Archive | August 30th, 2014

Pew poll: More US sympathy for I$raHell than Palestinians



34% of Americans empathize with I$raHell ‘a lot,’ 32% empathize ‘some’; 11% strongly sympathize with Palestinians

Times of Israel

More Americans express sympathy for Israel than for the Palestinians, according to a new survey conducted last week and whose findings were released on Thursday, two days after a ceasefire between Israel, Hamas and other Gaza-based terror groups went into effect.

A poll released by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press found that 34 percent of Americans sympathize with Israel “a lot,” as well as 32 percent who sympathize “some,” versus 11percent who sympathize “a lot” with the Palestinians and another 35 percent who sympathize with them “some.” 37 percent sympathize with both sides, while 18 percent sympathize with neither.

As has been common with recent surveys of American public opinion surrounding the conflict in Gaza, responses break down differently along partisan lines.

Seventy-seven percent of Republicans expressed “a lot” or “some” sympathy for Israel, versus 66 percent of independents and 62 percent of Democrats. By contrast, only 29 percent of Republicans expressed “a lot” or “some” sympathy for the Palestinians, while independents were at 50 percent and Democrats at 57 percent.

There were likewise partisan divides on opinions of President Obama’s handling of the Middle East situation. Just 10 percent of Republicans thought he was favoring Israel too much, versus 45 percent who said he favored the Palestinians too much and 32 percent who said he struck the proper balance.

Independents were somewhat more favorable, with 17 percent saying he had overly favored Israel, 22 percent that he had favored the Palestinians too much, and 45 percent saying he had struck the right balance.

Democrats were by far the most supportive of the president’s policy, with 12 percent saying he favored Israel too much, 6 percent saying he favored the Palestinians too much and a whopping 71 percent saying that he was striking the right balance.

Young people were the most optimistic about the two sides reaching a peaceful two-state solution, with 53 percent of 18-29 year olds saying they thought it was possible, versus 42 percent who did not. This compared with a negative overall sentiment among adults, with just 43 percent saying such a solution was possible versus 48 percent saying that it was not.

Each successively older age cohort was successively less optimistic that a solution could be reached.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Pew poll: More US sympathy for I$raHell than Palestinians

Parasites Feeding on Your Holocau$ted Brain



When you swallow the holoHOAX lie, this is what happens…
Gaza_8.14 photo Gaza4_71514_zpsf033e3a4.jpg

And this…
6.06.14 photo Thatday_zps8733b19d.jpg

The Holocaust Is a Jewish Big Lie: Birdman’s Not-Quite-95 Theses on the Holocaust

Click here if you want some skilled Jew liars to write a college term paper for you about the BIGGEST FRAUD of the 20th Century, the holoHOAX!

“…that there was no masterplan for the Holocaust going back to the days when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf.”

The holocau$t explained for rednecks and others who refuse to use their brains to think

Time to WTFU America. You have been lied to, had your money and future stolen, your sons, daughters, husbands, wives, relatives and friends sent off to wars for Israel and lied to repeatedly about this Jew farce, all to get you to immediately snap to attention, shed a tear, offer up a salute and loads of money to that noxious state of two-legged parasites, Israel, anytime World Jewry says ‘Holocau$t.’

We have given these vampires billions and billions and billions of dollars of our wealth that could of been used to repair our shitty highway system or fix our broken down, overcrowded schools or improve our falling apart electrical grid and that still wasn’t enough for these gold worshiping blood suckers, so they stole more, lots more, trillions and trillions of dollars of OUR money thru their rigged game of fiat money, which they control thru their hold on the illegal Federal Reserve and those ‘Too Big to Fail’ Wall Street banks that always come up with new ways to loot this country, while the Jew parasites laugh all the way to their banks.

In addition to all that wealth, we’ve given these murderous SOB’s trillions of dollars in advanced weaponry, that was ‘sold’ to the Khazar invaders, loans that always turn into grants, meaning the parasite again sucks up an immense amount of OUR wealth.
Some of the more advanced weapons were reverse-engineered, rebuilt in an Israeli defense plant, had a Yid sounding name slapped on the system, then sold to countries like Communist China.

From the murder of President Kennedy, to the savage, unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty, to the attack on the USS Cole to the 9/11 FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB, there’s one constant theme throughout these acts of barbarism, that Israel was involved in each and every one.

Isn’t it time to send these blood-sucking parasites packing?

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Parasites Feeding on Your Holocau$ted Brain

Ahmet Davutoglu as Turkish Foreign Minister, and Now Prime Minister


by Richard Falk


[Prefatory Note: As Ahmet Davutoglu has been a cherished friend and admired colleague since we met in Malaysia more than twenty years ago, it is with the greatest pleasure that I convey my congratulations to him and his family. Prior to his entry into government Davutoglu built a strong following among intellectuals around the world for his scholarly breadth and depth that involved an unusual command over both social science and the humanities, with a special focus on philosophies of history, and their application to the Turkish past and present realities and future prospects. I publish here also a significantly modified article originally written a week ago at the request of AlJazeera Turka, and heretofore only available in Turkish.]

The Ascent of Ahmet Davutoğlu

Richard Falk

So far most commentary on Ahmet Davutoğlu’s selection as Turkey’s new Prime Minister has been focused on what will be his relationship with the country’s new president, Recip Teyyip Erdoğan. Especially opponents of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) tend to portray Davutoğlu as certain to play second fiddle to Erdoğan who is both fiercely resented and feared, and regarded as a ‘Turkish Putin.’ The fact that Erdoğan seems to have handpicked Davutoğlu to succeed him at party leader and prime minister, and acted deliberately to sideline the popular prior president, Abdullah Gul, adds to the concern about what to expect from a government led by Davutoğlu. I believe that such speculation is profoundly wrong, that Davutoğlu is an admirable person of strong beliefs and an adherent of a political vision that has evolved over the years on the basis of study and experience. In my view Davutoğlu will turn out to be a historically significant Turkish leader by virtue of his thoughtful style of governance and through the assertion of his own priorities and programs. Few countries can claim leadership of the quality provided and record achieved by Erdoğan, Davutoğlu, and Gul over the last twelve years.

For Davutoğlu to reach the peak of political power is the latest stage in his remarkable ascent within governing circles in Ankara. Coming to government after a deep immersion in the scholarly life of a university professor is unusual enough, but to rise to such a level of prominence and influence without casting aside his academic demeanor is unprecedented, not only in Turkey but anywhere.

Searching for recent comparisons, I can think only of Henry Kissinger, and he never rose above the level of Secretary of State, although he did serve as architect of American foreign policy during Richard Nixon’s presidency, a period of undoubted global leadership. Unlike Davutoglu, Kissinger treated the moral and legal dimensions of foreign policy as instruments of propaganda rather than as matters of principle. Kissinger as a scholar never achieved the distinction nor the national impact that resulted from Davutoğlu’sStrategic Depth, which incidentally, was planned to be the first of three monumental studies, the other two being devoted to historical depth and cultural depth. One of the costs of entering government has been the deferral of this project, which if completed, is almost certain to be a work of exceptional significance.

Starting out in 2003 as Chief Advisor to the Foreign Minister, and later to the Prime Minister, Davutolğu’s role as a highly influential and respected expert was quickly recognized. Long before Davutoğlu became Foreign Minister in 2009, he was widely respected in Turkey as the architect of its energetic and effective foreign policy, which was causing a stir in the region and around the world.

Davutoğlu’s contributions were particularly notable in three domains of foreign policy. First, he understood and clearly articulated the importance for Turkey to adapt to the new regional setting created by the end of the Cold War, appreciating that it was now possible and desirable for Turkey to be an independent actor in the Middle East and beyond without awaiting clearance from Washington.

Secondly, Davutoğlu from almost the beginning of his role in government became Ankara’s chief emissary in trying to clear the path to Turkish membership in the European Union, working out the important ‘Copenhagen Criteria’ that turned out to be also useful as a roadmap for desired domestic reform. This functioned as an important mandate that was linked to a domestic program of reform, which included protecting human rights and featured the containment of the deep state in Turkey during the early years of AKP leadership when relations with the armed forces were tense, and rumors of an impending coup were in the air. Satisfying the EU requirements gave Erdoğan the justification he needed for impressively strengthening the civilian control of government in Turkey. Because of its private sector interests, the Turkish military turned out to be as eager for EU membership as was the AKP, and even the harsh Kemalist opposition went along with this part of the AKP program.

Thirdly, these moves to civilianize the Turkish government removed altogether the earlier role played by the Turkish armed forces as custodian of the republic through the medium of coups against elected political leaders. In retrospect, substantially removing the armed forces from the political life was a great step forward in democratizing Turkey even if this momentous development was not acknowledged in Brussels, and elsewhere in Europe. For quite independently Islamophobic reasons Europe was becoming adamantly opposed to accepting Turkey as a member of the EU, no matter how successful the Turkish government might be in satisfying the standards laid down for accession. It might also be noted that the secular opposition in Turkey also has never credited Erdoğan with this achievement, which might turn out to have be his greatest contribution to Turkey’s political development as a vibrant constitutional democracy. While praising this central achievement it needs to be noted that the overall record of the AKP on human rights is mixed, with particularly regrettable encroachments on political freedoms via the imprisonment of journalists, pro-Kurdish activists, and others.

From the outset of his time in government, Davutoğlu was also extremely active in doing everything possible to resolve the Israel/Palestinian/Syrian conflicts, and led a comprehensive Turkish effort to bring peace to the region. Davutoğlu’s attempt to have Hamas treated as a normal and legitimate political player after its 2006 electoral victory in Gaza would have saved much grief in the Middle East had it been accepted in Washington and Tel Aviv. After these conflict-resolving initiatives collapsed, Turkey has almost alone in the region played a principled and constructive role by challenging the Israeli blockade of Gaza and seeking to end the collective punishment and humanitarian ordeal of the Palestinian population. This role was resented in the centers of Western power and even in most Arab capitals, but it has endeared Turkey and its leaders to the peoples of the region and beyond. It also gave expression to Davutoğlu’s insistence that a successful Turkish foreign policy should be as principled as possible while at the same time being creatively opportunistic, promoting national interests and values, and in all possible situations seeking engagement rather than confrontation.

More famously, and controversially, Davutoğlu saw the opportunities for Turkish outreach in the Arab world, and beyond. Unlike the failed efforts in the 1990s to incorporate the newly independent Central Asian republics in a Turkish sphere of influence, the AKP effectively approached the expansion of trade, investment, and cultural exchanges throughout the region, an approach given the now notorious doctrinal label by Davutoğlu of ‘zero problems with neighbors’ after he became Foreign Minister in 2009. At first ZPN seemed like a brilliant diplomatic stroke, a dramatic effort to rest Turkey’s ambitions on the dynamics of ‘soft power geopolitics,’ that is, providing benefits, attracting others, and not depending for influence on military prowess or coercive diplomacy. Given what appeared to be the frozen authoritarian political realities in the region, constructive engagement with mutual benefits seemed superior to postures of hostility, tension, and non-involvement that had for so long been characteristic of Turkish foreign policy, and descriptive of the sterile political atmosphere throughout the Middle East.

Then in early 2011 came the Arab Spring that surprised everyone, including Turkey. It created excitement and turbulence throughout the region, but also the promise of far greater democratic and more patterns of governance. Davutoğlu as much as any statesman in the world welcomed these Arab anti-authoritarian upheavals as benevolent happenings, pointing especially to the extraordinary events in Tunisia and Egypt in early 2011 that overthrew two long serving authoritarian and corrupt leaders by relying on largely nonviolent mass mobilization. Davutoğlu was especially impressed by Arab youth as a revolutionary force that he believed was well attuned to the changing tides of history.

This optimism did not last long. Events in Libya, Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen made it clear that there was not going to take place the smooth and quick transitions that deceptively seemed to be taking place in Egypt and Tunisia. It was soon clear that it would become necessary for Turkey to choose sides as between the authoritarian elites seeking to hold onto or restore their power and the earlier Ankara approach of accommodating the governing authorities of Arab states without passing judgment on how these governments treated their own citizenry.

Syria posed the most severe challenge in this respect. The Assad regime in Damascus had earlier been the poster child of ZPN, and now dramatized the non-viability of such a posture as the Damascus regime became responsible for committing one atrocity after another against its own people. Turkey abruptly switched sides, losing trust in Assad, and aligning itself with rebel forces. Both the pro and anti-Assad postures proved controversial in Turkey. The main secular opposition party, CHP, accusing Erdoğan of playing sectarian politics by supporting in Syria an insurgency that was increasingly dominated by Sunni militants associated with a Syrian version of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Davutoğlu skillfully and reasonably reformulated his ZPN by saying that when a government shoots its own citizens in large numbers, Turkey will side with the people, not the governmental leadership, which lost its legitimacy through its actions. From now on the doctrine associated with his outlook could be more accurately understood as ‘zero problems with people,’ of ZPP. The same logic guided Turkey in its eventual support of the NATO intervention in Libya as the Qaddafi regime seemed poised to engage in genocidal onslaught against the entrapped population of Benghazi to quell a popular uprising. The mass mobilization against the elected Morsi government in Egypt illustrated another kind of difficulty, leading Turkey to stand out in the region, joined only by Qatar, in its refusal to give its blessings to the military coup that brought General Sisi come to power in July 2013.

The touchstone of Davutoğlu’s approach to foreign policy is the effort to blend principle and pragmatism in relation to shifting policy contects, doing what is right ethically while at the same time exploring every opportunity to promote Turkish national interests, including enhancing its international reputation as a responsible and strategic player. This blend of goals was well-illustrated by the seemingly frantic Davutoğlu diplomacy in many settings, including the Balkans, Crimea, Armenia, Myanmar, and Latin America, seeking wherever possible to resolve regional conflicts while lending support to humanitarian goals, and in the process establishing Turkey’s claims to be both a constructive international actor and a valuable partner for trade and investment.

The most impressive example of such an approach was undoubtedly the major initiative starting in mid-2011 to help out a crisis-ridden Somalia when the rest of the world abandoned the country as a ‘failed state.’ Erdoğan and his wife, together with Davutoğlu, visited Mogadishu at time when it was viewed as dangerously insecure and then put together a serious financial aid package to highlight the continuing Turkish commitment. From this bold and imaginative gesture of solidarity came a major opening to Africa for Turkey, which produced an immediate rise in Turkish prestige that brought with it major opportunities throughout the continent.

In reflecting on the Erdoğan/Davutoğlu approach to foreign policy, this Somalia initiative helps explain, as well, how and why Turkey after an absence of 50 years was elected to term membership for 2009-2010 in the UN Security Council with strong African backing. Turkey is again investing an enormous effort to being elected to the Security Council for a 2015-2016 term. It also explains why Istanbul has become a favorite site for major international meetings, often displacing the earlier tendency to choose Western European cities for such gatherings. Both of these involvements at the global level are expressive of Turkey’s ambition to be a global political actor, as well as a strong state and regional influence.

Despite an extraordinary record of achievements, the Davutoğlu foreign policy experience also has its share of blemishes, even taking into account the difficulties that all governments faced in adapting to the abrupt sequence of unexpected changes in the Middle East during the last several years. Perhaps because his plate was so full with an array of diverse undertakings, Davutoğlu didn’t sufficiently focus on the daunting complexities of the aftermath of the Arab Spring, leading him to make on behalf of Turkey several costly miscalculations.

Undoubtedly the most serious of these blunders concerned Syria, not the underlying impulses, but the lack of nuance. In my view, Turkey’s mistakes can be understood in two phases: first, the excessive enthusiasm attached to the initial effort to dissolve the tensions that had dominated Turkish-Syrian relations for many years, affirming the Assad regime well beyond what was necessary for the normalization of relations thereby creating unrealistic expectations; and secondly, not only repudiating the government in Damascus that had been so recently befriended, but giving all measure of aid and comfort to an ill-defined insurgency without any seeming appreciation of the internal balance of forces in Syria. Ankara acted as if the Assad regime would soon collapse if pushed even slightly by the uprising. Turkey seemed continuously surprised by the resilience of the Assad regime and by the internal, regional, and international support it was receiving. Turkish policy was wrong for several reasons, and embroiled Turkey in a prolonged civil conflict with no end in sight, as well as damaged its image as a prudent and calming diplomatic influence throughout the region.

A similar line of criticism can be applied to Davutoğlu’s overall response to the Arab Spring and its aftermath. While it was consistent with the principled side of the foreign policy approach he was pioneering to welcome the events of 2011 in Tunisia and Egypt as transformative, it was premature to pronounce these developments as irreversible, and to anticipate their continuous deepening and regional spread. It soon became evident that Davutoğlu did not adequately appreciate the political will or capabilities of counter-revolutionary forces in the region, and did not seem to take account of the impact of an anti-democratic preoccupation that pervaded the dynastic politics of the well-endowed monarchies in the region. The role of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, for instance, in using their petroleum wealth and political leverage to promote a military takeover and bloody crackdown of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt altered the political balance in several countries, and took an unquestionable precedence over even the sectarian impulses of these political actors in their opposition to Shiite Iran. Shocking in this regard is the tacit strategic compact of these Arab governments with Israel that even went so far as to endorse the 50 day criminal onslaught directed at Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza that commenced on July 8th.

More difficult to analyze, but at least somewhat questionable, was the degree to which Turkey, despite trying to pursue its own distinctive brand of diplomacy in this Davutoğlu era also seemed to be going along with some dubious policies of the United States. In this regard, I would mention a limited collaboration with the failed military interventions in Afghanistan, Libya, and of course, Syria. It is also debatable as to whether Turkey should have consented to NATO’s deployment of defensive missile systems on its territory, which Moscow understandably viewed as provocative. What seems called for in the future is greater selectivity in maintaining Turkey’s strong alignments with the United States and NATO.

All in all, Ahmet Davutoğlu has had a remarkable run as Foreign Minister, and as Turkey’s new Prime Minister, is almost certain to embellish further his many notable contributions to the success of post-Kemalist Turkey. His thoughtfulness about policymaking combined with his personal integrity and decency combined with the highest levels of professional competence make him a rarity among politicians. I have long been impressed by Davutoğlu’s clear understanding of how Turkey’s effectiveness internationally is an outcome of the confidence generated by domestic success. This requires achieving political stability, economic development, protecting human rights and the environment, as well as creating and the further strengthening of the procedures and substance of an inclusive democracy that is fair and beneficial for all citizens regardless of their ethnic and religious identities. With such leaders committed to this progressive worldview, Turkey can look forward to a bright future. Turkey is poised to play a crucial role as a force for peace and justice in the roiled waters of the Middle East, in surrounding regions and sub-regions, and even in the world.


Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Ahmet Davutoglu as Turkish Foreign Minister, and Now Prime Minister

Housing group estimates 20 years to rebuild Gaza



Shelter Cluster says 17,000 Gaza housing units were destroyed or severely damaged during the war

Times of Israel

An international organization involved in assessing post-conflict reconstruction says it will take 20 years for Gaza’s battered and neglected housing stock to be rebuilt following the war between Hamas and Israel.

Shelter Cluster, co-chaired by the UN refugee agency and the Red Cross, says 17,000 Gaza housing units were destroyed or severely damaged during the war and 5,000 units still need work after damage sustained in previous military campaigns. In addition, it says, Gaza has a housing deficit of 75,000 units.

In a report circulated late Friday, Shelter Cluster says its 20-year assessment is based on the capacity of the main Israel-Gaza cargo crossing to handle 100 trucks of construction materials daily.

As part of the ceasefire, Israel agreed to immediately allow aid and reconstruction materials into Gaza, but as of Thursday morning, AFP reported trucks full of commercial goods and aids passing through the Kerem Shalom crossing between Israel and Gaza, but no building materials.

Israel has consistently linked Gaza’s crucial reconstruction with its demilitarization, with Netanyahu saying the rebuilding would go ahead — “but only under our control.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, GazaComments Off on Housing group estimates 20 years to rebuild Gaza

Iran to outdo Qatar in production from joint gas field: Oil minister


A file photo of offshore platforms in Iran’s South Pars gas field

Iran’s oil minister says the Islamic Republic will outperform Qatar in recovery from the giant offshore South Pars gas field the two countries share in the Persian Gulf waters.

Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said Iran is accelerating the development of the main phases of the gas reservoir.

“With the start-up of these phases up to [the calendar year] 96 (starts in March 2017), Iran will be outdistancing Qatar in daily gas recovery [from South Pars],” the Iranian oil minister stated.

Zanganeh said development of 17 phases of South Pars will enhance Iran’s gas production by 400 million cubic meters (mcm) a day.

Iran has already started pumping natural gas from phase 12 of South Pars, which is the biggest phase in terms of volume of activities as well as investment and production levels.

When fully operational, phase 12 will see some 100 mcm per day of sweet gas pumped into Iran’s gas trunklines.

South Pars covers an area of 9,700 square kilometers, 3,700 square kilometers of which are in Iran’s territorial waters in the Persian Gulf. The remaining 6,000 square kilometers are situated in Qatar’s territorial waters.

The gas field is estimated to contain a significant amount of natural gas, accounting for about eight percent of the world’s reserves, and approximately 18 billion barrels of condensate.

Posted in IranComments Off on Iran to outdo Qatar in production from joint gas field: Oil minister

Nazi ramps up pressure on PFLP

 Written by Elizabeth Austwick
Demonstration of PFLP supporters/Photo:

Demonstration of PFLP supporters/Photo:

Deported PLC member Khalida Jarrar: Israel conducting clear campaign against PFLP.

Following Tuesday morning’s detention of 12 leaders from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the party has declared that Israel is conducting a clear campaign against it.

The arrests took place just one day before the 13th anniversary of the assassination of PFLP general secretary Abu Ali Mustafa by Israel on 27 August 2001.

The Ma’an News Agency reports that party leaders Ahmad al-Haj Muhammad Abu al-Nimr and Zahi Khatatba were detained from their homes early Tuesday in the Nablus-area town of Furik.

In Nablus soldiers are reported to have carried out break-ins into several homes before arresting Kamal Ibrahim Abu Tharifa, Dr.Yousef Abdulhaq Abu Shaddad and Musa Salameh.

Amjad Hamayel was detained from his home in Beta and Mustafa Orabi Nakhla (Abu Wadee) was detained from the al-Jalazun refugee camp in northern Ramallah.

In Jenin soldiers reportedly entered the firing rounds of live ammunition before raiding the homes ofFadaa al-Zugheibi, Muhammad al-Zugheibi, Abdullah al-Afif, Alam Sami Masad and Jaafar Abu Salah and arresting them.

No information has been realised about the arrests. It is likely that they will be put under administrative detention over the coming days.

Speaking to the Alternative Information Center (AIC), Khalida Jarrar, a Palestinian Legislative Council Member who recently received a deportation order, says this is part of a clear campaign against the PFLP. “They want to punish or use some kind of measures such as arresting or deporting people” she said, to enforce a form of control in the West Bank.

“This attack on a prominent Palestinian political leader comes now in response to the PFLP’s active role in Gaza resistance” says Nassar Ibrahim, a Palestinian political activist. “It is part of the occupation’s ongoing attacks on the elected Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), and its targeting of Palestinian resistance in general”, added Ibrahim.

Jarrar reported how dozens of soldiers raided her own home in Ramallah last week, delivering a military court-issued deportation order to Jericho on the basis of undisclosed ‘intelligence information’.

Jarrar refused to sign the order and has set up a tent in Ramallah outside the Palestine Legislative Council, where she vows to remain. The Parliamentary Union and Palestinian Legislative Council have sent letters to the court in protest of the decision, whilst the Palestinian government has issued a statement against the deportation order.  Jarrar states that the Palestinian people will “continue fighting with pride in the frontline against the Israeli occupation and its attacks on the Palestinian people.”

In a statement on these recent arrests and expulsion order the PFLP stated that “the enemy believes that if it escalates arrests across the occupied West Bank, that it will frustrate our determination and keep us from the front lines in the defence of proud, resilient Gaza against the heinous crimes of the occupier, and from confronting the attacks on Palestinian rights on the entire land of Palestine.”

Jarrar added that “the PFLP will continue their struggle with actions against the occupation.”

Thursday 27 August marked the 13th anniversary of the Israeli assassination of PFLP General Secretary, Abu Ali Mustafa, in his Ramallah office building, with a US-made missile, in 2001.

Israel openly executes Palestinian political and military leadership, aiming to liquidate Palestinian resistance under the guise of fighting terrorism.

The PFLP state that ‘The aim (of extrajudicial executions) is to destroy our people’s leadership and their will and determination to struggle, remain, and live.” However Khaled Barakat, Palestinian writer and activist, states to combat this ‘is to keep the legacy of our martyred leaders alive by making them immortal….commemorating the martyrs, the legacies of their struggle and their political vision.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi ramps up pressure on PFLP

George Galloway’s ‘Jaw Broken’ In Street Attack


Sky News

  • George Galloway’s ‘Jaw Broken’ In Street Attack

George Galloway was taken to hospital suffering a suspected broken jaw after he was allegedly attacked on a London street.

The Respect MP was posing for photographs in Goldborne Road, Notting Hill, when a man allegedly shouted comments about the Holocaust before attacking him.

A spokesman for Mr Galloway told Sky News the Bradford West MP suffered a suspected broken jaw, a suspected broken rib, and severe bruising to his face and head.

The politician was taken to St Mary’s Hospital in Paddington, but then was released on Saturday morning.

A 39-year-old man arrested on suspicion of assault occasioning actual bodily harm remained in custody, a Metropolitan Police spokesman said.

He said: “The victim of the assault was taken to a central London hospital for treatment to his injuries. He was discharged from hospital this morning, Saturday 30 August.”

Mr Galloway’s spokesman said: “George was posing for pictures with people and this guy just attacked him, leapt on him and started punching him.

“It appears to be connected with his comments about Israel because the guy was shouting about the Holocaust.”

Mr Galloway has caused controversy in the past by making comments about Israel.

In 2013 he was accused of racism when he walked out of a debate at Oxford University after discovering his opponent was Israeli.

“I have been misled, sorry,” he said, adding: “I don’t recognise Israel and I don’t debate with Israelis.”

In 2008 a man was arrested and cautioned by police after Mr Galloway was hit with a rubber stress ball as he was campaigning in an open-top bus in London.

In 2012 a protester tried to pelt Mr Galloway with eggs following his by-election victory in West Bradford.

Posted in UKComments Off on George Galloway’s ‘Jaw Broken’ In Street Attack

Galloway leaves hospital after London assault


George Galloway on his way to hospital after the assault in an image posted online by the Respect Party.

George Galloway on his way to hospital after the assault in an image posted online by the Respect Party.

Pro-Palestinian British lawmaker George Galloway has been released from hospital after being physically assaulted on a London street by a pro-Israeli assailant, police say.

Galloway suffered a suspected broken jaw and rib as well as facial bruises when he was attacked by a man shouting about the Holocaust on Friday evening, his spokesman said.

The attack on the British MP is believed to have been connected to his recent remarks censuring the Israeli regime for the atrocities it committed in its military onslaught on the besieged Gaza Strip.

At the time of the assault Galloway was posing for photographs in Notting Hill in west London. He was treated overnight at St Mary’s hospital.

A 39-year-old man arrested shortly afterwards on suspicion of attacking Galloway remained in police custody, the Metropolitan police said.

“The victim of the assault was taken to a central London hospital for treatment to his injuries. He was discharged from hospital this morning, Saturday 30 August. Detectives from Kensington and Chelsea are investigating,” a spokesman said.

The MP was interviewed earlier this month by West Yorkshire police following a speech in Leeds in which he emphasized that Bradford was an Israel-free zone.

Speaking at a meeting of Respect Party activists in Leeds on August 2, Galloway slammed Israel for the massacre of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and urged party members to issue a boycott of Israeli goods, services, academics and tourists.

The MP was also attacked and injured while campaigning in an open-top bus in London in 2008.

Posted in UKComments Off on Galloway leaves hospital after London assault

Nazi Livni: Resume peace talks or brace for ‘diplomatic Intifada’



Justice minister blasts Netanyahu for refusing to talk to Abbas while negotiating, albeit indirectly, with Hamas

ed note–some very important things being said here that need examination.

FIrstly, note what LIvni is worried about here-increased isolation on the part of Gentile nations, to whom Israel is ABSOLUTELY dependent in terms of money, trade, tourism, weapons, political protection, etc–for her very survivial. So in other words, her callng for ‘peace talks’ is not something rooted in right vs wrong, but rather in ‘business’.

2ndly–remember that ‘peace talks’ are only ‘talks’, and don’t necessarily result in ‘peace’. Shrewd players like Livni know that people–especially in the West, where organized Jewish interests maintain an absolute lock on informations and the shaping of perception, are very shallow thinkers and therefore assume that ‘peace talks’ mean that Israel is serious about finding a solution to the Palestinian problem, when in fact LIvni is every bit as much an expansionist as Netanyahu, Ya’alon, Bennet, Feiglin, Lieberman, etc, but understands the necessity of hiding this fact. 

And lastly, the fact that she uses the word ‘intifada’ in describing what could/will be the reaction on the part of the Gentile nations towards Israel indicates that–

A. The West is every bit as much ‘occupied territory’ as Gaza and the West Bank, and–

B. That she sees all Gentiles in the same basic light as she (and the rest of the Jewish world) sees Palestinians.

Indeed, all the world is Gaza and all Gentiles are Palestinians.

Times of Israel

The Israeli government must either renew peace talks with the Palestinian Authority or brace for a diplomatic backlash from the international community, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said Saturday.

In this post-war reality, “either we resume negotiations with the Palestinians to reach a permanent agreement, winning the world’s support, or we will find ourselves isolated, talking about not wanting to talk to those who have an agreement with Hamas [a reference to the unity pact with the Palestinian Authority], while having an agreement with Hamas [Israel’s recent ceasefire deal negotiated in Cairo]” she told Channel 2.

Livni criticized PA President Mahmoud Abbas, saying he was difficult to negotiate with and took actions in the international sphere she did not agree with, like threatening to join the International Criminal Court in the Hague, but stressed that if the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to engage him in talks, it would face “a diplomatic or legal intifada following this [military] operation.”

Israel is likely to see see more calls for investigative committees like the one set up by the UN Human Rights Council, she said, “headed by judges who have pre-determined outcomes in mind,” a reference to William Schabas, who has called for Netanyahu and former president Shimon Peres to stand trial at the ICC.

“Thos who do not seize the opportunity to open diplomatic talks only strengthen Hamas’s regime in Gaza,” she said, directing her comments at Netanyahu.

“And those who have called for using force [in Gaza] and objected to the unity agreement [with Hamas] are the same people who, throughout the operation, have hoped — and still do — for Abbas to retake control of the Gaza Strip,” she said.

Pointing to what she termed the “absurd” situation of having Netanyahu conduct indirect negotiations with Hamas but refuse to talk to Abbas as long as his unity pact with Hamas is intact, Livni reiterated her call for the prime minister to “cooperate with those who recognize our existence, who shun violence and honor past peace understandings.”

Livni said that in the absence of peace negotiations with Abbas, Israel’s southern residents will inevitably be doomed to another round of violence and more rocket fire.

“What was proven in this operation is that military force cannot change the reality in the long term. Military force against Hamas is important but it isn’t enough. There will inevitably be another round in a year or two,” she urged.

Livni added that Abbas’ Palestinian Authority has proven that it belongs to the axis of moderates in the region, “people whom we can work with, who work as a counter to the crazies who behead people and use children as human shields [such as the Islamic State and Hamas].”

“We must seize this opportunity to talk to them, and those who refuse to do so condemn the residents of the south to another round of violence,” she said.

On Friday, Netanyahu conceded that Operation Protective Edge brought with it a diplomatic opportunity but remained firm that Abbas must first sever ties with Hamas.

“There is now a reality that allows us to act according to our security interests on one hand and [on the other], start a new, responsible diplomatic initiative based on this new reality,” he told Israel’s Channel 10.

Netanyahu said he hoped Abbas would choose Israel over a unity government with Hamas and suggested that if this were the case, he would be willing the pursue a peace deal in talks with the PA.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Livni: Resume peace talks or brace for ‘diplomatic Intifada’

International Law Is a Tool in the Hands of Great Powers


Gilles Devers

Kourosh Ziabari – Fars News Agency: Prominent international lawyer Gilles Devers says that Israel is an occupying power and according to the principles of international law, it has a responsibility to protect the civilian population under its rule.

Gilles Devers believes that Israel’s blockade against the Gaza Strip constitutes a form of collective punishment and should be lifted as part of its obligations to ensure the protection and safety of the besieged people of the tiny coastal enclave.

In an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency, the French lawyer stated that Israel is not only failing to do enough to help the people of Gaza, but is also exacerbating the conditions of their daily lives. Expressing his surprise that Israel is not taking any action to improve the living conditions of the Palestinians kept in the Gaza Strip as the world’s largest open-air prison, Devers says, “Even exports are banned from Gaza [and] this means that the purpose is not the protection of Israel, but the destruction of the Palestinian population. In law, it is a war crime under two qualifications: collective punishment, and exceptional hardship, which constitutes inhuman treatment.”

As said by Mr. Devers, international law has become a tool in the hands of great powers and that is why Israel has been so far immune to any kind of accountability over its war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Gilles Devers is a French lawyer who teaches at the University of Lyon. In 2009, he was asked by the Palestinian Authority to file a lawsuit against the Israeli regime over its criminal conduct during the Gaza Massacre and killing about 1,400 Palestinians. During the recent Israeli aggression into the Gaza Strip, he was again commissioned by the Palestinian Authority to sue Israel at the International Criminal Court. Devers is a member of the International Solidarity Movement, an organization dedicated to the championing of the cause of the Palestinian nation.

On the legal aspects of Israel’s 51-days-long onslaught on the Gaza Strip which claimed over 2,150 lives, FNA did an interview with Mr. Gilles Devers. What follows is the text of the interview.

Q: Mr. Devers; during its incursion into the Gaza Strip, Israel committed numerous war crimes and violated several internationally-recognized  conventions and treaties. It carried out a campaign of collective punishment and violated the principles of proportionality and distinction. However, no international court has so far opened an investigation into these crimes, and it seems that Israel continues to enjoy immunity before the international law. What do you think is the source for Israel’s impunity and the ICC’s inability to hold it accountable?

A: The impunity of Israel has three main reasons. Historically, international law is a tool in the hands of the great powers. It plays as a civilized way for pursuing military or economic domination. The West is leader in this field, and unfortunately, the other countries have not sufficiently invested [on] these issues. There are great jurists in all countries, and everyone knows that Iran’s law school has a very high level. These lawyers must organize themselves in groups of influence.

We talk about the impunity of Israel. Yes, but everyone can note the scarcity of proceedings against Israeli leaders. Palestinian leaders have not used legal weapon. It is a very serious problem. Where are the legal procedures conducted by the Palestinians? Many legal actions are possible, but nothing was done. So while the Palestinians are the victims of human rights violations over all the past century, they are always the ones accused. Today, armed resistance has clearly opted to use the legal weapon, and that is excellent. This raises the question: in fact, who respects law?

Finally, an important part of international law depends on the Security Council, which has always been unfavorable vis-à-vis Palestine. As consequence, Palestinians must use legal areas that do not directly depend on the Security Council, in particular, the International Criminal Court and the available legal means within Europe.

Q: As you mention in your recent article, some of the crimes which have been committed by Israel during the so-called Operation Protective Edge include the crime of apartheid, deliberate targeting of civilian population, destruction and appropriation of property and the violation of the rules of fair trial. Is there any proportionate penalty for such crimes when they are happening in a broad extent?

A: These crimes correspond to the qualification of crimes against humanity, as defined in the ICC Statute, Article 7. Crimes against humanity mean war crimes committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, and specially: murder (a), deportation or forcible transfer of population (d), torture (f) and apartheid (j). The crime of apartheid means grave violations of law, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime. Legal qualifications exist. We now need to seize courts.

Q: Palestinian Minister of Justice Saleem al-Saqqa has given you the mandate to obtain the opening of an investigation into the criminal conducts of the Israeli regime during the Operation Protective Edge which led to the killing of about 2,000 Palestinians. What kind of political support does this litigation need in order to be proceeded successfully? Is it true that any ruling against Israel by ICC will not be binding because Tel Aviv has not ratified the ICC’s Rome Statute? What has been the reaction of the ICC Prosecutor?

A: Israel has not ratified the ICC Statute, but that does not matter. The crimes were committed in the occupied territories, and the jurisdiction of the ICC is determined by the location of the crime. Therefore, it entirely depends on the Palestine’s decision to give competence to the ICC.

Regarding the competence of the Court, the complaint of the minister acting on the behalf of Palestine is based on the declaration of competence made by Palestine on 22th January 2009 according to the article 12.3 of the Statute. It must be emphasized that the 2009 Declaration is amply sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the ICC’s jurisdiction.

This is very important, as there is a huge pressure from the West to discourage Palestine to sign and ratify the statute. Even though the signature and the ratification would be an important step, there is already a basis for the competence of the Court and it is already possible for the ICC Prosecutor to apply before the preliminary chamber for the opening of an investigation. The situation is very comparable to Ivory Coast and everybody sees the result: Gbagbo is currently judged by the Court and the ICC prosecutor rejects Palestine’s complaint. This is double standard.

Q: Will Israel be able to survive, maintain its colonial policies and continue its oppression of the Palestinian people without the financial and military support of the United States government? The US statesmen are not afraid of publicly announcing that they continue strengthening Israel’s killing machine through their unrestrained financial and military assistance. What’s your take on that?

A: Israel needs assistance. Israel still needs the US help. During the last part of the military operation, Israel has requested an emergency shipment of arms from the United States.

The problem is that it is very difficult to act against the United States … while there is much to do under European law.

On one hand, the Israeli illegal settlements need European investments and European market to be sustainable. It is a condition of their economic life. The Court of Justice of the European Union (Brita, February 15, 2010) ruled that Israel could not deliver certificates of origin for products from the settlements. This judgment allowed to initiate many procedures. The PNA did not.

On the other hand, Europe has signed an economic cooperation agreement with Palestine. This agreement is not respected, due to the illegal blockade imposed by Israel. Again, many legal actions can be made, but the PNA did not.

Now, times are changing, and we undertake legal action on behalf of the government of national unity. This is not easy, because the Palestinians have to face the difficulties of the procedures, and international pressure. But we are moving.

Q: Is the killing of Palestinians, which the Israeli army claims takes place because Hamas uses the civilians as a human shield, because Israel is pursuing a racial agenda and the ethnic cleansing of Gaza Strip and West Bank to wipe out the race of Arab-Palestinians?

A: The alleged use of human shields, a recurrent accusation, in Lebanon and Gaza, has never been proven and constitutes propaganda.

The key is that the Palestinian resistance has clearly chosen to accept international justice, and Israel did not. Who fears the judge? The one who violates the law. I cannot do better than quote Mr. Sami Abou Zouhri, the spokesman of Hamas: “Some people say that Hamas or other resistant people could be victims of such an approach, but it is not true. It is only propaganda. Nothing that we do not scare us. We are under occupation and it is our right, by law, to resist. And it is also the right of our people to be defended.”

“In meetings with Abbas we asked him to join the International Criminal Court to prosecute criminals for their crimes. We have no problem and we ask that the facts are the subject of investigations by the International Criminal Court.”

The complaint before the ICC means that political leaders, including the Palestinian Resistance, assume necessary choices to defend their people, even to expose themselves to legal proceedings. In fact, they call for justice, while Israel rejects it, because the occupier is well aware of the illegality of its actions.

Legal risk for the leaders of the Palestinian Resistance is put forward by those who fear an investigation against Israeli military commanders and political leaders. However, the investigation will take place on both sides, which is essential because it is the Israeli illegal use of violence that legitimates the Palestinian Resistance. As the legal risk for Resistance is rather limited, it is quite fallacious to invoke this argument in order not to initiate proceedings against Israel.

Q: According to the UN agency for humanitarian coordination, OCHA, around 700 children and women were killed by the Israeli army during the deadly onslaught into the Gaza Strip that started on July 8. Do the international human rights organizations find the killing of children and women in such a massive extent acceptable and condonable?

A: The reactions of the international community are not at the right level of expectations, and it is deplorable. This is double standard, and it is this double standard that we must fight: the law is the same for all.

Q: Some legal experts have argued that the continuation of the siege of the Gaza Strip runs counter to the principles of international and is a form of war crime. What’s your perspective on that? Is there any guarantee that Israel can be forced to lift the blockade and allow the humanitarian goods, medicine and foodstuff to be imported into the densely-populated region?

A: Israel is the occupying power. Under international law, the occupying power must ensure the protection of the civilian population. Here is exactly the opposite. I want to emphasize an important point; even exports are banned from Gaza. This means that the purpose is not the protection of Israel, but the destruction of the Palestinian population. In law, it is a war crime under two qualifications: collective punishment, and exceptional hardship, which constitutes inhuman treatment.

Q: The UN has established a fact-finding mission to investigate the war crimes committed during Israel’s military aggression against the Gaza Strip. Why has Israel expressed its opposition to the fact-finding team so early, even before it announces the results of its investigations? Is it because it’s sure that it would be condemned at the end?

A: Its mission is to establish evidence of fact. It is composed of prominent lawyers, and there is no doubt about [their] honesty. This is not the time for polemics; it will be judged on their work, which should start as soon as possible.

This interview was originally published on Fars News Agency.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on International Law Is a Tool in the Hands of Great Powers

Shoah’s pages