بل وتكرر كيف يمكن له أن يفوز وقد قتل نصف شعبه؟؟
يعني ماذا يمكن ان يقال لهذه المنارات القصيرة والقزمة التي يريد الشعب المصري تعليق مصابيح ثورته عليها ؟؟ يعني لقد رأى العالم كله الثوار السوريين ينهشون الجثث ويلتهمون القلوب .. ورأى العالم كله كيف يرتكب الثوار المجازر علنا بالاسرى ويذبح علنا ويحرق علنا .. وصار أصغر طفل في أدغال افريقيا يعرف عن القلب الذي التهمه وحش من صدر حندي سوري في حمص السورية .. وصار حتى ابناء الزولو يباهون برقيهم الأخلاقي أمام انحطاط ووحشية الثوار السوريين .. وفوق كل هذا يجلس أمامها الأستاذ هيكل ويقول لها ان مجزرة الغوطة الكيماوية ارتكبها الثوار بدعم تركيا .. وبعد ذلك تسأله ببلاهة: كيف يمكن لبشار الأسد ان يرشح نفسه .. وكيف يمكن أن يفوز وقد قتل نصف شعبه؟؟ نصف شعبه اي 12 مليونا .. تخيلوا أنه حتى من قتلهم الثوار بعشرات الآلاف رمتهم لميس الحديدي في النسيان وكأنها مصابة بثقب في الذاكرة .. أو أنها من عائلة الحريري وليس الحديدي .. لأن زوجها عمرو أديب شقيق عماد أديب قد أصابته لوثة الحريري .. ومال الحريري .. كم المال قوي أحيانا فيلوي الحديد ويحيله الى حرير !!.. كيف يمكن ان تصمد دال الحديد أمام حرارة الزيت الاسود؟؟ .. الزيت الذي يذيب الدال ويجعلها تتلوى ويحيل ملمسها الى الحرير .. ليصبح الحديد من حرملك الحرير
السؤال الأبله للميس الحريري مقصود وهو الغاء ماقاله الاستاذ هيكل واعادة الوعي المصري الذي يستمع الى المقابلة الى ماقبل الاشارة الى مسؤولية الثوار عن المجزرة الكيماوية المزمعة .. فينسى الوعي الحقيقة لأنها غطيت بمسلّمة أخرى قدمتها لميس الحريري .. وهي أنه بغض النظر عما يقوله هيكل – رغم خطورته – ورغم أنه يطرح سؤالا مشروعا عن هوية المسؤول الحقيقي عن كل القتل في سورية على مدى 3 سنوات فان القاتل سيبقى هو الرئيس بشار الأسد .. حتى وان كان هناك دليل قاطع عكس ذلك
وهذا يعني لمن يريد الدخول في عراك المحاججة والمهاترات ان ما يقوله الاخوان المسلمون عن جرائم السيسي يمكن قبوله .. رغم ان الجميع يعلم أن الاخوان المسلمين هم الذين اختاروا المواجهة في مصر واختاروا التصعيد مع الجيش ورفضوا كل عروض الفريق السيسي .. ولايزالون يتربصون بالجيش المصري الذي يقف الجيش السوري كخط دفاع أول له في المعركة .. ولو هزم الجيش السوري فسيكون الجيش المصري في مواجهة مباشرة مع قطعان الاسلاميين والمهاجرين الذين سيرسلهم اردوغان ثأرا لرابعة وابنة البلتاجي التي بكاها بحرقة .. وستدفع قطر تمويل الموت في مصر 
للأسف هناك اشياء لاتدل على أن مشروع الشعب المصري في التحرك نحو انجاز ثوري كامل يلقى التفهم من أنصاف الثوار وأنصاف المثقفين .. فالاعلام المصري رغم كل مايقال عن استقلاليته فانه يتصرف الى الآن على انه يدار من عواصم النفط والغاز .. ومربوط بخيوط خفية الى عواصم الزيت الأسود .. فباسم يوسف هاجم قطر والاخوان المسلمين ولكن لايعرف الا الله ان كان يدرك ان هناك بلدا قروسطيا اسمه المملكة العربية السعودية وهي منجم هائل للنكتة لأنه يتقاضى مالا من محطة تملكها شهصيات سعودية .. ولميس الحريري نفسها التقت منذ فترة بأحمد الجار الله ووصفته بعميد الصحفيين الكويتيين وخفضت له جناح الذل وقدمته للشعب المصري على أنه أحد احباب الشعب المصري وعشاقه .. وبعد أسابيع قليلة خرجت صحيفة السياسة الكويتية التي يكتب فيها الجار الله لتنبش في آثار مصر وتنبش قبر عبد الناصر وتنهش في لحم مصر وفي كرامة عبد الناصر وشرفه وتنشر مذكرات شمس بدران (الذي عزله عبد الناصر) في توقيت غريب جدا ليقول فيها ان عبد الناصر كان يرفع من همته وطاقته بمتابعة أفلام جنسية فاضحة سجلتها أجهزة مخابراته خلسة لسعاد حسني .. الزعيم الأهم في تاريخ مصر حوله الاعلام الخليجي الى مختل نفسيا ومختل أخلاقيا ومريض ومهووس بالجنس بعد نصف فرن تفريبا على رحيله .. ولم يتذكر شمس بدران عنه الموبفات الا في صحيفة السياسة الكويتية .. لسبب بسيط هو أن صور عبد الناصر عادت لترفع في شوارع مصر ولأن السيسي ذكر المصريين ببعض من روح عبد الناصر وضباطه الاحرار .. واذا عاد عبد الناصر الى شوارع مصر فان الخليج العربي سيعود الى حجمه الطبيعي ويتدثر برماله ..فلا بد من نبش القبر .. وهش العظم
هذا الاعلام الخليجي يتسلى بقص الهامات والرموز العربية لأن الخليج المحتل والبائس ثقافيا وحضاريا غير قادر على انتاج زعامات وقامات عالية فيعمد الى تدمير الرموز الوطنية في البلاد العربية الأثرى سياسيا وفكريا ويعمد الى قطع النخيل وتقصير الأهرامات لتناسب كثبان الرمل .. هذا الاعلام الوقح هو نفسه الذي يروج الآن أن ابن السيد حسن نصر الله الذي استشهد في جنوب لبنان عام 1997 لم يمت في المعارك مع اسرائيل بل في ملهى ليلي في بيروت !!.. ويزيف وثائق
وينشرها لتشويه صورة استشهاد الأبطال الميامين ضد اسرائيل .. رغم انني أذكر شخصيا أنني أول مرة سمعت عن هادي نصر الله وعن استشهاد هادي نصر الله كان من اذاعة لندن التي أوقفت ارسالها ونقلت بيانا صادرا عن قيادة الجيش الاسرائيلي التي أعلنت بابتهاج أنها تمكنت من قتل ابن الأمين العام لزعيم حزب الله وتمكنت من سحب جثته بعد معارك عنيفة في جنوب لبنان وانها لن تسلمها الا بمقابل باهظ ربما هو الطيار الاسرائيلي ارون اراد .. وفاجأني يومها ما تلا ذلك من تعليق نقلته هيئة الاذاعة البريطانية التي قالت بأن اسرائيل صعقت وأصيب جنرالاتها بالخيبة عندما “رفض الأمين العام لحزب الله أن يعامل جثمان ولده بشكل مميز عن باقي رفاقه الشهداء .. وأنه يرفض أن يمنحه اي تفضيل” .. ومع ذلك يتواقح اعلام العرب ويحكي حكواتيوه حكايا عن الملهى الليلي .. الذي قد نكتشف عبر أحمد الجار الله أن الزعيم جمال عبد الناصر ربما كان يرتاده ايضا دون علمنا .. وأن هزيمة 67 وقعت عندما كان ثملا في ذلك الملهى ليلة الرابع من حزيران .. مع سعاد حسني .. وربما يستقبل عماد أديب سعدو الحريري كمالك لذلك الملهى الذي حوله الشيخ سعدو الى مسجد للتوبة ..على نمط مساجد السوليدير
ولكن كيف يتعلم المصريون الصدق ولايزال معظم الكتاب المصريين في الصحف يكتبون عن الثورة السورية التي يقتلها نظام بشار الاسد الذي يقتل شعبه ويقصفه؟؟ .. ومع هذا وعلى مدى 3 سنوات لم يتحرك أحد من جحافل الصحافة المصرية ليأتي الى سورية من قبيل الأمانة الصحفية والمقارنة التي يجريها صحفيون من كل العالم ..بل ان هيكل تعرض لهجوم عنيف وخملة تشنيع لمجرد أنه اقترب من الحدود السورية والتفي السفير السوري في لبنان والسيد حسن نصر الله .. ولم يقم اعلامي مصري باستضافة ممثل واحد عن الدولة السورية لشرح وجهة نظرها للشعب المصري الذي صنع ثورة 30 يونيو ضد نفس العدو والذي لاشك استفاد من صمود الدولة السورية التي تسببت بصمودها في استعجال المشروع الاخواني للهيمنة على مصر قبل موت الثورة السورية .. فكان هذا الاستعجال سببا في انكشاف مشروعهم واندحاره
انني مثل كثيرين استطيع تفهم حيرة مصر الحالية .. ومصدرها أن الفريق السيسي لايزال غامضا في كل تحركاته ولايزال يحير الكثيرين .. ولم يستطع معظم متابعيه رسم معالم لسياسته ونواياه .. أهو استمرار لمرحلة ناصر بعد انقطاع؟؟ أم هو عودة للساداتية التي كانت تحاول ممارسة البراغماتية دون المام ومعرفة كاملة بعلم البراغماتية السياسية؟؟ .. البعض يعتقد أنه نهج جديد لرجل جديد يسير في منتصف الطريق ولن يكون ضد ناصر ولا ضد السادات أي سيطبق مصطلح (الناداتية أو الساصرية من دمج اسمي ناصر والسادات) .. وسيقف بين روسيا والولايات المتحدة ولن يغامر خارج حدود كامب ديفيد .. ولكن ان كان الفريق السيسي رجلا قادما من المستقبل لأنقاذ مصر فان تحالفه مع قوى الماضي سيعيده الى الفراغ ..وان تحالف مع قوى المستقبل فقد وضع
مصر في مكانها الصحيح .. ودخل التاريخ من بوابة بناة مصر
مصر لاتزال في حالة ثورة ناقصة وحائرة طالما ان بعض نخبها لايزالون يغازلون القوى الظلامية وقوى المال العربي وهذا العذر لايناسب ثورة ويبقيها نافصة وغير مكتملة .. فالثورة التي تخشى الأزمات ستبيع أوراق قوتها .. ومصر لاتحتاج فقط جنرالا قويا ووطنيا بل تحتاج أن يتنحى اعلام جحا عن التحدث باسم الجنرال والشعب والكذب على الجنرال والشعب .. فما يؤذي الجنرال وثورة 30 يونيو التي أوقفت جنون الاخوان المسلمين هو أن يتولى بعض الاعلاميين المصريين مخاطبة الناس بشكل عشوائي ووفق مصالح ضيقة .. وأخطر مايهدد الثورات هو الخطاب الاعلامي للثورات
عندما يكون متلونا ومصرا على حالة الانكار والعبث بالكلام وليّ الحقائق 
ولاشك أن المثقفين المصريين والنخب الاعلامية المصرية تحتاج أن تأتي الى سورية .. وترى بأم عينيها .. لتكمل انتصار الثورة المصرية .. أتيت .. رأيت .. انتصرت ..لأن لاغنى عن لقاء المنارة بالسراج
أما غير ذلك فيعني : غبت .. فجهلت .. فهزمت

 

Posted in Egypt, LebanonComments Off on نارام سرجون عن الاعلام المملوك خليجياً في مصر

WHY DID PROFESSOR GARGI BHATTACHARYYA LOSE HER JOB AT ASTON UNIVERSITY?

NOVANEWS

PROFESSOR GARGI BHATTACHARYYA

From 22nd April 2014 in the Central London Employment Tribunal, Gargi Bhattacharyya is taking Aston University to court for sex discrimination, victimisation on the grounds of bringing a
grievance relating to maternity and constructive dismissal.

solidarity with her and to give her case wider attention we are organising a protest from 12pm to 1pm outside Aston University. Attached is a leaflet we are handing out which provides more background about her case. We will initially meet outside the Guild.

This is a very important case, please come along and a protest against this grave
injustice in the treatment of Gargi by Aston University.

In solidarity,

 

Why did Aston University try to sack an Asian woman professor while she was on maternity leave?

Why was she suspended while on maternity leave? Why was a new workplace policy written just to sack her?

Why was she subjected to trumped up disciplinary charges immediately on returning from maternity leave?

When white women said they didn’t want to work with her, why did the Asian woman lose her job?

From 22nd April 2014 in the Central London Employment Tribunal, Gargi Bhattacharyya is taking Aston University to court for sex discrimination, victimisation on the grounds of bringing a grievance relating to maternity and constructive dismissal.

Aston University say they wanted to sack her because:

– She had an anti-establishment attitude

– She did not communicate well with managers

– White colleagues did not like her and did not want to work with her.

What are the real reasons for her victimisation?

– Was it supporting other colleagues who were being bullied by managers?

– Was it supporting other colleagues facing discrimination when taking maternity leave?

– Was it for daring to SUPPORT PALESTINIANS? This is a reason that the then Head of Sociology gives for the alleged breakdown of their relationship.

– Was it because she was grieving after the death of her baby?

Aston University has its campus in the heart of Birmingham and has many African, Asian and African-Caribbean students – but the teaching staff does not reflect the local population.

Write to Aston Vice-Chancellor, Dame Julia King at e.hindson@aston.ac.uk to ask:

– Why was Gargi Bhattacharyya pushed out of her job?

– Why the profile of Aston staff does not reflect the communities of Birmingham?

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on WHY DID PROFESSOR GARGI BHATTACHARYYA LOSE HER JOB AT ASTON UNIVERSITY?

Zio-Wahhabi Rat’s Launch Chemical Attack on Homs Residential Areas

NOVANEWS
Militants Launch Chemical Attack on Homs Residential Areas</p>
<p>Apr 19, 2014</p>
<p>The foreign-backed militants fired mortar shells, containing poisonous chemical substances, on several residential areas in the city of Homs.</p>
<p>The terrorists attacked the cities of Al-Sabil and Al-Zahra districts in Homs with mortar rounds containing poisonous chlorine agent.</p>
<p>Chlorine gas, which was widely used during World War I, can be deadly.</p>
<p>In late August 2013, rebels and local residents in Ghouta in Damascus countryside accused Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaeda linked rebel group.</p>
<p>Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died in late August from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much, Infowars.com said in a report written by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh.</p>
<p>From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.</p>
<p>"My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.</p>
<p>Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”</p>
<p>Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.</p>
<p>Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to the al-Qaeda, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.</p>
<p>“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”</p>
<p>“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.</p>
<p>A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.</p>
<p>“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.</p>
<p>Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.</p>
<p>The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.</p>
<p>More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.</p>
<p>http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930130001027
The foreign-backed Zio-Wahhabi Rat’s fired mortar shells, containing poisonous chemical substances, on several residential areas in the city of Homs.

The Wahhabi terrorists attacked the cities of Al-Sabil and Al-Zahra districts in Homs with mortar rounds containing poisonous chlorine agent.

Chlorine gas, which was widely used during World War I, can be deadly.

In late August 2013, rebels and local residents in Ghouta in Damascus countryside accused Zio-Wahhabi  Bandar bin Bush of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaeda linked rebel group.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died in late August from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much, Infowars.com said in a report written by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh.

From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Zio-Wahhabi  intelligence chief, Bandar bin Bush, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Zio-Wahhabi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the Rat’s were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to the al-Qaeda, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.

More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.

 

 

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Zio-Wahhabi Rat’s Launch Chemical Attack on Homs Residential Areas

Zio-Nazi Jewish Vandals spray anti-Arab graffiti, try to set mosque on fire

NOVANEWS

 

judaism

Zionist Police are investigating the incident overnight Thursday in the northern Palestinian   city of Umm al-Fahm.

 

Haaretz

Vandals sprayed anti-Arab graffiti and tried to set alight the door of a mosque in the northern Israeli city of Umm al-Fahm overnight Thursday.

The phrase “Arabs out” was sprayed on the wall of the Araq al-Shabab mosque, and the arson attempt caused light damage to the property.

The vandals were caught on film by private cameras in the area. The footage shows two people setting something alight and then driving away in a white vehicle.

Umm al-Fahm residents discovered the vandalism when they arrived at the mosque for Friday morning prayers and alerted police.

The mosque’s imam, Jamil Mahajana, said that the video footage of the vandals indicates the incident took place at around 3:00 A.M. “This is a nasty and vile act, and doing harm to holy places crosses all red lines.”

Police are investigating the incident, which is the fourth of its kind in northern Israel this month, according to Channel 10. Police suspect the incident is a ‘price tag’ attack. This term was originally used to refer to acts of vengeance on Palestinians by settlers in the West Bank in response to curbs of settlement construction and other Israeli policies. Today, however, it is often used in Israel to refer to any anti-Arab vandalism.

MK Ahmed Tibi (United Arab List-Ta’al) said on Friday, “This is an escalation and a crossing of red lines, and the police and security services must treat these incidents and vandals as terror incidents.”

Earlier this month, some 40 cars had their tires slashed and anti-Arab graffiti was sprayed on walls in an Arab town in the northern Israeli town of Jish, near Safed, known in Hebrew as Gush Halav.

“Only goys [non-Jews] will be driven out of our land” was among the graffiti sprayed by the vandals.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zio-Nazi Jewish Vandals spray anti-Arab graffiti, try to set mosque on fire

Report indicates that US aligned regimes are preparing for war

NOVANEWS

By: Caleb Maupin

U.S. Army soldiers (Reuters/Andrew Burton)U.S. Army soldiers (Reuters/Andrew Burton)

Every year the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) releases a study on military spending around the world. This year’s report contains many interesting details.

Some things in the report presented by the United Nations Commission on disarmament on April 14 have not changed at all. As has been the case for decades, the United States remains the largest military spender in the world, despite the much heralded “defense cuts.” The US, NATO, and “non-NATO US allies” account for over 64 percent of all military spending in the world.

Preparations for war in the Middle East?

The report, however, pointed out that US aligned regimes in the Middle East are rapidly increasing their military spending, and purchasing modern, high-tech weapons. The list of US aligned states in the Middle East is a collection of autocratic, repressive kingdoms and emirates. These countries are not“democratic” by any stretch. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and other states are absolute monarchies. People are flogged, stoned, and beheaded routinely. Torture goes on without apology, and no elections take place. “Free speech” is nearly non-existent, as people are locked up, arbitrarily killed, and otherwise repressed for speaking out.

Those who consume US TV and print media are constantly bombarded with “journalism” demonizing the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Syrian Arab Republic, while the crimes of this lengthy list of US backed Middle Eastern states, which make not even the slightest pretense of being democratic, are ignored. The US props up these autocratic states with billions of dollars in foreign aid, and Wall Street oil corporations make trillions in profits through control of their natural resources. When the population of these states has risen up and demanded democratic and economic rights, these regimes use their stockpiles of US made weapons to gun down protesters, burn entire neighborhoods, and enforce their rule with terror and violence. The violent response to recent uprisings in Bahrain, the jailing of poets in Qatar, and the continued US coddling of their monarchs shows the complete hypocrisy of any “human rights” rhetoric from Washington D.C.

However, in the last year these US puppet regimes in the Middle East have increasingly embraced the business of war. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is now the fourth largest military spender in the entire world. It is stockpiling modern missiles, tanks, and other high tech mechanisms of destruction and death. Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are also increasing their military build-up. These regimes are currently funding, training, and arming the insurgent groups in Syria, where over 100,000 people have already died in what was once a peaceful country. The millions of refugees in Syria are desperately fleeing to other parts of the region, as “rebels” burn their homes, kidnap their children, and carry out public beheadings. Money and weapons flowing from US-backed autocratic regimes is keeping the four-year civil war going, with more people dying each day.

The rise in military spending in the Middle East points toward plans for a wider war. The turmoil in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011 that resulted in the removal of US puppet Hosni Mubarak, and the failure to overthrow the Syrian Arab Republic after years of civil war, point toward a real weakness in US influence in the Middle East. When Obama announced he intended to rain cruise missiles on Syria, he was forced to back down. As the US aligned autocratic states in the gulf build up their military power, it looks as if some kind of desperate drive to regain lost influence may be in the works.

Surrounding China and North Korea

The much discussed “Asian Pivot”, where the US is increasing its military activity in the Pacific, comes at the very moment that US aligned regimes in Asia are rapidly increasing their military spending.

The government of the Philippines routinely carries out extralegal executions and assassinations. Journalists who print stories critical of the government routinely disappear and later wind up dead. The Philippines, already home to many US military bases, has increased its military spending by 17 percent. Much of the military activity in the Philippines is devoted to suppressing the New People’s Army, a group of communists with a great deal of popular support who have been waging a “People’s War”against the US backed autocratic state.

South Korea (where “National Security Laws” can land you in prison for tweeting, and striking workers are routinely gunned down), is the 8th largest arms importer in the world. The country is also home to US military bases, and it is stockpiling missiles, military aircraft, and other modern weapons.

U.S. Army soldiers with Charlie Company, 36th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division set up a supportive position during a mission near Command Outpost Pa'in Kalay in Maiwand District, Kandahar Province February 3, 2013. (Reuters/Andrew Burton)U.S. Army soldiers with Charlie Company, 36th Infantry Regiment, 1st Armored Division set up a supportive position during a mission near Command Outpost Pa’in Kalay in Maiwand District, Kandahar Province February 3, 2013. (Reuters/Andrew Burton)

 

Azerbaijan, a US aligned regime in Central Asia, is known for its violations of human rights. Amnesty International declares that human rights in Azerbaijan are in “steady decline.” Over the course of the last ten years, Azerbaijan has increased its military spending by 378 percent.

Australia, the US aligned European settler state has increased its import of arms by 83 percent.

The People’s Republic of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, two Asian societies that have defied Wall Street and openly speak against international capitalism and imperialism are being surrounded by US and US aligned military forces. China’s increasing economic influence around the world, especially in Latin America and Africa is a threat to Wall Street’s economic power, and moves are being made to surround and suppress it. In response to a rising, hostile military presence on its borders, China has increased its military spending as well.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, despite remaining surrounded and under hostile sanctions, has actually re-adjusted its domestic budget. The “songun” policy of military first is being altered, and more money is being spent domestically on programs such as the new boom of housing construction. The successful test of nuclear weapons seems to have supplied the country with a new level of security, allowing it to cut back on its military spending.

The DPRK has a record of aligning with governments that defy Wall Street around the world, such as Zimbabwe. The DPRK has provided military aid to many countries fighting for independence from Wall Street domination over the course the last few decades. Kim Il Sung even famously welcomed a delegation from the Black Panther Party in 1969, supporting their fight against racism in the United States.

The danger of a new world war

As the world economy remains in crisis, the trends in military spending are disturbing to many. Prior to WW1, exactly one hundred years ago, the US radical leader, Emma Goldman, mocked those who claimed the building up of armaments would prevent war. She declared that Woodrow Wilson’s policy of “preparedness” in purchasing huge amounts of weapons was not a road to peace, but “the road to universal slaughter.” She was proved correct when WW1 erupted across Europe, and millions of people died. Although Wilson had been elected on an anti-war platform, in 1917 the US entered the conflict, and those who dared protest were jailed, killed, and tortured.

In modern times, conflicts seem to be unfolding across the world at a rapid rate. Although these conflicts take place in different regions, they are all just episodes in the same global confrontation. In Venezuela, the popular democratic government, aligned with Russia and China, is fighting a group of violent opposition forces backed by Wall Street. In Syria, the government that has aligned with Palestine and provided healthcare and education, is also being attacked by violent extremists backed by Wall Street and it Gulf State puppets. In Ukraine, violent ultra-nationalists backed by Wall Street seized the government after it refused to join the IMF, and in Donetsk and other parts of the country, the people are fighting against them, hoping for support from Russia and China.

As US aligned states across the globe stockpile weapons, it looks like this trend of violence by Wall Street and its allies is not going away. They may be preparing for a much larger all-out war to keep control of the world, as their economic system grinds to a halt, and the countries seeking independent development continue to prosper.

Posted in USAComments Off on Report indicates that US aligned regimes are preparing for war

Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Imperative

NOVANEWS

Антисемитские листовки появились в Донецке с флагом сепаратистов

Exclusive: The mainstream U.S. news media is flooding the American people with one-sided propaganda on Ukraine, rewriting the narrative to leave out the key role of neo-Nazis and insisting on a “group think” that exceeds even the misguided consensus on Iraq’s WMD, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

After the Feb. 22 coup in Ukraine – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias – European and U.S. diplomats pushed for a quick formation of a new government out of fear that otherwise these far-right ultra-nationalists would be left in total control, one of those diplomats told me.

The comment again underscores the inconvenient truth of what happened in Ukraine: neo-Nazis were at the forefront of the Kiev coup that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych, a reality that the U.S. government and news media have been relentlessly trying to cover up.

New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof.

New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof.

Although real-time reports from the scene in February chronicled armed and organized militias associated with the neo-Nazi Svoboda party and the Right Sektor attacking police with firebombs and light weapons, that information soon became a threat to the Western propaganda theme that Yanukovych fled simply because peaceful protesters occupied the Maidan square.

So, the more troubling history soon disappeared into the memory hole, dismissed as “Russian propaganda.” The focus of the biased U.S. news media is now on the anti-Kiev militants in the Russian-ethnic areas of eastern Ukraine who have rejected the authority of the coup regime and are insisting on regional autonomy.

The new drumbeat in the U.S. press is that those militants must disarm in line with last week’s agreement in Geneva involving the United States, European Union, Russia and the “transitional” Ukrainian government. As for those inconvenient neo-Nazi militias, they have been incorporated into a paramilitary “National Guard” and deployed to the east to conduct an “anti-terrorist” campaign against the eastern Ukrainian protesters, ethnic Russians whom the neo-Nazis despise.

The new role for the neo-Nazi militias was announced last week by Andriy Parubiy, head of the Ukrainian National Security Council, who declared on Twitter, “Reserve unit of National Guard formed #Maidan Self-defense volunteers was sent to the front line this morning.”

Parubiy is himself a well-known neo-Nazi, who founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991. The party blended radical Ukrainian nationalism with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy also formed a paramilitary spinoff, the Patriots of Ukraine, and defended the awarding of the title, “Hero of Ukraine,” to World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose own paramilitary forces exterminated thousands of Jews and Poles in pursuit of a racially pure Ukraine.

In the hasty structuring of the post-coup government in February, part of the compromise with the ascendant neo-Nazis was to give them control of four ministries, including Parubiy in the key position heading national security. To give him loyal and motivated forces to strike at the pro-Russian east, he incorporated many of the storm troopers from his Maidan force into the National Guard.

Leaving Out the History

Yet, how is Parubiy described in the U.S. mainstream media? On Sunday, Washington Post correspondent Kathy Lally, who has been one of the most biased journalists covering the Ukraine crisis, wrote a front-page article about the state of Ukraine’s military in which she relied on Parubiy for a key part of her story.

Lally simply identified him as “secretary of the National Security and Defense Council,” without explaining Parubiy’s extreme-right politics or the illegitimate way that he got his position. Lally then let him assert that Russia is “intent on making the government fail and seeing it replaced by one deferring to Moscow.”

But Lally is far from alone in representing the deeply prejudiced “group think” of the U.S. press corps regarding Ukraine. Often the only way that American readers can get any sense of the key role played by the neo-Nazis is in the repeated denials of that reality.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof returned to his family’s ancestral home in Karapchiv in western Ukraine to interview some of its residents and present their views as the true voice of the people.

“To understand why Ukrainians are risking war with Russia to try to pluck themselves from Moscow’s grip, I came to this village where my father grew up,” he wrote. “Even here in the village, Ukrainians watch Russian television and loathe the propaganda portraying them as neo-Nazi thugs rampaging against Russian speakers.

“’If you listen to them, we all carry assault rifles; we’re all beating people,’ Ilya Moskal, a history teacher, said contemptuously.”

Of course, Moskal’s description is hyperbole. The Russian media is not making those claims, although it has noted, for instance, that the neo-Nazi militias – now reformulated as “National Guard” units – did kill three eastern Ukrainian protesters last week, deaths announced by the Kiev government.

But Kristof doesn’t stop there in his nostalgia for his father’s old home town, which he depicts as a noble place where everyone loves the music of Taylor Swift and dreams of their place in a prosperous Europe – if only President Barack Obama would send them weapons to kill Russians (or go “bear-hunting” as Kristof cutely wrote in a previous column).

On Sunday, Kristof wrote: “For people with such fondness for American culture, there is disappointment that President Obama hasn’t embraced Ukraine more firmly.”

Source of Ukraine’s Ills

Kristof also blamed Ukraine’s economic woes on Russia when a more honest explanation would be that the free-market “shock therapy” that Western advisers imposed on Ukraine after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 allowed a dozen or so well-connected “oligarchs” to plunder the country’s wealth and amass near total economic and political control. They are the principal reason for Ukraine’s pervasive corruption and poverty.

But Kristof appears to be readying his New York Times readers to support the violent crushing of the popular resistance in eastern Ukraine, which was President Yanukovych’s political base. Kristof is a renowned R2Per, urging a “responsibility to protect” civilians from government force, but his sense of responsibility appears to be highly selective, fitting with his favored geopolitical priorities.

More broadly, the U.S. news media’s hiding of Ukraine’s neo-Nazis has become a near obsession, indeed, done in greater uniformity across the mainstream press and even much of the blogosphere than the misguided consensus on Iraq’s WMD in 2002-03 that led to the disastrous Iraq War.

From a purely news point of view, you might think the inclusion of Nazis in a European government for the first time since World War II might make for a good story. But that would go against the preferred American narrative that the protesters in the Maidan were peaceful and idealistic – and that they were set upon by the evil Yanukovych who simply fled because he could no longer withstand their moral pressure.

Left out of this narrative is that Yanukovych signed an agreement on Feb. 21 brokered by three European governments in which he agreed to reduce his powers, accept early elections to vote him out of office, and – most fatefully – pull back the police. It was then that the neo-Nazi militias, from western Ukraine and organized in 100-man brigades, attacked the few remaining police, seized government buildings and sent Yanukovych and many of his officials fleeing for their lives.

As I was told by one of the Western diplomats involved in the aftermath, there was an urgency to cobble together some interim government because otherwise the neo-Nazis would have been left in total control. He said the various parties in parliament moved expeditiously to impeach Yanukovych (though constitutional procedures weren’t followed) and replace him with an interim president and government.

To placate the neo-Nazis, they were given control of four ministries, including the appointment of Parubiy to handle national security and make the neo-Nazi militias part of the official government security apparatus as National Guard.

But that history has been whisked away from information that the mainstream U.S. news media makes available to the American people, all the better to lead them into a new Cold War. [For more on this U.S. propaganda, see Ukraine. Through the US ‘Looking Glass.’”]

 

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Imperative

Rigging the Game Against Palestinians

NOVANEWS

 

Official Washington’s neocons are busy spinning the latest U.S. failure to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace as an excuse to extend the Israeli occupation indefinitely by insisting that the Palestinians first pass some ever-receding test of quality self-governance, as ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar notes.

 

By Paul R. Pillar

Now that Secretary of State John Kerry’s attempt to breathe life into the diplomacy known as the Middle East peace process has been widely pronounced – even by those who appropriately salute his efforts – to be a failure, different quarters are chiming in with recommendations for what to do next about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some suggestions are helpful; others would only help to perpetuate the Israeli occupation and lack of an agreement, and may be tacitly intended to do just that.

The New York Times editorial board proposes that the United States, as a last act before ending this phase of its active diplomacy on the problem, post on the international bulletin board its own sense of what the principles of a final settlement ought to look like. This is probably worth doing, and it has the merit of reflecting the fact that the basic lines of a feasible two-state solution have been apparent for some time.

Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post.

Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post.

Perhaps this would help to clarify who is resisting such a settlement and who is not. This has been tried before, however, most notably with the Clinton parameters, and it was insufficient to push the process over a finish line.

A couple of other limitations and uncertainties, revealed in the most recent diplomacy, would have to be overcome for such a U.S. declaration of principles to help. One concerns whether the Obama administration would be able and willing to backtrack on how, in its recent efforts to get some kind of preliminary agreement, it moved away from the consensus feasible settlement and adopted certain Israeli positions, such as regarding a continued troop presence in the Jordan River valley, that were bound to be unacceptable to any Palestinian leader.

The other uncertainty concerns the ability of one of the parties – with the Israeli government demonstrating this skill in virtuoso form – to use mixtures of procedural and substantive issues to put off any agreement even without explicitly rejecting U.S.-promulgated principles. The Netanyahu government has done this with its “Jewish state” demand and, more recently, with its reneging on a commitment to release Palestinian prisoners. The latter tactic resembles the familiar North Korean ploy of selling the same horse twice by making new demands for compensation in return for doing something it was already supposed to do anyway.

A different, but old and familiar, proposal that comes from those most sympathetic to an indefinite Israeli occupation has been voiced anew by Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post and Michael Singh of the Washington Institute for New East Policy. This notion is that a Palestinian state is not something to be created from above through negotiations but built up from below through a long process of developing Palestinian institutions.

The idea is that statehood is not a gift to be given to the Palestinians, but something they must earn by being good administrators. The appropriate role for the United States and other outsiders, according to this formulation, is to provide assistance and tutelage in being good administrators.

Thus Diehl says, “The Obama administration could have kept the forward movement going by continuing to promote the construction of Palestinian institutions – including a democratic, corruption-resistant government – and by pushing Israel to turn over more security responsibility and remove impediments to the Palestinian economy.”

Similarly, Singh writes that “a greater emphasis should be placed on Palestinian economic growth and reform” and addressing “corruption in the PA.”

This idea is not a prescription at all for reaching a settlement, ending the occupation, and creating a Palestinian state. It instead is a prescription for extending the occupation indefinitely by making it run smoothly. It is a method for making the principal Israeli sub-contractor for the occupation – because that is what the Palestinian Authority has become – do its part of the occupation duties tolerably well.

Meanwhile, Israel arrogates for itself the function of judge in determining whether the Palestinians have performed well enough to move to the next stage of this game. There will always be some reason why they are declared not yet ready. Corruption, as mentioned by both Diehl and Singh, will be a perennial favorite issue for this purpose.

If necessary, the Israelis can take direct action to make sure the economic and security performance of the Palestinians does not get too good, lest too many people start asking whether they really are ready for a state. The Israelis have done so in the past by trashing Palestinian infrastructure in the West Bank, and of course have done so in a more brutal way with the Gaza Strip in making it as difficult as possible for the Palestinian governing authority there to govern.

Singh states, “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not ripe to be solved.” The obvious, glaring question to be asked in response is, “So when, after 47 years of occupation and more than two decades since the Palestinian Authority was created, will it ever be ripe?”

The actual answer, of course, given the framework Singh is trying to impose, is “never.” But the false promise of statehood at the end of the rainbow helps to keep enough Palestinians docilely on the reservation while the occupation continues.

Diehl tries to encourage the idea that there actually is some sort of progression toward that ever-receding statehood pot at the rainbow’s end by asserting that there has been “cumulatively enormous progress toward coexistence” and the parties “have traveled most of the path to a final settlement.” Totally ignoring trends in Israeli politics over the last 20 years, he would have us (and Palestinians) believe that the Palestinians are closer to having a state now, in the era of Benjamin Netanyahu, than they were when Israeli policy was made by Yitzhak Rabin.

Amazingly, Diehl cites as progress Ariel Sharon’s pull-out from the Gaza Strip, as if a unilateral action leading to a suffocating blockade and destructive military assaults is somehow a step toward a negotiated settlement providing for two states living peacefully beside each other. He also strains to reassure us about the continued construction of Israeli settlements, saying that the pace of colonization has slowed from earlier in the occupation and that most of the new housing is in “areas near the 1967 border,” apparently paying no attention to recent land appropriations that Haaretz describes as the “largest in years.”

Amid the fact-creating on the ground and the false-promise-making in print, it is understandable that more and more people talk of discarding hope for a two-solution and concentrating on trying to obtain human rights within one state. Even the son of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has made this transition. But no one has yet sufficiently explained how the nationalist aspirations of both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs could be satisfied this way, and if they cannot, how a one-state solution would endure.

Perhaps action needs to be taken in the name of human rights within a single state, but without discarding the goal of two states. In this regard one of the best suggestions for where things ought to go from here comes from Henry Siegman:

“A two-state outcome is still possible if Palestinians were to take their fate into their own hands, rather than waiting for a deus ex machina, by shutting down institutions such as the Palestinian Authority that serve their subjugators and launching a non-violent, anti-apartheid struggle for equal citizenship in the de facto Greater Israel to which they have been consigned. Such a determined struggle may even convince Israelis to accept a two-state outcome, for the loss of their state’s Jewish identity in a single state in which Jews are outnumbered by Arabs is a price most Israelis will not pay for a Greater Israel.”

Siegman assesses that if Israel still rejected a two-state solution under such conditions, broad international backing for the anti-apartheid struggle would lead even Washington to abandon Israeli apartheid. That is hardly a given, and American policy in such circumstances would still be the most critical variable of all.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USAComments Off on Rigging the Game Against Palestinians

Anti-Assad Zionist Propaganda: Some Zio-Wahhabi Rat’s Have Had Enough Of War

NOVANEWS
syrian1

Mosab Khalaf remembers the exact moment when he became a revolutionary, and the exact moment when he walked away.

The first came early in the Syrian uprising, in the spring of 2011, when a friend dragged Khalaf, then 19, to a protest in Attal, a town in suburban Damascus. When he arrived, Khalaf was stunned by what he saw.

Near the central town square, security forces dressed in full combat gear had begun to descend on a crowd of several hundred demonstrators, who were marching with flags and chanting anti-government slogans. Khalaf watched as some of the officers grabbed hold of an elderly man, who had fallen behind the retreating protesters, and dragged him back across the square, beating him along the way.

“They were like monsters,” he said. “They were punching him, and he tripped and fell on the ground, and so they started kicking him, yelling at him, ‘Stand up!’ But of course he couldn’t stand up. He tried to, and they would kick him again.”

By the time the officers had dragged the old man back to their vehicles, his face was disfigured and bruised. “You couldn’t even see his eyes,” Khalaf recalled. “I’ll never forget what I saw.”

The second pivotal moment for Khalaf came a few months later, as the peaceful ??? uprising began to lose momentum and some protesters started taking up weapons against government attacks. Khalaf had become a dedicated protester and organizer, driven by the realization, he said, that “everything I knew about the regime was a big lie.” But he strongly discouraged his friends from letting their cause become a military one or joining the nascent Free Syrian Army.

Over the course of two days in the fall, as the fight grew increasingly violent, his worst fears came true: Two of those friends were killed. The first died when a regime missile landed on his home in a Damascus suburb; the second was killed by a mortar fired by rebel fighters.

“I stopped at that point,” Khalaf said. “I was lucky. I was able to stop, to become more logical. But my friends, they drowned in their emotions.”

*****
The Syrian uprising, now in its fourth year, has tested and divided the many activists who joined the revolt. It has forced people who agree on one basic tenet — that the government of President Bashar Assad is restrictive, authoritarian and cruel — to make countless hard decisions: whether to take up arms or to remain peaceful; to embrace the extremist rebels, who have proven to be among the best fighters, or to support only more moderate opposition groups; to remain in the country or to leave.

Among opposition supporters in Damascus, where the threat of warfare looms daily, it is this final divide that resonates most powerfully. And it tends to presage an even more painful reckoning: whether, in the face of the deep-rooted obstacles before the revolution and the rising tide of violence, the opposition should continue the fight wherever it leads, or whether they should pursue some sort of mediated solution.

Last spring, a popular and widely followed activist blogger from Aleppo, who writes under the pseudonym Edward Dark, published an essay in which he concluded that the opposition had already “lost the Syrian revolution” once they made room for armed, extremist rebels to take power.

“It was around about that time that I gave up on the revolution, such as it had become,” he wrote, “and saw that the only way to Syria’s salvation was through reconciliation and a renunciation of violence.”

Not everyone who left the country still supports the revolution, and not everyone who stayed behind has turned against it. Especially in the besieged and bombarded rebel-held areas, many Syrians consider the actions of the regime over the past few years, and the more than 100,000 lives lost, to be unpardonable and unforgettable.

But Dark has been joined by a growing number of young opposition figures who, like Khalaf, have remained in the country, where they feel the impact of the war’s fury on a daily basis. They draw a simple, if gravely disappointing, conclusion: Even if it undermines the revolution, the war must end.

“I don’t love this regime, because it’s killing the people, but this has been enough,” said one Damascus resident, who formerly championed the protest movement but has since turned away. He spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss his activist past. “For me, at any price, I want this thing stopped. I don’t care if Assad stays in power, but I don’t want blood anymore.”

Khalaf is now 22 years old, with a sleek face, a puff of curly brown hair atop his head and a strong air of self-assurance. On a warm afternoon in March, he was sitting on a couch in the offices of the political opposition group he works for, Building the Syrian State, and surfing Facebook on his laptop.

Building the Syrian State was founded in the fall of 2011 by Louay Hussein, an Alawite Muslim who spent seven years in prison in the 1980s for his political activities, but nevertheless remains dogged by charges that he is too close to the Assad regime.

The very existence of an organization like BSS, which pushes for a sort of political reform from within but doesn’t embrace the more decisive ambitions of the uprising, is often viewed warily by Syria’s diehard revolutionary activists. They see it as lending undue credibility to the regime by providing the appearance of a functional political opposition, rather than creating an incentive for the government to change.

Anas Joudeh, the group’s vice president, acknowledges this is a sensitive matter. “We’re not naive,” he said. “We know the regime uses the fact that we’re here to give it legitimacy. But should we just go home because of that? No, we should use this small margin of space we have and try to make it larger.”

Khalaf endures similar criticism from former friends and allies in the cause, many of whom now live abroad and accuse him of having betrayed the revolution. But he said he doesn’t worry about their complaints.

“They can say what they want,” he said with a wave of his hand. “They are not here. They are not suffering from the consequences of this war.”

Across from Khalaf sat Khaled Harbash, another young BSS member with a similar history during the uprising: In early 2011, Harbash helped lead the nonviolent protest movement in Hama, a northern city that was once the heart of Syria’s revolution. But as the regime responded to the demonstrations there with brutal force, and members of his group broke off to join the Free Syrian Army, Harbash found himself drifting away.

“After that, I didn’t want to be in the revolution anymore,” he said. “Because it wasn’t a revolution, it was a war. There were no strikes, no other activities that made you feel like you are in a revolution. And for me, a revolution needs politics.”

Khalaf and Harbash insist they haven’t renounced the philosophical underpinnings of the revolution — the grievances that drove them to the streets in the first place. They are careful to emphasize that they don’t condemn their friends who eventually chose to arm themselves. They just think the decision to take up arms was a mistake that has led the revolution fatally astray. “I am still fighting, but in my own way,” Harbash said.

“The regime took us to this place. They wanted us to do this,” Khalaf added. “I don’t blame the people who took up weapons. But it was a mistake. A weapon destroys the man who carries it before it destroys anyone else.”

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Anti-Assad Zionist Propaganda: Some Zio-Wahhabi Rat’s Have Had Enough Of War

Zio-Gestapo spy minister warns Kerry over ‘surrender’ to Iran

NOVANEWS

israelinukes
Zio-Gestapo intelligence minister on Monday slammed as unacceptable comments by US Secretary of State John Kerry on negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme which he said indicated a “surrender” to Tehran. 

 

“The things Kerry said in the Congress are worrying, they are surprising and they are unacceptable,” Yuval Steinitz, who is also strategic affairs minister, told public radio.

“We watch the negotiations with concern. We are not opposed to a diplomatic solution but we are against a solution which is entirely a surrender to Iran and which leaves it a threshold nuclear state,” Steinitz said.

In remarks to US lawmakers last week Kerry warned that Iran was two months away from breakout capability to produce enough nuclear material for a bomb should they resume their mothballed enrichment process.

Responding to reports that international negotiations with Iran should focus on extending the time it would take for Iran to produce nuclear weapons to between six and 12 months Kerry said the ultimate goal was assurance that Iran never build an atomic bomb but slowing the process would be an improvement on the current situation.

“I think it is fair to say, I think it is public knowledge today, that we are operating with a time period for a so-called breakout of about two months,” Kerry said.

“So six months to 12 months is — I’m not saying that’s what we’d settle for — but even that is significantly more,” he added.

Steinitz insisted that Israel would not allow such a scenario.

“We will not be able to adopt and accept any agreement which leaves Iran months or a year from a nuclear weapon,” he insisted.

Israel, like the United States, has refused to rule out military action to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear arms.

Under an interim agreement reached last year that expires on July 20, Iran froze key parts of its nuclear programme in return for limited sanctions relief and a promise of no new sanctions.

Talks on a permanent agreement are under way between Iran and UN Security Council permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, along with Germany.

After a session in Vienna last week the powers’ chief negotiator, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said the next round from May 13 would see negotiations “move to the next phase”.

The West and Israel have long suspected Iran of using its nuclear energy programme.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the region, though it has never officially confirmed or denied having such an arsenal.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zio-Gestapo spy minister warns Kerry over ‘surrender’ to Iran

The Ukraine Imbroglio and the Decline of the American Empire

NOVANEWS
A CounterPunch Special Report: Reflections on the Wages of “Immoderate Greatness”

by ARNO J. MAYER

When discussing the Ukraine-Crimea “crisis” it might be hygienic for Americans, including their political class, think-tank pundits, and talking heads, to recall two striking moments in “the dawn’s early light” of the U. S. Empire: in 1903, in the wake of the Spanish-American War, under President Theodore Roosevelt America seized control of the southern part of Guantanamo Bay by way of a Cuban-American Treaty which recognizes Cuba’s ultimate sovereignty over this base; a year after the Bolshevik Revolution, in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson dispatched 5,000 U. S. troops to Arkhangelsk in Northern Russia to participate in the Allied intervention in Russia’s Civil  War, which raised the curtain on the First Cold War.  Incidentally, in 1903 there was no Fidel Castro in Havana and in 1918 no Joseph Stalin in the Kremlin.

It might also be salutary to note that this standoff on Ukraine-Crimea is taking place in the unending afterglow of the Second Cold War and at a time when the sun is beginning to set on the American Empire as a new international system of multiple great powers emerges.

Of course, empires have ways of not only rising and thriving but of declining and expiring.  It is one of Edward Gibbon’s insightful and challenging questions about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empirethat is of particular relevance today.  Gibbon eventually concluded that while the causes for Rome’s decline and ruin were being successfully probed and explicated, there remained the great puzzle as to why “it had subsisted for so long.”  Indeed, the internal and external causes for this persistence are many and complex.  But one aspect deserves special attention: the reliance on violence and war to slow down and delay the inevitable.  In modern and contemporary times the European empires kept fighting not only among themselves, but also against the “new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child,” once these dared to resist and eventually rise up against their imperial-colonial overlords.  After 1945 in India and Kenya; in Indochina and Algeria; in Iran and Suez; in Congo.  Needless to say, to this day the still-vigorous

U. S. empire and the fallen European empires lock arms in efforts to save what can be saved in the ex-colonial lands throughout the Greater Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

There is no denying that America’s uniquely informal empire, without settler colonies, expanded headlong across the globe during and following World War Two.  It did so thanks to having been spared the enormous and horrid loss of life, material devastation, and economic ruin which befell all the other major belligerents, Allied and Axis.  To boot, America’s mushrooming “military-industrial complex” overnight fired the Pax Americana’s momentarily unique martial, economic, and soft power.

By now the peculiar American Empire is past its apogee.  Its economic, fiscal, social, civic, and cultural sinews are seriously fraying.  At the same time the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and Iran are claiming their place in the concert of world powers in which, for a good while, one and all will play by the rules of a new-model mercantilism in a globalizing soit-disant “free market” capitalist economy.

America’s splendid era of overseas “boots on the ground” and “regime change” is beginning to draw to a close.  Even in the hegemonic sphere decreed by the Monroe Doctrine there is a world of difference between yesteryear’s and today’s interventions.  In the not so distant good old times the U. S. horned in rather nakedly in Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1962), Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), Nicaragua (1980s), Grenada (1983), Bolivia (1986), Panama (1989), and Haiti (2004), almost invariably without enthroning and empowering more democratic and socially progressive “regimes.”  Presently Washington may be said to tread with considerably greater caution as it uses a panoply of crypto NGO-type agencies and agents in Venezuela.  It does so because in every domain, except the military, the empire is not only vastly overextended but also because over the last few years left-leaning governments/“regimes” have emerged in five Latin American nations which most likely will become every less economically and diplomatically dependent on and fearful of the U. S.

Though largely subliminal, the greater the sense and fear of imperial decay and decline, the greater the national hubris and arrogance of power which cuts across party lines.  To be sure, the tone and vocabulary in which neo-conservatives and right-of-center conservatives keep trumpeting America’s self-styled historically unique exceptionalism, grandeur, and indispensability is shriller than that of left-of-center “liberals” who, in the fray, tend to be afraid of their own shadow.  Actually, Winston Churchill’s position and rhetoric is emblematic of conservatives and their fellow travelers in the epoch of the West’s imperial decline which overlapped with the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and Communism.  Churchill was a fiery anti-Soviet and anti-Communist of the very first hour and became a discreet admirer of Mussolini and Franco before, in 1942, proclaiming loud and clear: “I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”  By then Churchill had also long since become the chief crier of the ideologically fired “appeasement” mantra which was of one piece with his landmark “Iron Curtain” speech of March 1946.  Needless to say, never a word about London and Paris, in the run-up to Munich, having willfully ignored or refused Moscow’s offer to collaborate on the Czech (Sudeten) issue.  Nor did Churchill and his aficionados ever concede that the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (Nazi-Soviet Pact) of August 1939 was sealed a year after the Munich Pact, and that both were equally infamous ideologically informed geopolitical and military chess moves.

To be sure, Stalin was an unspeakably cruel tyrant.  But it was Hitler’s Nazi Germany that invaded and laid waste Soviet Russia through the corridor of Central and Eastern Europe, and it was the Red Army, not the armies of the Western allies, which at horrendous cost broke the spinal cord of the Wehrmacht.  If the major nations of the European Union today hesitate to impose full-press economic sanctions on Moscow for its defiance on Crimea and Ukraine it is not only because of their likely disproportionate boomerang effect on them.  The Western Powers, in particular Germany, have a Continental rather than Transatlantic recollection and narrative of Europe’s Second Thirty Years Crisis and War followed by the American-driven and –financed unrelenting Cold War against the “evil empire”—practically to this day.

During the reign of Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev NATO, founded in 1949 and essentially led and financed by the U. S., inexorably pushed right up to or against Russia’s borders.  This became most barefaced following 1989 to 1991, when Gorbachev freed the “captive nations” and signed on to the reunification of Germany.  Between 1999 and 2009 all the liberated Eastern European countries—former Warsaw Pact members—bordering on Russia as well as three former Soviet republics were integrated into NATO, to eventually account for easily one-third of the 28 member nations of this North Atlantic military alliance.  Alone Finland opted for a disarmed neutrality within first the Soviet and then post-Soviet Russian sphere.  Almost overnight Finland was traduced not only for “appeasing” its neighboring nuclear superpower but also for being a dangerous role model for the rest of Europe and the then so-called Third World.  Indeed, during the perpetual Cold War, in most of the “free world” the term and concept “Finlandization” became a cuss word well-nigh on a par with Communism, all the more so because it was embraced by those critics of the Cold War zealots who advocated a “third way” or “non-alignment.”  All along, NATO, to wit Washington, intensely eyed both Georgia and Ukraine.

By March 2, 2014, the U. S. Department of State released a “statement on the situation in Ukraine by the North Atlantic Council” in which it declared that “Ukraine is a valued partner for NATO and a founding member of the Partnership for Peace . . . [and that] NATO Allies will continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, without outside interference.”  The State Department also stressed that “in addition to its traditional defense of Allied nations, NATO leads the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and has ongoing missions in the Balkans and the Mediterranean; it also conducts extensive training exercises and offers security support to partners around the globe, including the European Union in particular but also the United Nations and the African Union.”

Within a matter of days following Putin’s monitory move NATO, notably President Obama, countered in kind: a guided-missile destroyer crossed the Bosphoros into the Black Sea for naval exercises with the Romanian and Bulgarian navies; additional F-15 fighter jets were dispatched to reinforce NATO patrol missions being flown over the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and a squadron of F-16 fighter bombers and a fulsome company of “boots on the ground” was hastened to Poland.   Of course, theses deployments and reinforcements ostensibly were ordered at the urging of these NATO allies along Russia’s borders, all of whose “regimes” between the wars, and especially during the 1930s, had not exactly been paragons of democracy and because of their Russo-cum-anti-Communist phobia had moved closer to Nazi Germany.  And once Hitler’s legions crashed into Russia through the borderlands not insignificant sectors of their political and civil societies were not exactly innocent by-standers or collaborators in Operation Barbarossa and the Judeocide.

To be sure, Secretary of State John Kerry, the Obama administration’s chief finger wagger, merely denounced Putin’s deployment in and around Ukraine-Crimea as an “act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of pretext.”  For good measure he added, however, that “you just do not invade another country,” and he did so at a time there was nothing illegal about Putin’s move.  But Hillary Clinton, Kerry’s predecessor, and most likely repeat candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, rather than outright demonize Putin as an unreconstructed KGB operative or a mini-Stalin went straight for the kill: “Now if this sounds familiar. . . it is like Hitler did back in the ‘30s.”  Presently, as if to defang criticism of her verbal thrust, Clinton averred that “I just want people to have a little historic perspective,” so that they should learn from the Nazis’ tactics in the run-up to World War II.

As for Republican Senator John McCain, defeated by Barack Obama for the Presidency in 2008, he was on the same wavelength, in that he charged that his erstwhile rival’s “feckless” foreign policy practically invited Putin’s aggressive move, with the unspoken implication that President Obama was a latter-day Neville Chamberlain, the avatar of appeasement.

But ultimately it was Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who said out loud what was being whispered in so many corridors of the foreign policy establishment and on so many editorial boards of the mainline media.  He advocated “creating a democratic noose around Putin’s Russia.”  To this end Graham called for preparing the ground to make Georgia and Moldova members of NATO.  Graham also advocated upgrading the military capability of the most “threatened” NATO members along Russia’s borders, along with an expansion of radar and missile defense systems.  In short, he would “fly the NATO flag as strongly as I could around Putin”—in keeping with NATO’s policy since

1990.  Assuming different roles, while Senator Graham kept up the hawkish drumbeat on the Hill and in the media Senator McCain hastened to Kiev to affirm the “other” America’s resolve, competence, and muscle as over the fecklessness of President Obama and his foreign-policy team.  He went to Ukraine’s capital a first time in December, and the second time, in mid-March 2014, as head of a bipartisan delegation of eight like-minded Senators.

On Kiev’s Maidan Square, or Independence Square, McCain not only mingled with and addressed the crowd of ardent anti-Russian nationalists, not a few of them neo-fascists, but also consorted with Victoria Nuland, U. S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.  Too much has been made of her revealing or unfortunate “fuck the EU” expletive in her tapped phone conversation with the local U. S. Ambassador Geoffrey Ryatt and her distribution of sweets on Maidan Square.   What really matters is that Nuland is a consummate insider of Washington’s imperial foreign policy establishment in that she served in the Clinton and Bush administrations before coming on board the Obama administration, having close relations with Hillary Clinton.

Besides, she is married to Robert Kagan, a wizard of geopolitics who though generally viewed as a sworn neo-conservative is every bit as much at home as his spouse among mainline Republicans and Democrats.  He was a foreign-policy advisor to John McCain and Mitt Romney during their presidential runs, respectively in 2008 and 2012, before President Obama let on that he embraced some of the main arguments in The World America Made (2012), Kagan’s latest book.  In it he spells out ways to preserve the empire by way of controlling with some twelve naval task forces built around unsurpassable nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, its expanding Mare Nostrum in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean.

As a disciple of Alfred Thayer Mahan, quite naturally Kagan earned his spurs and his entrée to the inner circles of the makers and shakers of foreign and military policy by spending years at the Carnegie Endowment and Brookings Institution.   That was before, in 1997, he became a co-founder, with William Kristol, of the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century, committed to the promotion of America’s “global leadership” in pursuit of its national security and interests.  A few years later, after this think tank expired, Kagan and Kristol began to play a leading role in the Foreign Policy Initiative, its lineal ideological descendant.

But the point is not that Victoria Nuland’s demarche in Maidan Square may have been unduly influenced by her husband’s writings and political engagements.  Indeed, on the Ukrainian question, she is more likely to have been attentive to Zbigniew Brzezinski, another highly visible geopolitician who, however, has been swimming exclusively in Democratic waters ever since 1960, when he advised John F. Kennedy during his presidential campaign and then became national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter.  Heavily fixed on Eurasia, Brzezinski is more likely to stand on Clausewitz’s rather than Mahan’s shoulders.  But both Kagan and Brzezinski are red-blooded imperial Americans.  In 1997, in his The Great Chessboard Brzezinski argued that “the struggle for global primacy [would] continue to be played” on the Eurasian “chessboard,” and that as a “new and important space on [this] chessboard . . . Ukraine was a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia.”  Indeed, “if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its [then] 52 million people and major resources, as well as access to the Black Sea,” Russia would “automatically again regain the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”  The unwritten script of Brzezinski, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors: intensify the West’s—America’s—efforts, by means fair and foul, to detach Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence, including especially the Black Sea Peninsula with its access to the Eastern Mediterranean via the Aegean Sea.

Presently rather than focus on the geopolitical springs and objectives of Russia’s “aggression” against Ukraine-Crimea Brzezinski turned the spotlight on the nefarious intentions and methods of Putin’s move on the Great Chessboard.  To permit Putin to have his way in Ukraine-Crimea would be “similar to the two phases of Hitler’s seizure of Sudetenland after Munich in 1938 and the final occupation of Prague and Czechoslovakia in early 1938.”  Incontrovertibly “much depends on how clearly the West conveys to the dictator in the Kremlin—a partially comical imitation of Mussolini and a more menacing reminder of Hitler—that NATO cannot be passive if war erupts in Europe.”  For should Ukraine be “crushed with the West simply watching the new freedom and security of Romania, Poland, and the three Baltic republics would also be threatened.”  Having resuscitated the domino theory, Brzezinski urged the West to “promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine legitimate” and assure it “privately . . . that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defense capabilities.”  At the same time “NATO forces . . . should be put on alert [and] high readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U. S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful.”  And as an afterthought Brzezinski suggested that along with “such efforts to avoid miscalculations that could lead to war” the West should reaffirm its “desire for a peaceful accommodation . . . [and] reassure Russia that it is not seeking to draw Ukraine into NATO or turn it against Russia.”  Indeed, mirabile dictu, Brzezinski, like Henry Kissinger, his fellow geopolitician with a cold-war imperial mindset, adumbrated a form of Finlandization of Ukraine—but, needless to say, not of the other eastern border states—without, however, letting on that actually Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, had recently made some such proposal.

Of course, the likes of Kagan, Brzezinski, and Kissinger keep mum about America’s inimitable hand in the “regime change” in Kiev which resulted in a government in which the ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists, who had been in the front lines on Maidan Square, are well represented.

Since critics of America’s subversive interventions tend to be dismissed as knee-jerk left-liberals wired to exaggerate their dark anti-democratic side it might help to listen to a voice which on this issue can hardly be suspect.  Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and renowned inquisitor of anti-Semitism, concedes that “there is no doubt that Ukraine, like Croatia, was one of those places where local militias played a key role in the murder of thousands of Jews during World War II.”  And anti-Semitism “having by no means disappeared from Ukraine . . . in recent months there have been a number of anti-Semitic incidents and there are at least two parties in Ukraine, Svoboda and Right Sector, that have within them some extreme nationalists and anti-Semites.”

But having said that, Foxman insists that it is “pure demagoguery and an effort to rationalize criminal behavior on the part of Russia to invoke the anti-Semitism ogre into the struggle in Ukraine, . . . for it is fair to say that there was more anti-Semitism manifest in the worldwide Occupy Wall Street movement than we have seen so far in the revolution taking place in Ukraine.”  To be sure, Putin “plays the anti-Semitism card” much as he plays that of Moscow rushing to “protect ethnic Russians from alleged extremist Ukrainians.”  Even at that, however, “it is, of course, reprehensible to suggest that Putin’s policies in Ukraine are anything akin to Nazi policies during World War II.”  But then Foxman hastens to stress that it “is not absurd to evoke Hitler’s lie” about the plight of the Sudeten Germans as comparable to “exactly” what “Putin is saying and doing in Crimea” and therefore needs to be “condemned . . . as forcefully . . . as the world should have condemned the German move into the Sudetenland.”

Abraham Foxman’s tortured stance is consonant with that of American and Israeli hardliners who mean to contain and roll back a resurgent great-power Russia, as much in Syria and Iran as in its “near abroad” in Europe and Asia.

As if listening to Brzezinski and McCain, Washington is building up its forces in the Baltic states, especially Poland, with a view to give additional bite to sanctions.  But this old-style intervention will cut little ice unless fully concerted, militarily and economically, with NATO’s weighty members, which seems unlikely.  Of course, America has drones and weapons of mass destruction—but so does Russia.

In any case, for unreconstructed imperials, and for AIPAC, the crux of the matter is not Russia’s European “near abroad” but its reemergence in the Greater Middle East, presently in Syria and Iran, and this at a time when, according to Kagan, the Persian Gulf was paling in strategic and economic importance compared to the Asia-Pacific region where China is an awakening sleeping giant that even now is the globe’s second largest economy—over half the size of the U. S. economy—and the unreal third largest holder of America’s public debt—by far the largest foreign holder of U. S. Treasury bonds.

In sum, the unregenerate U. S. empire means to actively contain both Russia and China in the true-and-tried modus operandi, starting along and over Russia’s European “near abroad” and the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait connecting the South China Sea to the East China Sea.

Because of ever growing budgetary constraints Washington has long since complained about its major NATO partners dragging their financial and military feet.  This fiscal squeeze will intensify exponentially with the pivoting to the Pacific which demands steeply rising “defense” expenditures unlikely to be shared by a NATO-like Asia-Pacific alliance.  Although most likely there will be a cutback in bases in the Atlantic world, Europe, and the Middle East, with the geographic realignment of America’s global basing the money thus saved will be spent many times over on the reinforcement and expansion of an unrivaled fleet of a dozen task forces built around nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.   After all, the Pacific and Indian oceans combined being easily more than twice the size of the Atlantic and though, according to Kagan, China is not quite yet an “existential threat” it is “developing one or two aircraft carriers, . . . anti-ship ballistic missiles . . . and submarines.”  Even now there are some flashpoints comparable to Crimea, Baltic, Syria, and Iran: the dustup between Japan and China over control of the sea lanes and the air space over the potentially oil-rich South China Sea; and the Sino-Japanese face-off over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.  Whereas it is all but normal for Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea to have tensions, even conflictual relations, with China and North Korea, it is something radically different for the United States to NATOize them in the pursuit of its own imperial interest in the furthest reaches of its now contested Mare Nostrum.

The Pacific-Asian pivot will, of course, further overstretch the empire in a time of spiraling fiscal and budgetary constraints which reflect America’s smoldering systemic economic straits and social crisis, generative of growing political dysfunction and dissension.  To be sure, rare and powerless are those in political and academic society who question the GLORIA PRO NATIONE: America the greatest, exceptional, necessary, and do-good nation determined to maintain the world’s strongest and up-to-date military and cyber power.

And therein lies the rub.  The U.S.A. accounts for close to 40% of the world’s military expenditures, compared to some 10% by China and 5.5% by Russia.  The Aerospace and Defense Industry contributes close to 3% oi GDP and is the single largest positive contributor to the nation’s balance of trade.  America’s three largest arms companies—Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing—are the world’s largest, employing some 400,000 hands, and all but corner the world’s market in their “products.”  Of late defense contracting firms have grown by leaps and bounds in a nation-empire increasingly loathe to deploy conventional boots on the ground.  These corporate contractors provide an ever greater ratio of contract support field personnel, many of them armed, over regular army personnel.  Eventually, in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom private contract and regular military personnel were practically on a par.

This hasty evocation of the tip of America’s military iceberg is but a reminder of President Dwight Eisenhower’s forewarning, in 1961, of an “immense military establishment” in lockstep with “a large arms industry. . . [acquiring] unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,” injurious to democracy.  At the time Ike could hardly have imagined the gargantuan growth and political weight of this military-industrial complex or the emergence, within it, of a corporate-contract mercenary army.

The formidable oligarchy of arms makers and merchants at the heart of the military-industrial complex fields a vast army of lobbyists in Washington.  In recent years the arms lobby, writ large, spent countless millions during successive election cycles, its contributions being all but equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.  And this redoubtable octopus-like “third house” is not about to sign on to substantial cuts in military spending, all the less so since it moves in sync with other hefty defense-related lobbies, such as oil, which is not likely to support the down-sizing of America’s navy which, incidentally, is far and away the largest plying, nay patrolling, the world’s oceans—trade routes.

There is, of course, a considerable work force, including white-collar employees, that earns its daily bread in the bloated “defense” sector.  It does so in an economy whose industrial/manufacturing sectors are shrinking, considerably because of outsourcing, most of it overseas.   This twisted or peculiar federal budget and free-market economy not only spawn unemployment and underemployment but breed growing popular doubt about the material and psychic benefits of empire.

In 1967, when Martin Luther King, Jr., broke his silence on the war in Vietnam, he spoke directly to the interpenetration of domestic and foreign policy in that conflict.  He considered this war an imperialist intervention in far-distant Southeast Asia at the expense of the “Great Society” which President Johnson, who escalated this war, proposed to foster at home.  After lamenting the terrible sacrifice of life on both sides, King predicated that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” He even intimated that “there is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent . . . the richest and most powerful nation in the world . . . from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.”

Almost 50 years later President Obama and his staff, as well as nearly all Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives, policy wonks and pundits, remain confirmed and unquestioning imperials.  Should any of them read Gibbon they would pay no mind to his hunch that “the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness” which by blowback corroded the polity, society, and culture that carried it.  Of course today, with no barbarians at the gates, there is no need for legions of ground forces so that the bankrupting “defense” budget is for a military of airplanes, ships, missiles, drones, cyber-weapons, and weapons of mass destruction.  Si vis pacem para bellum—against whom and for which objectives?

In the midst of the Ukraine “crisis” President Obama flew to The Hague for the third meeting of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) chartered in 2010 to prevent nuclear terrorism around the world.  The NSS was Obama’s idea and project, spelled out in an official statement issued by the White House Press Secretary on the eve of its founding meeting in April 2010 in Washington.  This statement stressed that “over 2,000 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium exist in dozens of countries” and that there have been “18 documented cases of theft or loss of highly enriched uranium or plutonium.”  But above all :”we know that al-Qaeda, and possibly other terrorist or criminal groups, are seeking nuclear weapons—as well as the materials and expertise needed to make them.”  But the U. S., not being “the only country that would suffer from nuclear terrorism” and unable to “prevent it on its own,” the NSS means to “highlight the global threat” and take the urgently necessary preventive measures.

Conceived and established in the aftermath of 9/11, by the latest count the NSS rallies 83 nations bent on collaborating to head off this scourge by reducing the amount of vulnerable nuclear material worldwide and tightening security of all nuclear materials and radioactive sources in their respective countries.  At The Hague, with a myriad of journalists covering the event, some 20 heads of state and government and some 5,000 delegates took stock of advances made thus far in this arduous mission and swore to press on.  But there was a last minute dissonance.  Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia, and Yi Jinping, the President of China, along with 18 other chief delegates, refused to sign a declaration calling on member nations to admit inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to check on their measures to rein in the menace of nuclear terrorism.

Inevitably the standoff over Ukraine-Crimea dimmed, even overshadowed, the hoped-for éclat of the Nuclear Security Summit.  President Obama’s mind was centered on an ad hoc session of the G 8  in the Dutch capital; a visit to NATO Headquarters in Brussels; an audience with Pope Francis at the Vatican, in Rome; and a hastily improvised meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh.  Except for his visit with the Holy Father, from which he may have hoped to draw a touch of grace and indulgence, in his other meetings the President reasserted and proclaimed that America was and meant to remain what Hubert Védrine, a former French Foreign Minister, called the world’s sole “hyperpower.”  The Ukraine-Crimea imbroglio merely gave this profession and affirmation a greater exigency.

It is ironical that the scheduled Nuclear Security Summit was the curtain-raiser for the President’s double-quick imperial round of improvised meetings in the dawn of what Paul Bracken, another embedded and experienced geopolitician, avers to be The Second Nuclear Age (2012), this one in a multipolar rather than bipolar world.  Actually Bracken merely masterfully theorized what had long since become the guiding idea and practice throughout the foreign policy-cum-military establishment.  Or, as Molière’s Monsieur Jourdain would put it, for many years the members of this establishment had been “speaking prose without even knowing it.”

The negotiated elimination or radical reduction of nuclear weapons is completely off the agenda.  It is dismissed as a quixotic ideal in a world of nine nuclear powers: U. S., Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea—and Israel.  It was on Obama’s watch that the U. S. and post-Soviet Russia agreed that neither would deploy more than roughly 1,500 warheads, down from many times that number.  But now, with Russia’s reemergence as a great power and China’s prodigious forced-draft renascence, in a multipolar world the U. S. seems bent on keeping a considerable nuclear superiority over both.  Whereas most likely Washington and Moscow are in the throes of “modernizing” their nuclear arsenals and delivery capabilities, in this sphere China is only beginning to play catch-up.

Standing tall on America’s as yet unsurpassed military and economic might, Obama managed to convince his partners in the G 8, the conspicuous but listless economic forum of the world’s leading economies, to suspend, not to say expel, Russia for Putin’s transgression in Ukraine-Crimea.  Most likely, however, they agreed to make this largely symbolic gesture so as to avoid signing on to ever-stiffer sanctions on Moscow.  With this American-orchestrated charade the remaining G 7 only further pointed up the prepossession of their exclusive club from which they cavalierly shut out the BRICS.

The decline of the American Empire, like that of all empires, promises to be at once gradual and relative.  As for the causes of this decline, they are inextricably internal / domestic and external / foreign. There is no separating the refractory budgetary deficit and its attendant swelling political and social dissension from the irreducible military budget necessary to face down rival empires.  Clearly, to borrow Chalmers Johnson’s inspired conceptually informed phrase, the “empire of bases,” with a network of well over 600 bases in probably over 100 countries, rather than fall overnight from omnipotence to impotence risks becoming increasingly erratic and intermittently violent in “defense” of the forever hallowed exceptional “nation.”

As yet there is no significant let-up in the pretension to remain first among would-be equals on the seas, in the air, in cyberspace, and in cyber-surveillance.  And the heft of the military muscle for this supererogation is provided by a thriving defense industry in an economy plagued by deep-rooted unemployment and a society racked by a crying income and wealth inequality, growing poverty, creeping socio-cultural anomie, and humongous systemic political corruption.  Notwithstanding the ravings of the imperial “Knownothings” these conditions will sap domestic support for an unreconstructed interventionist foreign and military policy.  They will also hollow out America’s soft power by corroding the aura of the democratic, salvific, and capitalist City on the Hill.

Whereas the Soviet Union and communism were the polymorphic arch-enemy during the First Nuclear Age terrorism and Islamism bid well to take its place during the Second Nuclear Age.  It would appear that the threat and use of nuclear weapons will be even less useful though hardly any less demonic today than yesterday.  Sub specie aeternitatis the cry of the terrorist attack on New York’s World Trade Center and Boston’s Marathon was a bagatelle compared to the fury of the nuclear bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.  It is, of course, commendable that so many nations now seek to prevent “nuclear terrorism” by way of the Nuclear Security Summit.  However, there being no fail-safe systems of access control this endeavor is bound to be stillborn without a simultaneously resolute drive to radically reduce or liquidate the world’s staggering stock of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials.  After all, the greater that stock the greater the opportunity and temptation for a terrorist, criminal, or whistle-blower to pass the Rubicon.

According to informed estimates presently there are well over 20,000 nuclear bombs on this planet, with America and Russia between them home to over 90% of them.  No less formidable are the vast global stockpiles of enriched uranium and plutonium.

In September 2009 Obama adjured the U. N. Security Council that “new strategies and new approaches” were needed to face a “proliferation” of an unprecedented “scope and complexity,” in that “just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city—be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris—could kill hundreds of thousands of people.”  Hereafter it was not uncommon for Washington insiders to avow that they considered a domestic nuclear strike with an unthinkable dirty bomb a greater and more imminent security risk than a prosaic nuclear attack by Russia.  All this while the Nuclear Security Summit was treading water and the Pentagon continues to upgrade America’s nuclear arsenal and delivery capabilities—with chemical weapons as a backstop.  With the cutback of conventional military capabilities nuclear arms are not about to be mothballed.

Indeed, with this in mind the overreaction to Russia’s move in Ukraine-Crimea is disquieting.  From the start the Obama administration unconscionably exaggerated and demonized Moscow’s—Putin’s—objectives and methods while proclaiming Washington’s consummate innocence in the unfolding imbroglio.   Almost overnight, even before the overblown charge that Moscow was massing troops along Ukraine’s borders and more generally in Russia’s European “near abroad” NATO—i. e., Washington—began to ostentatiously send advanced military equipment to the Baltic counties and Poland.   By April 4, 2014, the foreign ministers of the 28 member nations of NATO met in Brussels with a view to strengthen the military muscle and cooperation not only in the aforementioned countries but also in Moldova, Romania, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.  In addition NATO air patrols would be stepped up while anti-missile batteries would be deployed in Poland and Romania.  Apparently the emergency NATO summit also considered large-scale joint military exercises and the establishment of NATO military bases close to Russia’s borders which, according to Le Figaro, France’s conservative daily, would be “a demonstration of force which the Allies had themselves foregone during the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union.”  Would tactical nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable aircraft—or nuclear-capable drones—be deployed on these bases?

To what end?  In preparation of a conventional war of the trenches, Guderian-type armored operations or a total war of Operation Barbarossa variety?   Of course, this being post Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there must be a backup or contingency plan for nuclear sword play, with both sides, should reciprocal deterrence fail, confident in their first and second strike capabilities.  Not only Washington but Moscow knows that in 1945 the ultimate reason for using the absolute weapon was transparently geopolitical rather than purely military.

With the weight of the unregenerate imperials in the White House, Pentagon, Congress, the “third house,” and the think tanks there is the risk that this U. S.- masterminded NATO “operation freedom in Russia’s European “near abroad” will spin out of control, also because the American Knownothings are bound to have their Russian counterparts.

In this game of chicken on the edge of the nuclear cliff the U. S. cannot claim the moral and legal high ground since it was President Truman and his inner circle of advisors who unleashed the scourge of nuclear warfare, and with time there was neither an official nor a popular gesture of atonement for this wanton and excessive military excess.  And this despite General Eisenhower’s eventual plaint that the “unleashing of the atomic infernos on mostly civilian populations was simply this: an act of supreme terrorism (emphasis added) . . . and of barbarity callously calculated by the U. S. planners to demonstrate their country’s demonic power to the rest of the world—and the Soviet Union in particular.”  Is there a filiation between this cri de coeur and the forewarning about the toxicity of the “military industrial complex” in President Eisenhower’s farewell address?
This is a time for a national debate and a citizen-initiated referendum on whether or not the U. S. should adopt unilateral nuclear disarmament.  It might be a salutary and exemplary exercise in participatory democracy.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Ukraine Imbroglio and the Decline of the American Empire

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

April 2014
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930