Archive | September 3rd, 2015

ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror”

NOVANEWS
Global Research
ISIS-CIA-cooperation

Published by Global Research in September 2014 at the outset of the bombing campaign

In the wake of World War I, erstwhile propagandist and political scientist Harold Lasswell famously defined propaganda as “the management of collective attitudes” and the “control over opinion” through “the manipulation of significant symbols.”[1] The extent to which this tradition is enthusiastically upheld in the West and the United States in particular is remarkable.

The American public is consistently propagandized by its government and corporate news media on the most vital of contemporary issues and events.

Deception on such a scale would be of little consequence if the US were not the most powerful economic and military force on earth

.Spread_Caliphate

[Image Credit: Vice News]

A case in point is the hysteria Western news media are attempting to create concerning the threat posed by the mercenary-terrorist army now being promoted as the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria, or “ISIS.”

As was the case with the US intelligence asset and bogey publicized as “Al Qaeda,” and Al Qaeda’s Syrian adjunct, “Al Nusra,” such entities are—apparently by design—inadequately investigated and defined by major news media. Absent meaningful historical context they usefully serve as another raison d’ểtre for America’s terminal “War on Terror.”

A seemingly obvious feature of such terrorist forces left unexamined by corporate media is that they are observably comprised of the same or comparable personnel unleashed elsewhere throughout the Middle East as part of a strategy proposed during the George W. Bush administration in 2007.[2]

With the above observations in mind, ISIS is well-financed, militarily proficient, and equipped with modern vehicles and weaponry. It also exhibits an uncanny degree of media savvy in terms of propagating its message in professional-looking videos and on platforms such as YouTube and Twitter. “Western intelligence services,” the New York Times reports, claim to be “worried about their extraordinary command of seemingly less lethal weapons: state-of-the-art videos, ground images shot from drones, and multilingual Twitter messages.”[3]

Along these lines, ISIS even received a largely sympathetic portrayal in a five-part series produced and aired by the Rupert Murdoch-backed Vice News.[4] Indeed, Vice News’ “The Spread of the Caliphate” is reminiscent of the public relations-style reportage produced via the “embedding” of corporate news media personnel with US and allied forces during the 2003 conquest of Iraq.

The overt support of ISIS, combined with the fact that it is battling the same Syrian government the Obama administration overtly sought to wage war against just one year ago, strongly suggest the organization’s sponsorship by Western intelligence and military interests.

ISIS’s curious features are readily apparent to non-Western news outlets and citizenries. For example, Iran’s PressTV recently asked its readership, “Why does the ISIL have such easy access to Twitter, Youtube and other social media to propagate its ideologies?” The answer choices are, “1) Because the ISIL has very capable technicians who can best use social media, or 2) Because the US and Britain have provided the ISIL with unrestricted social media platform[s].” Note that the first choice is the overarching assumption of Western media outlets. Yet perhaps unsurprisingly, 90 percent of PressTV readers selected choice two.[5]

No such queries are so much as alluded to by major corporate media, all of which are united in the notion that ISIS is an essentially indigenous phenomenon. Yet as coverage of the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent state-sponsored terrorism indicates, such media are essentially a component of the national security state, their reports and broadcast scripts all but overtly written by intelligence and military organizations.

In the wake of 9/11 US news media seldom asked about the origins of Al Qaeda—particularly how it was a product of US intelligence agencies. With the history of Al Qaeda omitted, the Bush administration was permitted to wage war on Afghanistan almost immediately following those staged attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

Yet as is much the case with today’s manufactured ISIS phenomenon, that history was readily available, and its careful public examination might have implicated the United States intelligence community in the 9/11 attacks. “During the Cold War, but also in its aftermath,” Michel Chossudovsky observes,

the CIA—using Pakistan’s military intelligence apparatus as a “go between”—played a key role in training the Mujhadeen. In turn, the CIA-sponsored guerrilla training was integrated with the teachings of Islam. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have consistently supported the “Militant Islamic Base”, including Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, as part of their foreign policy agenda. The links between Osama bin Laden and the Clinton administration in Bosnia and Kosovo are well documented by congressional records.[6]

As the United States and world approach the thirteenth anniversary of the most momentous false flag in modern history, the American public would be well-served to remind itself that ISIS is the new Al Qaeda—in other words, the new pretext that will in all likelihood be used by to take police state measures at home and military aggression abroad to new, perhaps unprecedented, levels.

With the above in mind, it is telling that one of the US government’s greatest fears isn’t ISIS at all. “The FBI’s most recent threat assessment for domestic terrorism makes no reference to Islamist terror threats,” the Washington Free Beacon reports, “despite last year’s Boston Marathon bombing and the 2009 Fort Hood shooting—both carried out by radical Muslim Americans.”

Instead, the nation’s foremost law enforcement agency is preoccupied with what it deems “domestic extremism” exhibited by its own subjects.[7] A primary manifestation of such “extremism” is possessing the curiosity to discern and seek out truths and information amidst the barrage of manipulated symbols the government and corporate-controlled media use to undermine a potentially informed public.

Notes

[1] Harold Lasswell, Propaganda Technique in the World War, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1927/1971.

[2] Seymour Hersh, “The Redirection: Is the Administration’s New Policy Benefitting Our Enemies in the War on Terrorism?” New Yorker, March 5, 2007; Tony Cartalucci, “Extremists Ravaging Syria Created by US in 2007,” Land Destroyer Report, May 11, 2012.

[3] Scott Shane and Ben Hubbard, “ISIS Displaying a Deft Command of Varied Media,” New York Times, August 30, 2014.

[4] Joe Bercovici, “Thanks to Rupert Murdoch, Vice is Worth $1.4 Billion. Could it be in Play Soon?” Forbes, August 19, 2014; Medyan Dairieh, “The Spread of the Caliphate: The Islamic State,” Vice News, August 13, 2014.

[5] PressTV Poll, http://presstv.ir, retrieved on August 30, 2014.

[6] Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism” Second Edition, Montreal CA: Global Research, 2005, 4.

[7] Bill Gertz, “FBI National Domestic Threat Assessment Omits Islamist Terrorism,” Washington Free Beacon, August 29, 2014.

Posted in Middle East, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on ISIS is America’s New Terror Brand: Endless Propaganda Fuels “War on Terror”

The Insidious Relationship between Washington and ISIS: The Evidence

NOVANEWS
Global Research
obama-isis

First published in March,  2015

Reports that US and British aircraft carrying arms to ISIS have been shot down by Iraqi forces have been met with shock and denial in western countries. Few in the Middle East doubt that Washington is playing a ‘double game’ with its proxy armies in Syria, but some key myths remain important amongst the significantly more ignorant western audiences.

A central myth is that Washington now arms ‘moderate Syrian rebels’, to both overthrow the Syrian Government and supposedly defeat the ‘extremist rebels’. This claim became more important in 2014, when the rationale of US aggression against Syria shifted from ‘humanitarian intervention’ to a renewal of Bush’s ‘war on terror’.

A distinct controversy is whether the al Qaeda styled groups (especially Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS) have been generated as a sort of organic reaction to the repeated US interventions, or whether they are actually paid agents of Washington.

Certainly, prominent ISIS leaders were held in US prisons. ISIS leader, Ibrahim al-Badri (aka Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) is said to have been held for between one and two years at Camp Bucca in Iraq. In 2006, as al-Baghdadi and others were released, the Bush administration announced its plan for a ‘New Middle East’, a plan which would employ sectarian violence as part of a process of ‘creative destruction’ in the region.

According to Seymour Hersh’s 2007 article, ‘The Redirection’, the US would make use of ‘moderate Sunni states’, not least the Saudis, to ‘contain’ the Shia gains in Iraq brought about by the 2003 US invasion. These ‘moderate Sunni’ forces would carry out clandestine operations to weaken Iran and Hezbollah, key enemies of Israel. This brought the Saudis and Israel closer, as both fear Iran.

While there have been claims that the ISIS ‘caliph’ al-Baghdadi is a CIA or Mossad trained agent, these have not yet been well backed up. There are certainly grounds for suspicion, but independent evidence is important, in the context of a supposed US ‘war’ against ISIS . So what is the broader evidence on Washington’s covert links with ISIS?

Not least are the admissions by senior US officials that key allies support the extremist group. In September 2014 General Martin Dempsey, head of the US military, told a Congressional hearing ‘I know major Arab allies who fund [ ISIS ]‘. Senator Lindsey Graham, of Armed Services Committee, responded with a justification, ‘They fund them because the Free Syrian Army couldn’t fight [Syrian President] Assad, they were trying to beat Assad’.

The next month, US Vice President Joe Biden went a step further, explaining that Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabia ‘were so determined to take down Assad … they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad … [including] al Nusra and al Qaeda and extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world … [and then] this outfit called ISIL’. Biden’s admissions sought to exempt the US from this operation, as though Washington were innocent of sustained operations carried out by its key allies. That is simply not credible.

Washington’s relationship with the Saudis, as a divisive sectarian force in the region, in particular against Arab nationalism, goes back to the 1950s, when Winston Churchill introduced the Saudi King to President Eisenhower. At that time Washington wanted to set up the Saudi King as a rival to President Nasser of Egypt. More recently, British General Jonathan Shaw has acknowledged the contribution of Saudi Arabia’s extremist ideology: ‘This is a time bomb that, under the guise of education. Wahhabi Salafism is igniting under the world really. And it is funded by Saudi and Qatari money’, Shaw said.

Other evidence undermines western attempts to maintain a distinction between the ‘moderate rebels’, now openly armed and trained by the US, and the extremist groups Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS. While there has indeed been some rivalry (emphasised by the London-based, Muslim Brotherhood-aligned, Syrian Observatory of Human Rights), the absence of real ideological difference is best shown by the cooperation and mergers of groups.

As ISIS came from Iraq in 2013, its Syrian bases have generally remained in the far eastern part of Syria. However Jabhat al Nusra (the official al Qaeda branch in Syria, from which ISIS split) has collaborated with Syrian Islamist groups in western Syria for several years. The genocidal slogan of the Syrian Islamists, ‘Christians to Beirut and Alawis to the Grave’, reported many times in 2011 from the Farouk Brigade, sat well with the al Qaeda groups. Farouk (once the largest ‘Free Syrian Army’ group) indeed killed and ethnically cleansed many Christians and Alawis.

Long term cooperation between these ‘moderate rebels’ and the foreign-led Jabhat al-Nusra has been seen around Daraa in the south, in Homs-Idlib, along the Turkish border and in and around Aleppo. The words Jabhat al Nusra actually mean ‘support front’, that is, support for the Syrian Islamists. Back in December 2012, as Jabhat al Nusra was banned in various countries, 29 of these groups reciprocated the solidarity in their declaration: ‘We are all Jabhat al-Nusra’.

After the collapse of the ‘Free Syrian Army’ groups, cooperation between al Nusra and the newer US and Saudi backed groups (Dawud, the Islamic Front, the Syrian Revolutionary Front and Harakat Hazm) helped draw attention to Israel’s support for al Nusra, around the occupied Golan Heights. Since 2013 there have been many reports of ‘rebel’ fighters, including those from al Nusra, being treated in Israeli hospitals. Prime Minister Netanyahu even publicised his visit to wounded ‘rebels’ in early 2014. That led to a public ‘thank you’ from a Turkey-based ‘rebel’ leader, Mohammed Badie (February 2014).

The UN peacekeeping force based in the occupied Golan has reported its observations of Israel’s Defence Forces ‘interacting with’ al Nusra fighters at the border. At the same time, Israeli arms have been found with the extremist groups, in both Syria and Iraq. In November 2014 members of the Druze minority in the Golan protested against Israel’s hospital support for al Nusra and ISIS fighters. This in turn led to questions by the Israeli media, as to whether ‘ Israel does, in fact, hospitalize members of al-Nusra and Daesh [ISIS]‘. A military spokesman’s reply was hardly a denial: ‘In the past two years the Israel Defence Forces have been engaged in humanitarian, life-saving aid to wounded Syrians, irrespective of their identity.’

The artificial distinction between ‘rebel’ and ‘extremist’ groups is mocked by multiple reports of large scale defections and transfer of weapons. In July 2014 one thousand armed men in the Dawud Brigade defected to ISIS in Raqqa. In November defections to Jabhat al Nusra from the Syrian Revolutionary Front were reported. In December, Adib Al-Shishakli, representative at the Gulf Cooperation Council of the exile ‘ Syrian National Coalition’, said ‘opposition fighters’ were ‘increasingly joining’ ISIS ‘for financial reasons’. In that same month, ‘rebels’ in the Israel-backed Golan area were reported as defecting to ISIS, which had by this time began to establish a presence in Syria’s far south. Then, in early 2015, three thousand ‘moderate rebels’ from the US-backed ‘Harakat Hazzm’ collapsed into Jabhat al Nusra, taking a large stock of US arms including anti-tank weapons with them.

ISIS already had US weapons by other means, in both Iraq and Syria , as reported in July, September and October 2014. At that time a ‘non aggression pact’ was reported in the southern area of Hajar al-Aswad between ‘moderate rebels’ and ISIS, as both recognised a common enemy in Syria: ‘the Nussayri regime’, a sectarian way of referring to supposedly apostate Muslims. Some reported ISIS had bought weapons from the ‘rebels’.

In December 2014 there were western media reports of the US covert supply of heavy weapons to ‘Syrian rebels’ from Libya, and of Jabhat al-Nusra getting anti-tank weapons which had been supplied to Harakat Hazm. Video posted by al-Nusra showed these weapons being used to take over the Syrian military bases, Wadi Deif and Hamidiyeh, in Idlib province.

With ‘major Arab allies’ backing ISIS and substantial collaboration between US-armed ‘moderate rebels’ and ISIS, it is not such a logical stretch to suppose that the US and ‘coalition’ flights to ISIS areas (supposedly to ‘degrade’ the extremists) might have become covert supply lines. That is precisely what senior Iraqi sources began saying, in late 2014 and early 2015.

For example, as reported by both Iraqi and Iranian media, Iraqi MP Majid al-Ghraoui said in January that ‘an American aircraft dropped a load of weapons and equipment to the ISIS group militants at the area of al-Dour in the province of Salahuddin’. Photos were published of ISIS retrieving the weapons. The US admitted the seizure but said this was a ‘mistake’. In February Iraqi MP Hakem al-Zameli said the Iraqi army had shot down two British planes which were carrying weapons to ISIS in al-Anbar province. Again, photos were published of the wrecked planes. ‘We have discovered weapons made in the US , European countries and Israel from the areas liberated from ISIL’s control in Al-Baqdadi region’, al-Zameli said.

The Al-Ahad news website quoted Head of Al-Anbar Provincial Council Khalaf Tarmouz saying that a US plane supplied the ISIL terrorist organization with arms and ammunition in Salahuddin province. Also in February an Iraqi militia called Al-Hashad Al-Shabi said they had shot down a US Army helicopter carrying weapons for the ISIL in the western parts of Al-Baqdadi region in Al-Anbar province. Again, photos were published. After that, Iraqi counter-terrorism forces were reported as having arrested ‘four foreigners who were employed as military advisors to the ISIL fighters’, three of whom were American and Israeli. So far the western media has avoided these stories altogether; they are very damaging to the broader western narrative.

In Libya, a key US collaborator in the overthrow of the Gaddafi government has announced himself the newly declared head of the ‘Islamic State’ in North Africa. Abdel Hakim Belhaj was held in US prisons for several years, then ‘rendered’ to Gaddafi’s Libya, where he was wanted for terrorist acts. As former head of the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, then the Tripoli-based ‘Libyan Dawn’ group, Belhaj has been defended by Washington and praised by US Congressmen John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Some image softening of the al Qaeda groups is underway. Jabhat al-Nusra is reported to be considering cutting ties to al Qaeda, to help sponsor Qatar boost their funding. Washington’s Foreign Affairs magazine even published a survey claiming that ISIS fighters were ‘surprisingly supportive of democracy’. After all the well published massacres that lacks credibility.

The Syrian Army is gradually reclaiming Aleppo, despite the hostile supply lines from Turkey, and southern Syria, in face of support for the sectarian groups from Jordan and Israel. The border with Lebanon is largely under Syrian Army and Hezbollah control. In the east, the Syrian Army and its local allies control most of Hasaka and Deir e-Zour, with a final campaign against Raqqa yet to come. The NATO-GCC attempt to overthrow the Syrian Government has failed.

Yet violent destabilisation persists. Evidence of the covert relationship between Washington and ISIS is substantial and helps explain what Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mikdad calls Washington’s ‘cosmetic war’ on ISIS. The extremist group is a foothold Washington keeps in the region, weakening both Syria and Iraq . Their ‘war’ on ISIS is ineffective. Studies by Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgent database show that ISIS attacks and killings in Iraq increased strongly after US air attacks began. The main on the ground fighting has been carried out by the Syrian Army and, more recently, the Iraqi armed forces with Iranian backing.

All this has been reported perversely in the western media. The same channels that celebrate the ISIS killing of Syrian soldiers also claim the Syrian Army is ‘not fighting ISIS’. This alleged ‘unwillingness’ was part of the justification for US bombing inside Syria. While it is certainly the case that Syrian priorities have remained in the heavily populated west, local media reports make it clear that, since at least the beginning of 2014, the Syrian Arab Army has been the major force engaged with ISIS in Hasaka, Raqqa and Deir eZour. A March 2015 Reuters report does concede that the Syrian Army recently killed two ISIS commanders (including Deeb Hedjian al-Otaibi) along with 24 fighters, at Hamadi Omar.

Closer cooperation between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah is anathema to Israel, the Saudis and Washington, yet it is happening. This is not a sectarian divide but rather based on some clear mutual interests, not least putting an end to sectarian (takfiri) terrorism.

It was only logical that, in the Iraqi military’s recent offensive on ISIS-held Tikrit, the Iranian military emerged as Iraq’s main partner. Washington has been sidelined, causing consternation in the US media. General Qasem Suleimani, head of Iran’s Quds Force is a leading player in the Tikrit operation.  A decade after Washington’s ‘creative destruction’ plans, designed to reduce Iranian influence in Iraq, an article in Foreign Policy magazine complains that Iran’s influence is ‘at its highest point in almost four centuries’.

——

Select references

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya (2006) Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a ‘New Middle East’

http://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

Seymour Hersh (2007) The Redirection

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

Al Akhbar (2011) Syria: What Kind of Revolution?

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/540

The New Yorker (2013) Syrian Opposition Groups Stop Pretending

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/syrian-opposition-groups-stop-pretending

RT (2014) Anyone but US! Biden blames allies for ISIS rise

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11l8nLZNPSY

Iraqi News (2015) American aircraft dropped weapons to ISIS, says MP

http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/american-aircraft-airdropped-weapons-to-isis-says-mp/

Washington Post (2015) Syrian rebel group that got U.S. aid dissolves

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-fighter-group-that-got-us-missiles-dissolves-after-major-defeat/2015/03/01/286fa934-c048-11e4-a188-8e4971d37a8d_story.html

David Kenner (2015) For God and Country, and Iran, Foreign Policy

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/05/for-god-and-country-and-iran/

Reuters (2015) Syrian air strike kills two Islamic State commanders

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/us-mideast-crisis-syria-islamicstate-idUSKBN0M30F720150307

Posted in USAComments Off on The Insidious Relationship between Washington and ISIS: The Evidence

Britain Must not do Business with War Criminals

NOVANEWS

96,000 Demand H.M. Government to Rescind Invitation to Naziyahu

Global Research
Netanyahu-Israel

We can, and must, source our NATO defence requirements from the European Union and not from Israel, a state whose military intelligence unit supplies so-called ‘security systems’ and espionage skills to Columbia and similar repressive regimes worldwide.

 ‘In Colombia, evidence of illegal interception of communications pervades accounts of extrajudicial disappearances and killings, according to Privacy International. Colombia’s long ­running conflict with left-wing rebels has killed more than 200,000 people since 1958, most of them civilians, and Amnesty International has accused both sides of violations of human rights and international law’ 

 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/105446

UK CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS. SIGN THE PETITION. 96, 000: WE SHOULD REACH 100,000 BY THE WEEKEND

Britain is a liberal democracy and must not do business with those who support or arm dictatorships and who are themselves documented, illegal occupiers of land and, as in this case, uniquely, an undeclared nuclear weapon state with a hidden arsenal of hundreds of nuclear warheads that denies the inspection of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations.

“The British Government has invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as head of the Israeli Government, to visit the UK in September. Under UK and international law, certain holders of high­ranking office in a State, including Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs are entitled to immunity, which includes inviolability and complete immunity from criminal jurisdiction.”

If Netanyahu arrives in London claiming immunity from criminal prosecution then he should be refused entry. David Cameron has both a declared and moral duty to retain the integrity of the electorate and government of the United Kingdom.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Britain Must not do Business with War Criminals

“The Security of I$raHell”: Fifth ‘Nuclear-Capable’ Submarine, Cruise Missiles with Nuclear Warheads, “Deterrent against Iran”

NOVANEWS
By RT
israeli sub

Israel has inaugurated its fifth Dolphin-class submarine, allegedly capable of launching cruise missiles with nuclear warheads. A German shipyard in Kiel has a contract to build a sixth sub “to ensure the security of Israel’s citizens,” the PM said.

The submarine has been baptized INS Rahav. Rahav is a demon, a cosmic sea monster, ‘Prince of the Sea’ according to the Talmud. It was also the name of a strange woman from Jericho who hid two Jewish scouts from the King of Jericho in the Book of Joshua, Old Testament.

After the submarine is fully equipped and passes all tests, it will cost $500 million and will enter service as possibly the most sophisticated and expensive weapon of Israeli Navy. Delivery to client is reportedly expected by the end of 2013.

The INS Rahav was built in northern Germany at the Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft shipyard in Kiel. She is believed to be one of the most advanced and sophisticated diesel-electric submarines in the world.

“The INS Rahav is one of the most advanced submarines in the world,” said Israeli Defense Ministry in a statement on Monday, reported Jerusalem Post.

“It is a versatile platform which can adapt to many and varied missions. The fleet of submarines forms a long arm for the [Israel] Navy, the IDF, and the State of Israel,” the ministry said.

Israel's new Dolphin-class submarine surfaces in the Mediterrannean Sea near Haifa (Reuters)

The inauguration ceremony has been attended by an Israeli delegation headed by the director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Military Affairs, Major General Udi Shani, the commander of the Israeli Navy, Rear Admiral Ram Rothberg, and a number of Israeli and German officials.

In June 2012, Der Spiegel reported that Germany is actually strengthening Israel’s nuclear capabilities. The magazine claimed that Dolphin-class submarines are equipped with hydraulic ejection systems that enable the underwater launch of Israeli Popeye Turbo SLCM long-range cruise missiles, believed to have nuclear warheads.

Israel’s Popeye cruise missile is believed to have a range of up to 1500km and carry a 200kg payload, enough to fit in a nuclear warhead. The first launch of the missile was carried out in 2002 in the Indian Ocean.

Thus the German-built submarines are believed to be the backbone of the Israeli nuclear deterrent against Iran.

“The submarines are a strong, strategic tool for the IDF. The State of Israel is ready to act anytime, anywhere – on land, sea and air – in order to ensure the security of Israel’s citizens,” Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said according to Associated Press.

Israel’s coastline in total, including islands, is a mere 273km, and it is no exaggeration to say that there is no other country with so many submarines to protect so short a sea border.

Vladimir Kremlev for RT

Germany building up Israel’s ‘deterrence’ submarine fleet

Germany started to deliver its Type 800 Dolphin-class submarines to Israel after the first Persian Gulf War.

The first two submarines were donated to Tel Aviv for free while the third came with a 50-per-cent discount, informs International Defense News. Berlin also shared about a third of the costs for the fourth and fifth submarines.

The fourth, the INS Tannin, opened the new generation of Dolphin II class submarines, capable of remaining submerged for long periods using cutting edge ‘air independent propulsion’ technology, which allows the engines of diesel-electric submarines to run without atmospheric oxygen.

Israeli Navy submarine "Dolphin" sails along the Mediterranean coast of Tel Aviv (AFP Photo/Gali Tibbon)

In March 2012 Israel and Germany signed a contract for a sixth and the last Dolphin-II class submarine that will be delivered in several years. Berlin allocated about 135 million euro (US $175.8 million) of the overall 600-million-euro cost of the sub.

In December 2011 Jerusalem Post reported that Israel invested about $27 million in a comprehensive structural overhaul and upgrade of the Dolphine I submarines at a shipyard in Haifa.

Israeli Dolphin-class submarines:

INS Dolphin – commissioned 1999
INS Leviathan (Whale) – commissioned 2000
INS Tekumah (Revival) – commissioned 2000
INS Tannin (Crocodile) – delivered May 3, 2012, to be commissioned in 2013
INS Rahav (Demon) – delivery expected by the end 2013

The Germans can be proud to have secured the existence of Israel for many years,” Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Der Spiegel in June 2012.

According to Barak, the INS Tannin delivered May 3, 2012, became yet another “force multiplier in terms of the capabilities and strength of Israel’s defense forces.

Commenting the delivery of INS Tannin, Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Benny Gantz specified that in conditions of growing strategic challenges in the Middle East Israeli’s Navy and its submarine fleet in particular represents a “defensive and fighting arm of deterrence.”

The “force multiplier” and “fighting arm” remarks of Israeli officials might as well point out that the alleged nuclear missiles in the possession of the state of Israel could be regarded not only as a shield, but as a sword as well.

Officially, Germany has always maintained that it doesn’t have a slightest idea about Israel’s military nuclear program and possible deployment of nuclear missiles on German-built submarines. However, according to Der Spiegel’s research, several former high-ranking German officials have never doubted Israel was putting nuclear missiles on its subs.

Israeli Seamen atop a new Dolphin-class submarine lay 69 wreaths in Mediterrannean Sea between Cyprus and Crete (Reuters)

Former German State Secretary Lothar Ruhl told Der Spiegel last June that he had not only “always assumed that Israel would deploy nuclear weapons on the submarines,” but also discussed the issue with the Israeli military.

According to documents obtained by the newspaper, the German government was well aware of Israel’s nuclear program as early as in 1961. The latest evidence from German Foreign Ministry archives presented by the magazine last year dates back to 1977 and corresponds to a discussion on the nuclear issue between then-Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and then-German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.

British MP and Vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Jeremy Corbyn very much doubts that anyone who is willing to help Israel boost its nuclear capabilities is interested in reducing the risk of a nuclear catastrophe. He doubts that the supplies are even necessary.

“It’s very hard to see how these submarines that Germany is supplying to Israel can be solely for defensive purposes, because there is no sea-based threat to Israel and Israel needs to get on board with the rest of the region and talk peace and talk about the signature they’ve already given to the Mediterranean weapons of Mass Destruction free zone. The delivery of these submarines is yet one more ratcheting up of the danger”, he told RT.

Corbyn further believes that the weapons supplies are a badly concealed preamble to a wider European involvement in the world’s hottest crisis zones.

Germany prides itself as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and on its non-nuclear status… But they’re also paying a very large amount of money to Israel’s defense costs by subsidizing the development and delivery of these submarines, and one just wonders if this isn’t part of a wider European military involvement in North Africa and the Middle East region.

Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, despite continuing international pressure, claiming it would be against its national security interests. Though Israel is not officially recognized as a nuclear weapons state, it is believed to possess several hundred operational nuclear devices.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on “The Security of I$raHell”: Fifth ‘Nuclear-Capable’ Submarine, Cruise Missiles with Nuclear Warheads, “Deterrent against Iran”

Hamas Releases New Video of Nazi Gilad Shalit in Captivity

NOVANEWS

Senior Hamas commander also claims Nazi army took body of Palestinian instead of that of Hadar Goldin during ‘Black Friday’ in Rafah.

Haaretz Aug 28, 2015

Gilad Shalit and Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzouk in Egypt at the Rafah crossing after Shalit’s transfer on October 18, 2011.

Report: Netanyahu’s envoy holding security-related talks in Cairo
Is Hamas our new partner for peace?

Missing in Gaza: What we know so far about the strange case of Avera Mengistu
Al Jazeera broadcast a video clip on Thursday showing Israel Defense Force’s soldier Gilad Shalit during the period he was held captive by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
In the clip, Shalit is seen sitting with Mohammad Abu Shamalah, who was the senior military commander of the southern part of the Gaza Strip for Hamas, and was killed by the IDF during Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 in Gaza.

The clip with Shalit was broadcast as a small part of a documentary film shown on Al Jazeera called “The Black Box,” which deals with the fighting last summer in Gaza.
Shalit was abducted by Hamas in June 2006 and held for over five years before being exchanged in October 2011 in return for the release of over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

The film also purported to describe new details about the events of what is called “Black Friday” in Rafah, in which 2nd. Lt. Hadar Goldin was killed and Hamas fighters abducted his body after Hamas violated the cease fire that had just began. Two other IDF soldiers were killed in the incident, Maj. Benaya Sarel and Staff Sgt. Liel Gidoni.

A commander in the Hamas’ military wing, called Abu Walid in the clip, says that Israeli soldiers did not enter the tunnels in the area in order to chase after Goldin and his abductors, as the IDF claims, but took a body of a Hamas fighter with them who was wearing an IDF uniform.
Abu Walid also said that the IDF only realized that Goldin was kidnapped two hours after the incident occurred, and only then did it implement the emergency protocol for a kidnapped soldier. Abu Walid also said that Goldin’s abduction took place before the ceasefire took effect, and not afterwards as the IDF claims. Other Hamas militants have said that since Goldin’s abduction, the links with those involved in the incident have been cut off.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, GazaComments Off on Hamas Releases New Video of Nazi Gilad Shalit in Captivity

Nazi Ministry Reiterates: No Funding for Institutes Supporting Boycott, Nakba

NOVANEWS

Image result for Minister Miri Regev CARTOON

Nazi Minister Miri Regev ‘Shoah’

Culture Ministry Reiterates: No Funding for Institutes Supporting Boycott, Nakba
Three weeks after AG says state cannot defund cultural institutes based on content, ministry publishes grant criteria.

By: Yair Ashkenazi

Haaretz

Culture and Sport Minister Miri Regev.Tess Scheflan
For the culture minister, whoever undermines her undermines the state
Israel’s culture minister told state funding can’t be withheld over content of work
Culture minister says Barenboim’s visit to Iran would harm Israel
Israel’s Culture and Sports Ministry sent out a memorandum on Wednesday to cultural institutes reiterating the different criteria governing financial state support ahead of 2016. Alongside administrative procedures for requesting funding from the ministry, the memo also focused on articles in the law that allow to deny funding on the basis of defamation of state symbols.
The news came a number of weeks after Culture Minister Miri Regev announced that she intended to change the criteria for government support for cultural institutions, a move which the Attorney General’s office said was not legal, claiming state funding could not be conditioned on cultural content.
Nonetheless, the memo cites Article 3b of the basis of the Budget Law, which stipulates that the state can withdraw funding to those denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic nation; incite to terror, violence or racism; express support of an armed struggle or acts of terror by enemy states or terror organizations against the State of Israel; presents Israel’s Independence Day as a day of mourning (such as the Palestinian Nakba Day); and defames – psychically or otherwise – of state symbols, like the flag.

The memo, which only reiterated past criteria, stressed that before any defunding can take place, the finance minister must attain a legal opinion from the attorney general attesting to the existence of any such activity.
Another article cited in the memo was article 4 of the Boycott Law which states that any body that openly calls for a boycott of Israel can lose its status as a state-funded cultural body. In this case too, the finance ministry must attain the support of the justice minister and culture minister before proceeding to revoke their permit.
In addition, the minister was said to be intending to limit the validity of the existing funding criteria for cultural institutions until the end of 2015, and was said to be planning to introduce new criteria, starting in 2016. This will give priority to institutions in the periphery and various population groups, based on her policies, and could also include increased funding for Arab culture.

In response, the ministry said: “The memo clarifies that the state and ministry have the authority to fine organizations found to be subverting against state officials, symbols and values as a Jewish and democratic state.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Ministry Reiterates: No Funding for Institutes Supporting Boycott, Nakba

Grassroots Fascism: The War Experience of the Japanese People

NOVANEWS
Global Research
First Japanese Geological Earthquake Report

Translated and introduced by Ethan Mark

Introduction: The People and the War

As a young historian researching prewar popular political movements in the early 1970s, Yoshimi Yoshiaki (b. 1946) became increasingly struck—and troubled—by the systematic inattention to popular experiences of the war period, along with the virtually universal silence on questions of popular war responsibility. Imbued with the progressive convictions of a scholarly generation that came of age amid the political struggles of the late 1960s, he was dissatisfied with the near-universal academic focus on elites and abstract social structures that rendered the story of the Japanese experience of the war “a history without people.” After many years of research, stops and starts, the end result was Grassroots Fascism: a radically different vantage on the wartime experience from the “bottom-up” and a bold attempt to break out of the constricted confines of “history in the passive voice.”

Taking us on a narrative journey that begins with the war’s troubled early 1930s beginnings and culminates in the disaster of defeat and the promise of a new beginning in 1945, moving adeptly and systematically between the home front and the diverse variety of “fronts” that distinguished Japan’s far-flung Asian imperium, Grassroots Fascism exposes us to a remarkable array of popular voices deftly assembled from sources such as diaries, government archives, and memoirs. Along the way Yoshimi presents a carefully nuanced and historicized portrait of everyday, non-elite Japanese in all their real-life complexity and ambiguity not only as victims of, but also as active participants in, the wartime struggle for hegemony in Asia and social renovation at home. Grassroots Fascism is also at special pains to include penetrating accounts of the experience of Japanese ethnic minorities and imperial subjects, including Okinawans, Koreans, and Taiwanese, engaged in their own complex personal and group negotiations of the wartime enterprise.

Yoshimi Yoshiaki

In taking Japan’s “common people” as protagonists and letting them in effect tell their own story of the war as it evolved, Grassroots Fascism reveals a 1930s and 1940s Japan that defies historiographical convention. Viewed from the bottom up, there unfolds before us a complex modern mass society, with a corresponding variety of popular roles and agendas. The comfortable, transparent “black and white” of conventional narratives of victims and villains is boldly exchanged for the translucent “grey” of a Japanese people cast as both victim and victimizer. In this and in its ingenious deployment of source material to evoke the wartime experience in three dimensions of vividness and diversity, Yoshimi’s study elevates scholarly discussion of the nature and dynamics of Japan’s wartime experience—and of “Japanese fascism”—to a bold new level.

Fascism and Empire at the Grassroots

Grassroots Fascism,
Japanese edition, 1987.

Yoshimi’s narrative of the unfolding of Japanese fascism is distinguished by his identification of the crucial role played by the interaction between the metropolitan center and the imperial periphery and the link between the increasingly brutal Japanese suppression of anticolonial resistance and fascist radicalization. This innovative perspective in turn emphasizes the historicity of the Japanese wartime regime as one evolving—and intensifying—in response to the perceived demands of total war.

At the start of the Sino-Japanese war in the late 1930s,“Domestically there was not much of a crisis situation, but quite important in place of this was the great number of the people who were mobilized into the military and sent to the Chinese mainland, there having a crisis type of experience that played an extraordinarily great role in Japan’s fascistization—this is my thinking.”1 Yoshimi’s centering of this China war dynamic in the making of Japanese fascism leads him to locate the critical moment of fascist consolidation at a time in which the savagery of the war and the tenacity of Chinese resistance prompted an increasingly radical Japanese response. He dates this moment to 1940–1941—precisely the period in which conventional, domestically-focused scholars have identified a “failure” of attempts to consolidate a genuinely fascist regime in the political center “back home.”2 In turn, Japan’s unexpectedly easy and dramatic string of victories against the Western Powers in Asia and the Pacific during the first months of the Pacific War that followed soon afterward imparted a deeper solidity and legitimacy to Japan’s war, to the system supporting it, and to the sacrifices it demanded, its “success” virtually silencing all remaining domestic dissent. “Here, a true situation of wild enthusiasm had finally emerged,” writes Yoshimi, “and emperor-system fascism had crystallized.”3 In this sense this experience can be fruitfully compared with similar developments in Europe in the wake of Mussolini’s 1935 victory in Ethiopia and Hitler’s unexpectedly easy defeat of archrival France in 1940, but for two reasons its impact was all the more broad and profound: militarily, it could not have posed a more positive contrast to the inconclusive and ongoing quagmire of Japan’s war in China. Equally or more important was its matching of Japanese propaganda of “Asian liberation” with concrete and effective action. As Yoshimi observes in Grassroots Fascism, such a mission held an appeal not only for Japanese but indeed for peoples around the globe convinced of the illegitimacy of Western imperial domination, including Taiwanese, Koreans, and Southeast Asians.

What ultimately sets Yoshimi’s approach apart is his combination of an empirewide perspective with a focus on the rise of fascism from the “bottom up”: the ambivalent role of ordinary Japanese not only as victims but also as agents and conduits of fascism. In a dialectical movement between metropole and periphery, between battlefield and paddy field, and between visions of imperial prosperity and the grim reality of wartime deprivation, ordinary Japanese came to share with military and bureaucratic elites a desire for a transcendent resolution of the national crisis, producing indispensible mass support for a radical transformation of the relations of state and society along fascist lines. In the Japanese countryside, Yoshimi says, at first it was “landlords and powerful landed farmers who were the core figures at the center of the system,”reflecting a situation of social and political continuity since the Meiji period. But as the war escalated into total war, he argues, “many people were needed as supporters, and the central supporters [of fascism] become those of a slightly lower level—landed farmers and landed/tenant farmers.”4 For many, participation in the war effort was not simply the product of patriotism or pressure from above, but it also beckoned as a revolutionary opportunity for social and political participation and advancement in a time of crisis. From peasant recruits to small farmers to elementary school teachers to colonial settlers, we are thus confronted with grassroots fascism as an ambiguous, ambivalent product of oppression and ambition, hope and desperation, brutalization and brutality. EM

Grassroots Imperialism

When the Sino-Japanese War began on July 7th 1937, popular calls for “imperialism externally,” a desire previously well buried, suddenly came to the fore. Along with limits on freedom of expression and the manipulation of public opinion, a number of other factors began to have a determining influence on popular consciousness. There was a manner of thinking along the lines of a fait accompli: “Now that the war has started, we’d better win it.” There was a strong sense that Japan was winning the war. And by the end of 1937, Japan had dispatched some 770,000 troops, a reality that weighed heavily.

According to a national survey of thirty-eight municipalities conducted at the end of 1937 by the Cabinet Planning Board’s Industry Section, the attitude of people in farming, mountain, and fishing villages towards the war against China, summarized in terms of a single village, was divided between “the middle class and up,” who “want the war to be pursued … to the fullest (to the point that [hostilities] will not flare up again),” and “the middle class and below,” who “want it to be brought to as speedy an end as possible.”5

If we examine the calls for a speedy end to the war more closely—voices mostly from “the middle and below”—the following sorts of examples emerge with particular force.

a. “We hope that it ends quickly. (We hope that overseas development will be possible. There is only one person who does not want to leave the village and emigrate to Manchuria).”

b. “In order to extend Japan’s influence in northern China, we are planning to send out two or three of my boys.”

c. “To compensate for all the sacrifices the Imperial Army has made, [(North and Central China]) should be brought under the control of the Empire.”

d. “We hope that we’ll be able to secure considerable rights and interests.”

Each of these statements represented a hope for a swift end to the war that went hand in hand with a yearning for concrete profits or rights and interests, clearly demonstrating that a “grassroots imperialism” ideology had begun to surge among the people. The people of the town of Kawashima in Kagawa Prefecture were a representative example. Reflecting the complexity of popular attitudes, it was reported here that “if the war goes on for long it will be a problem—this is what people genuinely say. Yet on the other hand, people of all classes also say that we have to keep fighting until we win.” One said that “it would be a waste to meaninglessly give back territory people have given their lives for,” another that “the people will not accept it if we gain nothing—either land or reparations. We don’t want to give back what we’ve already spent so much money getting for no reason. Northern China alone will not do. This is the second time we’ve shed blood in Shanghai.”

Here, then, is the picture of a people who, in the midst of their difficult lives, earnestly desired to cooperate in the war because it was their “duty as Japanese,” wishing simultaneously for a swift end to the conflict and to gain privileges from it.

The Profits of War

For the soldiers and their families, conscription and deployment to the front did not bring only suffering. An examination of letters from peasant soldiers who died in battle conducted by the Iwate Prefecture Farming Villages Culture Discussion Association (Iwate ken nōson bunka kondankai) makes clear that from the moment they joined the army, peasant soldiers were liberated from time-consuming and arduous farming chores. With “a daily bath,” “fairly good” food, and “fine shoes,” they led more privileged lives than they had in their farming villages. They received salaries that they could save or send to their families. They were able to enjoy “equal” treatment without regard to their social status or their wealth or poverty. They received education and were able to improve their social standing through their own talents.6

The army was also seen to afford peasant soldiers new prospects. If one became a noncommissioned officer—a corporal or sergeant—through service in the field, the road lay open to becoming a person of influence in one’s village upon return. Soldiers were so eager to make the rank of corporal that teasing of those who remained privates sometimes led to incidents of assault.7

Japanese settlers in Manchuria, late 1930s.

Soldiers perceived the colonies and the occupied territories as good places to “get ahead” after they’d been discharged. Abe Katsuo, a peasant cultivator from Iwayadō in Iwate Prefecture who fought in China’s Shanxi Province, reported thinking to himself, “After this, for the sake of the development of northern China… they say you can find employment in a government office or a company, and if it’s true you can earn as much as 150 yen per month, then maybe I’ll try settling in China for a bit.”8 Sasaki Tokusaburō, the eldest son of an owner-cultivator from Tokiwa Village in Akita Prefecture, studied while in the army and hoped to take exams to become a forest superintendent in South Sakhalin or to become a policeman there or in Korea or Hokkaidō.9

Tsuchiya Yoshio, the son of a track maintenance worker and tenant farmer in Saigō Village in Yamagata Prefecture, volunteered after the Manchurian Incident and was sent to Manchuria as a military policeman (kenpei). After his discharge he intended to “make a name” for himself (hitohata ageru) by finding employment with the South Manchurian Railway Company; when he later heard the announcement of the attack on Pearl Harbor, he pondered the possibility of becoming “even the master of some island in the South Pacific.”10

Fighting in southern China in July 1939, Sergeant Murata Washirō discussed with his underlings his plan of going into business in northern China upon his discharge and, if possible, managing a newspaper or hospital or organizing a resident’s association.11

These were the attempts of some men to find a way to live in the war’s midst after it had shattered their life prospects. It must be said that soldiers were cornered into this situation. At the same time, we cannot overlook this aspect: that the desire to get as much profit as possible out of the war transcended their unhappiness at being conscripted, and that soldiers supported the war in earnest.

Battles in Northern China and Soldiers from Tōhoku

Many soldiers hailing from the Tōhoku region in the north of the main island of Honshū, one of Japan’s most impoverished regions, were sent to northern China. How did the war alter the consciousness of soldiers from Tōhoku, and what was their thinking after repatriation? As an example, let us examine the case of a schoolteacher. Kimura Genzaemon, an instructor at Tōmai Ordinary/ Higher Elementary School in Akita Prefecture, received his draft notice on August 25, 1937 and participated in numerous battles throughout northern China as a stretcher bearer in the medical corps of the 108th Division.12

Before he departed for the front, Kimura recited a “speech on the world-historical and Japanese-historical significance of the [China] Incident.” From this salutation, we may gather that he supported the war. Yet as he crossed over the Shanhaiguan Pass and entered Northern China on September 24, 1937, he offered the following calm, candidly pessimistic observation: “Those who would sincerely welcome the chance to go to the front are, in general, only the uneducated. Children, women, (uneducated) old folks. The intelligentsia are, in general, bystanders. Is the Japanese Spirit unable to hold its own against Culture?”13

As Kimura witnessed Chinese people made into refugees after defeat in battle, participated in their enslavement, carried out requisitions, watched prisoners murdered, and heard about the “shooting to death of all the village inhabitants” in a punitive expedition (October 14, 1937),14 however, he came to believe sincerely in the “superiority” of the Japanese race:

When I think about the future of the Japanese race compared to the Chinese race I discover that I am all the more confident of our superiority. Of course among the ranks of Japanese youth an apathetic, utilitarian quality has recently been drawing attention, but at least so long as they retain their emotionalism, their obsession with cleanliness, and their yen for improvement, I believe it will be easy for them to overcome the animal-like prowess, the physical robustness, and the existential deep-rootedness of the Chinese masses.15

On February 18, Kimura’s Kasuya unit entered Licheng county (黎城県) in Shanxi Province. They repeatedly fought with the Eighth Route Army in Shanxi, and Kimura’s unit was gradually annihilated. Waged by a Chinese people whose solidarity extended to the elderly, women, and children, the relentless war against the Japanese far surpassed his expectations. Confronting this situation—one difficult to comprehend according to what had been Japanese popular “common sense”—Kimura found no means of overcoming his spiritual crisis other than by abnormally ratcheting up his will to battle and his hatred of the enemy.

Execution of Chinese prisoners by Japanese army

Kimura subsequently participated in several punitive expeditions in Shanxi, during which he had such experiences as “lopping off enemy heads without a second thought when the opportunity arises” (May 10, 1939) and “beheading one” prisoner while “submitting two more for vivisection” (August 11, 1939). He received a letter of commendation for his efforts in the campaign. Within this context, his view of China became even more warped.16

Looking back over the results of more than two years of battlefield experience on the eve of his return to Japan on October 30th, 1939, Kimura realized he’d reached a point where a “ spectacular idealism” had been conquered by an “extremely simple realism.” His realism amounted to this: In order to construct an “East Asian Cooperative Body” (Tōa kyōdōtai) and a “New East Asian Order,” the “Japanese race” itself required a “renovation and reformation of its domestic style,” but the gap between reality and what was needed was exceedingly wide, and overcoming this would be far more difficult than battling “millions upon millions of enemies.” Behind this thinking was a recognition of the fact that an anti-Japanese war of a truly popular nature was being waged, a recognition combined with a deep-seated fear. Thus Kimura ultimately hardened in his determination to see a New East Asian Order established: “No matter what the difficulties, so long as we cannot afford to evade it, we must continue to make solid progress toward it, step by step.”17

On November 25, 1939, Kimura was reunited with his family at Akita Station, and from then on he would pursue his teaching in Akita Prefecture from the standpoint he had articulated on the eve of his repatriation. YY

The above is an abridged, modified excerpt from the Translator’s Introduction and Chapter One of Yoshimi Yoshiaki’s Grassroots Fascism: The War Experience of the Japanese People, translated by Ethan Mark and published by Columbia University Press (New York: 2015). First published in Japanese by Tokyo University Press as Kusa no ne no fashizumu: Nihon minshū no sensō taiken in 1987 and still unsurpassed in its ambitious geographical, social, and chronological scope, Grassroots Fascism comprises at once both an intimate exploration of popular experiences of Japan’s war and an earnest attempt to interpret and reckon with the meaning and lessons of these experiences for the present—both in scholarly and moral terms. In both aims, the work is distinguished by its reliance upon, and faithful representation of, the voices of ordinary people. The war’s end is now seventy years behind us, and the authors of these popular testimonies are for the most part no longer with us. But in a time of unprecedented polarization regarding Japan’s wartime history and its legacies, their voices—and Professor Yoshimi’s classic study— are surely more relevant than ever. EM

Ethan Mark is a lecturer in Modern Japanese History at Leiden University. His article on “The Perils of Co-Prosperity: Takeda Rintarō, Occupied Southeast Asia, and the Seductions of Postcolonial Empire,” was published in 2014 in The American Historical Review 119(4): 1184-1206.

Notes

1 Personal interview with Yoshimi Yoshiaki, Tokyo, January 19, 2007.

2 Scholars have typically illustrated this “failure” with reference to the experience of the Imperial Rule Assistance Association (IRAA) established around this time, intended by its elite instigators as a vehicle for fascist-style one-party rule under Prime Minister Konoe Fumimaro, but frustrated by the bureaucratic establishment. As E.H. Norman observed at the time, “experienced bureaucracy has gradually snuffed out all signs of democratic activity, but on the other hand it has blocked the victory of outside fascist forces.” E.H. Norman, cited in John W. Dower, “E.H. Norman, Japan, and the Uses of History,” in Origins of the Modern Japanese State: Selected Writings of E.H. Norman, ed. John W. Dower (New York: Pantheon, 1975), pp. 73.

3 Yoshimi, Grassroots Fascism, p. 96.

4 Personal interview with Yoshimi, Tokyo, January 19, 2007.

5 This and the following comments from Japanese villagers are from Naikaku jōhōbu, ed., “Jihenka ni okeru nōsangyoson no shisō dōkō” (Tendencies of Thinking during the [China] Incident in Farming, Mountain, and Fishing Villages), repr. In Shiryō Nihon gendaishi, ed. Yoshimi Yoshiaki, Ikō Toshiya, and Yoshida Yutaka (Tokyo: Ōtsuki shoten, 1984), 11, pp. 310, 319-322.

6 Iwate ken nōson bunka kondankai, Senbotsu nōmin heishi no tegami (Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1961), 226–229

7 Yamamoto Takeshi, Ichiheishi no jūgun kiroku (Fukui: Yasuda shoten, 1985), 192.

8 Senbotsu nōmin heishi no tegami, 74.

9 Ibid.

10 Asahi shimbun Yamagata shikyoku, Kikigaki: aru kenpei no kiroku (Tokyo: Asahi shimbunsha, 1985), 26, 152.

11 Murata Washirō, Nitchū sensō nikki (Tokyo, Hōwa shuppan, 1983), 5:112.

12 This account draws on Kimura Genzaemon’s detailed diary from the front, Nitchū sensō shussei nikki (Akita: Mumyōsha shuppan, 1982).

13 Ibid, 19.

14 Ibid, p. 30.

15 Ibid, p. 53. Entry of January 5, 1938.

16 Ibid, pp. 207, 233.

17 Ibid, p. 266.

Posted in JapanComments Off on Grassroots Fascism: The War Experience of the Japanese People

The World is Watching

NOVANEWS

International Scholars, Artists, and Activists Petition. World Eyes on Okinawa

Global Research
okinawa-protest-rape

Introduction by Steve Rabson

International Scholars, Artists, and Activists Petition to Prevent a New U.S. Military Base in Okinawa

In Okinawa after three U.S. servicemen raped a 12-year-old school girl in 1995, the U.S. and Japanese governments sought to tamp down boiling outrage by promising to close a dangerous and noisy U.S. Marine airbase located in the center of densely populated Ginowan City. But there was a catch. The base would not close until completion of a new base at another location in the prefecture, Henoko in Nago City. Okinawans resoundingly rejected this plan, vigorously opposing it in local and prefectural elections, referenda, and in sustained public protests. For two decades they have stymied the governments of two powerful nationsdetermined to force the base on them.

In addition to government intimidation, arrests, and violent attacks by Japanese riot police and coast guard patrols, Okinawanshave also faced betrayals by their own elected officials. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, elected in 2009, received strong voter support in Okinawa for his promise to move the airbase out of the prefecture, only to capitulate under pressure from the U.S. and his own government a year later, acceding to its construction in Okinawa. Hirokazu Nakaima, governor 2006-2014, had supported the base, but in the days leading up to the election of November 2010, he started to call for its relocation outside of Okinawa in a bid to win re-election. Then, in December 2013, he abruptly caved in to pressure from Tokyo and signed the landfill permit to allow its construction. His broken promise became the central issue in the gubernatorial campaign of November 2014. Nakaima lost this election in a landslide to current governor Takeshi Onaga who had also changed from a previously pro-base to an anti-base position. During the election and since taking office, he has repeatedly pledged to “do everything in my power” to prevent its construction.

Governor Onaga has been in office for eight months. His most important action on the base to date has been appointment of a committee of environmental and legal experts to reassess procedures followed in filing the landfill permit. The committee’s report, filed in July, concluded that the landfill permit approved by former Governor Nakaima violates Japan’s Public Waters Reclamation Law by failing to “sufficiently take into account environmental preservation and disaster prevention” and by failing to meet the criteria for “appropriate and rational use of national land.” In short the landfill permit was legally flawed. The report was sufficiently damning that the Japanese government issued a one-month moratorium on base construction and entered negotiations with the Governor.

In January 2014 a group of over one hundred scholars, artists and peace advocates from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe issued a Statement opposing the plan to construct a new base at Henoko and demanding the swift return of the existing Marine Air Station at Futenma. Again in January 2015, a smaller group, 15 scholars and activists, wrote to Governor Onaga in the name of “No New Bases in Okinawa! Global Voices” urging the Governor to take early action to cancel the license to reclaim Oura Bay for base construction purposes. Now, August 2015, a group of 109 international scholars and peace activists has urged Governor Onaga to honor his commitment to the people of Okinawa. Their statement has received considerable attention in the Okinawan media. See the reports in the following:

Ryukyu Shimpo, August 31, 2015.

Kyodo News, August 31, 2015.

The world is waiting for Governor Onaga to act on the recommendations of the committee.

The World is Watching: International Scholars, Artists, and Activists Petition to Prevent a New U.S. Military Base in Okinawa

世界は見ている沖縄の新基地を阻止するための世界の識者、文化人、運動家の請願

August 29, 2015 2015年8月29日(更新)

The Okinawan people for twenty consecutive years have made plain their overwhelming opposition to a proposed new U.S. Marine airbase at Henoko, on Oura Bay in the city of Nago. Since our January 2014 statement opposing construction of the planned base, local opposition has grown and intensified. People have rallied by the thousands and repeatedly picketed government offices in Okinawa and on the Japanese mainland. The sit-in tent at the Henoko fishing port is now in its 12th year, and the protest tent at the gate to the planned construction site, which has been a 24/7 action since January 2015, has continued for more than 400 days. Protesters are engaging in non-violent civil disobedience – using sea kayaks on the bay and blocking trucks with their bodies on the land – physically interfering with the construction process. Riot police and members of the Coast Guard have attacked demonstrators, causing serious injuries. Polls in the prefecture record 80% opposition to the base. For their part, the Japanese and US governments remain adamant in their determination to thwart the will of the Okinawan people.

沖縄の人々は20年間にわたり名護市・大浦湾の辺野古に計画されている海兵隊新基地に対し圧倒的な反対の姿勢を明らかにしてきた。我々が2014年1月に出した新基地建設反対声明以来、地元の反対は拡大し強化された。何千、何万の人々が集会に集まり、繰り返し沖縄や日本本土の関係省庁の庁舎前で抗議行動を行った。辺野古漁港での座り込みテントは12年目に入る。建設予定地に続くゲートでの座り込みはすでに400日以上続いており、1月以降は24時間態勢を取ってきた。抗議する人々は非暴力の市民的不服従運動を行ってきており、湾内ではシーカヤックを使い陸上では自らの体でトラックを阻止するなどして、建設のプロセスを物理的に妨げてきている。機動隊や海上保安庁の人員は抗議運動をする人を襲い、深刻な負傷をもたらした。県内の世論調査では80%が新基地に反対している。一方、日米政府は沖縄の人々の意思を妨害する決意について譲らない姿勢のままでいる。

The island prefecture of Okinawa, comprising 0.6 % of the nation’s land area and 1% of its population, already bears 74% of U.S. military bases in all of Japan. This burden represents close to 500 times that of the rest of the country. Okinawans understand this as blatant structural discrimination.

島で構成される県である沖縄は、国の0.6%の面積で1%の人口を抱えるが、日本にある米軍基地の74%をすでに負担している。この負担はすでに県外に比べ500倍近いものである。沖縄はこのことをあからさまな構造的差別と見ている。

Government officials in Tokyo and Washington argue that removing the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station from Ginowan City and constructing a new base at Henoko will reduce the problem of noise pollution and the danger of plane crashes in crowded areas. But the people of Okinawa, including the people of Ginowan, have made clear that they do not consider moving these problems from one part of Okinawa to another as a “solution.” Moreover, construction of this airbase would destroy the beautiful, though fragile, environment of Oura Bay, which is Japan’s finest remaining coral sea and home of the dugong, a protected species of marine mammal, and other fish and plant life.

東京とワシントンの日米政府高官たちは、海兵隊普天間飛行場を宜野湾市から撤去し、辺野古に新基地を造ることが騒音被害や人口密集地での墜落の危険性を軽減すると主張している。しかし宜野湾市の人々を含む沖縄の人々は、これらの問題を沖縄の一つの地からもう一つの地に移動させることが「解決策」だとは考えていないことを明確に表明している。さらに、この航空基地を建設することは美しくも壊れやすい大浦湾の環境を破壊する。大浦湾は、日本で残存するもっとも健全なサンゴの海であり、保護対象となっている海洋ほ乳類ジュゴンや他の魚類や植物の棲息地でもある。

In November 2014, Okinawans overwhelmingly elected Takeshi Onaga, running on a platform to prevent construction of the base, as governor. He defeated incumbent governor Hirokazu Nakaima, who, after years of promising to oppose the new base construction, had suddenly signed the landfill permit. Nakaima caved into pressure from Tokyo, directly violating his campaign promise and betraying his constituents.

2014年11月、沖縄の人々は基地建設阻止の立場をとる翁長雄志氏を大差で知事として選んだ。何年も新基地に反対すると約束してきた後、突然埋め立て申請を承認した現職の仲井真弘多知事を破っての当選であった。仲井真氏は東京からの重圧に屈服し、自らの選挙公約に直接違反し有権者を裏切った。

Governor Onaga, who has repeatedly stated his intention to do “everything in my power” to stop the base, appointed a Third Party Committee, a team of environmental and legal experts to identify legal flaws, if any, of the landfill permit, with the possibility of nullification of the permit in mind.

繰り返し「あらゆる権限を駆使」して基地を阻止する意向を述べてきた翁長知事は、埋め立て承認取り消しを視野に、承認に法的瑕疵があるかないか、またあるとしたらどのような瑕疵なのか特定するために環境、法律の専門家のチーム「第三者委員会」を任命した。

In July this Committee issued its report, which concluded that the landfill permit approved by former Governor Nakaima violates Japan’s Public Waters Reclamation Law by failing to “sufficiently take into account environmental preservation and disaster prevention” and by failing to meet the criteria for “appropriate and rational use of national land.” This accords with common sense: it does not require technical expertise to understand that the claim that you can dump three and a half million truckloads of dirt into a coral garden without causing serious environmental damage is patently absurd. Governor Onaga now has the evidence required to nullify the approval of the landfill permit that allowed Tokyo to proceed with base construction.

7月にこの委員会が出した報告書は、仲井真前知事による埋め立て承認は「環境保全及び災害防止に付き十分配慮」しておらず、「国土利用上適切且つ合理的」という基準に適合しないことにより、日本の公有水面埋立法に反すると結論づけた。これは常識とも合致している―深刻な環境破壊を起こさずにトラック350万台分もの土砂をサンゴの園に投げ込むことが可能であるといった主張が明らかにおかしいということを理解するのに専門知識は必要ない。翁長知事は今、日本政府に基地建設を進めることを許してきた埋め立て承認を取り消すための証拠を手にしている。

The Japanese government has responded by announcing a one-month suspension of construction work, and entered negotiations with the prefecture. However, in another slap in the face to the Okinawan people and their representatives, it insists that it will resume work on the base afterwards, regardless of the outcome of the “negotiations.”

日本政府は一か月の建設工事中断を発表するという形で対応し、県との協議に入った。しかし沖縄の人々やその代表者たちにとってもう一つの平手打ちを食らわせるかの如く、政府は「協議」の結果にかかわらず基地建設のための作業をその後続けると断言している。

Governor Onaga holds the key to preventing this with his authority, backed by the Third-Party Committee report, to nullify the landfill permit approved by former Governor Nakaima. It is likely the Japanese government’s fear of such an action that motivated its suspension of work and entrance into negotiations in hopes of pressuring Governor Onaga to end his opposition by promising huge economic development projects. But such attempts at bribery are an insult to the Okinawan people.

翁長知事は自らの権限においてこれを阻止する鍵を握る。第三者委員会報告書の裏付けを得て、仲井真前知事の埋め立て承認を取り消す権限である。このような行動を取られることに対する日本政府の恐れが、工事中断と、大きな経済振興計画を約束し翁長知事に反対をやめさせることを狙った協議に入る動機づけとなったのであろう。しかしこのような買収の試みは沖縄の人々にとっての侮辱である。

The Third Party Investigation has shown that the landfill permit issued by Governor Nakaima is legally flawed – in a word, illegal. This means that the governor is legally bound to nullify it. Such nullification was expected to come right after the Third Party Committee concluded, but to many Okinawans’ surprise, Governor Onaga instead announced a one-month delay of any decision based on the Committee Report.

第三者委員会による検証は、仲井真知事による埋め立て承認は法的瑕疵がある―要するに違法であるとの結論を出した。これが意味することは、翁長知事はこれを取り消す法的義務があるということである。第三者委員会が結論を出した直後にこのような取り消しがあると期待されていたが、多くの沖縄の人にとって驚きであったのは、翁長知事は第三者委報告を受けてのいかなる判断も一か月間先延ばしにしたことだ。

For Governor Onaga to fail to nullify the permit would make him complicit in an illegal project.Of course, the governor knows this, and he also knows that failure to act decisively would also probably trigger an explosion in Okinawan society.

翁長知事が埋め立て承認取り消しをしないようなことがあったら、それは違法なプロジェクトに加担するということになる。もちろん翁長知事はそれをわかっているはずであり、決定的な行動に出ないことが沖縄社会に爆発を引き起こすであろうこともわかっているはずだ。

The Okinawan people have made it absolutely clear that they want and expect the governor to nullify the landfill agreement unconditionally with no compromises and no deals.

We support them in this desire.

The world is watching.

沖縄の人々は、知事が無条件で妥協や取引も全く伴わない埋め立て承認取り消しを行うことを求め、期待していることを明白にしている。

我々は沖縄の人々のこの要望を支持する。

世界は見ている。

  1. Matthew Allen, professor (adjunct), Cairns Institute, James Cook University, Australia マシュー・アレン、ジェームズ・クック大学(オーストラリア)ケアンズ研究会外部教授
  2. Kozy Amemiya, Independent scholar specializing on Okinawan emigration コージー・アメミヤ 沖縄移民研究家
  3. Andrea Arai, cultural anthropologist and lecturer in Japan and East Asian Studies, University of Washington アンドレア・アライ、州立ワシントン大学日本および東アジア学科文化人類学講師
  4. Frank Bardacke, Labor Historian フランク・バーデキー、労働運動歴史家
  5. Herbert Bix, Emeritus Professor of History and Sociology, State University of New York at Binghamton ハーバート・ビックス、ニューヨーク州立大ビンガムトン校歴史学・社会学名誉教授
  6. Adam Broinowski, Japanese historical and cultural studies, Australian National University アダム・ブロイノウスキ、オーストラリア国立大学日本歴史文化学研究員
  7. Daniel Broudy, Professor & Chair, Graduate School of Intercultural Communication, Okinawa Christian University ダニエル・ブロウディ、沖縄キリスト教学院大学大学院 異文化間コミュニケ―ション学研究科教授
  8. Alexander Brown, PhD Student, School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong アレクサンダー・ブラウン、ウーロンゴン大学(オーストラリア)人文社会学部博士課程
  9. Michael K. Bourdaghs, Professor, University of Chicago マイケル・K・ボーダッシュ、シカゴ大学
  10. Akiko Utu Cacaji, Veterans For Peace, Washington DC Chapter アキコ・ウツ・カカジ、「平和のための退役軍人会」ワシントンDC支部
  11. Jenny Chan, China Studies & Sociology, School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, University of Oxford ジェニー・チャン、オックスフォード大学学際地域研究学部、中国学と社会学講師
  12. John Chappell, Professor of History, Webster University ジョン・チャペル、ウェブスター大学歴史学教授
  13. Choi Sung-Hee, coordinator, Gangjeong village international team, Jeju Island, Korea チェ・ソンヒ、韓国済州島カンジョン村国際チームコーディネーター
  14. Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ノーム・チョムスキー、マサチューセッツ工科大学言語学名誉教授
  15. C. Anne Claus, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, American University C・アン・クロース、アメリカン大学人類学助教授
  16. Sam Coleman, Veterans for Peace, California State University, Long Beach サム・コールマン、「平和のための退役軍人会」、カリフォルニア州立大学ロングビーチ校講師
  17. Millie Creighton, Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of British Columbia ミリー・クレイトン、ブリティッシュコロンビア大学人類学准教授
  18. Bruce Cumings, Swift Distinguished Professor, History Department, University of Chicago ブルース・カミングス、シカゴ大学歴史学部教授
  19. Kelly Dietz, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, Ithaca College ケリー・ディエツ、イサカ大学政治学部助教授
  20. Mark Driscoll, Associate Professor of East Asian Studies at the Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill マーク・ドリスコル、ノースキャロライナ大学チャペルヒル校東アジア学准教授
  21. Alexis Dudden, Professor of History, University of Connecticut アレクシス・ダデン、コネチカット大学歴史学教授
  22. Mark Ealey, Translator マーク・イーリー、翻訳家
  23. Daniel Ellsberg, Former State and Defense Department official ダニエル・エルズバーグ、元国務省、国防総省高官
  24. Cynthia Enloe, Research Professor, Clark University シンシア・エンロー、クラーク大学(米国)研究教授
  25. Thomas Fazi, Writer and filmmaker (Italy), co-director ofStanding Armyトーマス・ファッツィ 著述家、映画監督(イタリア)、映画『Standing Army』(日本語版『誰も知らない基地のこと』)共同監督
  26. John Feffer, Foreign Policy in Focus ジョン・フェッファー、「フォーリン・ポリシー・イン・フォーカス」ディレクター
  27. Norma Field, Professor Emerita, University of Chicago ノーマ・フィールド、シカゴ大学名誉教授
  28. Max Paul Friedman, Professor of History, American University マックス・ポール・フリードマン、アメリカン大学歴史学教授
  29. James Fujii, Associate Professor, University of California, Irvine ジェームズ・フジイ、カリフォルニア大学アーバイン校准教授
  30. Takashi Fujitani, Professor of History, University of Toronto タカシ・フジタニ、トロント大学歴史学教授
  31. Bruce K. Gagnon, Coordinator, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space ブルース・K・ギャグノン、「宇宙における兵器と核に反対するグローバルネットワーク」コーディネーター
  32. Johan Galtung, dr hc mult Professor of Peace studies, Founder Transcend ヨハン・ガルトゥング、平和学教授、「トランセンド」創始者
  33. Joseph Gerson (PhD), Working Group for Asia-Pacific Peace & Demilitarization ジョセフ・ガーソン(PhD)、アジア太平洋平和と非軍事化ワーキンググループ
  34. Subrata Ghoshroy, Research Affiliate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology シュブロート・ゴシュロイ、マサチューセッツ工科大学研究員
  35. Andrew Gordon, Professor of History, Harvard University アンドリュー・ゴードン、ハーバード大学歴史学教授
  36. Mel Gurtov, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, Portland State University メル・ガートフ、ポートランド州立大学政治学名誉教授
  37. Morton H Halperin, Former U.S. Government official ( Departments of Defense and State and National Security Council) モートン・H・ハルペリン、元米国政府高官(国防総省、国務省、国家安全保障会議)
  38. Laura Hein, Professor, Northwestern University, Chicago ローラ・ハイン、ノースウェスタン大学(シカゴ)教授
  39. Edward Heinrich-Sanchez, Coordinator, Veterans for Peace, Ryukyu-Okinawa Chapter エドワード・ハインリッヒ―サンチェス、「平和のための退役軍人会」琉球沖縄支部コーディネーター
  40. Julie Higashi, Professor, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto ジュリー・ヒガシ 立命館大学(京都)教授
  41. Katsuya Hirano, Associate Professor of History, UCLA カツヤ・ヒラノ、カリフォルニア大学ロスアンゼルス校歴史学准教授
  42. Christine Hong, Assistant Professor, UC Santa Cruz クリスティーン・ホング、カリフォルニア大学サンタクルーズ校助教授
  43. Glenn D. Hook, Professor, University of Sheffield グレン・D・フック、シェフィールド大学教授
  44. Asato Ikeda, Assistant Professor, Fordham University アサト・イケダ、フォーダム大学助教授
  45. Masamichi (Marro) Inoue, Associate Professor, Department of Modern and Classical Languages, Literatures & Cultures / Japan Studies Program, University of Kentuckyマサミチ(マロ)・イノウエ、ケンタッキー大学、現代古典言語・文学・文化学部/日本研究プログラム准教授
  46. Vincent J. Intondi, Associate Professor of History, Montgomery College ビンセント・J・イントンディ、モンゴメリー大学歴史学准教授
  47. Rebecca Jennison, Dept. of Humanities, Kyoto Seika University レベッカ・ジェニソン、京都精華大学人文学部教員
  48. Paul Jobin, Associate Professor, Paris Diderot University ポール・ジョバン、パリ・ディデロ大学准教授
  49. David T. Johnson, Professor of Sociology, University of Hawaii at Manoa デイビッド・T・ジョンソン、ハワイ大学マノア校社会学教授
  50. Sheila K. Johnson (Mrs. Chalmers Johnson), writer シーラ・K・ジョンソン(故チャルマーズ・ジョンソンの妻)、著述家
  51. William Johnston, Professor of History, Wesleyan University ウィリアム・ジョンストン ウェズリアン大学(コネチカット州)歴史学教授
  52. Erin Jones, Researcher エリン・ジョーンズ、研究者
  53. John Junkerman, Filmmaker, Visiting Scholar at Waseda University ジャン・ユンカーマン、映画監督、早稲田大学客員教授
  54. Kyle Kajihiro, a Board Member, Hawaiʻi Peace and Justice カイル・カジヒロ、「ハワイの平和と正義」理事
  55. Peter King, emeritus professor, University of Sydneyピーター・キング、シドニー大学名誉教授
  56. Jeff Kingston, Professor of History, Temple University, Japan ジェフ・キングストン、テンプル大学日本校歴史学教授
  57. Joy Kogawa, author of Obasan ジョイ・コガワ 作家、『オバサン』(和訳『失われた祖国』)著者
  58. Pekka Korhonen, Professor of World Politics, University of Jyväskylä ペッカ・コーホネン、ユヴァスキュラ大学(フィンランド)国際政治学教授
  59. J. Victor Koschmann, Professor, Cornell University J・ビクター・コッシュマン、コーネル大学教授
  60. Jeremy Kuzmarov, J.P. Walker assistant professor of history, University of Tulsa ジェレミー・カズマロフ、タルサ大学助教授
  61. Peter Kuznick, Professor of History, American Universityピーター・カズニック、アメリカン大学歴史学教授
  62. Thomas Lamarre, Department of East Asian Studies, McGill University トーマス・ラマレ、マギル大学 東アジア学部
  63. Jon Letman, independent journalist, Lihue, Hawaii ジョン・レットマン、ジャーナリスト(ハワイ州リフエ)
  64. Douglas Lummis, Visiting Professor, Okinawa Christian University Graduate School, ダグラス・ラミス、沖縄キリスト教学院大学大学院客員教授
  65. Catherine Lutz, Professor, Brown University キャサリン・ルッツ、ブラウン大学教授
  66. Mairead Maguire, Nobel Peace laureate マイレッド・マグワイア、ノーベル平和賞受賞者
  67. Janice Matsumura, Associate professor, Simon Fraser University ジャニス・マツムラ、サイモンフレイザー大学(カナダ)准教授
  68. Gavan McCormack, Professor Emeritus, Australian National University ガバン・マコーマック、オーストラリア国立大学名誉教授
  69. Jo (Yosi) McIntire, Peace Activist, Scholar of International Relations ジョー(ヨシ)マッキンタイア、平和運動家、国際関係学研究者
  70. Richard H. Minear, professor of history (emeritus), University of Massachusetts Amherst リチャード・H・ミネア、マサチューセッツ大学アマースト校歴史学名誉教授
  71. Jon Mitchell, Journalist ジョン・ミッチェル、ジャーナリスト
  72. Michael Molasky, Professor of Asian Cultural Studies, Waseda University マイク・モラスキー、早稲田大学アジア文化学部教授
  73. R. Taggart Murphy, Professor, International Political Economy, University of Tsukuba, Tokyo Campus R・タガード・マーフィー、筑波大学東京キャンパス国際政治経済学教授
  74. Katherine Muzik, Marine Biologist, Kaua’i, Hawaii キャサリン・ミュージック、海洋生物学者(ハワイ州カウアイ島)
  75. Christopher Nelson, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillクリストファー・ネルソン、ノースカロライナ大学チャペルヒル校准教授
  76. Satoko Oka Norimatsu, Editor, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus サトコ・オカ・ノリマツ、『アジア太平洋ジャーナル:ジャパンフォーカス』エディター
  77. Elin O’Hara Slavick, Professor, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill エリン・オハラ・スラビック、ノースキャロライナ大学チャペルヒル校教授
  78. Peter B. Olney, Retired Organizing Director ILWU ピーター・B・オルニー、ILWU(国際港湾倉庫労働者組合)組織部長
  79. Stephanie Ortoleva, Esq., President, Women Enabled International, International Human Rights & Women’s Rights lawyer ステファニー・オルトレバ、「ウィメン・エネイブルド・インターナショナル」代表、国際人権および女性の権利の弁護士
  80. Eiko Otake, Artist in residence, Wesleyan University エイコ・オタケ、ウエスリアン大学レジデントアーチスト
  81. Koohan Paik, International Forum on Globalization, San Francisco クーハン・パーク、グローバライゼーションに関する国際フォーラム(サンフランシスコ)
  82. Enrico Parenti, Filmmaker (Italy), co-director ofStanding Army エンリコ・パレンティ 映画監督(イタリア)、映画『Standing Army』(日本語版『誰も知らない基地のこと』)共同監督
  83. Charles Pellegrino, Deep Ocean Explorer/Astrobiologist/Forensic Archaeologist チャールズ・ペレグリーノ、深海探検家、宇宙生物学者、法考古学者
  84. John Price, Professor of History, University of Victoria ジョン・プライス、ビクトリア大学(カナダ)歴史学教授
  85. Steve Rabson, Professor Emeritus, Brown University スティーブ・ラブソン、ブラウン大学名誉教授
  86. Betty A. Reardon, Founding Director Emeritus, International Institute on Peace Education ベティ・A・レアドン、平和教育に関する国際研究所名誉創設者
  87. Simon Robinson, Okinawa Christian University, Okinawa Sudbury School サイモン・ロビンソン、沖縄国際大学、沖縄サドベリー・スクール
  88. David Rothauser, Filmmaker, “Hibakusha, Our Life to Live,” “Article 9 Comes to America デイビッド・ロスハウザー、映画監督(『ヒバクシャ、わが人生』、『憲法九条アメリカに来る』)
  89. Jordan Sand, Professor of Japanese History, Georgetown University ジョーダン・サンド、ジョージタウン大学日本史教授
  90. Peter Dale Scott, Prof. Emeritus of English, University of California, Berkeley ピーター・デール・スコット、カリフォルニア大学バークレー校英文学名誉教授
  91. Mark Selden, Senior Research Associate, East Asia Program at Cornell University マーク・セルダン、コーネル大学東アジアプログラム上級研究員
  92. Franziska Seraphim, Associate Professor of Japanese History, Boston College フランジスカ・セラフィム、ボストンカレッジ日本史准教授
  93. David H. Slater, Professor of Cultural Anthropology, Sophia University デイビッド・H・スレーター、上智大学文化人類学教授
  94. Jeffrey St. Clair, journalist & editor, CounterPunch magazine ジェフェリー・セントクレア、ジャーナリスト、『カウンターパンチ』誌編集長
  95. Oliver Stone, Filmmaker オリバー・ストーン、映画監督
  96. Roy Tamashiro, Professor of Multidisciplinary Studies, Webster University ロイ・タマシロ、ウェブスター大学学際学部教授
  97. Miyume Tanji(Dr.), Australian National University ミユメ・タンジ、オーストラリア国立大学
  98. Vladimir Tikhonov, Professor at Oslo University ウラジミール・チコノフ、オスロ大学教授
  99. John Whittier Treat, Professor Emeritus, Yale University ジョン・ウィッティア・トリート、イェール大学名誉教授
  100. Brian Victoria, Visiting Research Fellow,International Research Center for Japanese Studies (Nichibunken) ブライアン・ヴィクトリア、外国人来訪研究員、国際日本文化研究センター(京都)
  101. David Vine, Associate Professor of Anthropology, American University デイビッド・バイン、アメリカン大学人類学准教授
  102. Vanessa B. Ward (Dr.), Lecturer in East Asian History, Department of History & Art History, University of Otago バネッサ・B・ウォード、オタゴ大学(ニュージーランド)歴史学・美術史学科東アジア史講師
  103. David Webb, Emeritus Professor, Leeds Beckett University; Convenor, Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space; Chair, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament デイビッド・ウェブ、リーズ・ベケット大学(英国)名誉教授、「宇宙における兵器と核に反対するグローバルネットワーク」代表、「核軍縮キャンペーン」代表
  104. Piers R. Williamson, Specially Appointed Associate Professor, Research Faculty of Media and Communication, Hokkaido University ピアス・R・ウィリアムソン、北海道大学メディア・コミュニケーション研究員特任准教授
  105. James Winter, Professor of Communication, Media & Film, University of Windsor, Ontario Canada ジェームズ・ウィンター、ウィンザー大学(カナダ、オンタリオ)コミュニケーション、メディア&映像学教授
  106. Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus, State University of New York/Albany ローレンス・ウィットナー、ニューヨーク州立大学アルバニー校歴史学名誉教授
  107. Karel van Wolferen, Emeritus professor, University of Amsterdam, author カレル・バン・ウォルフェレン、アムステルダム大学名誉教授、著述家
  108. Dustin Wright, lecturer of history, University of California, Santa Cruz. ダスティン・ライト, カリフォルニア大学サンタクルーズ校歴史学講師
  109. Kenneth H Young CD, Service Officer, Royal Canadian Legion, Branch #256 Nanaimo BC ケネス・H・ヤング、カナダ退役軍人会256支部(カナダBC州ナナイモ)サービス・オフィサー

(As of August 31, 2015. 2015年8月29日現在。List of signers in alphabetical order of family names署名者リストは、ファミリーネームのアルファベット順。)

Posted in JapanComments Off on The World is Watching

In Syria, Putin Calls Obama’s Bluff, Russia Joins War Against the ‘ISIS’

NOVANEWS
Global Research
ISIS

According to German Economic News (September 1st, based on reports from ynetnews and others), Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has apparently decided to establish in Syria a military base with thousands of soldiers and sufficient air power to do in Syria what the Obama Administration won’t, which is to defeat ISIS and the other jihadists.

On the same day, washingtonsblog bannered, “Former CIA Boss and 4-Star General: U.S. Should Arm Al Qaeda,” and linked to several sources indicating that not only David Petraeus favors arming Al Qaeda, but much of the American establishment (who have sponsored Petraeus’s entire career) also does. The British aristocracy likewise does. In fact, that academic propaganda-piece, The Russia Challenge, discusses “the stark choices Western governments face in their policies towards Russia,” while it says nothing about “the stark choices” that Russia now faces in its policies toward the U.S. aristocracy, and toward Britain’s and other U.S-allied aristocracies.

That British academic propaganda-piece comes from Chatham House, otherwise called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which, since early in the 20th Century, has been allied in the U.S. with the Rockefellers’ and Morgans’ Council on Foreign Relations, and, post-WWII, also with the Bilderberg group, and with the Rockefellers’ Trilateral Commission (which brought the Japanese aristocracy into the overall U.S.-led plan for global conquest).

However, there are additionally many other front-organizations for this operation, such as the Brookings Institution. Brookings has always championed American empire, and I reported even recently on a Brookings ‘study’ of this type, by headlining “Brookings Wants More Villages Firebombed in Ukraine’s ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’.”(It’s actually an operation against the residents of the part of Ukraine that had voted 90%+ for the Ukrainian leader whom the Obama Administration had just overthrown. The residents there had refused to accept Obama’s imposed regime.) The intended defeat of Russia is to come not only in the competition over oil and gas (such as between the Arabic oil potentates and Russia), but also by extending NATO right up to Russia’s borders, such as by installing next-door in Ukraine a rabidly anti-Russian government, via a coup in February 2014. (John Fitzgerald Kennedy didn’t like it when Nikita Khrushchev tried something similar against the United States in 1962. It was called “the Cuban Missile Crisis.”) The evidence is clear and overwhelming, though almost entirely absent in U.S. ‘news’ media, that America’s aristocracy place vastly higher priority upon defeating Russia than upon defeating Islamic jihad. (The implicit message to the families of America’s 9/11 victims is: “Just get lost.” But that subtle message from the aristocrats isn’t on America’s ‘news,’ either. Only their PR is.)

In fact, I provided essential background for this development, on August 16th, headlining “How & Why the U.S. Media Do Propaganda Against Russia.” This is a position by the U.S. “Establishment,” which is the entire network of think tanks and other fronts that are financed by the U.S. aristocracy (tax-free, moreover, to the aristocrats who finance these operations) so as to conquer Russia in order that the U.S. aristocracy will win unchallengeable global control, over every other nation’s aristocracy. I documented there that not only the Republican Party but the Obama-Clinton or “Establishment” wing of the Democratic Party, have been fully in agreement with Mitt Romney’s infamous 2012 statement against Russia, which Obama publicly condemned at the time, that, “this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe”; and Obama’s very public attack against that statement helped him win the 2012 election, though Obama’s second Administration has actually been carrying out Romney’s policy there.

Obama has many cheerleaders in this global-conquest program, such as his advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who is proud to have helped start today’s Islamic jihad movement in order to defeat the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union ended, Brzezinski’s hatred of Russians drove him to continue on as if it hadn’t. The war against “communism” has turned out to have been just a cover-story for these aristocrats’ war for global control, somewhat like the war against Islamic jihadists later morphed into a war against the residents of Ukraine’s pro-Russian far-east. Brzezinski was born to Polish nobility, and he retains that hatred from his childhood, which is why he has been so useful to America’s aristocrats, in order to help make the defeat of Russia into a “bipartisan” issue, and not merely an issue for Romney and the great bulk of America’s aristocrats, who are Republicans.

Basically, what Putin is apparently doing here is to go beyond the theatrics of Western aristocracies, the aristocracies that are led by America’s, and finally now to lay down the gauntlet, in Syria, against Islamic jihad. As I have previously documented, Islamic jihad is financed virtually entirely by multimillion-dollar individual contributions not only by the Saudi royal family, but also by the royals of the other Arabic oil countries.

Without that constant flow of funds, the Sauds’ operation on their own side for global empire would collapse. Theirs is to be an Islamic global empire, much like America’s Dominionist Christions have (though far less successfully) aspired to creating a global Christian empire. Ever since 1945, the U.S. aristocracy and the Saudi royal family have been united together. Increasingly in the decades after the end of communism, the only thing that remains after the beast of “The Cold War” is the skeleton of expanding the American aristocracy’s empire, still married to the skeleton of the Sauds’ imperial ambitions. It could become an Earth-killing embrace: skeletons all-around and everywhere.

In one of the rare mainstream U.S. news reports about the unity between Arabic royals and the international Islamic jihad movement, America’s PBS “Frontline” documented that Islamic jihad is taught in schools that are financed by the Saudi royal family.

If the current report in German Economic News is true, then America’s President Obama will need to reassess his entire foreign policy, which has — overtly now, during his second Administration (after he had successfully fooled the American public to think that he didn’t agree with Romney) — been virtually obsessed with defeating Russia.

The U.S. regime has even bragged about its ability to stir up fear against Russia around the world.

America’s alliance with the Islamic jihad movement seems now to be directly challenged by Putin. If Obama is to continue his effort to replace the secular Shiite Syrian regime by an Islamic Sunni regime (one that will be controlled by the Sauds, and/or by the Qatari royal family the Thanis), the U.S. will then face the prospect of war against Russia, much as Obama has already built in Ukraine via his 2014 coup there, which is still prohibited from being reported about in the West — except via a few independent authentic news media (the few that aren’t controlled by aristocrats), which few (such as you are now reading) are allowed because they have only small audiences. As with the samizdat literature during the former Soviet Union, the truth is thus marginalized in the now overwhelmingly fascist-controlled, U.S.-dominated, West.

For further background on this, see my August 13th report, “Meet the ‘Moderates’ the U.S. Is Supporting in Syria: They’re al-Qaeda.”

Posted in SyriaComments Off on In Syria, Putin Calls Obama’s Bluff, Russia Joins War Against the ‘ISIS’

War without Mercy on Yemen: The Saudi Zio-Wahhabi -US Massacres Continue

NOVANEWS
Global Research
Yemen-humanitarian

“In five months [of war], Yemen has been reduced to the state of Syria after 5 years”,Peter Maurer, the Director of the International Red Cross, on August 19th, 2015.

These difficult images, which put faces and names to the countless civilian victims, can help to give an idea of the magnitude of the unspeakable massacres perpetrated daily by the forces of the Saudi-US coalition against Yemen’s population, with a barbarity unexampled in recent history that overshadows even the Zionist crimes in Gaza, and of the incredible spirit of resistance of the Yemeni people despite being abandoned by the international community.

Terrorist UK and stateless Hollandian France are proud to actively participate, via their ethereal and pacifist weapons, in this “heroic butchery”.

News bulletins from the Yemeni channel Al-Masira, August 26th, 2015 (English subtitles).

Translated from French by Jenny Bright

Bulletin #1:

Transcription:

[Civilian]– All these houses were civilian homes, and they were destroyed on their heads! What had they done?

[Journalist] heinous crime, at the height of cruelty, is added to the previous, with Saudi-American bombings in the first light of dawn, the ruthless bombing of civilian homes in the city of ‘Amid à Sanhan, a suburb of Sanaa.

They killed the citizen Abdullah Khalifa and his daughter Du’a who was in 9thgrade and their neighbour, the infant Mawada Zahedwho was not even one year old. All were killed by the roof collapsing on the house they rented.

And after the bodies were evacuated, there was nothing left of the house, which had been razed to the ground, except for some toys of the child Shahina, and the desperation of the wife for whom the attack has destroyed her entire existence.

[Mother of the victims]– They come to kill children, demolish houses, kill women, they commit a great sin.

[Journalist]– Who was killed in your family?

– My husband and my daughter Du’a. You will remember, you met them on Saturday (22nd August).

– And today?

And today, God have mercy, they found martyrdom because of the air strikes. O my God, all my family have been taken by these strikes. And I am now alone in the world, with no one but God in heaven, no father, no mother, no husband, no children, no resources, with God alone.

[Father of the victims]– We are poor people, and we were in this house that we rent, me, my wife and my children, all four.

[Civilian]Where are the childrens rights? Where are the human rights? Where is the law, where are the benefits (that the Saoud claim to bring us? You kill even infants? What wrong has this baby committed?

[Father of victims] – (They killed) my child and my daughter of 19 (years), you know. Why the carnage? Where are the (military) targets? What is their sin?

[Journalist]The damage from the deadly bombing was not limited to the house which was completely destroyed on the heads of its inhabitants, but extended to all the surrounding houses and cars. As for the rescued families who buried their victims, they have vowed to honour and avenge the bloodshed, and that the crimes committed by theSaud and the United States will not go unpunished.

[Civilian]On this side, they razed two houses. And on the other side, all the houses were hit and severely damaged.And these criminal strikes by the Saud cowards are vile and despicable.

[Civil] – will never give in or forget and we will have our revenge].

[Civilian]– Woe to you dirty dog of Salman [ben Abdelaziz al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia]!

[Old woman]– We will never submit, never, never! All will carry weapons to face this aggression, even women and children.

[Civilian]– We will return two kilos for every kilo (of bombs and destruction inflicted), and two tons for each ton.

[Civilian]– God willing.

[Civilian]– We are a brave and powerful people.

[Civilian]– I swear by God, if you do not leave Yemen in peace, we will bury you all O Saoud! If they do not cease, the Yemenis will bury them all and Yemen will be their graveyard.

[Civilian] – will never give in or forget and we will have our revenge].

[Civilian]God is The Greatest! Death to America! Death to Israel! Death to Saud!

[Journalist]Against the most courageous people on the face of earth, are being committed the most heinous crimes of our time, but they will not go unpunished: all the blood that was wrongfully spilled confirms the inevitable need to cut off the head of the serpent [the Saud dynasty] in the heart of its lair, to preserve from its poison the Yemenis, and all peoples of the world. Near the destroyed house in the city of ‘Amidà Sanhan to the outskirts of Sana’a, Munataf al-Mawjani for Al-Maseera TV channel.

Bulletin #2:

Transcription:

[Journalist]They were sleeping peacefully in their homes, feeling safe. They were inhabitants of theBerkal region in the prefectorat of Razih, border to the Sa’ada governorate, and they were targeted by the Saudi-US aggression yesterday, at night, by several air strikes that resulted in one martyr and 6 wounded including a woman and elderly persons in the three affected families in the region.

[Civilian]– There were three strikes last night on the Berkal region, three strikes perpetrated by the Saudi criminal regime, the enemy of God, the agent of the United States and Israel.

[Civilian]– The Yemeni people as a whole is targeted by the United States and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries. And why? Are we not their neighbours, so having rights over them (Islamically)? We are their neighbours, their neighbours, are we not? They bomb after dinner, they bomb in the morning, they bomb at lunch, they bomb at any time! While people are in their houses, in their homes, safe. We can only rely on God.

[Journalist]Every day, the Saudi-US aggression perpetrates further crimes against civilians, such as strikes against the Bani Sayyah region located between the regions of Bani Alqam and Al Nadhir, up to the Berkal region, all these crimes have been committed during the last three days.

[Civilian]They are bombing the houses, destroying mosques, driving people from their houses and their homes. These are the acts ofSalman[the Saudi King] (defiling the Quran). Yesterday they targeted the mosque, and today they demolish the houses on their inhabitants, and they create victims and homeless refugees. These are the actions of the US and Israel that terrorize the population and ordinary residents.

[Civilian]We declare to the horn of the devil [Saudi Arabia]: whatever the extent of your strikes, your destruction and your bombing, all this will not make us bend, or submit, and we will never give in or ask for mercy, and we will prostrate ourselves only before God! TheSaud will discover who the Yemeni people are, you’ve already met us, and you will get to know us better you band of cowards!

[Journalist]These criminal acts are perpetrated by the Saudi-US regime against civilians, they hope to thus achieve victory if only in the media, in order to mask the humiliating defeats inflicted upon them during the last 5 months. Yeha Chehari for Al-Maseera TV channel.

Bulletin #3, July 25th, 2015:

Transcription:

[Journalist] In the shadow of an international silence that has ignored all principles and trampled over all statistics, the forces of crime and evil perpetrated a new crime in the city of Bakha, where last night, this force destroyed a residential building on its inhabitants, at 10 o’clock precisely when the conditions of this very hot region drive people to rest indoors.

[Civilian] – They bombarded us relentlessly, (though there are) no military targets here, no army, no nothing, not even the shadow of a weapon. How can I say… It is impossible to understand such barbarity. I swear by God, it is impossible. Right there, there are more than 20 victims, I had to collect the bodies myself in the rubble, with my own hands. I found more than 20 bodies in the rubble, with my own hands. What was their sin? While there is no military base nearby, no weapons, no soldiers. What can I say? They are (worse than) the Jews of Bani Nadhir (Medina tribe who conspired against the Prophet).

[Civilian] – Around 10 am, I went out and I heard the sound of a shot, [unclear remarks]. I went back to cover, and I witnessed 3 or 4 strikes.

[Journalist] – Successive (strikes)

[Civil] – Yes, successive, spaced by 5 or 10 minutes.

[Journalist] – What kind of strikes?

[Civilian] – Gunfire missiles, airstrikes.

[Journalist] Bodies reduced to a pulp and shredded members, some being charred so that it is impossible to identify them, while no trace of others can be found. The case of this child who has lost both his eyes as he pressed close to his mother reveals the tragic nature of the situation, which twists the heart and brings tears to the eyes of anyone witnessing these scenes.

[Civilian] – Hundreds of civilians. Look, nothing but civilians. Look at what (these criminals) are doing! They kill women, children, the elderly, youths… What crime had they committed? (They are all) innocents. There are no Houthis, no military bases, no weapons. God damn Salman [the Saudi King] and all the Saud dynasty.

[Journalist] The power plant which supplied the residential area was hit and reduced to pieces, and all which remains are traces of the crime that demonstrates the ruthlessness of the attack, indiscriminate and unjustifiable in its targeting of civilians. This has caused the deaths of entire families.

[Civilian] – A family of refugees from Taiz lived here, and they and the host family were all killed.

[Journalist] More than 55 martyrs and dozens of wounded: the result of the Saudi-US attacks against the residential town of Bakha, and the number of victims continues to rise due to the critical situation of the seriously injured, not to mention those still buried under the rubble whose fate we still do not know. The families of the victims are entrusted to the care of benevolent people and existing authorities, responsible for a large number of dead and wounded, who also must search for all those still under the rubble.

[Civilian] – Eight missiles… See all the victims caused by this criminal State.

Posted in USA, Saudi Arabia, YemenComments Off on War without Mercy on Yemen: The Saudi Zio-Wahhabi -US Massacres Continue

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

September 2015
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930