Archive | April 24th, 2014

Zio-Wahhabi Al Faisal says Gulf states must balance threat from Iran

NOVANEWS

Zionist Rat Turki Al Faisal with his Zionist Masters

Member of Zio-Wahhabi  family said on Wednesday that Gulf states should work on acquiring nuclear know-how to balance any threat from Iran.

Zionist Rat Turki Al Faisal, a former CIA Mossad puppet, also told a security conference in Manama, that the Gulf states should be prepared for any possible outcome from Iran’s nuclear talks with world powers.

“We do not hold any hostility to Iran and do not wish any harm to it or to its people, who are Muslim neighbours,” he said in a speech.

“But preserving our regional security requires that we, as a Gulf grouping, work to create a real balance of forces with it, including in nuclear know-how and to be ready for any possibility in relation to the Iranian nuclear file. Any violation of this balance will allow the Iranian leadership to exploit all holes to do harm to us.” WHAT ABOUT I$RAHELL? WHAT ABOUT AL-AQSA?

The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia have agreed a July 20 deadline with Iran to clinch a long-term deal that would allow a gradual lifting of all nuclear-related sanctions imposed on Iran over its atomic programme.

Zio-Wahhabi prince said that Gulf Arab states were concerned by Iran’s nuclear ambitions ” NOT I$RAHELL” despite the talks and by what he described as its meddling in the internal affairs of its Gulf Arab neighbours.

Gulf Arab Zionist puppet’s have long accused Tehran of fueling unrest mainly among Shiite communities in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen. Iran denies these allegations.

“The lack of trust in the Iranian leadership which arises from its double-talk and the duality of its policies prevents us from believing what it says,” he told the Bahrain conference.

“At the time when we hope that the ongoing nuclear talks between [Iran] and world powers reach the desired aim by halting its nuclear ambitions with definite guarantees, we have to be careful until this is a firm reality,” he said.

Zio-Wahhabi Turki also said that a rift within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was the biggest threat facing them despite an agreement last week to end a security dispute with Qatar. He expressed concern that regional enemies could exploit the rift to destabilise the Middle East.

“The most dangerous thing that is facing our countries today is this new rift in our relations,” said Zionist Turki.

In an unprecedented move within the GCC of allied hereditary monarchies, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain recalled their ambassadors from Qatar on March 5, accusing Doha of failing to abide by an accord not to interfere in each others’ internal affairs.

The three states are angry at Qatar’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist movement whose ideology challenges the principle of conservative dynastic rule dominant in the Gulf.

The GCC foreign ministers agreed at a meeting in Riyadh on April 17 on ways to implement a security agreement they reached last year, but they made no reference to the return of the ambassadors to Doha.

Qatari Foreign Minister, Khaled Al Attiya, speaking during a visit to Kuwait on Wednesday, said the rift with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE has been resolved but it was up to three countries to return their ambassadors to Doha.

 

Posted in Iran, Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Zio-Wahhabi Al Faisal says Gulf states must balance threat from Iran

Carlotta Gall & US Twofold Diplomacy towards Pakistan

NOVANEWS

 

By Sajjad Shaukat

Despite the fact that a number of strategic institutes and thinktanks play a key role in formulation

of American external policies, but contradictory statements of the US president, high officials

and media have always reflected that the United States has been acting upon a twofold

diplomacy twards Pakistan.

In the last few years, while ignoring the responsibilities of the US, ISAF and Karzai-led troops

in Afghanistan, especially US civil and military high officials have unilaterally been blaming

Pakistan to ‘do more’ against the militancy in the tribal regions in order to stop cross-border

terrorism in Afghanistan.

In this regard, the then US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, while repeating the false allegations

had accused Pak Army and Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI of close contact with the Haqqani

network and militant’s infilteration in Afghanistan. US Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Admiral Mike Mullen had also alleged that ISI has been supporting, funding, training fighters

that are killing Americans and killing coalition partners in Afghanistan.

During her visit to India, the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, while showing US

paradoxical approach had remarked, “New Delhi would bring prosperity and peace to India,

Pakistan and Afghanistan…Pakistan must do more to tackle terror groups operating from its

territory being used for attacks that destabilise Afghanistan or India.” And when she visited

Pakisan, she said that Pakistan should take “strong steps to dismantle safe havens of Afghan

insurgents and encourage Taliban to enter negotiations in good faith.” But she clarified that the

US was not asking Pakistan to sacrifice its own security, saying, “Pakistan has a critical role to

play in supporting Afghan reconciliation and ending the conflict.” Replying to a question that ISI

was involved in attack on the US embassy in Kabul through Haqqani network, she categorically

pointed out, “We have no evidence of that.”

The US Secretary of State explained, “Her country is also committed to the economic

development of Pakistan”, and “supports regional economic integration between Pakistan and all

However, if we take note of the US strategy about Pakistan, we observe that American policy

goals are quite unclear. Sometimes, US top officials admire Pak Army’s action against the

Taliban militants including arrests of the top Al Qaeda commanders by the ISI, sometimes, they

revive their blame game against ISI including its links with the Haqqani network, sometimes

they accuse that Al Qaeda Shura has been operating from Pakistan, sometimes, they misconceive

that Pak nukes are not safe, sometimes, they show their determination to maintain ties with

Pakistan and sometimes they threaten to stop aid of Islamabad, while sometimes to carry on the

The fact of the matter is that US has been acting upon a twofold diplomacy towards Pakistan. In

this context, American CIA with the help of Indian RAW and Israeli Mossad has continuously

been weakening Pakistan through subversive acts which keep on going in the country because

it is the only nuclear state in the Islamic World. Washington which signed an agreement of civil

nuclear technology with New Delhi in 2008 wants to counterbalance China by India. US-led

some western countries also have tilt towards India as they consider it their larger market at the

Nevertheless, Pakistan which had been granted the status of Non-NATO ally by America has

now become a target of maliscious propaganda. Besides the collective connivance of their secret

agences, the media of the US, India and some western countries leave no stone unturned in

distorting the image of Pakistan, its army and ISI by continuing old allegations in wake of new

In this connection, a female journalist, Carlotta Gall has always showed venomous drive

against Pakistan. She has allegedly stated, “The Red Mosque stood at the centre of Pakistan’s

support for Jihad in Afghanistan and throughout Muslim world. That Pakistan’s strategy is

to show cooperation with the America’s fight against terrorism while covertly abetting and

even coordinating Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants. 95% of Taliban fighting in Afghanistan

are educated and trained in Haqqania Madrassa in Akora Khattak”. But, it is the past story

when Soviets were the occupiers in Afghanistan, and Jihadi factions were used as a fodder to

implement US amd Western plan.

In her book, titled “The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan 2001-2004”, Carlotta Gall

wrote: “The terror attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul in 2008 that left 58 people dead, was

sanctioned and monitored by senior officials of Pakistan’s ISI”. This is a deliberate lie, because

there is no evidence to substantiate this allegation. In late 1970s and early 1980s, when Soviet

forces were forced to withdraw from Afghanistan with active cooperation of Pakistan, the then

government believed that Pakistan would have strategic depth in Afghanistan. In 1950s and

1960s, the then Pakistan governments had found strategic depth in Iran, as Tehran was member

of CENTO. But that was a flawed policy. Now, Pakistan as a nation has confidence in itself and

its armed forces, and does not look for strategic depth in other countries.

Partucularly, there is a paradigm shift in Pakistan’s policy, and Islamabad has a hands off policy

regarding Afghanistan, despite negative propaganda by western intelligentsia including Carlotta

Gall who stated, “Organizers of insurgencies in Afghanistan are in Pakistan and that these are

well protected by ISI”. Anyhow, Pakistan neither harbor ambitions, nor has the intention to

interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. Pakistan government has taken confidence building

measures and has given gestures to show its sincerity that it desires to see Afghanistan as a stable

and peaceful country.

It was owing to this realization that none of the Afghan President candidates resorted to

Pakistan-bashing during their recent election campaign. Pakistan’s cooperation in Global

War on Terror has been an outstanding feature of NATO’s Afghan campaign. But Carlotta

Gall is trying to defame Pakistan on the lines of India by accusing that Islamabad is playing a

double game. Such allegations are baseless and wicked in nature. Carlotta Gall’s accusations

about Red Mosque and assassination of Benazir Bhutto are reflections of a sick mind. She is

a senior journalist who at the present, covers Pakistan and Afghanistan for New York Times.

Unfortunately, Carlotta Gall showed utter disregard to the journalistic norms, and also did not

bother about her self-respect and dignity. Her allegations about Gen. Musharraf, Shuja Pasha and

Ziauddin Butt are totally unfounded; and so is the case of her false reporting about Hafiz Saeed

and Mulla Omer. Her malicious propaganda against Pakistan, Pak Army and ISI is an effort to

denigrate these institutions and create a market for selling her book. As a journalist, she should

not stoop so low as to defame a state and its national institutions to make money or to achieve

personal prominence.

Undoubtedly, she works with anti-Pakistan elements like Fareed Zakria, an Indian national

who always showed a deep-seated animosity against Pakistan and leaves no stone unturned in

showing Pakistan in bad light. New York Times often published stories denigrating Pakistan

and its key institutions, and the excerpts of Carlotta Gall’s book were also published in the

form of an article by this daily. In the past, apart from America’s duplicity, American media

is also responsible for deteriorating relations between Pakistan and the United States. The

downward slide in relations had begun when a CIA contractor Raymond Davis shot and killed

two Pakistanis in Lahore. This was followed by the cladestne American raid which killed

Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad—an operation that was seen as a open violation of Pakistan’s

sovereignty. Ties hit their lowest level after the US attack on two Afghan border posts on 26,

2011 which killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. While, the US realized its mistakes by expressing regret

over the incident, and tendered apology in that respect. When efforts are being made to remove

the misunderstandings, American media and writers should not throw spanner in the works.

As regards the issue of cross-border terrorism, it is notable that since April, 2011, about 200 to

500 heavily-armed insurgents from Afghanistan’s side entered Pakistan’s region from time to

time. They targeted the security check posts and other infrastructure of the tribal areas, and killed

several innocent persons and personnel of the security forces. In his meeting with the NATO/

ISAF Commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Joseph F Dunford on April 1, 2013, Gen. Kayani asked

him to stop cross-border infiltration from Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, the book of Carlotta Gall is a part of nefarious and venomous anti-Pakistan

propaganda which reflects the US twofold diplomacy towards Pakistan.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,

Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Carlotta Gall & US Twofold Diplomacy towards Pakistan

Intimidation and Political Interference Goes Unpunished in UAW Case

NOVANEWS

Frank Hammer discusses the labor conditions at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee that moved workers to attempt unionization. Hammer argues that the political interference by state officials in these efforts shows weakness of labor laws.

Posted in USAComments Off on Intimidation and Political Interference Goes Unpunished in UAW Case

6 Reasons Why Obama’s Clemency Program Doesn’t Change Mass Incarceration

NOVANEWS

It’s all over the internet. The Obama administration is talking up the possibility of using presidential clemency powers to release some undetermined number, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of federal prisoners without wealth or political connections from their unjustly long drug sentences. But hold your hosannas, don’t get your hopes up. Though the precise numbers are unclear at this time, what’s unmistakably evident is that this is in no sense whatsoever the beginning of a rollback of America’s prison state. The releases, as the attorney general and government officials are describing them, will not represent any significant or permanent change to the nation’s universal policy of mass incarceration, mainly of poor black and brown youth. Here, in plain English are 6 reasons why.

(Image: Black Agenda Report)

  1. The Obama administration’s expected releases will use the president’s clemency powers. Presidential clemency amounts to forgiveness after the fact.Clemency does not change a single word or phrase in any of the galaxy of state and federal laws which have already sent literally millions to prison for absurdly long sentences for what authorities call “non-violent drug offenses,” and under which hundreds of thousands are currently serving those same sentences and hundreds of thousands more are awaiting trial and sentencing. Clemency leaves those laws in place, so that the places of those released will soon be filled again.
  2. Presidential clemency will set no legal precedents that current or future defendants in federal or state drug cases, their attorneys or sentencing judges can use to avoid the application of unjust existing laws, including harsh mandatory minimums and sentencing guidelines. Like the unjust statutes, the unjust legal precedents which have helped filled state and federal prisons to bursting will also remain intact.
  3. Presidential clemency will have no effect on the predatory conduct of police and prosecutors on the state or federal level. Police departments will remain free to conduct their “war on drugs” almost exclusively in poor and minority communities. Prosecutors will still be able to coerce defendants into accepting plea bargains, and threaten them with longer sentences if they go to trial. If only one in twenty defendants across the board and even fewer in federal court currently go to trial, what does that say about the ability or the willingness of our courts to even try determining guilt or innocence? Federal prosecutors have publicly thumbed their noses at Eric Holder’s feeble questioning of the war on drugs, stated their intention to continue filling the prisons and jails, and local prosecutors in the US are elected officials accustomed to running for office based on how many people they can lock up for how long.
  4. Presidential clemency can only be applied to federal prisoners, who are a mere 190,000, or 11% of the roughly 1.7 million currently serving time. (Another 600,000 are awaiting trial on all levels or serving misdemeanor time.)
  5. There are more former prisoners than current ones. For the rest of their lives, former prisoners and their families are viciously discriminated against in a host of ways, in the job and housing market, in education and public services and in access to health care, all legally. That won’t change. Even the few that get this clemency won’t be protected from that.
  6. The federal government will NOT even be screening all federal drug prisoners to determine who is eligible for clemency. Attorney General Holder has instead announced that criminal defense lawyers and organizations like the ACLU are being asked to bring to the government’s attention cases they imagine are most deserving of clemency. Don’t they have, you know, a Department of Justice for that? Depending on private organizations and attorneys to come up with the cases for possible clemency turns the whole thing into an exercise in philanthropy, not the fundamental change in governmental policy that people need, want and demand. It means that prisoners serving unduly long sentences who don’t have vigilant private attorneys and advocacy organizations on their case will remain unjustly imprisoned, while those with outside friends have a chance at early release.

The bottom line is that an act of presidential clemency, while good news for the lucky hundreds or thousands of families involved, will leave no legal footprint and make no institutional impact upon the universal policy of mass incarceration. For this reason, it’s exactly NOT a first step that can lead to something more. It’s a dead end.At the rate the pipelines are pumping them in, their cells will be refilled in a month or two, no problem. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that this clemency initiative is nothing more than a lazy, cynical and nearly empty gesture it hopes will buy some black votes and good will in 2014 and beyond.

Is it better than nothing? Yes, of course. It’s just not that much better. There are millions locked up. A couple thousand may be released. A million is a thousand thousand.

Presidential clemency doesn’t scale up to the kind of changes promised the masses of our people as a result of participation in the electoral process by activists and by our black political class. Instead of soaring vision leading to the profound institutional changes we need, we get empty cynical gestures, slightly better than nothing. During the first two years of the Obama presidency, when his party had a lock on both houses of Congress, the president had a chance to write retroactive revocation of tens of thousands of sentences into its so-called Fair Sentencing Act. Every year since, the Obama Department of Justice has had the chance to rewrite the way it distributes federal funding to state and local law enforcement agencies to discourage mass incarceration. Every year the president had the chance to close some of its notorious federal supermax prisons or find ways to deny funding for such things on the state level. None of this happened. In fact, while a broad citizen movement in Illinois, the president’s home state finally closed a state supermax prison, Obama’s latest Bureau of Prisons budget has the feds buying another unused Illinois prison for conversion into a federal supermax, ADX Thomson, or Gitmo North. The federal prison budget has grown every year president Obama has held office.

Sophisticated apologists for the president will of course chide folks who find “better than nothing” insufficient for being naive and foolish. Are they. The tens of millions who elected Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, and other members of the black misleadership class over the last four decades, and the many, many thousands of activists who gave freely of their time and efforts year in and year out to make their careers possible, the people who called house meetings, union and church meetings, who went door to door, who rallied and registered voters and more to elect black aldermen, sheriffs, county commissioners, mayors, legislators and finally a black president DID imagine and DID tell their children and their neighbors that this would make things better. I know. For quite a few years, I was one of them.

They didn’t say – we didn’t say it was “better than nothing.” Were we naïve and foolish to imagine a better world is even possible? Or is our black political class too cynical, too corrupt, too prosperous and too lazy to share the dreams of the ordinary people they supposedly represent.

Posted in USA, Human RightsComments Off on 6 Reasons Why Obama’s Clemency Program Doesn’t Change Mass Incarceration

Questions That Should Be Asked About Recent Operations, Including Drone Strikes, in Yemen

NOVANEWS

Instead of asking the most important questions, most US journalists and media outlets simply regurgitate statements and claims made by US and Yemeni officials. (File graphic)How much of the drone war being waged by the United States in Yemen is targeting actual al Qaeda fighters? And how much of it is targeting fighters, who are opposed to the current regime led by President Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi?

In three days, three possible drone strikes launched apparently in cooperation with Yemeni forces has killed anywhere from 38 to 55 people. Anywhere from three to eight of those people were reportedly civilians yet, thus far, the identities of the other people killed have not been confirmed.

According to data from news reports compiled by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), on April 19, two cars were hit by a US drone in the southeastern province of al Bayda. All reports “described an attack on a vehicle carrying alleged militants, in which a separate vehicle full of civilians was also hit.”

On April 20, alleged Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) training camps were targeted and hit by a “series of air strikes.” Officials would not disclose whether US drones were involved.

The Ministry of Interior claimed in a statement that “air strikes, which lasted for several hours, killed around terrorists from al Qaeda, including three movement leaders.”  The “dead suspected militants” were Salem Abedrabbo al Mushaybi, Hussein al Mehrak and Saleh Saeed Mehrak.

During a third straight day of strikes, “an ambush by the Yemen Army’s Counter-Terrorism Unit with US Special Forces support or a drone strike followed by a Special Forces ground operation to retrieve bodies of suspected senior militants” was carried out. “Yemeni security officials and tribal chiefs reportedly said ‘a local militant commander’, Munnaser al Anbouri, was killed in the attack.”

Media organizations seemed to presume that “Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the head of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, and Ibrahim al-Asiri, the group’s “master bomb maker” were probably targeted and possibly even killed. That would explain the escalation in operations in the country. However, “the bodies of some militants who were killed,” according to NBC News, were flown to the capital, Sanaa, for DNA testing and no top-ranking leader had been identified yet.

The NBC News report from Jim Miklaszewski, Richard Engel, Courtney Kube and James Novogrod is remarkable for how clearly it is stenography, a regurgitation of an official statement from an unnamed official in Yemen. The headline for the story is “Yemen Killed 40 Al-Qaeda Militants With US Drone Help.” None of the words are appropriately placed in quotes. The headline is not “Yemeni Official Says Yemen Killed 40 Al-Qaeda Militants With US Drone Help.” Statements which are impossible to confirm are accepted as true.

This is how the unnamed Yemeni official described the “counterterrorism operations” to NBC News:

—The first phase began Saturday morning, with an airstrike on a militant vehicle that the official said was part of a terrorist training camp. The source said 10 militants were killed along with three civilians. Five civilians were hurt.

— In the second phase, the camp itself was hit by airstrikes — three of them, from the predawn Sunday until after daybreak. The camp was not a “brick-and-mortar facility,” the official said, but had vehicles and weapons caches. At least 24 militants were killed.

— In the third phase, Yemeni commandos raided suspected high-value al Qaeda targets believed to be leaders of al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate. Identification was still underway, but the Yemeni source said it did not appear any top militants were killed.

Ryan Goodman of Just Security noted how the ongoing actions may have been against people who posed no imminent threat to the United States but were considered by Yemeni officials to be threats to their government:

…First, according to Yemeni officials, recent actions were in response to a threat to civilian and military installations at least in Bayda province…The statement by the state news agency also added that the militants killed in the strike were responsible for the assassination of Bayda’s deputy governor on April 15. Those sound more like fighting an insurgency rather than fighting AQAP’s direct threat to the United States. Second, the strikes were described as a joint U.S.-Yemen operation by the Yemeni official who spoke to CNN. And he explained that Yemeni troops would have faced heavy losses if they had attempted a ground assault themselves…

Five “security/military” officers have apparently been assassinated since yesterday following the three strikes, according to Iona Craig, a journalist based in Yemen. To what extent are their deaths a part of the cycle of violence?

Then, there is the reality that these operations undertaken with support from US drones infuriate and upset Yemenis. When civilians are killed, “tribesmen” are driven to join up with AQAP or any of its associated groups, which the US keeps classified and does not want the public to know.

Yemeni political scientist Abdulghani al-Iryani recently told Reuters that the sharp escalation in the “number of al Qaeda elements” since drones first started to bomb Yemen in 2003—from a “few hundred” to “several thousand”—is partly fueled by the “fact that both the Yemeni and the US governments have relied too heavily on the use of drones.” Not adopting a “proper, comprehensive approach” to systemic problems in Yemen has “contributed to the expansion of al Qaeda.

That basic coverage of events would not mention or give a nod to these dynamics at all is at best negligent. Also, there should be some mention of the secrecy, which enables the government to wage drone war without accountability for what is happening before, during and after operations when people are killed.

No formal agreement on drones apparently exists between the US and Yemen—or at least that is what unnamed Yemeni officials have claimed.

According to Human Rights Watch, a Yemeni government official, as well as a senior Yemeni government official under Saleh, told the organization when it was investigating an attack that hit a wedding convoy last December that they were unaware of any signed agreement between Yemen and the United States on drone strikes. However, “there is a gentlemen’s agreement,” the current official said.

One might recall a now-infamous US diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks and released by Chelsea Manning. It indicated in early January 2010 Saleh and then-CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus had a meeting. Saleh assured Petraeus the Yemen government would continue to say “the bombs are ours, not yours.” The Yemen government would cover up attacks to help the US keep them secret. And, though Saleh expressed concern about the inaccuracy of the missiles and the number of civilians killed, this would enable the US to avoid scrutiny and accountability for its counterterrorism operations.

What the arrangement also did was allow Saleh to take credit for operations in his country and make it seem like he had the capacity and strength to respond to arising conflicts and violence. This seems to continue, as the New York Times’ Eric Schmitt quoted “American officials” who “sought to play down the United States’ role and to allow” Hadi to “bolster his domestic credibility and claim credit for the operations.”

Claiming credit means being able to deceive the Yemeni population, which might be outraged to learn about more US drone strikes. But, as the operations have been undertaken, it is fairly clear that the US has encouraged Yemeni government officials to create this deception that they were leading these operations. US forces, including drones, only provided a little assistance.

Is that the truth? Would any of this recent offensive been possible without US forces engaged in covert operations? Where is the lack of skepticism toward reports about who exactly was killed when it can be discerned that both Yemeni and US officials do not know?

Posted in USA, YemenComments Off on Questions That Should Be Asked About Recent Operations, Including Drone Strikes, in Yemen

The Shocking Truth About Oil – And Our Planet

NOVANEWS

Chris Hayes takes a look at the shocking truth: We must leave 80% of known carbon, like oil and coal, inside of the Earth to avert a catastrophic chain of events.

Posted in EducationComments Off on The Shocking Truth About Oil – And Our Planet

NAZI JEWS ATTACKING PALESTINAN’S

NOVANEWS

 

The racist settlers from Havat Maon outpost have been attacking kids on their way to and from school for years. Rasha Salameh, 6 years old, was attacked today. Today, around 2pm, she was with two other children from the Southern Hebron Hills community of Maghayir al-'Abid. The children, together with Rasha's mother, were walking back home from school in a-Tuwani. When the group was near the Israeli outpost of Havat Maon, they were attacked by two settlers riding a yellow mini-tractor, who threw stones at them. Rasha was hit in the head and taken to the government hospital in Yatta, requiring 6 stitches. We reported the incident to the Israeli police. This is not the first time this month that settlers from the same outpost, illegal even under Israeli standards, have assaulted local Palestinian school children.

Like ·  · Share
 

The racist settlers from Havat Maon outpost have been attacking kids on their way to and from school for years. Rasha Salameh, 6 years old, was attacked today. Today, around 2pm, she was with two other children from the Southern Hebron Hills community of Maghayir al-‘Abid.

The children, together with Rasha’s mother, were walking back home from school in a-Tuwani. When the group was near the Israeli outpost of Havat Maon, they were attacked by two settlers riding a yellow mini-tractor, who threw stones at them. Rasha was hit in the head and taken to the government hospital in Yatta, requiring 6 stitches. We reported the incident to the Israeli police. This is not the first time this month that settlers from the same outpost, illegal even under Israeli standards, have assaulted local Palestinian school children.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on NAZI JEWS ATTACKING PALESTINAN’S

Despite I$raHell Threat, Palestinian Unity Pact Announced

NOVANEWS

Political dispute between PLO and Hamas declared “over” after seven years, but skepticism remains over its true impact on Israeli occupation

– Jon Queally

The Palestine Liberation Organization and the leadership of Hamas in the Gaza Strip announced an end to their seven-year political dispute on Wednesday, saying that the two main factions of the Palestinian people have signed a “historic” pact to re-unify the Palestinian governments in both the West Bank and Gaza within weeks and plans for new elections within the year.

The announcement came at a press conference in Gaza where an envoy from the PLO, which controls the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, arrived on Tuesday for talks with the Hamas leadership.

“For the sake of Palestine and the Palestinian children, you must get unified against the Israeli occupation.” —Mariam abu Daqqa, activist in Gaza

“This is the good news we tell our people: the era of division is over,” said Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s prime minister, to the gathered journalists.

“We have made this Palestinian dream a reality whereby the rift has come to an end and we are reunited,” said PLO official Azzam al-Ahmad, a senior member of the Palestinian Authority representing the Abbas-led Fatah party.

On Tuesday, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that unity between the Palestinian parties would put an end to the so-called “peace process” because, in his eyes, Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, cannot possibly make peace with Hamas while also pursuing an end to the conflict with the state of Israel.

“[Abbas] has to choose,” said Netanyahu. “Does he want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel? You can have one but not the other. I hope he chooses peace. So far he hasn’t done so.”

According to Reuters:

Palestinians have long hoped for a healing of the political rift between the PLO and the Gaza-based Islamist group Hamas, which won the Palestinian elections in 2006 and in 2007 took control of the Gaza Strip from forces loyal to the western-backed the president, Abbas.

Arab-brokered unity pacts reached between the two sides had not been implemented to date, and many Palestinians were left feeling skeptical about their leaders’ reconciliation pledges.

The skepticism among some Palestinian rights experts, however, continues even in the wake of the announcement. For activist and journalist Ali Abunimah, who edits the influentialElectronic Intifada website—the PA has diminished its legitimacy by repeatedly engaging with Israeli in “security operations” in the West Bank and by consistently avoiding a stronger stance amid the occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza.  Responding to Wednesday’s announcement, Abunimah sent several tweets voicing his skepticism of what the unity pact may bring:

And Al-Jazeera offered reactions to the agreement that bridged hopefulness and skepticism:

Ramallah resident Nur Hamad, said she supported reconciliation “because we have to be one nation”.

“No factions, only a Palestinian nation, but I don’t think Fatah and Hamas are going to succeed,” Hamad said.

And Mariam abu Daqqa, an activist in Gaza said, “We are saying to both Fatah and Hamas for the sake of Palestine and the Palestinian children, you must get unified against the Israeli occupation.”

Offering additional details, the Ma’an News Agency adds:

The joint PLO-Hamas statement […] authorized the Palestinian Authority president to set a date for new elections, and emphasized the commitment of both sides to the reconciliation principles that had been agreed upon in the Cairo Agreement and the Doha Declaration.

They also emphasized the need to reactivate the Palestinian Legislative Council.

Fatah leader Azzam al-Ahmad said that neither side will accept the resumption of negotiations with Israel without clear guidelines, and that negotiations had stalled as a result of “Israel intransigence” and “American bias.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Despite I$raHell Threat, Palestinian Unity Pact Announced

Transjordan and I$raHell: Examining the Foundations of a Special Relationship

NOVANEWS

This concern that Abdullah had regarding Arab Palestine and Palestinians at the time is another point of convergence of Transjordanian and Zionist interests. For each party the Palestinians represented different things, for Abdullah the Palestinians and their land represented a possible initial power and population base that could be used to fuel future expansion while for the Zionist movement the Palestinians represented their direct competitors to the land and resources present in Mandate Palestine. Through these perspectives a common perception arose in minds of Transjordanian and Yishuv leadership that an organized and established Palestinian state represented a threat to them18. Abdullah’s concern for Palestine was always secondary to plans of capturing Syria. It wasn’t until 1947 that it came to hold a more significant importance in the concerns of the Transjordanian King. Even prior to it occupying a role of prominence the political movements and figures in Palestine that demand total independence gained the mutual animosity from Abdullah and the leadership of the Yishuv. Furthermore, Palestine and Transjordan were already drawn together through economic interests. With both areas being part of the Palestine mandate, free movement across the Jordan River caused Transjordanians to serve as seasonal labor in Palestine and Palestinians to serve as bureaucrats in Transjordan, both regions also shared a common currency, the Palestine pound19.

As a result the economic well being of Transjordan became tied to Arab Palestine. Consequently, the potential loss of Arab Palestine through conquest or independence forecast an almost total collapse of the Transjordanian economy as its workers would be deprived of jobs and its government would be deprived of educated employees. So the increased concern of Abdullah and his opposition of Arab nationalists through the late 1940’s as tensions between the Jewish and Arab communities in the region increased is quite understandable as it threatened the economic welfare of his state. So it was with the hope of gaining control over Arab Palestine that Abdullah worked to undermine cooperation between elements of the Palestinian polity by supporting British action in cracking down on and removing elements such as Mohammed Amin Al-Husayni from the area20. The Zionist movement also supported such action against the yet uncreated Palestinian state and found Abdullah due to interest that he had in the region the perfect partner in ensuring that a Palestinian state would not be created.

The outbreak of violence caused by the Arab rebellion that lasted from 1936 to 1939 and the failure of various attempts at partition such as the Peel Commission as well as “White Paper” caused a shift in the policy of the Zionist movement away from compromise with local Arabs in the Palestine towards cooperation with Arab leaders outside of Palestine as the only possible path towards generating positive results for the Zionist endeavor21. Abdullah became the prime figure of possible cooperation regarding the situation in Palestine for the Zionist movement due to the already existing economic and diplomatic relationship between the two. Furthermore, the leadership of the Yishuv saw the benefit from the occupation of Arab lands in Mandate Palestine by Abdullah’s Legion as it would give them a friendly and reliable neighbor while simultaneously disrupting the focus of Palestinian nationalists by giving them a new force to contend with in the form of Transjordan. Confirmation of this stance can be seen from a meeting between King Abdullah and Golda Meir a few days prior to the declaration of the Israeli state when Meir stated that Israel would prefer that the Arab lands of Palestine be occupied by Abdullah as opposed to them emerging as a sovereign state22. So it was on this semblance of an agreement that Israel and Transjordan marched toward the 1948 Arab-Israel war with each hoping to achieve their respective objectives through mutual assistance and cooperation.

The 1948 Arab-Israel war saw the culmination of almost three decades of cooperation between the Yishuv’s leadership and the Kingdom of Transjordan. Economic cooperation, the convergence of political objectives and mutual fear of a Palestinian state had all worked towards creating one of the most consistent and stable relationships in the Middle East. The war however was not just an arena where old agreements between the Zionist movement and Abdullah but a time period where Transjordan attempted to achieve it objectives to the fullest extent possible. One such incident was the Abdullah’s reaction to the incident of Deir Yassin where the Arab League accepted a message from him stating that he would only move to protect Palestinians if the other Arab states accepted that his forces would occupy Palestine23. Through this initiative Abdullah was able to gain Arab support for his endeavor to occupy Arab Palestine and achieve the agreement that was already reached with Israel prior to the conflict.

Abdullah also had all armed Palestinian groups within the territory of the Arab Legion disbanded or brought under his control. Abdullah’s objective of expansion was not limited to actions that complemented Israeli interests, as there was a point of friction between the two parties. That point of conflict or more appropriately the point where an agreement could not be reached was Jerusalem and the surrounding area which both parties did not discuss as to not hamper cooperation on other aspects of their relationship. However, when the war did take place Abdullah’s interest of both expanding his state and legitimizing it in the Arab world drove him toward Jerusalem. It was this unique circumstance where taking Jerusalem would not go against agreements reached with Israel prior to the war as well as the immense prestige that it would offer the Transjordanian state, which caused it to become the only point in the 1948 war where the Arab Legion directly and deliberately engaged Israeli forces24. Nevertheless, the mutual needs of Israel and Transjordan for each other overshadowed the conflict taking place in Jerusalem between their forces.

Israel still needed Transjordan as it represented the only Arab state in the region that was willing to provide it with a neutral relationship if not support. Transjordan also needed Israel as Abdullah perceived that possible expansion such as the Greater Syria plan would be easier to achieve with a friendly Israeli state due to the increased hostility from Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and certain elements in Iraq and Lebanon. His attempt at ensuring this friendly relationship lasted can be seen from the conduct of the Arab Legion during the war where it did not attempt to attack or occupy any land allotted to the Jews according to the United Nations partition plan as was agreed upon by Abdullah and the Yishuv prior to the war25. The Arab Legion also did not attempt to cut Israel in half by moving toward the Mediterranean Sea, and when soldiers were questioned regarding their lack of action the response that they “had no orders” became a hallmark of Transjordan’s stance during the 1948 war. Transjordan also used the war and it relationship with Israel as an opportunity to eliminate the military capabilities of the other Arab states. This stance is perhaps best put by Glubb Pasha when he wrote to a British officer stating that “if the Jews are going to have a private war with the Egyptians and the Gaza government, we do not want to get involved. The gyppies and the Gaza government are almost as hostile to us as the Jews!”26, while his statements regarding hostility between his own forces and the Jews is essentially hyperbolic, the actions of Transjordan during the war clearly displays that Transjordan was hostile not only to Egypt but a number of the other Arab states as well. Following the first ceasefire the Legion sat calmly by as Israel picked off each of the Arab states one by one27 causing it to be the only Arab state to end the war without suffering major losses as well as the only state to make substantial territorial gains.

Following the end of the conflict King Abdullah went on to annex the territory he had occupied during the 1948 war and in turn transformed Transjordan into Jordan. King Abdullah would go on to be assassinated by a Palestinian nationalist in 1951 on his way to Friday prayer due to his collaboration with the Zionist movement as well as his own actions at quashing the Palestinian state. It is at this moment of his death that we can see the achievement of perhaps one of more important goals that Abdullah and the Jordanian government were trying to achieve. That goal being the creation of a lasting and legitimate Jordanian state from what was an illegitimate protectorate at it creation in 1921. This fear that Transjordan would fall apart if Abdullah died prematurely was something that consistently haunted the Zionist movement and elements within Transjordan as they were collaborating prior to the 1948 war28. At the end of the conflict however, Abdullah through his collaboration with the Zionist movement not only established the permanence of the Jordanian state but also won it an ally in the form of Israel that would continue to support its existence long after Abdullah had died.

By taking in the entire scope of the interactions between the Zionist movement and Abdullah we can see that their relationship was not merely motivated by the desire for territorial expansion. Both states due to their beginnings as British mandates had become economically intertwined. The aggression of states around them also drove their economic cooperation, as they each became the only viable option toward creating sustainable economic development to one another. The Yishuv leadership and Abdullah also had a number of political goals regarding the legitimacy of their own states that coincided. Both states were seen as artificial creation in the region and by supporting each other they would ensure their own survival. Palestinian nationalism also became a mutual threat to both Transjordan and Israel causing them to collaborate. Aside from the political and economic aspects of convergence between the Zionist movement and Transjordan there was a military aspect that also drew them together. Both forces recognized each other as being potent fighting bodies and thus fostered good relations in order to avoid direct combat with one another as well as the securing of an ally that would be capable of providing aid when the circumstance called for it. It is this convergence of economic, political and military interests as well as the hostility of the surrounding states that drew Abdullah and the Yishuv together and not mere greed as is touted by Arab nationalists. It is this convergence that drove Abdullah the son of the man who began the Arab revolt, to cooperation with the Zionist movement in order to secure the future of his territory in the region as a sovereign and legitimate state.


References

Abu Nowar, Maan. The Jordanian~Israeli War 1948-1951: A History of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Reading: Ithaca Press, 2002.

Bar-Joseph, Uri. The best of enemies: Israel and Transjordan in the war of 1948. London; Totowa, N.J.: Frank Cass, 1987.

Gelber, Yoav. Israeli-Jordanian dialogue, 1948-1953: cooperation, conspiracy, or collusion?. Brighton; Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2004.

Gil-Har, Yitzhak. “Delimitation Boundaries: Trans-Jordan and Saudi Arabia.”Middle Eastern Studies Vol. 28(1992): pp. 374-384.

Karsh, Efraim and P.R. Kumaraswamy, editors. Israel the Hashemites and the Palestinians. London, Portland: Frank Cass, 2003.

Katz, Kimberly. Jordanian Jerusalem: Holy Places and the National Spaces. Gainesville, Tallahassee, Tampa, Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, Boca Raton Pensacola, Ft. Myers: University Press of Florida, 2005.

Korany, Bahgat and Ali Dessouki, editors. The Foreign Policies of Arab States: The Challenge of Globalization. Cairo, New York: American University in Cairo Press, 2008.

Meir, Golda. “Israel in Search of Lasting Peace.” Foreign Affairs Vol. 51(1973): p. 447-461.

Morris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001. 2nd ed. New York: Vintage Books, 2001.

Nevo, Joseph and Ilan Pappe, editors. Jordan In The Middle East: The Making of a Pivotal State 1948-1988. Ilford, Essex, England; Portland, Or.: Frank Cass, 1994.

Rogan, Eugene, and Avi Shlaim, editors. The War for Palestine. 2nd ed. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Shlaim, Avi. Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, the Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

Shlaim, Avi. The politics of partition: King Abdullah, the Zionists, and Palestine, 1921-1951. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Shwadran, Benjamin. Jordan A State of Tension. New York: Council for Middle Eastern Affairs Press, 1959.

Simon, Reeva. “The Hashemite ‘Conspiracy’: Hashemite Unity Attempts, 1921-1958.” International Journal of Middle East Studies Vol. 5(1974): pp. 314-327.

Susser, Asher. Jordan: Case Study of a Pivotal State. Washington DC: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2000.

Wilson, Mary. King Abdullah, Britain and the making of Jordan. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Arabic References

الصباغ, عبد اللطيف. بريطانيا و مشكلاث الحدود بين السعودية و شرق الاردن. القاهرة: مكتبة مدبولي, 1999.

محافظة, محمد. امارة شرق الاردن: نشأتها و تطورها في ربع قرن 1921-1946. عمان: دار الفرقان, 1990.


1.) Efraim Krash, “Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful TriangleEfraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 3.

2.) Donna Robinson Divine, ‘The Imperial Ties that Bind: Transjordan and the Yishuv” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful TriangleEfraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 18. 

3.) Efraim Krash, “Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful TriangleEfraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 7.

4.) Ali Dessouki and Karen Abul Kheir, “Foreign Policy as a Strategic National Asset: The Case of Jordan” in The Foreign Policies of Arab States: The Challenge of Globalization. Bahgat Korany and Ali Dessouki. (Cairo, New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2008), p.253.

5.) Asher Susser, Jordan: Case Study of a Pivotal State (Washington DC: The Washington Institute of Near East Policy, 2000), p. 5.

6.) Abd Al-Latif Al-Sabagh, Britain and the Border Issues between Saudi Arabia and Transjordan (Cairo: Maktabat Madbouli, 1999), p.49.

7.) Donna Robinson Divine, ‘The Imperial Ties that Bind: Transjordan and the Yishuv” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful TriangleEfraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 25-26.

8.) William Haddad and Mary Hardy, “Jordan’s Alliance with Israel and its Effect on Jordanian-Arab relations” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle Efraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 34.

9.) Mary Wilson, King Abdullah, Britain and the making of Jordan (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 57.

10.) Avi Shlaim, The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, The Zionists, And Palestine 1921-1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 40.

11.) Donna Robinson Divine, ‘The Imperial Ties that Bind: Transjordan and the Yishuv” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful TriangleEfraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 19-20.

12.) William Haddad and Mary Hardy, “Jordan’s Alliance with Israel and its Effect on Jordanian-Arab relations” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle Efraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 35.

13.) William Haddad and Mary Hardy, “Jordan’s Alliance with Israel and its Effect on Jordanian-Arab relations” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle Efraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 35.

14.) Benjamin Shwadran, Jordan A State of Tension (New York: Council For Middle Eastern Affairs Press, 1959), p. 131-132.

15.) Reeva Simon, “The Hashemite “Conspiracy”: Hashemite Unity Attempts, 1921-1958”, International Journal of Middle East Studies (June 1974): p. 316.

16.) Donna Robinson Divine, ‘The Imperial Ties that Bind: Transjordan and the Yishuv” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful TriangleEfraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 20.

17.) Benjamin Shwadran, Jordan A State of Tension (New York: Council For Middle Eastern Affairs Press, 1959), p. 238-239.

18.) William Haddad and Mary Hardy, “Jordan’s Alliance with Israel and its Effect on Jordanian-Arab relations” in Israel, the Hashemites and the Palestinians: The Fateful Triangle. Efraim Karsh and P.R. Kumaraswany. (London, Portalnd: Frank Cass, 2003), p. 33.

19.) Mary Wilson, King Abdullah, Britain and the making of Jordan (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 103.

20.) Kimberly Katz, Jordanian Jerusalem: Holy Places and National Spaces(Gainesville, Tallahassee, Tampa, Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, Boca Raton Pensacola, Ft. Myers: University Press of Florida, 2005), p. 31.

21.) Avi Shlaim, The Politics of Partition: King Abdullah, The Zionists, And Palestine 1921-1951 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 53.

22.) Eugene Rogan, “Jordan and 1948: The persistence of an official history” inThe War for Palestine. Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p.109.

23.) Mary Wilson, King Abdullah, Britain and the making of Jordan (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 168-169.

24.) Yoav Gelber, Israeli-Jordanian Dialogue, 1948-1953: Cooperation, Conspiracy, or Collusion? (Brighton, Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), p.14.

25.) Uri Bar-Joseph, The Best of Enemies: Israel and Transjordan in the War of 1948(London; Totowa, N.J.: Frank Kass, 1987), p. 23.

26.) Avi Shlaim, “Israel and the Arab coalition in 1948” in The War for Palestine. Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p.99.

27.) Avi Shlaim, “Israel and the Arab coalition in 1948” in The War for Palestine. Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p.99.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, JordanComments Off on Transjordan and I$raHell: Examining the Foundations of a Special Relationship

Al Nakba Movie – French Subtitles (2/2)

Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on Al Nakba Movie – French Subtitles (2/2)

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