Archive | June 24th, 2015




syQALAMOON:  It had to happen sooner or later.  The terrorists who relied on the NATO organization and regional powers for money, weapons and logistics got a bad taste of how tedium and failure can create treachery and dissimulation.  Oh, it’s everywhere now.  The ISIS rats are leaving their positions in Aleppo in order to reinforce at their “capital” Al-Raqqa.  According to reports, whole packs of rodents are dropping their heavier weapons at Al-Manbij and Jaraablus in order to lighten their loads as they hurry to their deaths in the east.  This means that Nusra is freer to act in areas north of Aleppo, right?  Wrong.  The Syrian Army, now bolstered by over 20,000+ volunteers from various nations like Iran and Afghanistan, and over 25,000 Druze fighters, and a reported 40,000 new recruits in the PDC and Ba’ath Party militias, have the manpower to move in and crush Alqaeda, once and for all.

Erdoghan is in a real mess now.  The 3 other parties are negotiating an arrangement for a new coalition government devoid of anything to do with the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated party led by Erdoghan.  If he is left out in the cold, it will get hotter as more and more investigations and indictments come down against him for his support of internationally recognized terrorist groups. He has no friends left.

Qurnat Waadi Al-Maghaarra:  Another strategic site has been taken over by the SAA and HZB after intense fighting lasting over 5 hours on Wednesday.  The site is a part of the Al-Jaraajeer Foothills.  All rodents in the ISIS group were killed.  None tried to surrender.  And they were all dispatched to their hellish father, Satan.  According to Monzer, early reports indicated 57 killed with all weapons taken in usable condition for distribution to our new militias.  In addition to this, the SAA has now absolute control over the Al-Maghaarra Crossing which ISIS used to use to reinforce and resupply its rat cadres from the ‘Arsaal region of Lebanon.

QUNAYTRA:  If the Zionist Settler State dreamt of some new buffer zone policed by its newly-found friends in Alqaeda, it had better sink its head in some ice water.  That’s right, folks, the entire plan is falling apart.  Thanks to Alqaeda’s massacre of 20 Druze villagers in Qalb Al-Lawza near Idlib and the completely misguided assault on the Al-Tha’lah base by ISIS in Al-Suwaydaa`, the Druze population of both Syria and Lebanon (and even Palestine) is now off the fence and on the side of the Syrian army.


سيطرة جيش سوريا والمقاومة على مرتفعات ستراتيجية بالقلمونJibaataa Al-Khashab:  A pickup with 23mm cannon destroyed.  4 killed.  No other details.

Saheetaa:  Another pickup with 23mm cannon confirmed disabled by SAA artillery with scores killed or wounded.  The usual ambulances taking wounded rats to Zionist rat hospitals were seen deliberately avoiding Druze villages.

Ufaaniyaa:  Another (Phew!) pickup with 23mm cannon destroyed and its passengers rendered into cornmeal mush.  No other details.

Mas-hara and Umm Baatina: SAA artillery pounded rat positions in preparation for an assault that will come during the next 3 days, maybe.

Taranjaa and Al-Hameediyya:  SAA artillery and SAAF sorties slammed the huddled rats without respite.  No other details.

Dead rats announced by rat websites:

Muhammad Al-Naasser (Nusra leader)

“Abu Hassan Al-Jinaani” (leader of Liwaa` Ahfaad Al-Rasool)

Khaleel Ibraaheem Al-‘Aamir





005BCBA5The Syrian Army has liberated the following strategic elevations in the Qalamoon:

Shu’bat Al-Bakkaara Heights

Shu’bat Thallaajat Al-Burkaan

Qurnat Shu’bat Al-Shakaara:  Here the SAA counted 26 dead rodents.

Shu’bat Bayt Shakkoor

Zhaleel Al-Haaj ‘Ali Heights

Khaan Al-Shaykh:  The photo you see in the beginning is from here.  The SAA and SAAF pummeled the Alqaeda terrorist organization and killed 38 rodents destroying 4 of their nests and basically making this area almost rat free.  We are expecting a major push to finish off the rats in the next few days.


Bayt Taymaa:  On the border of Jabal Al-Shaykh (Mt. Hermon), the SAA has killed over 20 rats in a raid on their positions supported by accurate artillery.


Penny addresses the sad death of that “Syrian” who was lynched by the Druze mob – boo hoo hoo:



Is BDS replacing Iran as Ir$aHell blackmail card?

BDS – freedom, justice, equality

By Alan Hart

My headline question was provoked by an Uri Avnery article with the headline BDS, the new enemy”. After noting that Netanyahu’s whole career has been based on fear mongering and in recent years his promotion of fear of a nuclear-armed Iran, Avnery wrote this:

But Netanyahu saw with growing anxiety that the Iranian threat was losing its edge. The US, so it seems, is about to reach an agreement with Iran, which will prevent it from achieving the Bomb… What to do?

Looking around, three letters popped up: BDS. They denote Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, a worldwide campaign to boycott Israel because of its 48-year-old subjugation of the Palestinian people.

Ah, here we have a real threat, worse than the bomb. A second holocaust is looming. Brave little Israel facing the entire evil, anti-Semitic world…  The legions of anti-Semites are on the march.

Who will save us? Bibi the Great, of course!

Avnery went on to say that instead of isolating the settlements and separating them from mainstream Israelis, a general boycott re-awakens age-old Jewish fears and drives all Israelis into the arms of the settlers.

He added:

Netanyahu could not wish for more. He is now riding the wave of Jewish reactions. Every day there are headlines about another success of the boycott movement, and each success is a bonus for Netanyahu.

Netanyahu is happy. He calls upon world Jewry to take up the fight against this anti-Semitic outrage.

Netanyahu has stated that BDS “is anti-Semitic at its core” and his deputy foreign minister, Tzipi Hotovely, has called it “a tactic of diplomatic terrorism” and “an existential threat to Israel”.

A good response to this Zionist propaganda nonsense was contained in a letter from Allan C. Brownfeld of the American Council for Judaism which was published, somewhat to my surprise, by The Washington Post.

Whether one agrees with this (BDS) movement or not, and many Jews are leading participants, the fact is that it is in no way “anti-Semitic”.

Judaism is a religion of universal values. Israel is a sovereign state. It has violated international law by occupying the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The boycott movement is a non-violent effort to show opposition to this occupation, similar, its advocates argue, to the movement of sanctions against South Africa to show opposition to apartheid. Hatred of Judaism or Jews, which is what constitutes anti-Semitism, appears to be absent from these boycott efforts.

Only by redefining “anti-Semitism” to mean criticism of Israel can such a charge be sustained. Israel’s policies in the occupied territories should be debated on their merits, and defenders of the occupation should not hide behind false charges of “anti-Semitism.”

In my view the statement that defenders of occupation are hiding behind false charges of anti-Semitism is only a pointer to a much greater truth.

It is that Zionism needs anti-Semitism for blackmail purposes to preserve its immunity from punishment for its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians.

Without the explosion of anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe there would have been no Israel because prior to it the majority of the world’s Jews were opposed to Zionism’s enterprise. As I document in detail in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, they knew it was morally wrong; they believed it would lead to unending conflict; and most of all they feared that if Zionism was allowed by the major powers to have its way it would one day provoke anti-Semitism.

…the BDS movement must now put maximum, coordinated effort into explaining why boycotting and imposing sanctions on Israel is peaceful and legitimate opposition to Israel’s policies and actions and not anti-Semitic.

What we are witnessing today, provoked by Israel’s defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians, is a rising, global tide of anti-Israelism which is not anti-Semitism; but it is enough to enable Zionism to assert that it is and put fear of being accused of anti-Semitism into the minds of most Western politicians, the mainstream media and most people in all other walks of public life.

It can be said that the false charge of anti-Semitism is Zionism’s trump card. And that’s why I believe that if Obama (and the P5+1 as a whole) does sign an agreement with Iran, and if it is not sabotaged, Netanyahu will put maximum effort into promoting his assertion that BDS is the new Nazism.

It follows, it seems to me, that the BDS movement must now put maximum, coordinated effort into explaining why boycotting and imposing sanctions on Israel is peaceful and legitimate opposition to Israel’s policies and actions and not anti-Semitic.  And I think it would be well advised to respond to each and every false charge of anti-Semitism.

The question I frequently debate with myself is this: can BDS really be a game changer?

In principle I have always been for it but with two reservations.

The first is that a non-governmental BDS campaign will not cause Israel to change course and become serious about peace on terns the Palestinians could accept. What I mean is that for BDS to have a chance of causing Israel to change course, the governments of the American-led Western world and Russia and China would have to endorse and embrace it and put Israel on notice that if it didn’t end its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians, it would be isolated and sanctioned by the whole world.

…the BDS movement… should now give priority… to press the governments of the major powers to put Israel on notice that it will be isolated and sanctioned by the whole world if it does not end its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians.

My second reservation is that even if that happened it could be counter-productive. I mean that it could cause the brainwashed majority of Israeli Jews to say: “Here it comes again.” The it being in their minds another great turning against Jews only beginning in Israel. And this would reinforce in brainwashed Jewish minds everywhere Zionism’s assertion that the world has always hated and will always hate Jews and, therefore, that anything and everything necessary must be done to secure Greater Israel as a refuge of last resort for Jews everywhere.

Despite the fact that it could be counter-productive as indicated above, my own view is that the BDS movement as it currently is should now give priority to putting its act together to press the governments of the major powers to put Israel on notice that it will be isolated and sanctioned by the whole world if it does not end its defiance of international law and denial of justice for the Palestinians.

And the essence of an appropriate message from the BDS movement to governments can be simply stated. “You can continue by default to be complicit in Israel’s crimes or you can take all steps necessary to bring the conflict to an end by insisting on justice for the Palestinians and security for all.”

If I was drafting a BDS movement message to governments I would include this.

“If you continue to allow Israel to remain above and beyond the law, you will be responsible for a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine, an obscenity that could transform the rising, global tide of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism and guarantee that there will be, at some point, another great turning against Jews everywhere. That is, perhaps, what Zionism really wants in order to justify its policies and actions. But is that what you want as your legacy?”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Is BDS replacing Iran as Ir$aHell blackmail card?





الجيش يحكم سيطرته على تلة وقرية سكاكة بريف السويداءAL-SUWAYDAA`:  The Syrian Army, backed by local militias and the PDC, assaulted the fixed positions occupied by ISIS in a town just west of the provincial capital and killed all 57 rodents.  This occurred during the early hours of Saturday when the rodents were asleep dreaming of the earthly wonders of microwave ovens in Hell.  The town is called Sukayka and it is important for maintaining security in the Al-Suwaydaa` Governorate because it is only about 1 km from the Al-Tha’lah Airbase which is being visited now by the Minister of Defense, Lt. Gen. Fahd Jaassim Al-Furayj.


11112947_886801198060199_9040820040567608357_nMinister of Defense, Lt. Gen. Fahd Jaassim Al-Furayj, inspects field commanders at the Al-Tha’alah Airbase during the liberation of nearby Sukayka, only one km away. 



SYRIAN ARMYSabboora Village:  In the eastern part of the province, the SAA has been monitoring the movements of the Satan-worshiping buzzards of ISIS for a few days.  When MI predicted their move toward this hamlet based on intercepted communications, the SAA set up an ambush using essentially “dead reckoning” to determine which route the vermin would take.  The intention of ISIS was to bolster its forces in Homs at the Al-Jadhal gas field.  Obviously, they didn’t make it very far.  The road they used was mined and Kornet operators were placed in appropriately camouflaged locations.  According to Wael, based on a report he read, the convoy of about 160 vultures was set aflame by the combination of mines and shoulder fired RPGs with Kornet rockets hitting pickups loaded with ammunition intended for their embattled litter-mates in Homs.  All rodents were killed.  The foreigners among them who were wounded blew themselves up before our troops could get to them.  2 pickups with 23mm cannons were destroyed.  Big mess for ISIS and Obama.

North Hardaana Village:  On Sunday, the SAAF pounced on a convoy of ISIS rodents carrying weapons to beleaguered rodents in Homs.  No details are available about what was described to us as a “minor massacre” of rats.

Abu-Al-Fashaafeesh Village:  More SAAF action as newly refitted Sukhois take to the air to harry the slime-infested disease-carrying rodents of ISIS.  10s of rats were killed in 3 separate strafings using new off-site rockets laser-guided rockets.  A real horror-show for rats.

The Syrian Air Force has savaged the Nusra criminals at these three areas of Hama:

Qulayb Al-Thawr, Al-Rawdha, ‘Adla.  No details are available yet.

Jinaa Al-‘Ilbaawi:  SAAF throttles ISIS in separate sorties.  No details. SAAF is not known for releasing information and aerial assessments are difficult.

Ditto for ‘Uqayrabaat and Middle Al-Qastal east of Hama.


تفاصيل على الأرض.. أسباب إصرار الجيش السوري وحزب الله على خوض معركة القلمون DER’AH:


dar3aaSouth of the Meteorological Institute:  Nusra was struck hard by SAA artillery killing 7 rats of whom 2 were Syrians, the others were Jordanians and, evidently, UAE rodents:

Yusuf ‘Ammaar Al-Shaa’ir

Jaami’ Muhammad Qassaab

Dam Road:  A route used to ferry terrorists and supplies was closed down here last night after the SAA fought a battle with rodents belonging to the Al-Muthannaa Islamic Movement.  This gang of perverts is on the verge of extinction.


syria-arab-armyAl-Karak Neighborhood:  At the Electric Company, the SAA killed 2 rodents and took 2 into custody. They are now warbling eloquently.

Al-Badw Quarter:  In the city, 3 rats were cornered and then killed by both SAA and PDC.  I have no names.

Itmaan:  A rat sniper and 8 other vermin were killed on the Old Der’ah-Damascus Road.  No details.

Terrorist-supporting criminal websites admit to the deaths of these:

Ahmad ‘Abdul-Rahmaan ‘Abdul-Razzaaq Al-Zu’bi (died in a Jordanian quack veterinary hospital for rodents)

Ghassaan Al-Hareeri (a/k/a “Abu Hamza”.  Leader of Ahraar Al-Shaam Al-Islaamiyya)

Abu Ya’qoob Al-Shar’iy (Reputed canonical judge and comical crow kaka) 






Syrian Perspective salutes the loyal Muwahhid-Druze citizens of the Syrian Golan Heights for their noble interdiction of a Zionist ambulance which was spiriting known wounded Al-Qaeda terrorists to some quack hospital in Occupied Palestine.  The throng of Syrian patriots of the village of Harfeesh stopped the ambulance by bombarding it with holy rocks demanding the right to search the Zionist military vehicle; and, then, forcing the ambulance doors open where the terrorist rodents were exposed to the full wrath of the Syrian people.  Both rodents were beaten.  One of them was killed and the other wounded critically.

The ambulance helping the Alqaeda terrorist organization was on its way to a village in occupied Palestine called Qiryat Shmona close to the largely Druze area of Majdal-Shams.  Zionist capo Benjamin Mileikowski vowed to find the heroic Syrian citizens and bring them to injustice in the kangaroo courts of the Zionist Khazar State.   The surviving rat terrorist was actually med-vacked to some veterinary hospital in Zionist-Occupied Haifa.  Once again,  our hats off to the patriotic citizens of the Syrian Golan for their act of heroism in killing the Alqaeda terrorist vermin.   And as an added bonus, 2 Zionist operatives were also wounded. Sadly, the Syrian patriots were not able to kill them.


Devastating arson attack severely damaged the 200-year-old All Saints Church



A teenage boy has been arrested after a fire ripped through a 200-year-old Grade II listed church, causing more than £1million of damage. The 17-year-old, who has not been named, was arrested by officers investigating an attack on All Saints Church in Fleet, Hampshire, yesterday evening.

Locals said the church was apparently targeted by another arsonist two weeks ago after a bible was found in flames after being left near the font, but was quickly put out.


Church officials said the roof was destroyed, along with many of the original stained glass windows. Police confirmed that the boy had been arrested, but said investigations are continuing, while a cordon remains in place around the building.

A spokesman for the Diocese of Guildford which governs Fleet, said: ‘The cost of the damage caused to the church is estimated to reach millions of pounds.’

Local residents described the church as the centre of their community and the Rev. Mark Hayton was today at the scene consolling distressed worshippers. The vicar said: ‘The building is re-buildable and with the help of the community the church will be returned to what it once was.


‘It was a very severe fire but luckily no-one lost their life. Hopefully within one to two years we will be able to repair the church completely.’ Sergeant Rob Wallis from Hampshire Police said: ‘The fire has destroyed the church and has understandably caused concern within the local community.’

The fire officer in charge of the incident, Brian Rudman, said: ‘This was a significant fire that has seriously affected a beautiful and historic building. Crews have worked hard in arduous conditions to bring the fire under control.

Posted in UK1 Comment

Indian Movie Baby-Propaganda against Pakistan


By Sajjad Shaukat

As part of psychological warfare, besides supporting subversive acts in Pakistan, India has

already started cultural penetration in Pakistan through movies, dramas, shows and

advertisements which are being displayed on our TV channels.

In this regard, Baby is a propaganda movie recently released by Bollywood to directly target

Pakistan. It is focusing on operation Baby which was supposedly conceived by the Indian secret

agency, RAW as a test case, launched by a group of five trained and dedicated RAW operatives

to apprehend head of Pakistan’s banned outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT)/Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD)

through a sting individuals.

In fact, the movie was sponsored and produced by Indian Ministry of Interior and Ministry of

Defence. The project was undertaken by Santosh Astana (Media Incharge/Director Indian

Affairs, Public Relations), while three Pakistani actors are also included in the cast. The theme of

the film tries to propagate that Pakistan-based LeT/JuD is responsible for orchestrating Mumbai

attacks in September 2008, financed and facilitated by Pakistan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates

(UAE) and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

But, the movie, Baby revolves around the activities of LeT in the backdrop of Mumbai attacks,

2008. This is a sequel to the perennial propaganda campaign conceived by Indian authorities to

malign the image of Pakistan and its primary intelligence agency ISI.

In this respect, after Mumbai attacks, Indians had resorted to electronic media campaign,

followed by TV channels and written articles, focusing on the activities of Jihad organizations,

allegedly sponsored by LeT/JuD.

In order to spread disinformation, New Delhi arranged a series of articles (about 140) which

were also published in the US and other international media in which LeT/JuD has been

portrayed as a terrorist origination much larger than Al Qaeda with global reach, having affiliates

and sleeper cells all over the world.

In this connection, Indian point of view was further augmented by Arif Jamal (Pakistani born UK

national) in his book “Call for Transnational Jihad: Lashkar-e-Taiba 1985-2014”.

Using the pretext of Mumbai terror-attacks, reportedly, on December 14, 2008, as a retaliatory

action, India violated Pakistan’s air space in Kashmir and Lahore in a failed attempt to attack

LeT/JuD offices in Azad Jammu Kashmir including Muridke.

And, in May 2009, RAW made an attempt to kill Hafiz Muhammad Saeed when he came to

attend the Lahore High Court (LHC) hearing, but the attempt could not materialize.

As a matter of fact, the purpose of deliberate propaganda campaign through Indian print and

electronic media—launched by Indian agencies was to induce public perception against Pakistan

in order to favour Indian false stance at global level.

It is of particular attention that on July 19, 2013, the Indian former home ministry and ex-

investigating officer Satish Verma revealed that terror-attacks in Mumbai in November 26, 2008

and assault on Indian Parliament in January 12, 2001 were carried out by the Indian government

to strengthen anti-terrorism laws. But, Indian top officials and media are still blaming Islamabad

and LeT for those attacks.

Similarly, on January 20, 2013, Indian External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid and Home

minister Sushil Kumar Shinde confessed the nexus between BJP and the RSS, disclosing that

organized training camps run by these Indian fundamentalist parties were promoting Hindu

terrorism. They also revealed that these parties were behind the Samjhauta Express, Meccca

Masjid and Malegaon blasts including Gujarat and Babri Masjid incidents. Earlier, New Delhi

was accusing Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI for blasts in Malegaon and other cities.

However, it is perceived that the movie Baby has been conceived and launched also to weigh and

see the public reaction regarding Indian agenda, before conducting some major sting/hot pursuit

operations against Pakistan.

As regards the film, three Pakistani film stars were also included in the cast i.e Rasheed Naz as

head of Lashkar, Meekal Zulifqar as a RAW conduit and Hasan Noman as a Police Chief of

While, Pakistani film actor Hamza Ali Abbasi said that he was offered a role in the Indian film

Baby last year which he did not accept due to the movie’s anti-Pakistan slant. He elaborated that

he was in favour of Pakistani artists, working in Indian films in general, but not in a film that

even has anti-Pakistan themes. He added, “Please think like a Pakistani first and then an artist”.

Nevertheless, Akshay Kumar starrer Baby movie has been banned by the censor boards of

Pakistan, because it portrays a negative image of Muslims and the negative characters in the

film—also has Muslim names. CDs and DVDs of the film have also been banned.

Fakhr-e-Alam who is the Chairman of the Censor Board took to Twitter to share his views about

the board’s decision, stating, “The movie has been banned in Pakistan, as it shows Muslim

community in a bad light. The characters used in the movie also represent Muslim community.

He added, “A poor propaganda film basically saying all Muslims are terrorists & Pakistan

harbors them…disappointed, Ban it”.

Besides, Indian contradictory approach in this regard is also mentionable. In an article, director

of the movie Neeraj Panday claimed that the movie does not hurt Muslim sentiments, nor it has

been made on any specific nation. But the producer Bhushan Kumar was still wondering why,

actor Anupam Kher emphasised the need to move beyond borders and look at the universal

problem of terrorism. He said, “The film is about anti-terrorism. Sometimes it is important to go

beyond territories and understand who is the enemy—is it a country or a bunch of people?”

Nonetheless, the movie Baby which largely focuses on terrorism issues is part of Indian

continued propaganda against Pakistan so as to distort the image of the latter and ISI in the

Therefore Pakistan’s media must counter Indian propaganda, unleashed against Pakistan in the

Indian movie Baby.

Posted in India1 Comment

The Undisclosed Second Paradox in Michael Walzer’s The Paradox of Liberation


by Dr:  Richard Falk

There is little doubt that several of Michael Walzer’s contributions to political theory will long remain influential (Revolution of the Saints (1965); Just and Unjust Wars (1977); Spheres of Justice(1983)). Although his work lacks the cumulative weight of a major philosophic presence, the ideas and issues Walzer has been exploring in the last several decades with great conceptual coherence and originality. His work exhibits a consistent practical relevance to the realities of the unfolding world around us. His writing is lucid, well informed, and is mainstream enough to be non-threatening. Walzer’s worldview is congruent with widely shared ethical presuppositions prevalent among liberals in Western society. Added to this, Walzer’s writings are tinged with a socialist nostalgic edge that imparts a now harmless progressive resonance. This is somewhat soothing for all those suffering varying degrees of guilty conscience as we go on as before, enjoying life in non-sustainable consumptive Western societies.

Aside from John Rawls, Jacques Derrida, Jürgens Habermas who enjoy preeminence, only Michel Foucault, Martha Nussbaum, Richard Rorty, and Amartya Sen have had a comparable contemporary influence to that of Walzer by way of philosophic commentary on major public issues. Apart from Walzer’s strong scholarly emphasis on Judaic Studies and ideological support for Israel, it is Rorty who seems closest to Walzer in ethos, philosophic stance, and intellectual style. As I read this latest extended essay by Walzer I kept thinking of the lines from Auden’s great poem “In Memory of W. B. Yeats”:

                        “Time with that with this strange excuse

                        Pardoned Kipling and his views

                        And will pardon Paul Claudell

                        Pardon him for writing well”

The point being that despite often finding Walzer’s views suspect, I never find his writing dull or his ideas without force and relevance, and that maybe in the end what flourishes through time is morestyle than substance.

Walzer has been a strong and consistent advocate of Israel and outspoken adherent of moderate Zionism throughout his career. Sometimes his eloquent partisanship has been hidden below the surface of his theorizing, giving his undisclosed messages the status of a sub-text, adored by the faithful and repudiated by the critical. Among critics this Walzer tendency to hide his political commitments beneath his theoretical generalization, creates an impression of a rather sneaky lack of forthrightness. For instance, his influential Just and Unjust Wars can be read (without any acknowledgement from Walzer) as a show of strong support for Israel’s approach to Palestinian armed resistance that is expressed in the abstract language of the ethics of counter-terrorism. Walzer’s tendency to be not straight forward about his ideological agenda is intriguingly relevant to his latest book, The Paradox of Liberation,which sets forth a bold and challenging general thesis—that the distinct secular movements that produced national liberation in Algeria, India, and Israel a few generations ago have each most unexpectedly and progressively yielded their identities to intense religious counter-revolutions. These counter-revolutions have each sought to restore tradition and religious observance in public spaces, including the governing process. This religious turn against the secular came as an unwelcome surprise to the founding generation of national liberation leaders whose successors find themselves pushed aside by more socially conservative elites.

These secularizing movements were rooted initially in the opposite belief that only by breaking with societal traditions can liberation be achieved for a national people that is being oppressed or acutely denied its true destiny. As Walzer summarizes: “The old ways must be repudiated and overcome totally. But the old ways are cherished by many of the men and women whose ways they are. That is the paradox of liberation.” (19) In the Paradox of Liberation: Secular Revolutions and Religious Counterrevolutions (Yale University Press, 2015). Walzer is preoccupied by this paradox, and devotes himself to its explication. He contends that the paradox arises from the tension between the mobilization of a people around the negation of that which the majority society affirms (that is, religious values) and while this negation seems useful (even to many of the religiously oriented) during the struggle against alien oppression, it will itself be negated a generation or so after liberation, a phenomenon of negating the negation that can also be understood as the return of the repressed in the form of religious resurgence. The secularists enjoyed a temporary ascendancy because they were active resisters to oppressive circumstances rather than as was the case with religiously oriented leaderships, which tended to be passive and even deferential to the status quo.

This pattern of secularist victory giving way to religion is reproduced in a nationally distinctive form in each of these specific historical circumstances by the seemingly inexplicable rise and potency of religious zeal. In each of Walzer’s three cases, the political moment of successful liberation by secularists was soon to be superseded to varying degrees by the religious moment, an entirely unexpected sequel. The liberators whether led by Ben Bella, Jawaharlal Nehru, or David Ben Gurion were modernizers who strongly believed that religion was being and should be superseded by science and rationality. This meant that religion was largely a spent force with respect to cultural identity and public policy, and should in the future be confined in its role to state ritual occasions and private devotional practice. Walzer argument explains the central misunderstanding of these secular leaders, and expresses his own hope that the religious resurgence should not be viewed as the end of the national narrative. Also, Walzer would not welcome the Algerian phase three sequel to the religious challenge by way of bloody civil war, followed by military autocracy and renewed societal passivity.

What makes the book challenging is its main prescriptive argument that runs as follows. The secular nationalists made a crucial initial mistake, according to Walzer, by basing their movement on the negation of religion rather than byseeking its incorporation. If their secularist goal was sustainable liberation, which it certainly was, then the adoption of an either/or orientation toward religion and its practice was wrong from the start. Instead the attitude of the secular liberators toward religion should have one of constructive engagement, and not negation. What this means in the context of each movement is not spelled out by Walzer. The stress is placed on a recommended (re)incorporation of religious values into the reigning secular ideology combined with sensitivity to traditional values and practices. Walzer is fully aware that his proposed approach becomes problematic as soon as it is pursued unconditionally. As he recognizes, the traditions in each of these nations denies equality to women, often in cruel and unacceptable ways. Walzer does not want secularists to give up their commitment to gender equality for the sake of reconciliation with religiously oriented sectors of society. What he encourages is a sympathetic awareness of traditional attitudes toward gender while seeking to overcome their embedded biases. As is often the case, Walzer is more persuasive in diagnosis than prescription, delineating the problems far better than finding credible solutions.

One difficulty with the framework we are offered in the book is the failure to consider the discrediting relevance of the corruption and incompetence of the liberators, which amounted to a betrayal of their promises to lead a new and happy society of free people. Whether through corruption or the failure to deliver a better life to a large portion of the population, a post-liberation mood of disillusionment takes hold in different patterns, but they share in common the search for an alternative orientation.

In other words the excitement of liberation is hard to sustain during the state-building rigors of governance, and also in most cases, the personalities suitable for liberation are not well adapted to handle the routines and typical challenges of post-liberation existence. Israel, in particular, was an outlier from these perspectives, as its claims of liberation were at all stages shadowed by doubts as a result of fears, threats, uncertainties, and opposition to its underlying legitimacy claim from within its ethnic ranks and more so from those it sought to subdue by either displacement or subjugation. The anti-colonial liberations of India and Algeria never faced such basic challenges to its core identity.

There is for me a closely related yet more fundamental problem with the misleading comparisons relied upon by Walzer to develop his argument. India and Algeria were genuine liberation movements waged by indigenous nations to rid from the entire territorial spaceof their respective countries a deeply resented, exploitative, and domineering foreign presence. To place Israel in such a category is to foster several deep misunderstandings—there is the master presupposition that the Zionist movement is being properly treated as a case of ‘national liberation’ even if the Jewish nation was not engaged in reclaiming control over its residential territorial space. Jews were scattered in enclaves around the world when the Zionist movement was launched and most of its leaders relied on biblical claims to Palestine to ground its territorial claims. Although the early debate about whether a homeland in Uganda would fulfill Zionist goals illuminates the distinctiveness of the Zionist quest. Beyond this Zionists became legally dependent upon British colonialist support to carry forward their efforts to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Zionism cannot be meaningfully regarded as a revolt against alien rulership, although in its last pre-state stage it did try to expel Britain from Palestine so as to compel an abandonment of its mandatory administration. Unlike standard anti-colonial movements, Zionism is more correctly perceived as an activist effort to overcome the realities of diaspora Judaism confronted by the persecution, discrimination, and assimilation in an array of national settings.

Given this background, it seems dubious, indeed polemical, to treat Israel’s establishment as an instance of ‘liberation,’ a terminology that obscures the centrality of the ‘dispossession’ experienced by the majority indigenous Palestinian Arab population in the course of Israel’s acquisition of statehood. In passing, Walzer does somewhat acknowledge some of these differences that distinguish Israel from India and Algeria, but regards them as inconsequential contextual issues that do not raise for him any serious doubts about the basic reasonableness of regarding Israel as coming into being as a result of national liberation led by the Zionist movement. Walzer’s focus is rather upon whether Israel fits the pattern of a secularist phase one giving way to a religious phase two, leaving us with a big question mark as to whether there will be a phase three, and if so, whether it will reflect Walzer’s hopes for a belated constructive engagement with religion rather than an Alegerian style relapse into civil strife and autocracy. Although Walzer expresses his personal wish for the Palestinians to have their own sovereign state (53) at some point, this wish is never contextualized or concretized by reference to criteria of equality between the two peoples. The Palestinian national liberation movement is discussed by Walzer as correlative to his main thesis. Walzer notes that even prior to achieving Palestinian statehood, the PLO’s secular leadership has been increasingly challenged and even discredited by a rising Islamist alternative. (53-55)

This reference to the Palestinian national movement is an interesting aside in relation to Walzer’s essential set of contentions relating to the paradox he is depicting, but it fails to engage the issue I find central, which is whether Israel’s establishment can qualify as an instance of national liberation. To be sure Zionism generated an extraordinary international movement that overcame many formidable obstacles that stood in its way, and none more formidable than an indigenous Palestinian Arab majority population that did its best to prevent Zionists from reaching their goal of statehood on behalf of the Jewish people. Although Walzer notes that the early secularist Zionist leaders stressed a commitment to equality when articulating their ideas about the preferred relationship between Jews and non-Jews in the Israeli state. In my view, it is questionable in the extreme whether this idealistic goal ever represented the actual intentions of Zionist leaders. It should be evident to all that such egalitarianism was never expressive of Israeli policies and practices on the ground from even before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948.

More problematic still, was the dispossession and displacement from the land of most of the indigenous Arab population that had been living in Palestine for many generations. Surely this Palestinian experience is profoundly different in character and consequence from the repudiation of exploitative rule of a country by a foreign, usually European, elite and its native collaborators. Again Walzer’s sub-text, whether consciously intended or not, seems to be the retroactive legitimation of Israel’s claim to be an example of national liberation of the sort achieved by Algeria and India, and hence to be situated in the highest echelon of 20th century state-building undertakings. As many of us realize this ‘liberation’ was for Palestinians a catastrophe, known by its Arabic word nakba.

Overall, this is a peculiar book, developing a general view of religious counter-revolutions against secular movements of national liberation, but due to the inclusion of Israel as a principal case despite not seeming to fit, there is an implicit polemical motivation that involves whitewashing the criminality of Israel’s emergence. Acknowledging such criminality is not meant to be a covert argument for delegitimizing the present state of Israel that has now been in existence for more than 67 years, and is a member state of the United Nations. My critique of Walzer, in other words, is not meant to lay the groundwork for a second Palestinian dispossession, this time directed toward Jews. I side with Edward Said in a commitment to fair future for both peoples based on their shared rights under international law and on diplomacy to negotiate compromises where rights overlap. I do agree with Said that such a jointly conceived future cannot be undertaken without a prior Israeli acknowledgement of the recent past as epitomized by the nakba, and such rituals of redress must include a formal apology to the Palestinian people for the suffering they have for so long endured.

In the end, the paradox that Walzer dwells upon is less consequential than the paradox he ignores: namely, that what is being represented as ‘national liberation’ of the Jewish people by Zionist ideologues is more objectively presented as the ‘national oppression’ of the Palestinian people. This oppression is experienced in different sets of circumstances: as a subjugated minority; as an occupied people; as a nation of refugees and exiles; as a community of resistance aspiring to Palestinian ‘national liberation’; as communities victimized by state terrorism. This second paradox is that what is portrayed as ‘liberation’ for one people serves at the same time as pretext and rationale for the ‘oppression’ of another people. In my view, the second paradox raised life or death questions for both peoples to a far greater extent than does the first paradox that seems to control Walzer’s own Zionist imagination.

Michael Ignatieff, whose political orientation resembles that of Michael Walzer, in the course of a mostly laudatory review of The Paradox of Liberation confirms my suspicion that the undisclosed intent of this book is to connect Israel’s fate with that of such exemplary liberation movements as those that took place in India and Algeria. Consider Igantieff’s revealing language innocently proclaiming this reading: “While Israel remains the central focus ofThe Paradox of Liberation, Walzer has made a major contribution to the question of what’s happening there simply by arguing that Israel may not be so special after all: the same kinds of problems may be occurring in other states created by national liberation movements. He compares what happened to Ben-Gurion’s vision with what befell Jawaharlal Nehru’s in India and Ahmed Ben Bella’s in Algeria.” [Michael Ignatieff, “The Religious Spector Haunting Revolution,” NY Review of Books, 19 June 2015] In a stunning instance of ‘benign neglect’ Ignatieff never once even mentions the relevance of Palestinian dispossession in his lengthy

assessment of Walzer’s version of Israel’s ‘national liberation’ story. Instead, he makes the opposite point, suggesting that Walzer in an indirect way diminishes Israel by his implicit denial of Israeli exceptionalism. As the language quoted above seems to suggest, Israel is upgraded by its similarities with (rather than differences from) other liberation narratives.

In closing, it is plausible, even morally, to argue that the Zionist cause was in keeping with a variety of attempts over the course of the last century by many nations and peoples to possess a state of their own that is defined by ethnic or religious boundaries that transcend in psycho-political relevance geographic boundaries, which incidentally have yet to be authoritatively drawn to delineate Israel’s territorial scope. Yet what is not plausible is to lump together the Israeli experience with that of India and Algeria just because the founding generation of leaders shared a secular ideology that was later subjected to a religious challenge once the state was established. For India and Algeria their respective anti-colonial struggles each possessed its originality, but without raising doubts about the delineation of the scope of territorial sovereignty and without needing to coercing the native population to submit or leave. This became integral to Zionism in the course of the struggle between opposed nationalisms, with expulsion necessary to ensure Jewish dominance over the development and governance of the country.

If Jewish biblical claims to territorial sovereignty are dismissed, as surely should be a major premise of secular thinking, then the Zionist project needs to be conceived of as essentially one of colonizing a foreign country. The presence of a deeply rooted Jewish minority, less than 5% when the Zionist movement got started in the late 19th century, does not make Palestine any less of a foreign country from the perspective of Jews who settled in Palestine in a spirit of missionizing zeal. As Walzer himself makes clear, Zionists were self-consciously opposed to the Judaism they had experienced in the diaspora that was premised on passivity and deference to the rulers of their country of residence and religiously expressed by the message of patience, the religious duty to wait for the Messiah, the only religiously acceptable experience of liberation. The founders of Zionism, and its current leaders, were determined to reconstitute Jewish life on the basis of assertiveness and even aggressiveness, overcoming the alleged diasporic legacy of passivity, and this feature of their movement has been transformative for even religious Jews. From this perspective, the historic triumphal event was undoubtedly Israel’s victory in the 1967 War, which became inspirational for diasporic Jewish communities identified more strongly than ever with the state of Israel, and questioned their own traditional postures of passivity.

My contention is that Walzer’s paradox dissolves as soon as the claim to categorize Zionism as a mode of ‘national liberation’ is deconstructed, while the second paradox remains to be explained. This second paradox dwells on the moral and political interplay of what transpires when the liberation of the self is organically linked to the dispossession of the other. In a postscript (134-146) Walzer explains why America does not belong with his three cases, which is because America’s original founding never truly embraced secularism. What he might have also said, but doesn’t, is that what the founding of America and Israel have most in common is the dispossession of the native populations, and it is this foundational fact that shapes the state-building experiences of both countries more than either has been willing to acknowledge. In this sense, we might invite Walzer to write a sequel on this second more consequential paradox, but realizing that such an invitation is certain to be refused. Its acceptance would implicitly repudiate the ideological benefits and normative authority of the first paradox that treats the establishment of Israel as if it is entitled to be regarded as one of the illustrious examples of 20th century anti-colonial struggles.


Posted in Education, Politics1 Comment

POLL: More than 50% of Muslims in America want to live under sharia law



Center for Security Policy  According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace shariah law.


The numbers of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Saudi Zio-Wahhabi rat’s.

Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall.  The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.


According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.


These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey.  It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”


By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem.  The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year.  If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today.  That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”

Posted in USA1 Comment

Gaddafi’s Libya was Africa’s Most Prosperous Democracy

Foreign Policy Journal
January 12, 2013 

Muammar al-<b>Gaddafi photo</b> gallery


Contrary to popular belief, Libya, which western media described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship”, was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States.

In 1977 the people of Libya proclaimed the Jamahiriya or “government of the popular masses by themselves and for themselves.” The Jamahiriya was a higher form of direct democracy with ‘the People as President.’ Traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.

The nation State of Libya was divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, People’s Congresses, and Executive Revolutionary Councils.

Source: "Journey to the Libyan Jamahiriya" (20-26 May 2000).
Source: “Journey to the Libyan Jamahiriya” (20-26 May 2000).

In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. Even the New York Times, which was always highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that “everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.” The purpose of these committee meetings was to build a broad based national consensus.

One step up from the Local Committees were the People’s Congresses. Representatives from all 800 local committees around the country would meet several times a year at People’s Congresses in Mr. Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte to pass laws based on what the people said in their local meetings. These congresses had legislative power to write new laws and formulate economic and public policy, as well as ratify treaties and agreements.

All Libyans were allowed to take part in local committees meetings, and at times Colonel Gaddafi was criticized. In fact, there were numerous occasions when his proposals were rejected by popular vote and the opposite was approved and put forward for legislation.

For instance, on many occasions, Mr. Gaddafi proposed the abolition of capital punishment and he pushed for home schooling over traditional schools. However, the People’s Congresses wanted to maintain the death penalty and classic schools, and ultimately the will of the People’s Congresses prevailed. Similarly, in 2009, Colonel Gaddafi put forward a proposal to essentially abolish the central government altogether and give all the oil proceeds directly to each family. The People’s Congresses rejected this idea too.

One step up from the People’s Congresses were the Executive Revolutionary Councils. These Revolutionary Councils were elected by the People’s Congresses and were in charge of implementing policies put forward by the people. Revolutionary Councils were accountable only to ordinary citizens and may have been changed or recalled by them at any time. Consequently, decisions taken by the People’s Congresses and implemented by the Executive Revolutionary Councils reflected the sovereign will of the whole people, and not merely that of any particular class, faction, tribe, or individual.

The Libyan direct democracy system utilized the word ‘elevation’ rather than ‘election’ and avoided the political campaigning that is a feature of traditional political parties and benefits only the bourgeoisie’s well-heeled and well-to-do.

Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic, and economic policy themselves.

Several western commentators have rightfully pointed out that the unique Jamahiriya system had certain drawbacks, inter alia, regarding attendance, initiative to speak up, and sufficient supervision. Nevertheless, it is clear that Libya conceptualized sovereignty and democracy in a different and progressive way.

Democracy is not just about elections or political parties. True democracy is also about human rights. During the NATO bombardment of Libya, western media conveniently forgot to mention that the United Nations had just prepared a lengthy dossier praising Mr. Gaddafi’s human rights achievements. The UN report commended Libya for bettering its “legal protections” for citizens, making human rights a “priority,” improving women’s rights, educational opportunities and access to housing. During Mr. Gaddafi’s era housing was considered a human right. Consequently, there was virtually no homelessness or Libyans living under bridges. How many Libyan homes and bridges did NATO destroy?

One area where the United Nations Human Rights Council praised Mr. Gaddafi profusely is women’s rights. Unlike many other nations in the Arab world, women in Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property, and have an income. When Colonel Gaddafi seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today, more than half of Libya’s university students are women. One of the first laws Mr. Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law, only a few years after a similar law was passed in the U.S. In fact, Libyan working mothers enjoyed a range of benefits including cash bonuses for children, free day care, free health care centers, and retirement at 55.

Democracy is not merely about holding elections simply to choose which particular representatives of the elite class should rule over the masses. True democracy is about democratizing the economy and giving economic power to the majority.

Fact is, the west has shown that unfettered free markets and genuinely free elections simply cannot co-exist. Organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. How can capitalism and democracy co-exist if one concentrates wealth and power in the hands of few, and the other seeks to spread power and wealth among many? Mr. Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya however, sought to spread economic power amongst the downtrodden many rather than just the privileged few.

Prior to Colonel Gaddafi, King Idris let Standard Oil essentially write Libya’s petroleum laws. Mr. Gaddafi put an end to all of that. Money from oil proceeds was deposited directly into every Libyan citizen’s bank account. One wonders if Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum will continue this practice under the new democratic Libya?

Democracy is not merely about elections or political parties. True democracy is also about equal opportunity through education and the right to life through access to health care. Therefore, isn’t it ironic that America supposedly bombarded Libya to spread democracy, but increasingly education in America is becoming a privilege, not a right, and ultimately a debt sentence? If a bright and talented child in the richest nation on earth cannot afford to go to the best schools, society has failed that child. In fact, for young people the world over, education is a passport to freedom. Any nation that makes one pay for such a passport is only free for the rich but not the poor.

Under Mr. Gaddafi, education was a human right and it was free for all Libyans. If a Libyan was unable to find employment after graduation the State would pay that person the average salary of their profession.

For millions of Americans, health care is also increasingly becoming a privilege not a right. A recent study by Harvard Medical School estimates that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually in America. Under Mr. Gaddafi, health care was a human right and it was free for all Libyans. Thus, with regards to health care, education and economic justice, is America in any position to export democracy to Libya or should America have taken a leaf out of Libya’s book?

Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa. However, by the time he was assassinated, Libya was unquestionably Africa’s most prosperous nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa and less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands. Libyans did not only enjoy free health care and free education, they also enjoyed free electricity and interest free loans. The price of petrol was around $0.14 per liter and 40 loaves of bread cost just $0.15. Consequently, the UN designated Libya the 53rd highest in the world in human development.

The fundamental difference between western democratic systems and the Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya citizens were given the chance to contribute directly to the decision-making process, not merely through elected representatives. Hence, all Libyans were allowed to voice their views directly—not in one parliament of only a few hundred elite politicians—but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Mr. Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Gaddafi’s Libya was Africa’s Most Prosperous Democracy

Shoah’s pages