Archive | September 9th, 2015





You can tell the West is miffed.  And you can tell Vlad is tiffed.  The grifter-Zionist-neo-con terrorists are waffling between opposing the Iranian nuclear agreement and trying (still) to topple the legitimate government of the Syrian Arab Republic.  While all the hurly-burly is on display, stern-faced Republican apparatchiks vowing to stymy Obama’s planned rapprochement with Iran, the Russian, Iranians and Syrians continue to move forward with the plan that will dismember what is left of the West’s Frankenstein monster – the selfsame monster the West alleges it is fighting.

What are the developments which give rise to such optimism at SyrPer?  It should be clear.

1.  The governments of the world are beginning to see that breaking relations with Syria is not such a good idea, especially now, when the following is taking place:

1.a. Millions of refugees, not only from Syria, but from Africa, Yemen and Iraq are pouring out into the west looking for haven.  A while ago, people thought Turkey was so wonderful, accepting all those asylum seekers and affording them the necessities of life.  In truth, the refugees are trying to leave Turkey as they have been subjected to some of the most horrific practices imaginable: rape, forced human organ theft, murder for hire, infanticide – and all this under the direction of the Turk Intelligence Service (the MIT) led by Erdoghani co-criminal, Hakan Fidan.

1.b.  It is now clear that the only rational way to get these refugees back to their homeland is to give support to the legitimate government of Syria.  Only the government has the institutions requisite for the re-absorption of these unlucky individuals who ran afoul of the terrorist murderers invented by the Americans, the British, Saudi Arabians and French.  Now, if the Euro-countries want to avoid the discomfort of more refugees on their lands, eating up their resources, they will have to deal with the only entity capable of cooperating in any such project: the Syrian government.

1.c.  Iran is back on line.  The Europeans are desperate to build bridges to Teheran for sale of merchandise, technology and the purchase of natural gas.  How can that happen if the Euro-countries continue to support those same terrorists who refer to Shi’is as “Raafidhiyya”? 

1.d. Even Tunisia is reopening its embassy; so has Sudan and so will Egypt.  Iraq, BRICS countries, Czech Republic and others all have diplomatic relations with the SAR.  Italy is already pushing for re-engagement.


2.  Russia is deploying its full military weight to the Mediterranean.  It must be pellucidly clear now that Russia views its base at Tartous as crucial to the projection of its power around the world.  Russia has given Syria its S-300 anti-missile, anti-aircraft batteries; it has sold a wing of MiG 31B “Foxhounds” to the Syrian Air Force, an interceptor deemed by most experts as the ultimate air supremacy weapon of the 21st Century; Eskandar missiles which can turn the Patriot batteries in Turkey into twisted metal in a matter of seconds; real time satellite Intel; battalions of Russian troops, special forces and advisers; anti-missile and anti-aircraft carrier cruisers like the Moskva and nuclear submarines off the coast of Syria ready to intervene if the criminal in the White House ever falls into the traps laid for him by the Zionist traitor neo-cons; printing Syria’s currency and providing very extensive credit to the government.  Robert Ford, one of history’s most prolific war criminals, predicted the economic collapse of the Syrian government —-he was dead wrong.

Moreover, Vladimir Putin, like the American regime, is not hiding his support for the Syrian government.  In meetings with the Turk ambassador to Russia and King Abdullah of Jordan, the Russian president has made it all too clear that he will not abide support of terrorism.  Russia has a stake in making sure that Islamist terrorism does not succeed.  This is a message to the militants in Chechnya.


3.   Iran has made it obvious that its foreign policy is linked to the destiny of the Syrian government.  Not only has Iran been financially bolstering the Syrian economy and supporting the needs of the people, it has deployed over 20,000 trained anti-insurgency fighters who are presently positioned in the Zaawiya Mountains awaiting orders to descend on the Ghaab to exterminate the rodents there.   Iran has, also, indebted itself to the Russian Federation by buying new military technology and ammunition for the Syrian Army in exchange for future cooperation on natural gas issues and coordination of foreign policy.  If any of the demented think-tank fantasts ever contemplated an Iran distancing itself from Dr. Assad, that imbecile had better revisit the issue because it appears that Iran is even more tied today to the president of Syria than ever before.

4.  The Syrian people have figured out what is going on.  It’s not Alawis vs. Sunnis.  Or Sunnis vs. Christians.  What is at stake here is the devolution of the Syrian body politic; the nation’s territorial integrity; the future of Iraq; domination by filthy, rodent-Saudi-apes and Qatari banana-bugs;  ten steps back into an historical oblivion tailor-made for Wahhabist troglodytes. The Syrian people have now figured out that their army and government were not paper tigers, as some had predicted without any proof.  They have seen the institutions of their country rise up to the task and shatter the dreams of the Islamist reactionary terrorists funded by the worst form of grub ever created – Saudi Arabia and its rag-headed, empty-headed allies.

5.  The terrorists who are supported by the homicidal freak in the White House have shown themselves to be hardly the kind of standard-bearers of modernity and justice which they initially claimed to be.  To the contrary,  they are exactly what the freak in the WH wants: rodents whose only purpose is to destabilize the Near East in order to prevent an Iranian or Russian foothold through the American-guided policy of militarized nihilism.  European countries have picked up on this and know they are next in line for mayhem when many of the terrorists come back to their adopted countries.  They are now ready for cooperation with Dr. Assad if the rat in the WH stops using coercion to block this process.  The French are on the American side,  no matter what,  because Hollande is desperate for Saudi economic help – but – his situation is like Erdoghan’s, both leaders unable to shift the unstoppable process of internal degeneration.  Yet, we are seeing a turn-around in German foreign policy, bringing it more in line with that of Austria, the Czech Republic, Serbia and other East European countries with greater experience in the history of the region.

6.  Syrian officers are demonstrating greater skill in mounting ferocious attacks against the terrorist, British-supported rodents in both the north and south.  Make no mistake about this, Syrian soldiers can feel the improvement in tactics, and, especially, the sea-change in the military arsenal of the country; even though many might be wondering why Syria has not deployed its massive missile arsenal.  Yet, with thermobaric bombs, FROGs, Katyushas, and a whole host of newly arrived weapons systems, the field of battle is changing radically. It’s only the spectacle of seeing the United States supporting Alqaeda against its own creation, ISIS, that makes all this particularly entertaining.

7.  The alternate media led by an army of prescient proponents of rational foreign policy like Thierry Meyssan, Dr. Webster Tarpley, Brandon Turbeville, Dr. Rick Staggenborg, the Global Research people and Michel Choussadovsky, Pepe Escobar, Tony Cartalucci, Ron Paul, Pennyforyourthoughts, the Saker and, and, and, your Ziad and Leith who will not relent until the last bearded rodent is put to death.   And you, the readers, who religiously transmit the learning you have to others in order to convince them that Syria has been victimized by the Zionist-Neo-Cons and their weasels, the Robert Fords, the Hillary Clintons, the Christopher Stephens, the David Camerons and the rest of that sociopathic rabble. People are picking up on a theme.  They’re not buying the argument that Dr. Assad is a vicious dictator.  Many saw his wife on the cover of Harper magazine and they know he is secular, modern and inclined to give women the best shot at life.  This is no war to unseat a dictator.  It’s classic neo-colonialism peppered with Zionist money.

8.  The BRICS countries, inter alia,  have not faltered either.  South Africa is on the Iran bandwagon and is considered a staunch defender of the Syrian government. Venezuela has been absolutely, monumentally, solid in support of the Syrian government.  The European Union must have taken notice that all South America is either totally pro-Assad, or simply anti-imperialist.  The huge market the Europeans crave will hardly be open to them if they persist in following Obama’s dead-end Zionist foreign policy.  The Europe of the future, if it is to exist, must unfasten itself from the clutches of Obama and his professional losers in Washington.  Old Europe and New Europe have a stake in the continuity of the Syrian government.

9.   The Syrian opposition has fallen apart and can no longer provide a fig leaf for American and NATO plans in the region.  Besides eating up Saudi and Qatari dollars for lengthy stays in 5-star hotels, they have been exposed as shiftless, feckless, rudderless charlatans and felons who can no more influence the military side of the battle than they can secure permanent residency in the United States.  The jig is up.  The U.S. and its allies are precisely what they don’t want to be seen as: terrorism supporters and mass murderers.  Syria cannot but amass support and sympathy by the moral default of the West.

In conclusion, the indicators are positive today.  It’s been 5 years of a litany from the mostly Western Press that “he’s about to fall”, “he’s embattled”, “his regime is tottering”, and so forth and so on, ad nauseam, when the facts on the ground indicate the opposite; it’s the rats and their supporters who are facing the wall which is why they have had to treble their investments in terrorism whilst their economies implode.  And now, the Saudis and the Qataris have fallen into the quagmire of Yemen.  Tee hee hee.

WILE E. COYOTE MOMENTS:  (Thanks, Anon):


Watch this Nusra nut blow away his own partner with a TOW.  A laugh riot:

Watch slaphappy Nusra freaks of nature slapping one another to the sound of ISIS encouragement:

Behold: “Muhammad has been martyred!”.  Yawn. Watch the rats get theirs after firing a 23mm at something on the ground:

Watch these rats squirming under the firepower of the SAA.








IDLIB:  More of the same British planning.  You know what I mean.  The British have their most intense orgasms when brown people are snookered into believing they are doing God’s work by English rodents, when, in fact, they are doing nothing more than pleasing the arrogant, self-important sludge which is Albion.  And so, at the Abu Dhuhoor Air Base, the vermin of Jaysh Al-Fath, amazingly, backed by some ISIS reptiles,  sent in the usual truck loaded with explosives and driven by a screaming Pakki who has absolutely nothing to lose but the unctuousness of his British handlers.

At the eastern end of the base, ISIS had established some artillery control which Jaysh Al-Fath wanted to exploit.  Unfortunately, as Jaysh Al-Fath watched helplessly as their Mercedes truck went up in smoke before it even got to a half kilometer from the base (thanks to a Kornet rocket), the SAA opened an ocean of artillery fire on the disease-carrying rodents killing scores of them.  Another flop for the shriveling empire of the English.


تفاصيل محاولة تسلل إرهابيي الفتح إلى محيط مطار أبو الضهور


Syrian Army hunts down rats at Jisr Al-Shughoor at the cement factory area:  (Thanks, John Esq.)

John Esq. sends another about how the West gives you the medicine after it made you sick:







مقتل وإصابة 60 إرهابياً بعملية نوعية للجيش في قرية الكبير بريف اللاذقيةLATAKIA:  It’s a happy time for those who embrace death.  Ah, the rivers of wine and nectar, the mansions, the 72 Virginians….it’s all coming to those Turkmen who got clobbered at the village of Al-Kabeer in the northeast corner of Latakia Province.  It is just unbelievable how a little Turk DNA can turn imbeciles into morons.  But, that’s what happened yesterday as these in-bred rodents went about the business of training litter-mates in the art of murdering civilians right under the nose of the Syrian Army.  Once the area was appraised, field officers decided to first direct missile fire at the warehouse which contained 2 or more tons of explosives delivered courtesy of the Arabian mongrels.  Once that warehouse exploded, there was panic among the Turkic rats who ran around screaming the usual mantra: “Allahu Akbar”.  Didn’t do them a bit of good as SAA marksmen opened fire on them as they ran about like chickens with their heads cut off.  Ground spotters established that 27 were definitely killed (since their carcasses were left behind and confirmed dead) and that 36 were seriously wounded.  A command center housing electronic equipment and 6 vehicles were also set ablaze killing a few rodents trapped inside.

Al-Darwishaan Village:  September 6, 2015.  We can confirm 4 Alqaeda/Nusra rodents killed here by the sAA with 22 wounded.  None of the carcasses were Syrian.


The Nuclear Challenge (9): Relying on International Law


Marshall Islands Nuclear Zero Litigation

by Dr: Richard Falk

[Prefatory Note: Two prior posts, The Nuclear Challenge (1) & (2) address indirectly the efforts of international law and lawyers to highlight the clash between international law and nuclear weapons. In this post I combine a focus on international law with a continuation of the inquiry into the role of civil society activism that was the theme of The Nuclear Challenge (8). Here I attempt a more concrete gaze at the promise and limitations of international law as a policy instrument by which to pursue the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Zero Lawsuits filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands on April 24, 2014 offers an occasion for such an appraisal. This litigation represents both an encounter with futility and a mode of global consciousness-raising at a time of dangerous complacency about the threats posed by the continuing possession and deployment of nuclear weaponry, as well as the warping of the security mind by supposing that human security can ever be ethically and effectively safeguarded by current doctrine surrounding the roles assigned to this weaponry by the military planners and political leaders of the nine nuclear weapons states.]

From the time of the atomic explosions at the end of World War II there have been two contradictory sets of tendencies at work: the repudiation of the weaponry and its contemplated uses as ultimate criminality and the secret feverish refinement of the weaponry to enhance its precision, destructive effects, battlefield capabilities, and delivery systems. To date, the latter tendency has prevailed, but so far, belying the worst fears, avoiding uses (but not threats to use or high alert crises linked to unseemly risks of nuclear war).

From the beginning international law was a tool relied upon by those who challenged the legitimacy of both the atomic attacks themselves and the later developments and doctrines associated with the weaponry and its central role in the superpower rivalry at the core of the Cold War. In the immediate aftermath of the atomic attacks, there were many governmental pronouncements about nuclear disarmament as an imperative of human survival, and it was assumed that international law through the medium of a negotiated treaty containing procedures to assure compliance by all parties was the correct approach to unconditional declearization and principled repudiation, and this remains the consensus view of pro-disarmers at present.

Especially the UN General Assembly from the outset of the nuclear age was a political venue within which the criminality of the weaponry was confirmed, although gradually the impact of nuclear geopolitics moved disarmament off-stage and shifted policy attention to the supposedly more realistic goals of managing the nonproliferation regime and minimizing the spread of the weaponry. As discussed in previous posts, whatever political energy for a world without nuclear weaponry existed has been transferred over time to a variety of civil society venues. During the Cold War Europe, then the most likely setting for a nuclear confrontation, a variety of anti-nuclear movements emerged, with Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) being the best known, but also the German Green Party gained anti-nuclear prominence. Since the end of the Cold War the most activist anti-nuclearism has been associated with advocacy and educational efforts that were oriented around the presumed authoritativeness of international law as reinforced by political commitment and international morality in two major respects:

                        –the unconditional unlawfulness of the weaponry with respect to threat, use, possession, and development;

                        –a reliance on a treaty-making approach that decreed nuclear disarmament by carefully calibrated stages, and subject to monitoring, verification, compliance, and dispute settlement procedures, and setting forth the response mechanisms in the event of non-compliance or cheating.

In other words, the case against all facets of nuclearism and the framework for total denuclearization are both guided and governed by international law.

At the same time, there are difficulties with an uncritical acceptance of this centrality of international law. First, the evidence is strong that the nuclear weapons states, above all the United States, will not override its security policies as related to nuclear weapons out of deference to international law, even if such an assessment of international law enjoys the strong backing of the International Court of Justice, the world’s highest judicial body. The 1996 Advisory Opinion of the ICJ reached two conclusions that should have led to operational adjustments in the announced doctrine and political behavior of governments possessing nuclear weapons: (1) nuclear weapons were only lawfully usable, if ever, if the survival of the state was credibly at issue; and (2) a unanimous views of the judges that the nuclear powers had a good faith obligation to negotiate both an end to the arms race and a disarmament plan, and what is more, and should not be overlooked, that these governments had “an bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.”

True, this was an advisory opinion, not formally binding on the parties, and of contested legal weight as to the issues at stake. Also, the ICJ judges were badly divided, with a slim majority (and even that resting on the President’s second casting vote to break a tie) favoring the view of conditional unlawfulness of the weaponry. Actually, the unlawfulness side was stronger than it seemed as three of the ICJ judges were so committed to unconditional unlawfulness that they refused to support the majority conclusion, which was consistent with a very narrowly construed deterrence doctrine. What is more notable is that the nuclear weapons states paid not the slightest operational attention to what these most distinguished judges from the world’s main legal system had determined in the only systematic review of the arguments about legality that had gone on since the first atomic explosion in wartime. This disdain was apparent even before the ICJ issued its advisory opinion, taking the form of the vigorous opposition led by the United States to referring the question of legality to the World Court, insisting, in effect, that international law was not relevant to the status of nuclear weapons. The substantive claim was that the U.S. Government was doing all that it could reasonably do to reduce risks of nuclear war, through arms control, nonproliferation, and deployment policies. Any more foundational judgment was thus deemed inappropriate by a judicial body not equipped to evaluate security policy, and thus at best, ‘moral’ and ‘political’ at its core.

The same line of reasoning was relevant with respect to the second conclusion relating to the NPT obligation to negotiate in good faith and with an end in view. What was already being done supposedly fulfilled the Article VI obligation of the nuclear weapons states, and the Court had neither the information or the expertness to pronounce otherwise, although the judges unanimously acted as if they did have the needed competence, and hence the responsibility to pronounce.

I think a clear picture evolves. The nuclear weapons states accord primacy to geopolitical policies when in tension with international law, especially on crucial issues bearing on the conduct of warfare and the shaping of peacetime security policies. The geopolitical consensus accepted by all nine weapons states is to disregard or sideline the purported relevance of international law. In reaction to this consensus there is some huffing and puffing by nonnuclear governments, but no political will to mount a challenge on even such a tangential issue as non-compliance with the Article VI obligation, a clear material breach of the NPT. This combination of geopolitical nuclearism and passivity by the members of international society other than ‘the nuclear nine’ has meant that it is up to each of this latter group of states, as a matter of sovereign discretion, to determine what its policies on deployment, threat, and use will be, and whether it will agree to arms control measures. And because these policies are treated as state secrets, there is no meaningful democratic participation, including even by most elected or appointed government officials, and neither knowledge nor leverage by the citizenry. With respect to nuclear weapons, every government is authoritarian, with only the head of state having the non-reviewable and unaccountable authority to decide whether and when to use nuclear weaponry against which targets and with what magnitudes of destructive power.

Left to carry on the campaign to rid humanity of the nuclear menace are the disparate and somewhat incoherent forces of civil society. At times of global crisis, as occurred periodically during the Cold War, these forces from below can be aroused to sound an alarm that has some resonance at the political center, but mainly this kind of pressure from below demands prudence and restraint rather than compliance with international law, and gains satisfaction from tiny incremental moves away from the nuclear precipice. With the decline of anxieties about possible confrontations between major nuclear weapons states, there is mostly evident a mainstream law emphasis on the ‘enforcement’ of the NPT directed at non-nuclear states perceived as seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.

Behind these developments, off to one side, are persevering efforts to insist on the unlawfulness of the weaponry and on gaining support for using the existing legal machinery of states and world society to push harder on the arguments of illegality. As has been pointed out, such efforts even if successful, are unlikely to be able to climb the geopolitical mountains on top of which are located the nuclear weapons arsenals. Yet that does not make the struggle to empower law with respect to nuclear weaponry without meaning or irrelevant to a survivable future. The outcome of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on legality, despite its unwelcome outcome being defiantly deflected by the nuclear weapons states, did have the positive effects of strengthening the political will and morale of anti-nuclear activists and their organizations throughout the world.

One notable expression of this heightened political will was the initiation of litigation in ICJ and American federal courts by the Republic of the Marshall Islands based on the alleged violation of Article VI of the NPT by the nine nuclear weapons states. Such litigation was grounded in the unanimous conclusion of the ICJ that good faith obligation to negotiate a nuclear disarmament arrangement that needed to be brought to a conclusion. In the 18 years since the Advisory Opinion there have been abundant confirmations that the nuclear nine were not at all disposed to seek nuclear disarmament, making it highly reasonable any non-nuclear party to the NPT to mount such a legal argument based on non-compliance.

And what country, other than Japan, had a greater moral and political entitlement to do so than the Marshall Islands? This archipelago of 1156 islands and islets was taken over from Japan after World War II, and formally given the status as a Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (including several other Pacific island groups) by the United Nations in 1947. The tiny population of 68, 480 lives on 29 coral atolls. In the most dramatic betrayal of trust imaginable the United States used the Marshall Islands as the principal test site without consulting the indigenous population or seeking their consent. 67 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted between 1946 and 1958. The largest was code named Castle Bravo and had an explosive magnitude of 15 megatons, which is 1000 times the force of the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. As a result of this nuclear testing the people of the Marshall Islands have endured a variety of severe harms, ranging from forced evacuation and displacement, radiation sickness that continues to be prevalent, and environmental damage that appears to be permanent.

The legal theory behind the case is that the Marshall Islands, due to this harm and experience, have a legal right to question compliance with Article VI, as well as sharing the claim with all states that in the event of a nuclear war the harm would be global, impacting upon the security and wellbeing of the entire world. For the case to be accepted for adjudication by the ICJ a majority of the 15 judges must agree that a ‘legal dispute’ exists between the complaining state and the states accused of being in breach. The wheels of international justice turn slowly, if at all, and it remains to be determined whether the Marshall Islands will satisfy enough of these judges sitting in The Hague to clear this high jurisdictional hurdle. Only then will the court proceed to hear arguments and render a judgment on the merits. This litigation before the ICJ if it goes forward will result in ‘a decision,’ which unlike the 1996 Advisory Opinion can in theory be enforced by the Security Council acting under Article 98, but any attempt along these lines could be vetoed by any one of the five permanent members. The NPT gives states that are parties the legal option to bring a legal dispute before the ICJ, and the four nuclear powers that are not parties to the NPT are allegedly also subject to its authority by was of customary international law, which may seem a stretch. The legal reasoning is based on the proposition that the NPT has been so widely adhered to and so fundamental to world order that it has become binding whether or not a country is a party, that it is ‘a lawmaking treaty’ that is obligatory for the entire community of states. This raises an interesting jurisprudential issue for the ICJ as the argument goes against the earlier consensus that an attribute of national sovereignty is the option to remain outside an international legal framework, and even to dissent from it.

The companion case filed by the Marshall Islands in a Federal District Court resulted in a dismissal on February 3, 2015 resting on the notion that the alleged damage to the Marshall Islands was too speculative to qualify as a legal interest that a court of law can decide upon, and that the issue raised was, in any event, covered by the Political Questions Doctrine, which has led past courts to dismiss international law claims bearing on security policy. Such dismissals invoked separation of powers reasoning, which has been interpreted to mean that such issues are matters of foreign policy that should be resolved within the exclusive domain of the executive branch. Accordingly, the judiciary should not venture an assessment of this kind of challenge to security policy even if formulated by reference to a treaty obligation. This dismissal of the Marshall Islands initiative has been appealed to the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco for review and decision.

Whatever the eventual outcome of these parallel legal initiatives, the cases have already had a significant civil society impact, and have brought much wider attention to the nuclear plight of the Marshall Islanders, as well as admiration for the willingness of this tiny stressed and subordinated polity to put forward such a controversial legal argument, especially considering that their own security and economic viability is so linked to the good will of the United States embodied in a so-called ‘compact’ that entered into force as the trust status was superseded in 1990 when the Marshall Island became “a presidential republic in free association with the United States.” In tangible terms this has meant that the United States has accepted responsibility for the defense of the Marshall Islands and for granting a range of economic subsidies, and in exchange retains use of a missile test site on Kwajalein Atoll, undoubtedly a reminder of the years when the island group was the principal

site for new generations of nuclear weaponry.

In some respects it is pathetic that it has taken so many decades to mount this very limited legal challenge to nuclearism and that the challenge is made by this small vulnerable semi-sovereign republic while the rest of the governments throughout the world continue to sit on their hands while nuclearism flourishes. The U.S. Government has budget $1 trillion over the next thirty years to keep its superior nuclear capabilities up to date at the outer frontiers of security strategy.

Posted in JapanComments Off on The Nuclear Challenge (9): Relying on International Law

The refugee crisis is real, but only because it is now affecting western nations?

The Syria Solidarity Movement is in solidarity with millions of displaced persons in Syria, Yemen, Palestine, the Middle East, Africa and other conflict zones.  It is only appropriate that many of these people now seek refuge in western nations, because the US and Europe and their allies are principally responsible for their dispossession.
Refugees are a consequence of western “regime change” policies, from Iran (1953) to Chile to Nicaragua to Haiti to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria, to mention only a few.  In all cases, the result is death, destruction and dispossession.
Let us remember that the thousands of refugees risking their lives to reach western shores represent only a tiny fraction of the total displaced.  The 4 million that have fled Syria are just one third of the total number of Syrians displaced due to foreign sponsorship of this unnecessary war.  At least seven million are living as best they can in government-held territory while western aid organizations ignore their plight and western nations place a cynical embargo on Syria (except for arms to terrorist groups, used to create more refugees).
Let us also remember and hold accountable the mainstream western-dominated media, who distort the facts, demonize the designated “enemy” and rarely question the actions of western governments and their allies. The emotional coverage for Aylan Kurdi should not obscure the fact that this tragedy follows thousands of others. Nor should it be allowed to obscure the foreign sponsorship of the proxy war against Syria which is the cause of this tragedy.  The media failure to inform the public about the crimes of western and allied governments is in large measure responsible for permitting terrorist groups to thrive with the support and encouragement of those governments.
We have seen it all before.  Today, only a quarter of all Palestinians are living in their native homes and villages, and until the Syrian tragedy they were the largest refugee population on earth.  There is much similarity. Both are part of the “Clean Break” plan for the destruction of Middle East nations promoted by Israel, the US and others.  In recognition of their shared struggle, more than 1100 Palestinian grassroots organizations and individuals recently issued a declaration of solidarity with their Syrian brothers and sisters.
The Syria Solidarity Movement believes that a compassionate solution to the problem consists in
  1. Providing humanitarian support for all persons seeking refuge from war and conflict.
  2. Ending the deadly interference of the USA, western states and their allies in the internal affairs of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other sovereign nations as required by the UN Charter and international law.
  3. Enforcing End User Agreements attached to the sales of arms to other nations, requiring them not to make those arms available to other users.
  4. Sanctioning and boycotting Israel until it ends its blockade of Gaza and permits all Palestinian refugees and displaced persons and their families to return their homes, with compensation for loss and damages, as required by UN Resolution 194.
  5. Making restitution to all persons harmed by interference in the internal affairs of other countries.
The purpose of these measures is not only to bring relief to those who have been made homeless and destitute, but also an end to the policies and practices that create such refugees.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on The refugee crisis is real, but only because it is now affecting western nations?

9/11 Tragedy & US Misperceptions about Pakistan


Image result for 9/11 photos

By Sajjad Shaukat

The grim tragedy the United States suffered on September 11, 2001 through suicidal bombings

on World Trade Center and Pentagon resulted into the death of more than 55000 persons. In the

aftermath, the US held Al Qaeda chief Osama Bin Laden responsible for the incident, and

attacked Afghanistan where he had taken shelter.

A majority of the small and major countries joined American global war on terror, and Pakistan

also joined it as the frontline state because the country was not only facing acute financial crisis,

but also hostile factor of India. Pakistan was also granted the status of non-NATO ally by

Washington because of its successes, achieved by Pakistan’s Army and country’s Inter-Services

Intelligence (ISI) against the Al Qaeda militants. Within a few years, when the US-led NATO

forces felt that they are failing in coping with the stiff resistance of the Taliban in Afghanistan,

they started accusing Pak Army and ISI of supporting the Afghan Taliban. US high officials and

their media not only blamed Pakistan for cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan, but also

presumed that a plot to attack the US homeland would be prepared in FATA where safe-havens

of Al Qaeda exist. They also emphasized Pakistan to ‘do more’ against the militants coupled

with drone attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas by ignoring the internal backlash in the country.

And without informing Pakistan, a helicopters-raid of the US covert forces killed top Al Qaeda

leader Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, on May 2, 2011. His death triggered

celebrations across the US, India, Israel and some western countries–by ignoring Pakistan’s

sacrifices, during war against terrorism—deliberate propaganda campaign started against

Islamabad. In this context, a blame game against Pakistan Army and ISI was revived by them.

They said that Bin Laden lived in Pakistan compound—5 to 6 years, and as to why Pakistan’s

security and intelligence agencies were unaware of his presence.

It is mentionable that during war against terrorism, Pakistan sacrificed more than any country in

terms of collateral damage, economic losses and political instability. While Pakistan faced a

continued wave of suicide attacks, bomb blasts and targeted killings.

However, in its misperceptions, especially, the US ignored the sacrifices of the Pakistan’s armed

forces which had broken the backbone of the Taliban militants through successful Swat and

Malakand military operations, while ISI had arrested renowned Taliban commanders including

other militants and masterminds of Al Qaeda, namely Abu Zubaida, Khalfan, Abu Hamza Rabia,

Mullah Abdul Ghani Bardar etc. In this respect, the then Interior Minister, Rehman Malik stated

on, May 2, 2011 that ISI has castigated more than 2,000 suicide attacks. In this context, on the

one side, American high officials admired Pakistan, while on the other; they continued their

blame game against Pakistan’s security forces and intelligence agencies.

It is notable that the then Director General of ISI, Ahmed Shuja Pasha pointed out that Osama’s

compound in Abbottbad was registered under a fake name. He elaborated that after the Tora

Bora operation, Osama Bin Laden became an enemy of Pakistan. He was living in a residential

area and it was not in the knowledge of the agency. Besides, the ex-Pakistan’s Prime Minister

Yousaf Raza Gilani and Army Spokesman Maj-General Athar Abbas (R) also refuted foreign

allegations in connection with Osama and ISI.

It is worth-mentioning that Bin Laden was living in the Abbotabad compound, and despite its

vast resources, technical intelligence e.g. satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles and human

intelligence—extraordinary long-range aerial military capacity, the ability to strike at will from

the space at any point on the globe, US secret agencies, CIA and FBI failed in detecting his

presence in Pakistan and destroying Al Qaeda’s terrorist network in the ten years of America’s

war against terrorism. Similarly question also arises about the September 11 suicide attacks. It

was described as the greatest intelligence failure of the American spy agencies. However,

compound where Osama Bin Laden was living was a norm rather than exception. A number of

people have been living in the neighbourhood of that compound at Abbottabad. While,

Pakistan’s various television channels showed the interviews of the neighbourers, living there,

who remarked that they were never suspicion about Osama’s presence. So ISI did not have a

magic to know the whereabouts of Bin Laden there. It was also not possible for this spy agency

to check all the houses of Pakistan or to interfere in peoples’ privacy so as to find out Bin Laden.

In fact, US, India and Israel wanted to fulfill a number of clandestine aims by continuing their

propaganda against Pakistan. Notably, American cost of war against terrorism had reached 8

trillion dollars, and was increasing rapidly—acute recession inside the country had given a

greater blow to the US economy. In that scenario, American public was particularly worried

about the failed campaign in Afghanistan. So Osama’s episode could be used to distract the

attention of its general masses from internal crisis, and for re-election of Obama as President.

Similarly, under the pretext of Osama’s demise, and with the tactical support of America, India

and Israel which had well-established their covert network in Afghanistan intended to implement

their hidden agenda to destabilize Pakistan, Iran and China by assisting the insurgency against

In this connection, since 9/11 catastrophe, by availing that golden opportunity, both India and

Israel which had joined the Bush’s anti-terrorism campaign to crush the wars of liberation, being

waged by the Kashmiris and the Palestinians, intensified their state terrorism to keep their

occupation on these territories. They have continuously been exploiting the world phenomena of

terrorism and anti-Muslim approach of the west so as to obtain their nefarious designs. In this

regard, Indo-Israel lobbies which are penetrated in the US Administration and are working in

other western countries became pro-active to manipulate the war on terror. Pakistan which is the

only nuclear country in the Muslim World, having close ties with China is another major target

of the Indo-Israeli secret diplomacy. The fact of the matter is that New Delhi and Tel Aviv are

collectively exploiting the double standards of the west in relation to terrorism and human rights

vis-à-vis Pakistan, China and Iran.

While, the capability of Pakistan’s Armed Forces could be judged from the one year progress of

the ongoing military operation Zarb-e-Azb which started on Jun 15, 2014 against the militants in

North Waziristan Agency (NWA).

On June 10, this year, while showing the progress of the Zarb-e-Azb, Chief of Army Staff, Gen.

Raheel Sharif said, “Terrorists have been cleared from their strongholds in North Waziristan and

Khyber Agency and fight now is moving into last few pockets close to Afghan border.” He laid

emphasis on “continuation of the operations till elimination of the last expected and probable

terrorists groups and sanctuaries.” While addressing a ceremony of the golden jubilee

celebrations the 1965 war regarding Pakistan’s victory and defeat of India, Gen. Raheel again

said on September 6, this year, operation Zarb-i-Azb was launched at a time when terrorist

networks had solidified in the country that the Armed Forces had been fighting an untraditional

war for the past many years, elaborating, “our success is the result of our martyrs and ghazis—in

Karachi and Balochistan, peace has returned, where militants have been surrendering their

Nevertheless, since June 15, 2014, the jets of Pakistan Air Force have bombed militants’

hideouts in North Waziristan, and killed thousands of insurgents including foreign militants,

while Pak Army has also killed several terrorists through ground offensive and many of them

surrendered before the Army. While, ISI and other law-enforcing agencies captured several

terrorists in various regions of Pakistan, including suicide-jackets and weapons—thus thwarted

their subversive acts. They have successfully broken the network of the terrorists.

During the 14th anniversary of the 9/11 incident, its is of particular attention that what the US-

led NATO countries could not do in Afghanistan, and America in other volatile countries in the

last 14 years, Pakistan’s Armed Forces have done in one year against the terrorists. Therefore,

US and other western countries have started appreciating the capabilities of Pakistan Army and

other security agencies, and are, now, recognizing the sacrifices of the country against terrorism.

They also recognize the fact that terrorism or stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan is interrelated.

It is regrettable that New Delhi is destabilizing the regional countries in general and Afghanistan

and Pakistan in particular. In order to obtain its secret designs, aimed at augmenting Indian

hegemony in the region, India is foiling the peace process between Afghanistan and Pakistan by

managing terrorist attacks like the recent ones in Afghanistan and Pakistan to create a rift

between Islamabad and Kabul, and to sabotage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Moreover, on the direction of the Indian leader of the fundamentalist party BJP and Prime

Narendra Modi Indian forces have accelerated unprovoked shelling across the Line of Control

and Working Boundary, while creating war-like situation between Pakistan and India.

Taking note of these developments, a change has occurred in Americans towards Islamabad, who

know that stability in this region is essential for American global interests. Besides, these

developments also rectify the US misperceptions by proving that Pakistan’s Army and ISI which

have successfully been coping with terrorism and Al Qaeda had no knowledge about Osama Bin

Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.


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

Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in USA, Pakistan & Kashmir1 Comment

Role of Pakistan Navy in the 1965 War


Image result for pakistan navy photos

By Sajjad Shaukat

Besides Pakistan Army and Air Force, Pakistan Navy also played a key role in defeating India in

the 1965 war due to its excellent performance. Hence, by celebrating golden jubilee celebrations

of that war, on 8th September, the whole nation pays tribute to martyrs and Ghazi’s of Navy.

In the war of 1965, the Operation Dawarka marked the first use of the Pakistan Navy in that war.

The naval attack was launched by Pakistan on September 7, 1965 on western Indian shores. The

town of Dwarka was chosen to be a target of the attack due to its historical relevance for

Pakistan. In this context, Ghazi, the only submarine in the conflict arena was deployed to attack

heavy ships of the Indian Navy, and the ships, aiding Operation Dwarka.

For the purpose, a flotilla of the Pakistan Navy under the command of Commodore S.M. Anwar,

carried out a bombardment of the Indian Navy’s radar station coastal down of Dwarka, which

was 300 km., south of the Pakistani port of Karachi. In this regard, Operation Dwarka was a

significant naval operation.

When the Indo-Pak war broke out on 6 September 1965, the Ghazi was assigned to keep a vigil

off the Bombay harbor which at that time was packed tight with Indian warships including the

aircraft carrier Vikrant. The Ghazi was told not to tinker with smaller vessels, but focus on the

heavier units. So effective was its blockade that no Indian warships dared run the gauntlet. It was

the bottling-up of the Indian fleet by the Ghazi which enabled the Pakistan flotilla to move in and

blast the Indian naval fortress of Dwarka. The Pakistani operation was successful and its

warships harboured in Bombay, making the Indian Navy unable to sortie. Throughout the war

Indian Navy’s aircraft-carrier was besieged in Bombay.

The Ghazi’s audacious performance won it 10 awards including two decorations of Sitara-i-Jurat

and the President’s citations said, “The Commander Karamat Rahman Niazi operated the

submarine in the enemy territorial waters from 6th September to 23rd September 1965 with

courage and strong determination. His personal example of valour, sound judgment and

aggressiveness inspired his officers and men to maintain a high degree of operational efficiency

of the submarine in the face of the enemy”. The second-in-command Lieutenant Commander

Ahmed Tasnim and Lieutenant Zafar Muhammad Khan won Sitara-e-Jurat.

The attack on Dwarka caused the Indian Navy led to questions, being asked in India’s parliament

and subsequent post-war modernization and expansion, with an increase in budget from Rs. 35

However, Pakistan’s first submarine, the Ghazi, blazed a trail of raw courage and professional

skill and national dedication which has inspired and guided the young naval arms and motivating

the marines ever since. It established the tradition of aggressive patrolling across the strategic

expanse of North Arabian Sea.

In this respect, an account of the Pakistan Navy’s performance is offered by India’s Vice

Admiral Mihir Roy, a former Commander of the Vikrant and Commander-in-Chief of India’s

Eastern Naval Command, in his 1995 book, “War in the Indian Ocean”. He writes, “But the

Bombayites failed to understand the lack of success by the Indian fleet especially with sirens

wailing, Jamnagar attacked and Dwarka shelled with the Indian fleet still preparing to sail was an

affront to the sailors in white who could not understand what was holding the fleet back”.

Now, Pakistan Navy is in accordance with the modern trends of the naval warfare. In this

context, a three-day joint seminar of Pakistani and Turkish navies was inaugurated at the Bahria

Auditorium in November 2002. Commander Pakistan Fleet Real Admiral M.A. Tahir who was

the chief guest, termed the seminar a viable platform not only to discuss modern naval warfare

techniques, but also to provide an opportunity to the naval officers to improve upon their

procedures and concepts in order to keep pace with the ongoing changes in the naval tactics and

doctrines—for better conduct of naval operations in periods of peace and tension.

The basic aim of Pakistan Navy is to defend the territorial waters of the country, for which all

sectors of the service are playing the role in a befitting and professional manner. In this

connection, at the passing-out parade of a batch of Pak Marines at the Marines Training Centre,

PNS Qasim, the Chairman, Port Qasim Authority, Karachi, Rear Admiral Sikendar Waqar Naqvi

has stated in the recent past, “PNS Qasim played a vital role in training the Navy personnel to the

optimum level of professionalism—these well-groomed and proficient mariners not only can

defend the coastal areas, but will also play an important role in the inland protection”.

He elaborated, “In the present scenario of modern warfare tactics, any laxity and negligence

would not be spared by the enemy. Complete self-confidence, highest degree of professionalism

and total commitment to the task are the only tools to have an edge over the enemy”.

Nevertheless, Pakistan Navy is focusing on improving their professional skills and concepts

according to the latest trends, and is equipped with modern submarines, war ships etc.

Notably, on this very occasion, one is reminded by the soul-stirring memories of the 1965 war

against India, when naval officers and sailors instilled with the highest spirit of patriotism.

Pakistan Navy’s courageous expeditions in defeating Indian Navy in that war and national

commitment of defending the sea-frontiers of Pakistan by its heroes the naval personnel remains

alive today. Drawing inspiration from the unparallel conducts of the 1965’s war, Pakistan Navy

is fully prepared to meet any challenge of the enemy.

Nonetheless, the role of Pakistan Navy in the Indo-Pak war of 1965 is highly appreciable. While,

securing Pakistan’s coasts, it played a vital role in defeating India in the 1965 war. Therefore,

this 8th September is a special day due to the golden jubilee-ceremony of Pakistan Navy’s


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

Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in Pakistan & KashmirComments Off on Role of Pakistan Navy in the 1965 War





terrorist-Abu Amer al-Kafersousani-Ajnad al-Sham Islamic Union“Abu ‘Aamer Al-Kafr-Soosaani”, who led the group called “Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam”, (“the Islamic Union for Soldiers of Syria”) was killed last night after succeeding Qaasim Halaawaa who, himself,  was killed last Monday, August 31, 2015, in the Eastern Ghoutaa“Abu ‘Aamer”, seen in this photo surrounded by fellow vermin, had no idea his ascension to the leadership of the group would lead to his almost instantaneous death and descent into Hades.  So sad.  Our congratulations to his rat family for the contribution to the demographics of the lower regions.

His death, by the way, marks a turning point in the history of this terrorist organization which is universally despised by citizens of the Ghoutaa and Der’ah.  They are now struggling to name another leader who is willing to follow in Abu ‘Aamer’s rat-claws.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on DAMASCUS: KING FOR A WEEK!

The Nuclear Challenge (8): 70 Years After Hiroshima and Nagasaki


Civil Society Activism on Behalf of Nuclear Zero

by Dr:  Richard Falk

The Jeffersonian faith in the future of democracy rested on the cumulative impact of education on citizen participation encouraging a robust and vigilant civil society. The United States has developed a number of institutional paths to academic excellence, and can claim world leadership in crafting the modern university experience. At the same time, this type of excellence has become increasingly a disappointment from a Jeffersonian perspective, with the quality of American democracy declining in many respects since the earliest years of the republic despite several crossing several humane thresholds: including ending slavery, enfranchising women, and more recently, legally entrenching same sex marriage. Yet the role of money as linked to corporate power as well as the lavish funding of special interest lobbies has undermined the functioning of government and university education of, by, and for the people. There are several plausible explanations of this outcome that have nothing, or little to do, with the nature of the educational experience, yet I believe that our high schools and universities bear a significant responsibility for qualitative decline of democracy, which is also a result of education itself being relegated to a role of providing a skilled labor force for the neoliberal world economy that includes what I would label as ‘normative pacification.’

I would relate this contention to the tendency of most universities, with a few notable exceptions, to conceive of their primary role as one of imparting knowledge, by and large avoiding normative domains of ethics and citizenship. In the midst of the Vietnam War there was a brief period of epistemological revolt on the part of students on many college campuses that was carried out under the unifying banner of ‘relevance,’ which was a code word for what I would prefer to call engaged citizenship. This rallying cry for relevance translated into demands by students for participation in all aspects of their educational experience, and more broadly with respect to societal life. Underneath this call was an insistence on normative knowledge, how American society might be made more equitable and satisfying for all of its residents. Although the initial motivation for the student movement of the 1960s was the perceived imprudence and wrongfulness of the Vietnam War, unjustifiably endangering life and limb of young American males via the draft, the activist agenda was deeper and broader, being constructed around a proposed invigoration of democracy in the critical spirit of “as if people mattered.” The triple revolution (calls for universal controlled disarmament, reform of the Democratic Party, and university reform) proclaimed in the Port Huron founding document of Students for a Democratic Society in 1962 or the Mario Savio clarion call at Berkeley two years later on behalf of the Free Speech Movement to ”put your bodies upon the gears” of the machine that was destroying meaningful life were signifiers of this preoccupation with what needed to be done to make democracy work on the home front.

This student movement and its wider reverberations became increasingly threatening to mainstream American society, especially as it lengthened its agenda to accommodate an emergent militant feminism, glimmerings of LBGT movement, Black Panther radical anti-racism, and a grassroots cultural Spring featuring flower girls, psychedelic drugs, and rock music. Although these movements persisted, and realized many goals, there occurred a well-funded backlash orchestrated under the auspices of what Richard Nixon called ‘the silent majority,’ which itself seemed to derive from Jerry Falwell’s ‘moral majority.’ We should also not forget that the 1960s were a decade of political assassinations that were unwittingly very effecting in bursting the balloon of an incipient cultural revolution: John F. Kennedy (1963), Malcolm X (1965), Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy (1968). It must also be acknowledged that the bright promise of this period also collapsed under its own weight, a series of internal contradictions dramatized by two grisly incidents in 1969: the Manson Family murders and a homicide committed by the Hells Angels in the course of an unruly Rolling Stone concert at the Altamonte Speedway. These occurrences, in particular, epitomized what middle America thought was ‘the new normal’ being brought about by those who were celebrating the 1960s as inaugurating a new era of permissivness.

An active and anxious political consciousness associated with the menace of nuclear war was an integral part of the early phases of the Cold War, highlighted by the Berlin crises climaxing in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 that might well have produced a nuclear exchange had not cooler heads prevailed in Moscow and the most belligerent voices in Washington kept in check. The peace movement expressed its anti-nuclear mood by adopting the survival slogan “better red than dead.” Despite this display of biopolitical common sense, the operational code of the established order, at least in the West, mindlessly based its strategic doctrine and geopolitical activities on the opposite sentiment of “better dead than red,” privileging regime survival over human survival. Any doubt as to this morbid orientation was removed by building an elaborate underground shelter structure designed exclusively to enable the political leadership of the country to carry on the work of government in the aftermath of a nuclear attack even if American society was substantially destroyed—its people slaughtered, its cities reduced to rubble, and its smoke-filled skies saturated with intense radiation. School children were instructed in these years to duck beneath classroom desks, a pathetic gesture of official concern for protecting the wellbeing of the nation’s young people, which did more to call attention to their vulnerability than it did to offer them safety in the event of nuclear war.

Many of us who were old enough to assess this period of bipolar confrontation and mad doctrines of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) came haltingly to the conclusion that only the peoples of the world could emancipate the world from the militarists who were exerting almost total control over the governing process in the countries possessing nuclear warheads. It was this turn to civil society, accompanied by mobilizing efforts in an atmosphere of grassroots fear and apprehension, that produced a measure of political pushback that mounted principled challenges to the moral, political, and cultural postulates of nuclearism, challenges that could be met in the end only by the elimination of the weaponry.

Such anti-nuclear radicalism, although gaining many adherents throughout the world and a few surges of support, never threatened the nuclear weapons establishments around the world in any sustained way. What seemed more effective from a political perspective were liberal incremental initiatives that focused on theexcesses of nuclearism such as first strike technology and doctrine and an unregulated arms race, and didn’t view it as realistic to question nuclearism itself. The ‘freeze movement’ that peaked in 1980 was a characteristic liberal effort to curtail the nuclear arms race without directly challenging the wisdom, morality, legality, and most of all the structure of belief and bureaucratic commitment to continuing to ground the security of the West on its reliance on nuclear weaponry. Societal support for such liberal initiatives ebbed and flowed, seemingly tracking the rise and fall of fears in the general public that nuclear warfare would occur as a consequence of Cold War geopolitics. This liberal orientation may have moderated the arms race and mitigated the risks of unintentional nuclear war, but it proved irrelevant, or worse, with respect to the existence and partial normalization of nuclear weaponry as the ultimate foundation of the global security system.

In many respects, the civil society focus shifted from activism to education, a process accelerated by the end of the Cold War, which induced a different set of concerns that can be comprehended as societal complacency or denial. Such attitudes gave rise to a new variety of false consciousness with respect to nuclear weapons, understating risks and ignoring opportunities. The immediate aftermath of the Cold War in the decade of 1990s provided the best geopolitical opening since Hiroshima for the elimination of nuclear weapons, but the leadership in nuclear weapons states saw no reason to depart from its nuclear comfort zone by engaging with a disarmament process. The absence of pressure from below meant that the nuclear status quo would not be significantly questioned despite the erosion of the deterrence rationale that had served as the principal justification for nuclearism put forward by the realist consensus throughout the entire Cold War.

Seeking out of deep resolve to fill this political and normative vacuum with respect to nuclear policy, which is itself a disturbing sign of the times, are a few largely educational efforts of which the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy are two of the longest lasting, most dedicated, and most respected. In my view, although strongly supportive of such an educational outreach, premised on the supreme sanity of the belief that only a world of zero nuclear weapons is morally and political sustainable, these organizations do not clearly enough draw a line separating the stabilizing managerial impulses underlying arms control and the maintenance of the nonproliferation regime from their proclaimed and genuine transformative raison d’ětre of nuclear disarmament. As a result the educational message conveyed is incomplete, and in my view, confusing. To some extent this ambiguity it understandable, and even commendable: nuclear disarmament is not currently on the political agenda in any meaningful sense, and so nudging the nuclear status quo may in certain respects reduce immediate risks (for example, moving away from hair trigger alert for strategic missile forces). From this angle, it makes a certain sense to exert a short-term policy influence by supportive arms control measures while reserving purely educational efforts to explaining the strong case for a world without nuclear weapons with or without an accompanying demilitarization of securitization and geopolitical interaction. What is left insufficiently explored is whether arms control/nonproliferation has the negative effect of sucking most of the energy away from more drastic repudiations of nuclearism.

There are two issues that relate to filling the educational gap created by the failure of universities to prepare students to be citizens in the nuclear age:

–first, the shift of the center of pedagogic gravity from academic institutions to civil society organizations, most notably the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation;

–secondly, to explore whether the path to nuclear disarmament can proceed in tandem with arms control and the nonproliferation regime, or that a choice must be made and explained as between these two approaches. I believe the long record since 1945 of incremental small steps forward combined with the structural rigidity of the nuclear establishment points in the direction of incompatibility. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, the most credible strategy for achieving a world without nuclear weapons requires, in my view, a renunciation of the logic of arms control and nonproliferation. And even a step further, the advocacy of nuclear disarmament must become joined at the hip with the recognition that global demilitarization and conventional disarmament are part of a retrofitted political package of unconditional anti-nuclearism.


Posted in JapanComments Off on The Nuclear Challenge (8): 70 Years After Hiroshima and Nagasaki

The “Battle of Breaking the Chains”: Towards the Freedom of Palestine and Palestinians


Palestinian hunger strikers © google images

Palestinian hunger strikers © google images

Nidal, Shadi, Ghassan, Bader, Munir, Sleiman, Bilal, Amer and Kayed
9 Palestinian political prisoners on hunger strike, refusing to eat, refusing to surrender. 9 Palestinian heroes held captive in Zionist dungeons, breaking the walls of captivity, defying their jailor, protesting their illegal and inhumane detention. 9 Palestinian freedom fighters; their only weapon their strong will and the belief in their just cause, their only weapon their empty stomachs steadfast in the face of torture, intimidation and force-feeding. Hunger strikes have always been a legitimate and effective weapon of protest and struggle used by Palestinian political prisoners and detainees in the face of injustice. Whether mass hunger strikes that sweep Israeli jails or single hunger strikes that last for months; Palestinian freedom fighters continue to resist the occupation from behind Zionist bars and isolation cells. Their battle against their jailors, against the policy of administrative detention, against the sham courts of the occupation, is the “Battle of Breaking the Chains”; an on-going battle till all Zionist jails are empty, an on-going battle till Palestine is free from the River to the Sea. It is a battle to break the chains of all Palestinians held in Zionist captivity; those held captive in small jails and those held captive in the bigger jails defined by the infamous Oslo Accords, it is a battle against injustice, a battle towards the freedom of all of us.

Nidal, Shadi, Ghassan, Bader, Munir, Sleiman, Bilal, Amer and Kayed
9 Palestinian political prisoners held captive by the Zionist entity along with the around 500 Palestinian political prisoners currently detained without charge or trial; The Israeli occupation resorts to administrative detention and so-called secret files, prepared by the Israeli intelligence and used against Palestinian prisoners when Israeli interrogators fail to force confessions out of Palestinians detainees and when the prosecution is unable to prove the charge on the detainee. Administrative detention is a procedure that allows the Israeli military to hold prisoners indefinitely on secret evidence without charging them or allowing them to stand trial. The Israeli Prison Service (IPS) uses administrative detention as prolonged detention, and in some cases Palestinian detainees are held captive without charge or trial for 5 or even 10 years. On 20.08.2015, Nidal, Shadi, Ghassan, Bader, Munir started an open hunger strike to protest the renewal of their captivity without charge or trial and to protest the policy of administrative detention. They stopped consuming food, and are facing the brutality and illegality of their detention with their empty stomachs. Additionally, they announced their boycott of all Israeli occupation courts, being nothing but sham courts, along with another 50 administrative detainees, and in protest of the so-called secret files. As a punishment, the IPS transferred the hunger strikers to isolation cells. The detainees gave the IPS an ultimatum till 01.09.2015 to end their administrative detention, otherwise they will stop consuming liquids and medicines.

Since 1967, the Zionist entity held more than 850,000 Palestinian men, women and children captive, including thousands of Palestinians held in administrative detention, for periods ranging from months to years. According to the latest statistics from Palestinian human rights organizations and prisoner support sites, there are currently over 6000 Palestinian political prisoners held captive in 22 Israeli jails and detention centres, including 160 children, 26 women, and more than 1600 prisoners suffering from various diseases, and 30 prisoners detained since before the Oslo agreement. Additionally, around 500 Palestinians are held in administrative detention in several Israeli prisons, including Ofer, Megiddo and Al-Naqab. These detainees are held without charge or trial, and often their detention is extended in the final minutes of their captivity, which increases their suffering and that of their families. Among the around 500 administrative detainees, there are 3 PLC members. Alone in August 2015, 390 cases of detention were registered in comparison to 330 in July 2015. Among the 390 detained in August, 85 were children – mostly from occupied Jerusalem, 15 were women, and geographically; 155 from occupied Jerusalem, 70 from occupied Hebron, 50 from occupied Bethlehem and 15 from besieged Gaza. Additionally, in August 2015, 94 new administrative detention orders were issued in comparison to 63 in July 2015.

Currently, the following Palestinian detainees are on hunger strike protesting their detention without charge or trial:

Nidal Abu Aker © google images

Nidal Abu Aker © google images

1. Nidal Abu Aker: 47 years old from Ras Abu Ammar, temporarily resident of Dheisheh refugee camp, on day 18 of an open hunger strike.
Nidal was born on 10.05.1968 in Dheisheh refugee camp to a family expelled from Ras Abu Ammar village in occupied Jerusalem by Zionist terrorist gangs in 1948. He is a father of 3 children, and has a BA in Sociology from Bethlehem University. Nidal works as a journalist and hosts a program titled “In their Cells” on Sawt al Wihdeh Radio station in Bethlehem, which tackles the issues of Palestinian political prisoners. He also works as a Hebrew translator, and is among the founders of the “Families of Prisoners Association” in Dheisheh. Since a young age, Nidal, as the rest of his family members, resisted the occupation. From a total of 15 years in Israeli captivity, he spent 9 years in administrative detention. Nidal was detained for the first time in 1984, still a child at the age of 13, and was accused of throwing stones. His home was raided by Israeli occupation soldiers on the dawn of 28.06.2014; he and his son Mohammad were beaten, and his home ransacked. Since then, he’d been held in administrative detention without any charge or trial, whereby his administrative detention order was renewed several times: in a hearing on 14.01.2015, his administrative detention order was confirmed under the pretext of being “a threat to security” without the prosecutor presenting any substantial evidence. On 20.08.2015, Nidal and his comrades started an open hunger strike to protest their administrative detention and their captivity on the basis on so-called secret files. As punishment, the IPS transferred him to isolation cells in ‘Asqalan prison to pressure him to end his strike. It is worth noting that Nidal suffers from various health problems, including blood pressure, weakness of the heart muscle, ulcer, acute rheumatic and haemorrhoids.

Shadi Maali © google images

Shadi Maali © google images

2. Shadi Ma’ali: 39 years old from Al-Jorah, temporarily resident of Dheisheh refugee camp, on day 18 of an open hunger strike.
Shadi was born in Dheisheh refugee camp to a family expelled from Al-Jorah village in occupied Jerusalem by Zionist terrorist gangs in 1948. He is a father of 5 children. A long-time activist against the occupation, he was held captive several times for resisting the occupation by both the Israeli occupation forces and the “PA security forces”, spending a total of 12 years in Israeli captivity and around 2 years in “PA” jails. He was tortured by both during interrogation. During the First Intifada, Shadi was only 16 years old when he was detained for the first time by the occupation and was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment. Shadi was released from Israeli captivity in February 2014 after spending 22 months in jails. On 28.06.2014, Israeli occupation forces raided and ransacked his home before detaining him. He has been since held in administrative detention, which was renewed 3 consecutive times for 6 months each. On 20.08.2015, Shadi and his comrades started an open hunger strike to protest their administrative detention and their captivity on the basis on so-called secret files. As punishment, the IPS transferred him to isolation cells in Ela prison to pressure him to end his strike. Shadi participated in various hunger strike while in Israeli captivity, including the Karameh mass hunger strike in 2012 and the 2013 hunger strike. Shadi suffers from chronic ulcer in addition to the weakness of the cornea.

Ghassan Zawahreh © google images

Ghassan Zawahreh © google images

3. Ghassan Zawahreh: 34 years, temporarily resident of Dheisheh refugee camp, on day 18 of an open hunger strike.
Ghassan was born in Dheisheh refugee camp to a family expelled from its original village by Zionist terrorist gangs in 1948. Ghassan is a former prisoner and was detained several times by the Israeli occupation forces, spending a total of 10 years in Israeli captivity, including 3 years in administration detention. He was beaten during his various arrests, leading to injuries in his right hand, his left leg and knee, for which he was denied treatment. In 2008, Ghassan was a student of Social Work in his final year at Al-Quds Open University when he was detailed by the Israeli occupation forces, after which he was prevented from completing his studies due to his multiple arrests. Ghassan is a long-time activists and works as a taxi driver. He was detained on 08.04.2015 at a flying checkpoint in Bethlehem, and has since been held in administrative detention, which was renewed 3 times for 4 months each. On 20.08.2015, Ghassan and his comrades started an open hunger strike to protest their administrative detention and their captivity on the basis on so-called secret files. As punishment, the IPS transferred him to isolation cells in Eshel prison to pressure him to end his strike. On 04.09.2015, Ghassan stopped consuming any liquids or medicine. Ghassan suffers from ulcers and arthritis

Munir Abu Sharar © google images

Munir Abu Sharar © google images

4. Munir Abu Sharar: 31 years old from Dura, Hebron, on day 18 of an open hunger strike.
Munir was born in Dura, Hebron. He is the only son to his parents. Munir is an activist, a former prisoner and was detained several times by the Israeli occupation forces. Munir is an employee at the Hebron municipality. On 24.07.2014, Israeli occupation forces detained Munir, and since then he’s been held in administrative detention without charge or trial. His detention order was renewed several times, totalling 14 months. On 20.08.2015, Munir and his comrades started an open hunger strike to protest their administrative detention and their captivity on the basis on so-called secret files. As punishment, the IPS transferred him to isolation cells in Naqab prison to pressure him to end his strike.

Bader Al-Ruzzeh © google images

Bader Al-Ruzzeh © google images

5. Bader Al-Ruzzeh: 26 years old from Nablus, on day 18 of an open hunger strike.
Bader was born in Al-Yasminah neighborhood in Nablus. He is the nephew of martyred leader Ayman Al-Ruzzeh. Bader was detained on 13.05.2014 by Israeli occupation forces, and after interrogation was send to administrative detention without charge or trial. His administrative detention order has been since renewed twice. On 20.08.2015, Badir and his comrades started an open hunger strike to protest their administrative detention and their captivity on the basis on so-called secret files. As punishment, the IPS transferred him to isolation cells in Naqab prison to pressure him to end his hunger strike. It is worth mentioning that Bader suffers from asthma.

Bilal As-Seifi © google images

Bilal As-Seifi © google images

6. Bilal As-Seifi: 26 years old, temporarily resident of Dheisheh refugee camp, on day 11 of an open hunger strike.
Bilal was born in Dheisheh refugee camp to a family expelled from its original village by Zionist terrorist gangs in 1948. He has been held captive in administrative detention since 01.03.2015, which was renewed twice for six months. On 27.08.2015, Bilal started an open hunger strike to protest his administrative detention and his captivity on the basis on so-called secret files. As punishment, the IPS transferred him to isolation cells in Naqab prison to pressure him to end his strike.

Sleiman Skafi © google images

Sleiman Skafi © google images

7. Sleiman Skafi: 30 years old from Hebron, on day 6 of an open hunger strike.
Sleiman was born in Hebron. He is a former prisoner, and was detained 5 times. Sleiman spent a total of 6 years in Israeli captivity. During interrogation, Sleiman was subjected to torture, which resulted in chronic pains in his back and legs, in addition to other health issues. He was denied the needed medical follow-up and treatment. Sleiman has been held captive without charge or trial since 12.11.2014 on the pretext of a secret file that claims he is “a security threat”. Sleiman’s appeal against his administrative detention was refusal by Israeli military courts. In August 2015, Sleiman went on a 2-day warning hunger strike to pressure the IPS to consider the issue of the systematic medical negligence against him and the continuation of his administrative detention without charge. He ended his strike after promises from the IPS to look into his demands and respond to them within days. When the IPS did not reply to his demands, Sleiman started an open hunger strike on 01.09.2015 to protest the renewal of his administrative detention. As punishment, the IPS transferred him from Al-Naqab prison to isolation cells in Ofer prison to pressure him to end his strike. It is worth mentioning that Sleiman participated in the general hunger strike of 2012.

Kayed Abu Al-Reesh © google images

Kayed Abu Al-Reesh © google images

8. Kayed Abu Al-Reesh: 42 years old, temporarily resident of Al-Ein refugee camp, on day 5 of an open hunger strike.
Kayed was born in Ein Beit Al-Ma’ refugee camp in Nablus. He is a father of three children, and was detained 10 times by Israeli occupation forces, spending a total of 16 jails in Zionist captivity. On 14.12.2014, Kayed was detained by Israeli occupation forces yet again, and has since been held in administrative detention, which was renewed twice for 6 months each. Kayed started an open hunger strike on 04.08.2015 to protest his renewed hunger strike. As punishment, the IPS transferred him to isolation cells in Majido prison to pressure him to end his strike. During the first days of his hunger strike, Kayed’s mother received a telephone call from the Israeli intelligence asking her to convince her son to end his hunger strike in return to releasing him at the end of his detention period, but the family refused as he was held without charge or trial. After 23 days, Kayed suspended his hunger strike following promises from the IPS to review his case and hold a special court hearing to consider the possibility of his release. But at usual, the IPS did not comply with its promise. Days afterwards, Kayed was transferred to the so-called Ramleh clinic due to severe migraine as a result of his hunger strike. On 02.09.2015, Kayed’s family reported that he resumed his hunger strike.

Amer Shammas © google images

Amer Shammas © google images

9. Amer Shammas: 24 years old from Hebron, on day 4 of an open hunger strike.
Amer was born in Hebron. In 2014, Amer went on an open hunger strike for 3 months to protest his detention without charge or trial, but suspended his hunger strike after the IPS promised to release him, nonetheless his administrative detention was renewed more than once. Amer started an open hunger strike on 03.09.2015 to protest his administrative detention. As punishment, the Israeli Prison Service (IPS) transferred him to isolation cells in Naqab prison to pressure him to end his strike.

In addition to the 9 administrative detainees on hunger strike, a 10th prisoner is currently on hunger strike:

Nour Jaber © google images

Nour Jaber © google images

10. Nour Jaber: 42 years old from Hebron, on day 5 of an open hunger strike.
Nour Jaber was born in Hebron. He was charged with resisting the Israeli occupation and was sentenced to 17 times life imprisonment, and has been in Zionist captivity since 17 years. He was injured in the leg by the Israeli occupation forces during his arrest, and was tortured during the interrogation, including the use of staplers on his body more than 50 times by the Israeli interrogators, placing salt on his wounds and beating him severly on his injured leg. Since his imprisonment, Nour has been subjected to medical neglect by the IPS. On 02.09.2015, Nour started an open hunger strike to protest his arbitrary transfer from Rimon jail to Jilboa jail and to protest the policy of medical negligence he was subjected to. As punishment, the IPS transferred him to isolation cells in Nafha prison to pressure him to end his hunger strike.

Palestinian hunger strikers © google images

Palestinian hunger strikers © google images

In a statement issued by five of the hunger strikers, they stressed that the goals of their hunger strike include the rejection of the policy of administrative detention against our people and freedom fighters, the refusal of the law of forced feeding, demanding the immediate freedom and breaking the stalemate and internal division, and the unification of the Palestinian national forces on the basis of joint national action inside the prisons and culmination of true national unity.

Freedom for ALL Palestinian and Arab political prisoners and detainees held captive in Zionist dungeons.


Posted in Palestine AffairsComments Off on The “Battle of Breaking the Chains”: Towards the Freedom of Palestine and Palestinians

Shoah’s pages


September 2015
« Aug   Oct »