Archive | September 17th, 2015

ISIS, a Partner America Can Live With


America’s coalition may be splitting apart

By Gordon Duff
al Nusra

al Nusra

America’s “coalition” may well be splitting apart. With Turkey opening the floodgates into Europe and their carpet bombing of Kurds both inside Turkey and in Iraq and Syria, Germany, Russia and France are now looking to Assad.

What they and others are now being forced to admit, not just because of WikiLeaks, but from endless evidence mounting up, is that the American coalition has always seen ISIS as a partner, not a target and that the “coalition” has always been about destroying the Damascus government, no matter the human suffering and now total disruption of Europe that it causes.

Australia just joined the American led coalition supposedly fighting ISIS in the Middle East. As rank amateurs at “diplomacy,” read “lying,” Australia has let the proverbial cat out of the bag. Australia has a deal with ISIS, they will leave them alone as long as they attack Syria. Australia isn’t there to fight ISIS, they are there to guarantee that ISIS keep its deal with the US, to go after Assad.

The coalition, it seems, in accordance with recently released 2011 documents by WikiLeaks, was formed to help ISIS take out Assad when they weren’t able to do it themselves. Thus, the continual Israeli bombing of Syrian artillery and command positions, whenever ISIS is in retreat, can now be put in proper context.

Israel flies overt air support for ISIS while official coalition members simply clear the way for them with focused bombing attacks on obscure targets that never challenge the ISIS war on Syria that has caused up to 7 million refugees to descend on Europe.

As long as the American coalition is there as a placeholder, there will never be an air war on ISIS by serious players, or so America believes.

There is evidence that the refugee crisis, a game intended to gain leverage in Europe by crippling governments with internal dissent, may have backfired. In a Germany news article dated September 12, 2-15:

“Germany is surprisingly quitting the anti-Putin Alliance created by the United States: Germany now officially welcomes Moscow’s readiness to engage with Syria and launches an initiative to end the war with the Russians and the French. Thus, the stream of refugees is to be stopped. Germany put thousands of soldiers on standby.”

Germany surprising quits Alliance with the United States, which wanted to prevent a participation of Russia in Syria.

Ursula von der Leyen

German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen

Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen told der Spiegel, they welcome Russian President Vladimir Putin’s involvement in the fight against the extremist Islamic State. It is in the common interest, to combat the IS, she said.

A spokesman of the Foreign Ministry also said Germany would welcome a greater engagement of Russia in the fight against the IS. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even announced, with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and the French colleague Laurent Fabius, a push to start to end the civil war in Syria. Lavrov and Fabius are expected in Berlin on Saturday.”

Britain and France had never officially joined the US led bombing attacks now being recharacterized by some as “pro-terrorist” rather than “anti-terrorist.” Each has engaged in unauthorized attacks inside Syria on targets related to their own narrow national interests.

It is, however, now clear that all bombing attacks in Syria and Iraq as well have been of that same character, too often accidental attacks on “friendly” forces or air cover for ISIS resupply runs, as the Iraqi government has long asserted.

Thus, when Turkey joined the coalition in June 2015 and then again in August and September, and yet has never bombed an ISIS target after thousands of sorties, mostly against Kurdish civilians, one wonders why the West can be surprised at the massive influx of refugees.

This is simply another political move, this time against Western Europe.

The refugees aren’t just fleeing ISIS, now admittedly receiving air support from Israel and the American coalition, but they are fleeing that same air support which is targeting them as well.

Fabius, Steinmeyer, Lavrov

Laurent Fabius, Frank-Walter Steinmeyer and Sergei Lavrov

The utter and absolute failure of America’s “shock and awe” bombing campaign, having destroyed nation after nation in the past is telling.

Very few American attacks have been against the primary area of operations of ISIS, Idlib and Raqqah in Syria. What few attacks there have been against enemies of ISIS and have not moved to degrade their military or even chemical warfare capability.

There have certainly been no efforts to attack ISIS lines of supply or their real transit capabilities, which allow them to move jihadists during daylight over hundreds of miles.

You see, those supply depots, ISIS bases and the roads that carry their supply convoys are mostly inside Turkey.

There, ISIS has air bases, supply planes, helicopters and can even receive their trucks by shiploads, dropped off at Turkish ports in the North like they are offloaded at Jordanian ports in the South.

US Senator McCain with Syrian rebels

US Senator McCain with Syrian rebels

What the leaders of Europe are seeing with the sudden influx of refugees isn’t a change in conditions, an increase in combat, a change on the battlefield, but rather a decision made by Turkey’s Erdogan, with or without the tacit approval of his friends in Tel Aviv, Washington and Riyadh, to flood Europe.

There is also no way to deal with the regional threat of terror states, the IS, Turkey, perhaps Israel and others without considering the inclusion of the Kiev backed regime.

The coordinated attacks on both Kiev and Damascus, orchestrated by the west and targeting Russia, are inexorable conclusions. In this light, the ties between ISIS and Kiev, both political and military, are inexorable as well.

The only difference between them is that Kiev was successful and the “Mosul regime” was not.

The parallels between them are considerable with one exception, ISIS has not downed a passenger airliner.

Posted in USAComments Off on ISIS, a Partner America Can Live With

SYRIA: الرئيس الأسد : الغرب يتباكى على اللاجئين السوريين من جهة ويصوب رشاشاته عليهم من جهة أخرى بدعمه للإرهاب

أكد السيد الرئيس بشار الأسد ضرورة الاستمرار في الحوار من أجل إيجاد حل سياسي للأزمة في سورية بالتوازي مع محاربة الإرهاب بهدف التوصل إلى إجماع حول مستقبل سورية داعيا كل القوى للاتحاد لمحاربة الإرهاب لأنه الطريق للوصول إلى الأهداف السياسية التي نريدها نحن كسوريين عبر الحوار والعمل السياسي.

وشدد الرئيس الأسد في مقابلة مع عدد من وسائل الإعلام الروسية “تلفزيون روسيا اليوم وروسيسكايا غازيتا والقناة الاولى وروسيا 24 وريا نوفوستي وقناة إن تي في” على أن الغرب يتباكى على اللاجئين السوريين من جهة ويصوب رشاشاته عليهم من جهة أخرى من خلال دعمه للإرهاب منذ بداية الأزمة في سورية.

وفيما يلي النص الكامل للمقابلة..

قال الرئيس الأسد ردا على سؤال حول موقف سورية من العمليةالسياسية وتقاسم السلطة وأزمة اللاجئين السوريين.. دعيني أولاً أجزئ هذا السؤال لأنه ينطوي على العديد من الأسئلة في سؤال واحد.. فيما يتعلق بالجزء الأول بشأن العملية السياسية منذ بداية الأزمة تبنينا نهج الحوار وقد جرت عدة جولات من الحوار بين السوريين في سورية وموسكو وجنيف.. في الواقع فإن الخطوة الوحيدة التي حققت إنجازاً كانت موسكو 2 وليست جنيف أو موسكو1 كما أنها خطوة جزئية وليست مكتملة وهذا طبيعي لأن الأزمة كبيرة.. لا يمكن التوصل إلى حلول في ساعات أو أيام قليلة.. إنها خطوة إلى الأمام ونحن بانتظار “موسكو3″.. أعتقد أن علينا الاستمرار في الحوار بين الكيانات السياسية أو الأحزاب السياسية السورية بالتوازي مع محاربة الإرهاب من أجل التوصل إلى إجماع حول مستقبل سورية.. إذاً هذا ما ينبغي أن نستمر فيه.

وأضاف الرئيس الأسد : إذا كان لي أن أنتقل إلى الجزء الأخير لأنه مرتبط بهذا  الجزء فهل يمكن تحقيق أي شيء إذا أخذنا بالاعتبار انتشار الإرهاب في سورية والعراق وفي المنطقة بشكل عام… علينا أن نستمر في الحوار من أجل التوصل إلى توافق كما قلت لكن إذا أردنا أن ننفذ أي شيء حقيقي فمن المستحيل فعل شيء بينما يقتل الناس وبينما لم تتوقف إراقة الدماء ولا يزال الناس يشعرون بانعدام الأمان.. لنقل إننا جلسنا معاً كأحزاب أو قوى سياسية سورية وتوصلنا إلى إجماع في موضوع سياسي أو في الاقتصاد أو التعليم أو الصحة أو أي شيء كيف نستطيع أن ننفذ ما اتفقنا عليه إذا كانت أولوية كل سوري الآن هي أن يكون آمنا… إذاً يمكن أن نتوصل إلى إجماع لكننا لا نستطيع أن ننفذ شيئاً ما لم نهزم الإرهاب في سورية.. علينا أن نهزم الإرهاب وليس فقط “داعش”.

وتابع الرئيس الأسد: أنا أتحدث عن الإرهاب لأن هناك العديد من التنظيمات وبشكل أساسي “داعش والنصرة” اللذان أعلنهما مجلس الأمن مجموعتين إرهابيتين هذا فيما يتعلق بالعملية السياسية.. أما فيما يتصل بتقاسم السلطة فقد تقاسمناها أصلاً مع جزء من المعارضة التي قبلت بتقاسمها معنا قبل بضع سنوات انضموا إلى الحكومة.. رغم أن تقاسم السلطة يتعلق بالدستور والانتخابات وبشكل أساسي الانتخابات البرلمانية وبالطبع تمثيل الشعب السوري من قبل تلك القوى.. لكن رغم ذلك وبسبب الأزمة قلنا لنتقاسم السلطة الآن.. لنفعل شيئاً.. خطوة إلى الأمام بصرف النظر عن مدى فعالية تلك الخطوة.

الرئيس الأسد : اللاجئون تركوا سورية بشكل أساسي بسبب الإرهابيين والقتل وثانياً بسبب نتائج الإرهاب

وقال الرئيس الأسد : فيما يتعلق بأزمة اللاجئين أقول إن تعامل الغرب ومن خلال الدعاية الإعلامية الغربية مؤخرا خصوصاً خلال الأسبوع الماضي وبصرف النظر عن الاتهام بأن أولئك اللاجئين يهربون من الحكومة السورية أو مما يسمونه النظام فإنهم يبكون على اللاجئين بعين بينما يصوبون عليهم رشاشاً بالعين الأخرى .. هذا لأن أولئك اللاجئين تركوا سورية في الواقع بشكل أساسي بسبب الإرهابيين وبسبب القتل.. ثانياً بسبب نتائج الإرهاب.. عندما يكون هناك إرهاب وعندما تدمر البنية التحتية لن تبقى الاحتياجات الأساسية للحياة متوافرة وبالتالي فإن الناس يهربون بسبب الإرهاب ولأنهم يريدون كسب رزقهم في مكان ما من العالم.. وهكذا فإن الغرب يبكي عليهم بينما هو يدعم الإرهابيين منذ بداية الأزمة.. في البداية قال إن هذه الانتفاضة سلمية ومن ثم قال إنها معارضة معتدلة والآن يقول إن هناك إرهابا كإرهاب “النصرة وداعش” لكن ذلك بسبب الدولة السورية أو النظام السوري أو الرئيس السوري.. إذاً طالما استمروا في اتباع هذا النهج الدعائي فإنهم سيستقبلون المزيد من اللاجئين.. فالمسألة لا تتعلق بأن أوروبا لم تقبل أو تحتضن اللاجئين بل تتعلق بمعالجة سبب المشكلة.. إذا كانوا قلقين عليهم فليتوقفوا عن دعم الإرهابيين.. هذا ما نعتقده فيما يتعلق بهذه الأزمة.. هذا جوهر قضية اللاجئين.

الرئيس الأسد : علينا الآن كقوى سياسية أو حكومة أو كمجموعات مسلحة حاربت ضد الحكومة أن نتوحد جميعاً من أجل مكافحة الإرهاب
ورداً على سؤال عما يجب أن تفعله المعارضة الداخلية للتنسيق والتعاون مع السلطة السورية لمساندتها في القتال.. وأفق لقاء موسكو3 وجنيف3 قال الرئيس الأسد نحن الآن كما تعرف في حالة حرب مع الإرهاب وهذا الإرهاب مدعوم من قوى خارجية فهذا يعني أننا في حالة حرب كاملة اليوم.. أنا أعتقد بأن أي مجتمع وأي أشخاص وطنيين.. أي أحزاب تنتمي فعلاً للشعب تتوحد في حالات الحروب ضد العدو سواء كان العدو إرهاباً من الداخل أو كان العدو إرهاباً من الخارج.. اليوم لو سألنا أي سوري ما الذي تريده الآن.. فأول شيءٍ سيقوله.. نريد الأمان ونريد الأمن لكل شخص ولكل عائلة.. فإذاً علينا نحن كقوى سياسية سواء كانت هذه القوى داخل الحكومة أو خارجها أن نتوحد حول ما يريده الشعب السوري.. هذا يعني أن نتوحد أولاً ضد الإرهاب.. هذا شيء بديهي ومنطقي.. لذلك أقول علينا الآن كقوى سياسية أو حكومة أو كمجموعات مسلحة حاربت ضد الحكومة أن نتوحد جميعاً من أجل مكافحة الإرهاب.. وهذا الشيء حصل.. هناك قوى تحارب الآن الإرهاب مع الدولة السورية وهي كانت تقاتل الدولة السورية.. قطعنا خطوات في هذا المجال.. ولكنني أستغل فرصة هذا اللقاء لأوجه دعوة لكل القوى لكي تتحد لمواجهة الإرهاب لأنه الطريق للوصول للأهداف السياسية التي نريدها نحن كسوريين عبر الحوار وعبر العمل السياسي.

الرئيس الأسد: من الصعب لجنيف3 أن ينجح إن لم ينجح موسكو3
وأضاف الرئيس الأسد: أهمية موسكو3 أنها تشكل عملية تمهيد لجنيف3 لأن الرعاية الدولية في جنيف لم تكن حيادية أولاً بينما الرعاية الروسية هي رعاية حيادية ليست منحازة وتستند إلى القانون الدولي وقرارات مجلس الأمن.. ثانياً هناك خلافات جوهرية حول بند الهيئة الانتقالية في جنيف.. المطلوب من موسكو3 أن يحل هذه العقبات بين الأطراف السورية المختلفة وعندما نصل إلى جنيف3 يكون هناك إجماع سوري يهيئ لنجاحه.. نحن نعتقد بأنه من الصعب لجنيف3 أن ينجح إن لم ينجح موسكو3 لذلك نحن نؤيد عقد هذه الجولة من المفاوضات في موسكو بعد أن تكون التحضيرات لنجاح هذه الجولة قد اكتملت وخاصة من قبل المسؤولين الروس.

الرئيس الأسد: أفكار المبادرة الإيرانية تستند بشكل رئيسي على موضوع سيادة سورية ومكافحة الإرهاب

وحول المبادرة الإيرانية لتسوية الوضع في سورية وأهمية الدعم الإيراني قال الرئيس الأسد: حالياً لا توجد مبادرة إيرانية وإنما توجد أفكار أو مبادئ لمبادرة إيرانية تستند بشكل رئيسي إلى موضوع سيادة سورية وطبعاً قرار الشعب السوري.. وتستند إلى موضوع مكافحة الإرهاب.. طبعاً العلاقة بيننا وبين إيران علاقة قديمة عمرها الآن أكثر من ثلاثة عقود ونصف.. فيها تحالف.. فيها ثقة كبيرة.. لذلك نعتقد بأن الدور الإيراني دور مهم.. إيران تقف مع سورية ومع الشعب السوري.. تقف مع الدولة السورية سياسياً واقتصادياً وعسكرياً.. ليس المقصود عسكرياً كما حاول البعض تسويقه في الإعلام الغربي بأن إيران أرسلت جيشاً أو قوات إلى سورية.. هذا الكلام غير صحيح.. هي ترسل لنا عتاداً عسكرياً وهناك طبعاً تبادل للخبراء العسكريين بين سورية وإيران وهذا الشيء موجود دائماً ومن الطبيعي أن يزداد هذا التعاون بين البلدين في ظروف الحرب.. نعم الدعم الإيراني كان أساسياً من أجل مساعدة سورية في صمودها في هذه الحرب الصعبة والشرسة.

وقال الرئيس الأسد رداً على سؤال عن العلاقة مع مصر وهل هي مباشرة أو عبر الوسيط الروسي.. العلاقة بين سورية ومصر لم تنقطع حتى في السنوات الماضية.. وحتى عندما كان رئيس مصر هو مرسي الذي ينتمي لجماعة الإخوان المسلمين الإرهابية أصرت المؤسسات المصرية على إبقاء شيء من هذه العلاقة.. أولاً لوعي الشعب المصري لما يحصل في سورية.. ثانياً لأن المعركة التي نخوضها عملياً هي ضد عدو واحد.. هذا الشيء طبعاً الآن أصبح أوضح بالنسبة للجميع.. الأمور أصبحت واضحة.. الإرهاب منتشر في ليبيا ومصر واليمن وسورية والعراق وفي بعض الدول الأخرى طبعاً وفي دول إسلامية أخرى كأفغانستان وباكستان وغيرها.. فإذاً أستطيع أن أقول بأن هناك الآن رؤية مشتركة بيننا وبين الجانب المصري.. لكن العلاقة الآن هي على المستوى الأمني.. لا توجد علاقة سياسية أي لا يوجد تواصل بين وزارة الخارجية السورية ووزارة الخارجية المصرية على سبيل المثال.. التواصل على المستوى الأمني فقط.. نأخذ بالاعتبار الضغوط التي يمكن أن تترتب ربما على مصر أو على سورية ومصر من أجل ألا تكون هناك علاقة قوية.. طبعاً هي لا تمر عبر موسكو كما قلت.. هذه العلاقة لم تنقطع ولكن اليوم نحن ننظر بارتياح لتحسن العلاقة بين روسيا ومصر وبنفس الوقت هناك علاقة جيدة وقوية وتاريخية بين موسكو ودمشق فمن الطبيعي أن تكون روسيا مرتاحة لأي تطور في العلاقة بين سورية ومصر.

الرئيس الأسد: كلنا نعلم أن من يدعم اليوم “جبهة النصرة” و”داعش”  هي تركيا

وردا على سؤال حول موقف سورية من فكرة إنشاء منطقة خالية من إرهابيي “داعش” على الحدود مع تركيا.. والدعم الغربي للتنظيمات الإرهابية قال الرئيس الأسد.. أن نقول بأن الحدود مع تركيا يجب أن تكون خالية من الإرهاب فهذا يعني أن الإرهاب مسموح به في باقي المناطق.. هذا الكلام غير مقبول.. يجب القضاء على الإرهاب في كل مكان.. ونحن ندعو منذ أكثر من ثلاثة عقود لتحالف دولي من أجل مكافحة الإرهاب.. ولكن بالنسبة لهذا الموضوع وبالنسبة لتعاون الغرب مع “جبهة النصرة” هو حقيقة واقعة لأننا كلنا نعلم أن من يدعم اليوم “جبهة النصرة” ومن يدعم “داعش” بالسلاح وبالمال وبالمتطوعين الإرهابيين هو تركيا.. ومن المعروف أن تركيا هي على علاقة وثيقة بالغرب.. فأردوغان وأوغلو لا يمكن أن يتحركا خطوة واحدة من دون التنسيق أولاً مع الولايات المتحدة وطبعاً مع باقي الدول الغربية.. فوجود “جبهة النصرة” ووجود “داعش” بهذه القوة في المنطقة هو بغطاء غربي لأن الدول الغربية تعتقد دائماً أن الإرهاب هو ورقة تستطيع أن تضعها في جيبك وتستخدمها من وقت لآخر، الآن يريدون استخدام “جبهة النصرة” ضد “داعش” فقط، ربما لأن “داعش” خرجت عن سيطرتهم بشكل أو بآخر.. ولكن هذا لا يعني بأنهم يريدون القضاء على “داعش”.. لو أرادوا لكانوا قادرين على القيام بهذا الشيء.

وأضاف الرئيس الأسد.. بالنسبة لنا “داعش وجبهة النصرة” وكل التنظيمات المشابهة التي تحمل السلاح وتقتل المدنيين هي تنظيمات متطرفة.. لكن مع من نتحاور.. هذا سؤال مهم جداً… منذ البداية قلنا.. إن الحوار هو مع كل من يمكن أن يؤدي الحوار معه لتراجع الإرهاب وبالتالي الوصول إلى الاستقرار.. طبعاً هذا يشمل بشكل طبيعي القوى السياسية ولكن هناك أيضاً مسلحون حاورناهم وتوصلنا معهم لاتفاقات في مناطق كانت مضطربة وأصبحت هادئة.. وفي أماكن أخرى هؤلاء المسلحون انضموا للجيش السوري وهم يقاتلون معه اليوم وسقط منهم شهداء.. فإذاً نحن نحاور الجميع ما عدا تلك التنظيمات التي ذكرتها كـ “داعش والنصرة” وتنظيمات مشابهة.. لسبب بسيط هو أن هذه التنظيمات تعتمد بعقيدتها على الإرهاب.. هي تنظيمات عقائدية.. هي ليست مجرد تنظيمات خرجت ضد الدولة كما هو حال عدد من المسلحين.. لا.. هي من الناحية العقائدية تؤمن بالإرهاب وبالتالي الحوار مع هذه التنظيمات لا يمكن أن يؤدي إلى أي نتيجة حقيقية.. لا بد من أن نكافحها ونحاربها ونقضي عليها بشكل كلي.. والحوار معها غير مجد على الإطلاق.

الرئيس الأسد: لا يوجد لدينا فيتو على أي دولة للتعاون معها في مكافحة الإرهاب شرط أن تكون لديها الإرادة بمكافحة الإرهاب
وقال الرئيس الأسد ردا على سؤال عن الشركاء الذين يمكن التعاون معهم في مكافحة الإرهاب.. بكل تأكيد الدول الصديقة وفي مقدمتها روسيا وإيران.. والعراق نحن نتعاون معه لأنه يتعرض لنفس النوع من الإرهاب.. بالنسبة للدول الأخرى نحن لا يوجد لدينا فيتو على أي دولة بشرط أن تكون لديها الإرادة في أن تكافح الإرهاب وليس كما يفعلون الآن فيما يسمى التحالف الدولي من أجل مكافحة الإرهاب الذي تقوده أمريكا.. في الواقع منذ بدأ هذا التحالف يعمل و”داعش” تتوسع.. أي أنه تحالف فاشل ليس له تأثير حقيقي على الأرض.. بنفس الوقت لا يمكن لدول مثل تركيا وقطر والسعودية ومعها الدول الغربية التي تغطي الإرهاب مثل فرنسا أو الولايات المتحدة أو غيرها أن تقوم نفسها بمكافحة الإرهاب.. لا يمكن أن تكون مع الإرهاب وضد الإرهاب في نفس الوقت.. ولكن إذا قررت هذه الدول أن تغير من سياساتها وتعرف بأن هذا الإرهاب هو كالعقرب إذا وضعته في جيبك فسوف يلدغك.. فعندها لا يوجد لدينا مانع من التعاون مع كل هذه الدول بشرط أن يكون هذا التحالف تحالفاً حقيقياً وليس وهمياً لمكافحة الإرهاب.

وحول الوضع الحالي للجيش السوري وهل استنزفته الحرب أم أصبح أقوى نتيجة العمليات العسكرية وهل يوجد احتياط لدعم نشاطه… قال الرئيس الأسد.. طبعاً الحرب سيئة.. أي حرب هي مدمرة.. أي حرب تضعف أي مجتمع وأي جيش مهما يكن هذا البلد قوياً أو غنياً ولكن الأمور لا تقاس بهذه الطريقة.. فالحرب من المفترض أن توحد المجتمع ضد العدو.. الجيش يصبح هو الرمز الأهم بالنسبة لأي مجتمع عندما يكون هناك عدوان على هذا البلد.. يصبح هذا المجتمع حاضناً لهذا الجيش ويقدم له كل الدعم المطلوب بما فيه الموارد البشرية.. المتطوعون.. المجندون.. لكي يقوموا بالدفاع عن الوطن.. بنفس الوقت الحرب تعطي خبرة كبيرة لأي قوات مسلحة من الناحية العملية العسكرية.. فإذاً هناك دائماً إيجابيات وسلبيات.. لا نستطيع أن نقول بأن الجيش يضعف أو يقوى.. لكن في المقابل هذا الاحتضان والدعم الشعبي للجيش هو الذي يؤمن له المتطوعين.. فإجابة على سؤالك “هل هناك احتياط…” بالتأكيد لو لم يكن هناك احتياط للجيش لما كان من الممكن أن يصمد أربع سنوات ونصفا في حرب صعبة جداً وخاصة أن العدو الذي نقاتله اليوم هو عدو لديه إمداد بشري غير محدود.. هناك مقاتلون إرهابيون من أكثر من ثمانين أو تسعين دولة اليوم.. تتحدث أنت عن حاضنة شعبية ربما تكون بالملايين من دول مختلفة ترسل أشخاصاً للقتال في سورية مع الإرهابيين.

وأضاف الرئيس الأسد.. أما بالنسبة لنا فالاحتياط هو احتياط سوري فقط بالدرجة الأولى.. لذلك نعم هناك احتياط.. وهذا يجعلنا نستمر.. وهناك تصميم.. الاحتياط ليس فقط بالكادر البشري بـ “الأشخاص”.. وإنما أيضاً بالإرادة.. لدينا إرادة أكثر من ذي قبل بالقتال والدفاع عن بلدنا ضد الإرهابيين.. هذه الحالة هي التي أدت إلى أن بعض المسلحين الذين قاتلوا الدولة في البداية لأسباب مختلفة اكتشفوا لاحقاً أنهم في الطريق الخاطئ وقرروا الانضمام إلى الدولة.. الآن يخوضون معارك مع الجيش.. البعض منهم التحق بالجيش بشكل نظامي.. البعض منهم أبقى سلاحه معه ولكنهم يقاتلون بشكل مجموعات مع القوات المسلحة في أماكن مختلفة في سورية.

ورداً على سؤال حول التنظيمات الإرهابية التي تكافحها الدولة السورية وهل هي مجموعة كبيرة من الإرهابيين أم تنظيم “داعش” الذي يحاول إنشاء ما يشبه شكل الدولة قال الرئيس الأسد.. طبعاً مجموعات “داعش” الإرهابية تحاول أن تعطي شكل الدولة كما ذكرت من أجل أن تجذب المزيد من المتطوعين الذين يعيشون بأحلام الماضي بأن هناك دولة ذات طابع إسلامي تعمل من أجل الدين وهذا المظهر المثالي غير حقيقي.. هذا مظهر خادع.. ولكن أي دولة لا يمكن أن تأتي بشكل مفاجئ وبشكل جديد إلى أي مجتمع.. الدولة يجب أن تكون من إنتاج هذا المجتمع.. أن تكون تطوراً طبيعياً للمجتمع لكي تعبر عنه.. تختلف قليلاً ولكن في النهاية هي صورة عن المجتمع.. لا يمكن أن تأتي بدولة من شكل آخر وتضعها في مجتمع.. هنا نسأل سؤالاً.. هل دولة “داعش”، أو ما يسمونه دولة “داعش”، أو مجموعة “داعش”، تشبه الشعب السوري… بكل تأكيد لا.

وأضاف الرئيس الأسد.. هناك طبعاً مجموعات إرهابية ولكنها لا تعبر عن المجتمع.. في روسيا مجموعات إرهابية اليوم ولكنها لا تعبر عن المجتمع الروسي ولا تشبه المجتمع الروسي المتنوع والمنفتح.. لذلك إذا حاولوا أن يطبعوا عملة أو طوابع أو جواز سفر أو هذه الأشكال التي توحي بدولة لا يعني بأنهم موجودون كدولة لأنهم أولاً لا يشبهون الشعب.. ثانياً لأن الناس في تلك المناطق إما انها تهاجر باتجاه الدولة الحقيقية.. الدولة السورية.. الدولة الوطنية أو أنها تقاتلهم في بعض الحالات.. وقلة محدودة جداً هي التي تصدق هذه الأكاذيب.. فهم ليسوا دولة بكل تأكيد.. هم مجموعة إرهابية.. لكن إذا أردنا أن نسأل من هم… دعنا نتحدث بشكل حقيقي أكثر.. هم المرحلة الثالثة من مجموعة السموم السياسية أو الإيديولوجية التي أنتجها الغرب والتي تهدف إلى تحقيق أهداف سياسية.. المرحلة الأولى كانت الإخوان المسلمين في بداية القرن الماضي.. المرحلة الثانية كانت القاعدة في أفغانستان من أجل محاربة الاتحاد السوفييتي.. والمرحلة الثالثة هي “داعش وجبهة النصرة” وهذه المجموعات.. من هي “داعش”… ومن هي هذه المجموعات… هي بكل بساطة الإنتاج الغربي للتطرف.

الرئيس الأسد : الأكراد هم جزء من النسيج السوري يعيشون في المنطقة كالعربي والشركسي والأرمني
وقال الرئيس الأسد ردا على سؤال حول الموقف من الأكراد.. أولاً لا يمكن أن نقول بأنه كان هناك سياسة معينة للدولة تجاه الأكراد.. لا يمكن لدولة أن تميز بين أبناء البلد الواحد وإلا هذا يخلق انقساماً بالبلد.. لو كنا فعلاً نميز بين مكونات المجتمع لما وقفت أغلب هذه المكونات اليوم مع الدولة ولتقسم البلد بشكل مباشر منذ البدايات.. بالنسبة لنا الأكراد هم جزء من النسيج السوري.. هم ليسوا غرباء.. يعيشون في هذه المنطقة كالعربي وكالشركسي وكالأرمني وككثير من القوميات والطوائف الموجودة في سورية وتعيش فيها منذ قرون طويلة.. البعض منها غير معروف متى أتى إلى هذه المنطقة.. من دون هذه المجموعات لا يمكن أن يكون هناك سورية المتجانسة.. فإذا هل هم اليوم حلفاؤنا… لا.. هم أشخاص وطنيون هذا من جانب.. من جانب آخر لا تستطيع أن تضع كل الأكراد في سلة واحدة.. الأكراد كأي مكون سوري هم تيارات.. ينتمون لأحزاب مختلفة.. هناك اليسار واليمين.. وهناك عشائر.. وهناك أشكال مختلفة.. فعندما نتحدث عن الأكراد ككتلة واحدة يكون هذا الطرح غير موضوعي.

وتابع الرئيس الأسد : هناك مطالب كردية لدى بعض الأحزاب وليست مطالب كردية للأكراد.. هناك أكراد يعيشون مندمجين في المجتمع بشكل كامل.. وأريد أن أؤكد بأنهم ليسوا حلفاء في هذه المرحلة كما يحاول البعض أن يظهر فهناك شهداء من الجيش من الأكراد.. هذا يعني بأنهم يعيشون مندمجين في المجتمع.. ولكن هناك أحزاب كان لها مطالب.. قمنا بحل بعض هذه المطالب في بدايات الأزمة.. هناك بعض المطالب التي لا ترتبط بالدولة.. لا يمكن للدولة أن تقدمها.. هناك أشياء متعلقة بالشعب ككل.. بالدستور.. لا بد من أن يوافق الشعب على هذه المطالب.. قبل أن نأخذ قراراً نحن كدولة.. بكل الأحوال أي شيء يطرح يجب أن يكون في الإطار الوطني لذلك أقول نحن الآن مع الأكراد ومع مكونات أخرى.. كلنا نتحالف من أجل قتال الإرهابيين.. وهذا ما تحدثت عنه منذ قليل بأنه يجب أن نتوحد من أجل قتال “داعش”.. بعد أن ننتصر على “داعش” وعلى “جبهة النصرة” وعلى الإرهابيين تصبح المطالب الكردية لدى بعض المكونات الحزبية الكردية قابلة للنقاش وقابلة للطرح على الساحة الوطنية.. لا توجد أي مشكلة.. لا يوجد لدينا فيتو على أي طلب.. طالما أن هذا الشيء هو في إطار وحدة سورية ووحدة الشعب السوري والأرض السورية ومكافحة الإرهاب، والتنوع السوري، وحرية هذا التنوع بمعناه العرقي والقومي، وبمعناه الطائفي والديني.

الرئيس الأسد : كل مواطن سوري دافع عن بلده يستحق الشكر والدفاع عن الوطن واجب

وردا على سؤال.. هل يستطيع الأكراد بقتالهم “داعش” أن يعولوا على شكل من هذا العرفان لتحقيق مطالب لهم قال الرئيس الأسد : عندما ندافع عن بلدنا فنحن لسنا بحاجة لشكر.. هذا الواجب الطبيعي.. أن نقوم بالدفاع عن بلدنا.. فإذا كانوا يستحقون الشكر فكل مواطن سوري دافع عن بلده يستحق الشكر ولكن أنا أعتقد بأن الدفاع عن الوطن هو واجب وعندما تقوم بواجبك لست بحاجة للشكر.. ولكن ما تطرحه في البداية هو مرتبط بالدستور السوري اليوم لو أردت أن تغير شكل البنية الموجودة لديك في بلدك في روسيا.. إعادة تقسيم الجمهوريات على سبيل المثال أو إعطاء صلاحيات لجمهورية تختلف عن صلاحيات في جمهورية أخرى هذا الموضوع لا يرتبط بالرئيس ولا يرتبط بالحكومة هذا الموضوع يرتبط بالدستور.. الرئيس لا يمتلك الدستور.. والحكومة لا تمتلك الدستور.. من يمتلك الدستور هو الشعب.. وبالتالي أي تبديل بالدستور بحاجة لحوار وطني.. بالنسبة لنا لا توجد لدينا مشكلة في أي طلب كما قلت.. نحن كدولة لا يوجد لدينا أي اعتراض في هذه المواضيع طالما أنها لا تمس وحدة سورية وحرية المواطنين والتنوع.. ولكن إذا كانت هناك جهات في سورية أو مجموعات أو شرائح لديها مطالب فلا بد أن تكون في الإطار الوطني.. في حوار مع القوى السورية عندما يكون الشعب السوري متفقاً على القيام بخطوات من هذا النوع لها علاقة بفيدرالية أو حكم ذاتي أو لامركزية أو تبديل كل النظام السياسي.. فهذا بحاجة لموافقة الشعب السوري.. وبالتالي تعديل الدستور والعودة لاستفتاء.. لذلك هذه المجموعات يجب أن تقنع الشعب السوري بطروحاتها.. فطروحاتها ليست حواراً مع الدولة وإنما مع الشعب.. أما نحن فعندما يقرر الشعب السوري أن يسير باتجاه معين أو يوافق على خطوة معينة، فمن الطبيعي أن نوافق عليها.

وردا على سؤال حول وجود تنسيق مباشر أو غير مباشر بين سورية والتحالف الذي تقوده الولايات المتحدة ضد “داعش” قال الرئيس الأسد.. ستفاجئين إذا قلت لا.. أعلم أن جوابي لن يبدو واقعياً عندما أقول الآن وبينما نحارب نفس العدو إذا جاز التعبير، ونهاجم نفس الأهداف وفي نفس المنطقة دون تنسيق، وفي نفس الوقت لا يحدث أي صدام.. رغم أن هذا يبدو غريباً لكنه الواقع.. ليس هناك أي تنسيق أو تواصل بين الحكومتين السورية والأميركية أو بين الجيش السوري والجيش الأميركي.. إنهم لا يستطيعون الاعتراف ولا يستطيعون قبول حقيقة أننا القوة الوحيدة التي تحارب “داعش” على الأرض.. بالنسبة لهم ربما إذا تعاملوا أو تعاونوا مع الجيش السوري فإن ذلك سيكون بمثابة اعتراف بفعاليتنا في محاربة “داعش”.. هذا للأسف جزء من العمى والعناد الذي تظهره الإدارة الأميركية.

وتابع الرئيس الأسد ردا على سؤال.. هل هناك طرف ثالث ينسق بين سورية والتحالف.. ليس هناك أي طرف ثالث بما في ذلك العراقيون.. في الماضي أبلغونا قبل بداية الهجمات من خلال العراقيين.. منذ ذلك الحين لم نتبادل معهم أي رسالة أو اتصال من خلال أي طرف آخر.

الرئيس الأسد : المهمة الرئيسية لأي سياسي أو أي حكومة أو رئيس  هي العمل لمصلحة شعبه وبلده
وقال الرئيس الأسد ردا على سؤال.. كيف تشعرون إذا قدر لكم العمل مع القادة الغربيين وإمكانية الثقة بهم.. أولاً هذه العلاقات ليست شخصية.. إنها علاقات بين الدول.. وعندما نتحدث عن العلاقات بين الدول.. فإننا لا نتحدث عن الثقة بل نتحدث عن الآليات.. إذاً الثقة أمر شخصي لا يستطيع المرء الاعتماد عليه في العلاقات السياسية بين الناس.. أعني أني هنا مسؤول عن 23 مليون نسمة في سورية.. ولنقل إن شخصاً آخر مسؤول عن عشرات الملايين في بلد آخر.. لا يمكن وضع مصير عشرات ملايين الأشخاص أو ربما مئات الملايين رهناً لثقة شخص واحد أو شخصين في بلدين.. إذاً، ينبغي أن تكون هناك آلية.. عندما تكون هناك آلية يمكن التحدث عن الثقة بطريقة أخرى وليس بطريقة شخصية هذا أولاً.. ثانياً المهمة الرئيسية لأي سياسي، أو أي حكومة أو رئيس، أو رئيس وزراء، هي العمل لمصلحة شعبه وبلده.. إذا كان الاجتماع مع أي شخص أو مصافحة أي شخص في العالم سيحقق المنفعة للشعب السوري، فعلي أن أقوم بذلك.. أحببت ذلك أم لم أحب.. إذاً المسألة لا تتعلق بي.. بما إذا كنت أقبل أو أرغب أو ما إلى ذلك.. المسألة تتعلق بالقيمة المضافة التي ستحدثها الخطوة التي سأتخذها.. إذاً.. نعم نحن مستعدون لفعل أي شيء لمصلحة الشعب السوري مهما كان ذلك الشيء.

وردا على سؤال حول الدعوة الروسية لإقامة تحالف إقليمي لمحاربة الإرهاب يضم الأردن وتركيا والسعودية واستعداد سورية للتنسيق مع هذه الدول قال الرئيس الأسد.. بالنسبة لمكافحة الإرهاب.. هو موضوع شامل وكبير.. فيه جوانب ثقافية واقتصادية وفيه جوانب أمنية وفيه الجانب العسكري.. طبعاً، في الوقاية كل الجوانب الأخرى أهم من الجانب الأمني والعسكري.. ولكن اليوم بالواقع الذي نعيشه في مكافحة الإرهاب وخاصة أنك تواجه ليس مجموعات إرهابية وإنما جيوش إرهابية لديها سلاح خفيف ومتوسط وثقيل.. لديها مليارات من الدولارات لتجند متطوعين.. لا بد من أن تكون الأولوية للجانب العسكري والأمني في هذه المرحلة.. فإذاً بهذا الشكل نرى أن على التحالف أن يقوم بعمل في مجالات مختلفة ولكن أن يقوم بمحاربتهم على الأرض أولاً.. هذا التحالف من الطبيعي أن يكون مكوناً من دول تؤمن بمكافحة الإرهاب، وتؤمن بأن موقعها الطبيعي أن تكون ضد الإرهاب.. لا يمكن في الوضع الحالي أن يكون نفس الشخص الذي يدعم الإرهاب هو نفس الشخص الذي يقاتل الإرهاب.. هذا ما تفعله هذه الدول الآن.. السعودية وتركيا والأردن التي تتظاهر بأنها جزء من تحالف ضد الإرهاب في شمال سورية ولكنها تدعمه من الجنوب ومن الشمال الغربي ومن الشمال بشكل عام بنفس المناطق التي يقومون فرضياً بمكافحة الإرهاب فيها.. أعود وأقول.. ضمن إطار المصلحة العامة.. إذا قررت هذه الدول أن تعود إلى الموقع الصحيح.. أن تعود إلى رشدها وتكافح الإرهاب.. فنحن من الطبيعي أن نقبل هذا الشيء ونتعاون معها ومع غيرها.. القضية ليست فيتو.. وليست أن نبقى متمسكين بشيء في الماضي.. العلاقات السياسية تتبدل دائماً.. قد تكون سيئة وتصبح جيدة.. والحليف يصبح خصماً.. والخصم حليفاً.. هذا شيء طبيعي.. عندما يكون ضد الإرهاب سنتعاون معه.

الرئيس الأسد : أي شخص يخرج من سورية هو خسارة للوطن مهما كان موقع هذا الشخص أو إمكانياته
وردا على سؤال حول قضية اللاجئين السوريين وهل ينظر اليهم كجزء من الناخبين السوريين مستقبلا وهل أوروبا مذنبة في قضيتهم قال الرئيس الأسد.. بالنسبة لأي شخص يخرج من سورية هو خسارة للوطن بكل تأكيد مهما كان موقع هذا الشخص أو إمكانياته.. طبعاً هذا لا يشمل الإرهابيين ولكن يشمل كافة المواطنين بشكل عام ما عدا الإرهابيين لذلك نعم هناك خسارة كبيرة بسبب هذه الهجرة.. أنت طرحت سؤالاً يتعلق بالانتخابات.. في العام الماضي كانت لدينا انتخابات رئاسية في سورية وكان هناك الكثير من اللاجئين في دول مختلفة وخاصة في لبنان وكان المفترض بحسب البروباغندا الإعلامية الغربية أن كل هؤلاء هربوا من الدولة.. من قمع الدولة.. من قتلها والمفترض أنهم خصوم للدولة.. وكانت المفاجأة بالنسبة للغربيين أن معظم هؤلاء ذهبوا للتصويت لصالح الرئيس.. المفترض أنه يقتلهم.. فكانت تلك ضربة كبيرة للبروباغندا.. طبعاً التصويت له شروط معينة.. أن تكون هناك سفارة.. أن تكون هناك رعاية للدولة السورية لعملية التصويت.. هذا يعتمد على العلاقات مع الدول فكثير من الدول قطعت علاقاتها مع سورية وأغلقت السفارات السورية وبالتالي في تلك الدول لا يمكن أن يكون هناك تصويت للمواطن السوري وعليه أن يذهب إلى دولة أخرى فيها صندوق اقتراع.. لكن هذا الشيء تم العام الماضي.. بالنسبة لأوروبا طبعاً هي مذنبة.. اليوم أوروبا تحاول التصوير بأن الذنب الأوروبي هو أنهم لم يقدموا الأموال أو ربما لم يسمحوا لهؤلاء المهاجرين بالهجرة بشكل نظامي إلى أوروبا لذلك اضطروا إلى المجيء عبر البحر وغرقوا وماتوا فيه.

الرئيس الأسد : المعايير المزدوجة الأوروبية لم تعد مقبولة وأصبحت مفضوحة وواضحة

وتابع الرئيس الأسد : كلنا نحزن على أي ضحية بريئة ولكن هل الضحية التي تغرق في البحر هي أغلى من الضحية التي تقتل في سورية… هل هي أغلى من شخص بريء يقطع رأسه من قبل الإرهابيين… كيف تحزن على طفل يموت في البحر ولا تحزن على آلاف الأطفال الذين ماتوا على يد الإرهابيين في سورية وأيضاً الشيوخ والنساء والرجال… الجميع.. هذه المعايير المزدوجة الأوروبية لم تعد مقبولة وأصبحت مفضوحة وواضحة.. من غير المعقول أن تحزن على اشخاص لأنهم ماتوا ولا تهتم لأشخاص آخرين.. المبادئ واحدة.. فإذاً أوروبا تتحمل المسؤولية لأنها هي التي دعمت الإرهاب كما قلت قبل قليل وهي ما زالت تدعم الإرهابيين وما زالت توفر الغطاء لهم.. وما زالت تسميهم معتدلين وتقسمهم إلى مجموعات.. وكلهم مجموعات متطرفة في سورية.

وردا على سؤال حول إصرار من يحاربون الدولة السورية بالسلاح على رحيل الرئيس كشرط للسلام في البلاد قال الرئيس الأسد : أضف إلى ما تقوله التسويق الإعلامي الغربي منذ البدايات كان حول فكرة أن سبب المشكلة هو وجود الرئيس.. لماذا… لأنهم يريدون أن يصوروا أن كل مشكلة سورية هي شخص وبالتالي سيكون رد الفعل الطبيعي لدى كثير من الناس إذا كانت المشكلة تتمثل في شخص فلا يمكن أن يكون هذا الشخص أهم من كل الوطن.. فليذهب الشخص وتصبح الأمور جيدة.. هذه هي طريقة تبسيط الأمور بالنسبة للغرب.. الحقيقة ما يحصل في سورية بهذا الموضوع مشابه لما يحصل لديكم.. لاحظ في الإعلام الغربي منذ بدأ الانقلاب في أوكرانيا ما الذي حصل… تحول الرئيس بوتين من صديق للغرب إلى خصم وأصبح مرة يشبه بأنه قيصر.. ومرة يشبه بأنه ديكتاتور ويقمع المعارضة في روسيا وأنه أتى بعملية غير ديمقراطية بالرغم من أنه انتخب عبر انتخابات ديمقراطية والغرب كان يقول بأنها انتخابات ديمقراطية عندما تمت.. اليوم لم تعد ديمقراطية.. هذا هو التسويق الغربي.

الرئيس الأسد :المبدأ الغربي المتّبع الآن في سورية وروسيا ودول أخرى هو تبديل الرؤساء أو ما يسمونه بلغتهم إسقاط الأنظمة لأنهم لايقبلون بشركاء ولا يقبلون بدول مستقلة

وتابع الرئيس الأسد : يقولون إذا ذهب الرئيس تصبح الأمور أفضل ماذا يعني هذا الكلام عملياً… يعني بالنسبة للغرب أنه طالما أنت موجود هنا كرئيس سنستمر بدعم الإرهاب لأن المبدأ الغربي الآن المتبع في سورية وروسيا ودول أخرى هو تبديل الرؤساء أو تبديل الدول أو اسقاط ما يسمونه بلغتهم الأنظمة لماذا… لأنهم لا يقبلون بشركاء ولا يقبلون بدول مستقلة.. ما هي مشكلتهم مع روسيا… ما هي مشكلتهم مع سورية… ما هي مشكلتهم مع إيران… أنها دول مستقلة.. هم يريدون أن يذهب هذا الشخص ويأتي شخص آخر يقوم بالعمل من أجل مصلحتهم وليس من أجل مصلحة بلده.. أما بالنسبة للرئيس كيف يأتي.. يأتي عبر الشعب وعبر الانتخابات.. وإذا ذهب لا بد من أن يذهب عبر الشعب.. لا يذهب عبر قرار أمريكي ولا عبر قرار مجلس الأمن ولا عبر مؤتمر جنيف أو بيان جنيف.. إذا أراده الشعب فسيبقى.. وإذا رفضه الشعب يجب أن يذهب فوراً.. هذا هو المبدأ الذي أنظر من خلاله إلى هذا الموضوع.

وردا على سؤال.. هل كانت هناك لحظة فاصلة عندما عرفتم أن الحرب لا مفر منها ومن الذي أطلق آليتها وهل كانت هناك أخطاء قال الرئيس الأسد: أي دولة فيها أخطاء والأخطاء تحصل ربما كل يوم ولكن هذه الأخطاء ليست حالة فاصلة لأنها دائماً موجودة.. فما الذي يجعل هذه الأخطاء فجأة تؤدي إلى الوضع الذي نعيشه في سورية.. هذا الكلام غير منطقي.. قد تستغرب إذا قلت لك بأن النقطة الفاصلة بما حصل في سورية هي شيء قد لا يخطر في بال كثيرين.. هي حرب العراق في عام 2003 عندما غزت أمريكا العراق.. ونحن كنا ضد هذا الغزو بشكل قوي لأننا كنا نعرف بأن الأمور تسير باتجاه تقسيم المجتمعات وخلق اضطرابات.. ونحن بلد مجاور للعراق.. عندما كنا نرى بأن هذه الحرب ستحول العراق إلى بلد طائفي.. ومجتمع منقسم على نفسه.. وفي غرب سورية هناك بلد طائفي آخر هو لبنان ونحن في الوسط.. فكنا نعرف تماماً بأننا سنتأثر.. وبالتالي بدايات الأزمة في سورية ما حصل في البداية كان هو النتيجة الطبيعية لهذه الحرب وللوضع الطائفي في العراق الذي انتقل جزء منه إلى سورية.. وكان من السهل عليهم أن يقوموا بعملية تحريض بعض المجموعات السورية على أسس طائفية.

وأضاف الرئيس الأسد:النقطة الثانية ربما تكون فاصلة بدرجة أقل هي عندما تبنى الغرب الإرهاب بشكل رسمي في أفغانستان في بداية الثمانينات وسماه في ذلك الوقت “مقاتلون من أجل الحرية” ولاحقاً في عام 2006 ظهرت “داعش” في العراق وتحت الإشراف الأمريكي ولم يقوموا بمكافحتها.. كل هذه الأمور مع بعضها هي التي جعلت الظروف مهيأة لمثل هذه الاضطرابات بدعم غربي.. بأموال خليجية خاصة من قطر والسعودية.. بدعم لوجستي تركي وخاصة أن أردوغان هو شخص ينتمي للإخوان المسلمين بفكره وبالتالي يعتقد بأن تغير الوضع في سورية وتغير الوضع في مصر وأيضاً في العراق سيعني أنه ستكون هناك سلطنة جديدة ولكن ليست سلطنة عثمانية وإنما سلطنة إخوانية تمتد من المحيط الأطلسي إلى البحر المتوسط يحكمها أردوغان.. كل هذه العوامل مع بعضها وصلت بالأمور إلى هذا الشيء.

وختم الرئيس الأسد قائلاً : أعود وأؤكد بأن الأخطاء موجودة والأخطاء دائماً تلعب دوراً بأن توجد ثغرات ولكن لا تكفي.. هي ليست مبررا.. وإذا كانت هذه الثغرات هي السبب فلماذا لم تشتعل الثورات في دول الخليج وخاصة في السعودية التي لا تعرف شيئاً عن الديمقراطية.. هذا جواب بديهي أعتقد.


Posted in Arabic, SyriaComments Off on SYRIA: الرئيس الأسد : الغرب يتباكى على اللاجئين السوريين من جهة ويصوب رشاشاته عليهم من جهة أخرى بدعمه للإرهاب

Nazi Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (10 – 16 Sep. 2015)


Palestinian civilians are cleaning the Al-Aqsa Mosque after storming it by Israeli forces .   AFP

Israeli forces continue systematic crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)


(10– 16 September 2015)


Israeli forces continued to use excessive force against peaceful protests in the West Bank.

6 Palestinian civilians, including 2 children, were wounded in Kufor Qaddoum and Silwan protests.

Israeli forces continued to open fire at border areas along the Gaza Strip.

A Palestinian field regulation officer working in the border area was wounded.

Israeli forces conducted 47incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank.

2Palestinian civilians were wounded in Tulkarm and Jenin during Israeli incursions.

48 civilians, including 12 children and 3 women, were arrested.

26 of these civilians, including the 12 children and 3 women, were arrested in occupied East Jerusalem.

Israeli forces arrested 7 Palestinian civilians from the Gaza Strip who attempted to sneak into Israel through the borders to find work.

Israel continued to impose a total closure on the oPt and has isolated the Gaza Strip from the outside world.

Many checkpoints were established in the West Bank.

Israeli navy forces opened fire at Palestinian fishermen in the Gaza Strip sea.

Israeli forces continued efforts to create a Jewish demographic majority in occupied East Jerusalem.

Al-Aqsa Mosque was raided several times, during which its contents were damaged.

11 Palestinian civilians, including 4 children, a woman, a civil defense officer and 2 journalists, were wounded.

Israeli forces continued to support settlement activities in the West Bank and Israeli settlers continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property.

Israeli forces issued new house demolition notices.

Settlers attempted to kidnap a child in Hawwara village, south of Nablus.



Israeli violations of international law and international humanitarian law in the oPt continued during the reporting period (10 – 16September 2015).


Israeli forces continued to use force against Palestinian civilians participating in peaceful protests in the West Bank. In the Gaza Strip,Israeli forces continued to open fire at border areas along the Gaza Strip borderline and to attack and chasePalestinian fishermen in the sea.During the reporting period, Israeli forces wounded 20 Palestinian civilians, including 6 children and 3 women, 2 of whom are journalists, in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, 9 journalists sustained bruises as they were directly attacked by Israeli forces.

In the West Bank, 19 Palestinian civilians, including 6 children, 3 women and a civil defence officer, were wounded; 11 of whom were wounded in occupied Jerusalem, one in Jenin, another one in Tulkarm and the others were participating in peaceful protests against the settlement activities and annexation wall.

On 13 September 2015, 5 Palestinian civilians, including a child, a civil defence officer and 2 journalists, were wounded when Israeli forces stormed al-Aqsa Mosque in the old city in occupied Jerusalem. Moreover, 9 journalists sustained bruises as they were directly attacked by Israeli forces who stormed the mosque.

On the same day, a 24-year-old civilian sustained a bullet wound to the left thigh during an Israeli incursion in Jenin city and its refugee camp.

On 14 September 2015, a 68-year-old civilian sustained a bullet wound to the eye when Israeli forces stormed al-Aqsa Mosque and fired sound bombs and rubber-coated metal bullets. In addition, a 26-year-old civilian from al-Eisawiya village, northeast of Jerusalem, was wounded, but Israeli forces obliged the ambulance transporting him at gunpoint to head to Hadasa Hospital and then arrested him.

On 15 September 2015, a Palestinian woman sustained shrapnel wound in her leg by a sound bomb when Israeli forces raided al-Aqsa Mosque for the third day. Israeli forces also fired sound bombs and threw stones at Palestinian worshipers to secure the settlers’ raids in the new Hebrew year.

On the same day, a Palestinian civilian was wounded when Israeli forces moved into the vicinity of Palestine Technical University- Khadoorie after a number of Palestinian youngsters gathered near the old liaison office, west of Tulkarm, in protest at storming al-Aqsa Mosque.

On 14 September 2015, 3 Palestinian children were wounded in East Jerusalem in 3 separate incidents. A 14-year-ols child was wounded while being present in front of his family house in Ras al-Amoud neighborhood and was then arrested. A 13-year-old girl sustained a bullet wound to the neck during clashes between Palestinian civilians and Israeli forces at the entrance of al-Eisawiya village, north of East Jerusalem. A 17-year-old child from Shu’fat refugee camp, north of Jerusalem, was wounded when Israeli forces chased and fired at him.

Israeli forces continued to use excessive and systematic use of force against peaceful protests organized by Palestinian civilians and Israeli and international human rights activists in protest at the construction of the annexation wall and settlement activities in the West Bank and Israeli policies in the oPt. As a result,6 civilians, including 2 children, were wounded.

In the Gaza Strip, on 15 September 2015, a Palestinian field regulation officer in the border area was wounded when Israeli forces stationed along the border fence, east of Khan Yunis in the south of the Gaza Strip, opened fire at a jeep of the Field Regulation Service that was on the dirt road lately established 250 meters away from the border fence, east of Abasan.

On 13 September 2015, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence, northwest of Beit Lahia in the north of the Gaza Strip, opened fire at the border area, but no casualties were reported.

In the context of targeting Palestinian fishermen, on 11September 2015, Israeli gunboats stationed off al-Waha resort, northwest of Beit Lahia in the north of the Gaza Strip, opened fire sporadically around fishing boats. Similar shooting incidents occurred on 12 and 13 September 2015, but neither casualties nor material damage were reported.However, the fishermen were terrified and sailed back to the shore.


During the reporting period,Israeli forces conducted at least 47 military incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank and8 ones in East Jerusalem.During these incursions, Israeli forces arrested at least 48Palestinians, including 12 children and 3 women.  Twenty-six of these civilians, including the 12 children and 3 women, were arrested in East Jerusalem.

Restrictions on movement:

Israel continued to impose a tight closure of the oPt, imposing severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem.

The illegal closure of the Gaza Strip, which has been steadily tightened since June 2007 has had a disastrous impact on the humanitarian and economic situation in the Gaza Strip.  The Israeli authorities impose measures to undermine the freedom of trade, including the basic needs for the Gaza Strip population and the agricultural and industrial products to be exported. For 9 consecutive years, Israel has tightened the land and naval closure to isolate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, and other countries around the world. This resulted in grave violations of the economic, social and cultural rights and a deterioration of living conditions for 1.8 million people.  The Israeli authorities have established Karm Abu Salem (KeremShaloum) as the sole crossing for imports and exports in order to exercise its control over the Gaza Strip’s economy.  They also aim at imposing a complete ban on the Gaza Strip’s exports. The Israeli closure raised the rate of poverty to 38.8%, 21.1% of which suffer from extreme poverty. Moreover, the rate of unemployment increased up to 44%, which reflects the unprecedented economic deterioration in the Gaza Strip.


Settlement activities

On 16 September 2015, Israeli forces handed Mohammed Ezzat Makhamra from Kherbet Khellet al-Mayeh, east of Yatta, south of Hebron, a notice to halt construction works in his 2-storey house, under the pretext of non-licensing. On the same day also, Israeli forces handed Mohammed Ra’ed al-Emour from Kherbet Erfa’iya, southeast of Yatta, south of Hebron, a similar notice under the pretext of not licensing the construction of his 1-storey house.

In the same context, on 13 September 2015, a number of settlers in a vehicle coming from the western part of Hawwara village, south of Nablus, attempted to kidnap a 7-year-old child, who was walking in the street. A settler tried to pull the boy into the car, but the boy screamed and fell down and sustained bruises in the neck and back.


1. Incursions into Palestinian Areas, and Attacks on Palestinian Civilians and Property in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

Thursday, 10 September 2015

On Wednesday afternoon, 09 September 2015, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel arrested two Palestinian civilians while trying to sneak into Israeli via the fence, east of al-Zanah area to the east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip.  They were taken to an unknown destination.  The arrested civilians were identified as Thaer Jamil Harb Abu ‘Asi (22) and Mahmoud Jamil Hasan Abu ‘Asi (19), from Bani Suheilah, east of Khan Younis.

At approximately 02:00, Israeli forces moved into al-‘Oja village, north of Jericho.  They raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Nassar ‘Abdel Rahman Efreijat (55) and arrested his son, Ashraf (22).

At approximately 03:00, Israeli forces raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Saleh Ahmed Saleh (34) in Joret al-Sham’ah village, south of Bethlehem.  They arrested him and took him to an unknown destination.

At approximately 04:00, Israeli forces moved into Ya’bod village, southwest of Jenin.  They raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Ibrahim ‘Abdel Rahim Jaber Abu Baker (21) and arrested him.

At approximately 05:00, Israeli forces moved into ‘Atil village, north of Tulkarm.  They raided and searched a house belonging to Mo’in Mazen Mustafa Hudrob (21) and arrested him.

At approximately 11:00, Israeli forces moved into Hebron.  They stationed in Abu Katilah area and then raided and searched a house belonging to the family of ‘Abdel Salam ‘Othman Karamah (48).  They damaged his furniture and then arrested him.  The Israeli soldiers also raided the house of his brother, Faisal (40), and arrested him as well.  The two brothers were released after a few hours of being detained in an Israeli camp, east of the city.

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces carried out incursions in the following areas, but no arrests were reported: Beit Oula village, west of Hebron; al-‘Aroub refugee camp, north of Hebron; Bani Na’im village, east of the city; and Shweikah Suburb, north of Tulkarm.


Friday, 11 September 2015

At approximately 02:40, Israeli forces moved into al-Zawiyah village, west of Salfit.  They raided and searched a number of houses.  They arrested Naji Mahmoud Qaddourah Mawqedi (41) and Ra’fat Haron Nemer Mawqedi (27) and withdrew later taking him to an unknown destination.

At approximately 19:15, Israeli gunboats stationed off al-Wahah shore, northwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip opened fire sporadically in the vicinity of the Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 2 nautical miles.  The shooting which continued for 15 minutes caused fear among fishermen, who were forced to flee.  Neither causalities nor damages were reported.

At approximately 23:00, Israeli forces moved into Yasouf village, east of Salfit.  They patrolled the streets and then chased a number of civilians.  They arrested Bader Samir Mohammed ‘Abayah (22) claiming that he threw stones at them.  Israeli forces released him and withdrew at approximately 00:00.  No further incidents were reported.

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces carried out incursions in the following areas, but no arrests were reported: Askaka village, east of Salfit; Jayous village; Kafr Qaddoum village, northeast of Qalqilya; Dura, villages of Beit Marsam, al-Karmel and Deir Samit in Hebron.


Saturday, 12 September 2015

At approximately 02:30, Israeli forces moved into Nablus.  They stationed in the vicinity of Middle Cooperation Housing project in the southeast of the city.  They raided and searched a number of houses.  They arrested ‘Azzam Fawzi Abu al-‘Adas (29) and confiscated his laptop and cell phone.

At approximately 03:00, Israeli forces moved into al-Khader village, southwest of Bethlehem.  They raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Usamah Jebril Ghuneim (24).  They handed him a summons to refer to the Israeli intelligence in “Gosh ‘Etzion” settlement, south of the city.

At approximately 05:00, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel arrested two civilians while trying to sneak into Israel, east of ‘Abasan al-Kabirah to the east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip.  The arrested persons were identified as Hamzah Khaled Khudeir al-Qahwaji (23), who is married and have 4 children, and Zakariah Mohammed al-‘Abed Abu Lehia (21), who is single, and both are from Bani Suhaila, east of the city.  Al-Qahwaji’s brother said to a PCHR fieldworker that the Israeli police called his mother at midnight on Sunday, 13 September 2015, telling her that her son Hamzah was arrested.  Meanwhile, the father of Abu al-Lehia said to a PCHR fieldworker that his son left home at approximately 02:00 on the aforementioned day, and in the morning he knew that his son was arrested while trying to sneak into Israel via the border fence.

At approximately 18:30, Israeli gunboats stationed off al-Wahah shore, northwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, fired live bullets and shells in the vicinity of the Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 3 nautical miles.  The shooting which continued for 10 minutes caused fear among fishermen, who were forced to flee.  Neither causalities nor damages were reported.

At approximately 20:20, Israeli forces moved into al-Nabi Elias village, east of Qalqilya.  They raided and searched stores and confiscated their surveillance cameras.  At approximately 22:20, Israeli forces withdrew, and no further incidents were reported.

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces carried out incursions in the following areas, but no arrests were reported: al-Majd village, west of Dura, southwest of Hebron; Hawarah village, south of Nablus; and al-Naqourah village, northwest of the city.


Sunday, 13 September 2015

At approximately 01:00, Israeli forces stationed along the coastal border fence, northwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire at the border area adjacent to the border fence.  No causalities were reported, but the shooting caused fear among fishermen who were practicing their work 500 meters away to the south of the coastal fence.  They were forced to flee from the area for fear of being wounded.

Around the same time, Israeli forces moved into Yatta, south of Hebron.  They stationed in al-Karaj, al-Sha’abin and Khelet Buheis areas.  They raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Ibrahim Mohammed Ibrahim Buheis (31).  They arrested the aforementioned civilian and withdrew later taking him to an unknown destination.

Around the same time, Israeli forces moved into al-Thaheriyah village, south of Hebron.  They stationed in Doma area in the west of the village and then raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Ibrahim Mohammed Abu ‘Alan (19).  They arrested the aforementioned civilian and withdrew later taking him to an unknown destination.

At approximately 02:00, Israeli forces moved into ‘Aqbet Jaber refugee camp, south of Hebron.  They raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Tariq Hazem Dawwas (40) and his brother, Khalil (27).  They arrested both of them.

At approximately 05:00, Israeli forces moved into Jenin and Jenin refugee camp adjacent to the city.  They raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Suleiman Rabah Farid Farahtah (22) and arrested him.  Dozens of Palestinian youngsters gathered to throw stones at the Israeli soldiers, who in response opened fire at the stone-throwers.  As a result, Ahmed Hasan Mohammed Bali (24) was hit with a bullet to the left thigh and was then taken to Martyr Dr. Khalil Suleiman Hospital to receive medical treatment.  Israeli forces withdrew later taking the aforementioned civilian to an unknown destination.

At approximately 22:30, Israeli gunboats stationed off al-Wahah shore, northwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, opened fire sporadically in the vicinity of the Palestinian fishing boats sailing within 2 nautical miles.  The shooting which continued for 15 minutes caused fear among fishermen, who were forced to flee.  Neither causalities nor damages were reported.

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces carried out incursions in the following areas, but no arrests were reported: al-Fawar refugee camp, south of Hebron; Beit al-rosh al-Foqa village, west of Dura, southwest of Hebron; and Bita village, south of Nablus.


Monday, 14 September 2015

At approximately 01:30, Israeli forces moved into Dura, southwest of Hebron.  They stationed in Haninah neighbourhood in the south of the town.  They raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Mohammed Walid ‘Issa ‘Amr (19). They arrested the aforementioned civilian and withdrew later taking him to an unknown destination.

At approximately 10:00, a number of Palestinian youngsters gathered near the old military liaison established on Palestinian lands, west of Tulkarm, to protest against the Israeli attacks on the al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem.  As soon as they arrived at the area near the vicinity of the aforementioned office, Israeli forces moved into the area and heavily fired tear gas canisters.  The youngsters in response threw stones and Molotov cocktails at the Israeli vehicles.   Israeli forces fired live bullets and rubber-coated bullets forcing the administration of the Palestine Technical University (Kadoorie) to evacuate the university.  The shooting resulted in wounding Mahmoud ‘Ezzat Mahnmoud Abu Dayyah (23) with a bullet to the left leg.  The wounded person was then taken to Martyr Dr. Thabet Thabet Hospital in Tulkarm to receive medical treatment.

At approximately 13:00, Israeli forces arrested 4 civilians who were trying to sneak into Israel via the border fence to the east of al-Sonati area in the east of ‘Abasan village, east of Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip.

According to PCHR’s investigation, four youngsters approached the border fence, east of al-Sonati area, and when Palestinian Field Regulation officers noticed them, they tried to chase them and fired a bullet in the air to stop them.  Israeli soldiers deployed along the border fence fired a number of bullets at the four youngsters who crossed the border.  The Israeli soldiers ordered them to take their clothes off and then arrested them taking them to an unknown destination.  Three of them were identified as Bahaa’ Mohammed Kamel al-Qahwaji; Mohammed Mousa Khalil al-Qahawaji and Fayeq Samir Farhan.

At approximately 18:30, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence off al-Seifa area, northwest of Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, arrested Hamadah Nabil Mousa al-Radi’a (22) from the Public Street in Beit Lahia.  The aforementioned civilian was arrested while trying to sneak into Israel to work there.  His brother, Rani, said that the family received a phone call from a private number at approximately 23:30 on the same day telling them that Hamadah was underarrest in Israel.  Rani contacted the ICRC which confirmed that his brother was under arrest in al-Majdal Prison.

At approximately 22:00, Israeli forces moved into Ya’abod village, southwest of Jenin.  They raided and searched a number of agricultural lands, south of the village.  They detained 3 civilians who were on their lands and questioned them on the spot.  Israeli forces withdrew later after releasing them.  No further incidents were reported. The detained persons were identified as Jihad Eyad Nemer Abu Baker (20); Mohammed Ghaleb Nemer Abu Baker (19); and Mohammed Ahmed Nemeber Abu Baker (19).

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces carried out incursions in the following areas, but no arrests were reported: al-Samou’a village, south of Hebron; Sair village, east of the city; and Halhoul, north of Hebron.


Tuesday, 15 September 2015

At approximately 02:30, Israeli forces moved into Beit Ummar town, north of Hebron.  They stationed in al-Thaher neighbourhood and then raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Jamal ‘Abdel Majeed Qahadeen (52).  They arrested his son, Waseem (21), and took him by foot to “Kermi Tsour” settlement established Palestinian lands confiscated from the south.  A number of Israeli soldiers raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Youif Ibrahim Qoqas Ekhlayel.  They wrote down all the names, numbers and ID cards.  At approximately 16:00, they withdrew from the village.

At approximately 10:45, Israeli forces stationed along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel, east of Kahn Younis in the southern Gaza Strip opened fire at a jeep belonging to the Palestinian Field Regulationofficers in the border zone.  The jeep was patrolling on the sand street which was established 250 meters away from the border fence, east of al-Sonati area in the east of ‘Abasan, east of the city.  As a result, a Palestinian officer (23) was hit with a bullet to his hand.  Limited exchange of fire occurred, and minutes later it calmed down.  The wounded person was taken to the European Gaza Hospital to receive medical treatment.  His condition was described as moderate.

NoteDuring the aforementioned day, Israeli forces carried out incursions in the following areas, but no arrests were reported: Ethna village, west of Hebron, Sa’ir village, east of the city; and Abu al-‘Asja village, southeast of Dura, southwest of Hebron.


Wednesday, 16 September 2015

At approximately 01:30, Israeli forces moved into the centre of Dura, southwest of Hebron.  They stationed in al-Hamam Valley neighbourhood and then raided and searched a house belonging to the family of Hazem Akram ‘Awad (20).  They arrested the aforementioned civilian and withdrew later taking him to an unknown destination.

At approximately 02:00, Israeli forces moved into al-‘Aroub refugee camp, north of Hebron.  They stationed near the UNRWA distribution centre and then raided and searched a house belonging to Mohammed ‘Abdel Fattah Jawabrah (19).  Israeli forces arrested the aforementioned civilian and withdrew later taking him to an unknown destination.

At approximately 03:30, Israeli forces moved into al-Shyoukh village, north of Hebron.  They raided and searched a house belonging to Mo’sab Zuhair Halayqah (24).  Israeli forces arrested the aforementioned civilian and withdrew later taking him to an unknown destination.

Note: During the aforementioned day, Israeli forces carried out incursions in the following areas, but no arrests were reported: Beit Kahel village, northwest of Hebron; Ethna village, west of the city; and Senjel village, north of Ramallah.

2. Use of excessive force against peaceful demonstrations protesting settlement activities and the construction of the annexation wall

During the reporting period, Israeli soldiers used excessive force against peaceful demonstrations organized by Palestinian civilians, international and Israeli human rights defenders in protest at the construction of the annexation wall and settlement activities in the West Bank and Israeli policies in the Palestinian territory. As a result, 6 Palestinian civilians, including 2 children, were wounded;  4 of them in Kafor Kadoum weekly demonstration, northeast of Qalqilya, while the two children were wounded in Selwad demonstration, northeast of Ramallah.

Demonstrations against the construction of the annexation wall and settlement activity 

Following the Friday prayer on 11 September 2015, dozens of Palestinian civilians and international and Israeli human rights defenders organized a peaceful demonstration in Bil’in, west of Ramallah, in protest against the annexation wall and settlement activities.The protestors tried to cross the fence. Israeli soldiers stationed behind the wall, fired live bullets, rubber-coated steel bullets, tear gas canisters and sound bombs and chased them into the olive fields and into residential houses in response.  As a result, many civilians suffered tear gas inhalation and others sustained bruises as Israeli soldiers beat them up.

On the same day, dozens of Palestinian civilians organized a peaceful demonstration in the center of Ni’lin village, west of Ramallah, in protest against the annexation wall and settlement activities. The demonstrators took the streets and headed to the annexation wall. Israeli forces prevented the demonstrators from crossing to the land behind the annexation wall, so they threw stones at them. Israeli soldiers fired live bullets, rubber-coated metal bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at the civilians, and chased them into the village. As a result, many civilians suffered tear gas inhalation and others sustained bruises as Israeli soldiers beat them up.

Around the same time, dozens of Palestinian civilians and Israeli and international human rights defenders organized a peaceful demonstration in al-Nabi Saleh village, southwest of Ramallah, in protest against the annexation wall and settlement activities. The demonstrators headed to the lands that the settlers are trying to rob by force near “Halmish” settlement. Israeli forces had closed all the entrances of the village since the morning to prevent them from participating in the demonstration. When they arrived at the aforementioned land, the demonstrators were met by live bullets, tear gas canisters, rubber-coated steel bullets, sound bombs and were chased into the village. As a result, many civilians suffered tear gas inhalation and others sustained bruises as Israeli soldiers beat them up.

At approximately 13:30 on Friday, Palestinian civilians and Israeli and international human rights defenders organized a protest in the center of Kufor Qaddoum village, northeast of Qalqilya, heading to the eastern entrance of the village in protest against closing that entrance since the beginning of al-Aqsa Intifada with an iron gate. When they arrived at the entrance of the gate, the demonstrators were met by live bullets, tear gas canisters, rubber-coated steel bullets, sound bombs. As a result, 4 civilians, were wounded. The first one, 24, was hit by a sponge-tipped bullet ; the second one,25, was hit by a bullet to the right leg; the third one, 24, was hit by a bullet to the left leg; while the fourth one, 18, was hit by a bullet to the right leg.

At approximately 17:00  on  Saturday, 12 September 2015, Palestinian civilians and Israeli and international human rights defenders organized a protest in the center of Kufor Qaddoum village, northeast of Qalqilya, heading to the eastern entrance of the village in protest against closing that entrance since the beginning of al-Aqsa Intifada with an iron gate. When they arrived at the entrance of the gate, the demonstrators were met by live bullets, tear gas canisters, rubber-coated steel bullets, sound bombs. As a result, many civilians suffered tear gas inhalation and others sustained bruises as Israeli soldiers beat them up.

Other Demonstrations 

On Friday afternoon, 11 September 2015, dozens of youngsters gathered in the southern entrance of Salwad village, northeast of Ramallah, on the road between Selwad and Yabroud, near Street (60) to organize a protest against Israeli policies. The protestors set fire to tires and threw stones at Israeli soldiers who fired live ammunition, rubber-coated metal bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters in response. As a result, 2 children were wounded and were taken to Palestinian Medical Complex in Ramallah to receive medical treatment. A 16-year-old child was hit by a ToTo bullet to the left leg, between the ankle and the knee, while a 17-year-old child was hit by a ToTo bullet under the left knee.

3. Continued closure of the oPt

Israel continued to impose a tight closure on the oPt, imposing severe restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem.

Gaza Strip

Israeli forces continuously tighten the closure of the Gaza Strip and close all commercial crossings, making the Karm Abu Salem crossing the sole commercial crossing of the Gaza Strip, although it is not suitable for commercial purposes in terms of its operational capacity and distance from markets.

Israeli forces have continued to apply the policy, which is aimed to tighten the closure on all commercial crossings, by imposing total control over the flow of imports and exports.

Israeli forces have continued to impose a total ban on the delivery of raw materials to the Gaza Strip, except for very limited items and quantities. The limited quantities of raw materials allowed into Gaza do not meet the minimal needs of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

Israeli forces also continued to impose an almost total ban on the Gaza Strip exports, including agricultural and industrial products, except for light-weighted products such as flowers, strawberries, and spices. However, they lately allowed the exportation of some vegetables such as cucumber and tomatoes, furniture and fish.

Israel has continued to close the Beit Hanoun (“Erez”) crossing for the majority of Palestinian citizens from the Gaza Strip. Israel only allows the movement of a limited number of groups, with many hours of waiting in the majority of cases. Israel has continued to adopt a policy aimed at reducing the number of Palestinian patients allowed to move via the Beit Hanoun crossing to receive medical treatment in hospitals in Israel or in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel also continued applying the policy of making certain civilian traveling via the crossing interviewed by the Israeli intelligence service to be questioned, blackmailed or arrested.

Movement at Karm Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom) crossing, southeast of Rafah









07 September

Various goods


Humanitarian aid


Cooking gas






Industrial fuel


Construction aggregates




Construction steel


08 September

Various goods


Humanitarian aid


Cooking gas






Industrial fuel


Construction aggregates




Construction steel


09 September

Various goods


Humanitarian aid


Cooking gas






Industrial fuel


Construction aggregates




Construction steel


10 September

Various goods


Humanitarian aid


Cooking gas





Diesel for UNRWA



Industrial fuel



Construction aggregate

Construction steel




13 September

Cooking gas






Industrial fuel


Construction aggregate




Construction steel





On Monday, 07 September 2015, Israeli forces allowed the exportation of 94.06 tons of tomatoes; 76.4 tons of potatoes; 7.04 tons of Eggplants; and 9 tons of clothes.

On Tuesday, 08 September 2015, Israeli forces allowed the exportation of 45.2 tons of Tomatoes; 9.2 tons of sweet potatoes; 11.88 tons of eggplants; and 4.32 tons of cucumbers.

On Wednesday, 09 September 2015, Israeli forces allowed the exportation of 2 truckloads of tomatoes; a truckload of fish and 2 truckloads on furniture.

On Thursday, 10 September 2015, Israeli forces allowed the exportation of a truckload of clothes, a truckload of fish, 7truckloads of vegetables and 3 truckloads of potatoes.



Israeli forces closed the aforementioned crossing on Monday, 14 September, and Tuesday, 15 September 2015.

Beit Hanoun (“Erez”) crossing, in the north of the Gaza Strip, is designated for the movement of individuals, and links the Gaza Strip with the West Bank.


Movement at BeitHanoun (“Erez”) crossing

07 September – 15 September 2015


07 September

08 September

09 September

01 September

11 September

12 September

13 September



















Personal needs








of prisoners


Arabs from










International journalists

International workers













Business people







Business meetings

Security interviews





to Israel







Patients’ Companions









On Tuesday, 08 September 2015, Israeli authorities allowed 48 Palestinian civilians from the Gaza Strip to perform prayers in al-Aqsa Mosque, while on Friday, 11 September 2105, they allowed 268 others to perform prayers in al-Aqsa Mosque.

On Monday, 07 September 2015, Israeli authorities allowed 2 persons working in international organizations or foreigners to renew their permits.

On Thursday, 10 September 2015, Israeli authorities allowed 17 farmers to attend an agricultural training course in Israel.

On Monday and Tuesday, 14-15 September 2015, Israeli authorities completely closed the crossing under the pretext of Jewish holidays.

West Bank

Israel has imposed a tightened closure on the West Bank. During the reporting period, Israeli forces imposed additional restrictions on the movement of Palestinian civilians:

Hebron:   Israeli forces established 11 checkpoints in various areas in the governorate.

On Thursday, 10 September 2015, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the northern entrance of Halhoul village, north of Hebron, and at the entrance of Samou’ village, south of Hebron.

 At approximately 07:30 on Friday, 11 September 2015, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the northern entrance of Athana village, west of Hebron.

At approximately 16:00 on Saturday, 12 September 2015, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance of  Beit Awaa village, south of Dura, southwest of Hebron.

On Sunday, 13 September 2015, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the entrance of al-‘Aroub refugee camp, south of Hebron, and at the entrance of  Abdu village, southeast of Dura village, southwest of Hebron.

On Monday, 14 September 2015, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the entrance of al-Daheriya village, south of Hebron, and at the northern entrance of Yatta village, south of Hebron.

On Tuesday, 15 September 2015, Israeli forces established 2 checkpoints at the northern entrance of Yatta village and at the entrance of al-Koum village, southwest of Dura, southwest  of Hebron .

At approximately 15:00 on Wednesday, 16 September 2015, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the southern entrance of Halhoul village, north of Hebron.

Qalqilya: Israeli forces established 7 checkpoints in various areas in the city.

On Saturday, 12 September 2015, Israeli forces established 3 checkpoints at the entrance of ‘zoun village, east of Qalqilya, the second checkpoint between Jayous and Kafor Jamal villages, northeast of the city, and the third checkpoint were established at the eastern entrance of Qalqilya.

On 14 September 2015,  Israeli forces established 3 checkpoints at the entrance of Hejaa village, at the entrance of ‘azoun village, east of Qalqilya, and at the eastern entrance of Qalqilya.

At approximately 03:00 on Tuesday, 15 September 2015, Israeli forces established a checkpoint between Jayous and Kafor Jamal villages, northeast of Qalqilya.


At approximately 20:00 on Thursday, 10 September 2015, Israeli forces established a checkpoint at the entrance of Shoufa village, southeast of Tulkarim.

At approximately 21:30 on Monday, 14 September 2015, Israeli forces established a checkpoint on the main road between Tulkarm and other villages located in the north of Tulkram, which called (al-Sha’rawiya), near the intersection of ‘alar and ‘Ateel villages, north Tulkram.

At approximately 21:00 on Tuesday, 15 September 2015, Israeli forces stationed at ‘nab military checkpoint on the main road between Tulkram and Nablus, stressed their arbitrary measures against Palestinian civilians and restricted their movement.


On Monday, 14 September 2015, Israeli forces stationed at al-Jalama checkpoint separating between Jenin and Israel, northeast of Jenin, closed the checkpoint against the Palestinian civilians movement , who have a permit allowing them to travel into Israel on the occasion of Jewish holidays.

Note: all the aforementioned checkpoints were later removed, after the inspection of the vehicle and its passengers and detained them for varying periods, and no arrests were reported.


5. Efforts to create a Jewish demographic majority in Jerusalem

Storming al-Aqsa mosque and wounding of 7 civilians, including a child, a woman and 2 journalists


  • At approximately 05:45 on Sunday, 13 September 2015, when worshipers finished performing the dawn (Fajr) prayer in al-Aqsa Mosque and started getting out of the mosque, large numbers of special Israeli forces stormed al-Aqsa Mosque firing sound bombs and rubber-coated metal bullets. Israeli forces immediately closed the Qibli (southern) mosque while dozens of Israeli soldiers topped the roof of the mosque. They surrounded the young men staying inside and sprayed pepper spray over them. Officers from the special forces evacuated all al-Aqsa Mosque’s yards. In the morning, Israeli forces smashed the windows of al-Qibli Mosque and fired sound bombs and tear gas canisters at young men trapped inside, due to which the carpets caught fire. Moreover, Lo’ai Abu al-Sa’ed, one of the mosque’s guards, sustained a bullet wound to the chest; Jad al-Ghoul, a civil defense officer in al-Aqsa Mosque, sustained a bullet wound to the left arm; Anas Siyam (14) sustained a bullet wound to the chest; and Lewa Abu Ermaila, a journalist at Palestine Today satellite channel, and Sabreen Ebeidat, a photojournalist at Quds news network, both were injured by shrapnel from a sound bomb. An eyewitness stated that Israeli forces attacked and pushed Arab members of the Israeli Knesset, who could entered al-Aqsa Mosque, namely Ahmed al-Tibi, Osama al-Sa’di and Talab Abu ‘Arar.This attack coincided with banning students of al-Aqsa Shari’a schools located inside the mosque (Riyadh al-Aqsa, al-Aqsa School for Boys and al-Aqsa School for Girls), who are about 500 female and male students, from entering the mosque and joining their schools. In addition, Israeli forces denied the administrative and educational employees entry by attacking and pushing them while being present by Hetta and al-Selsela gates. Israeli forces had also prevented worshipers below 45 years old from entering the mosque since the predawn. Afterwards, groups of Israeli settlers led by the Minister of Agriculture, Uri Ariel, stormed the mosque through al-Maghareba gate. They performed biblical rituals in al-Hersh area near al-Rahma gate under the protection of Israeli forces. In the meantime, Israeli forces deployed in the mosque yards attacked all who were present there and pushed them away from the yard of al-Qibli and Marwani mosques. Moreover, they attacked Omer al-Keswani, director of al-Aqsa Mosque, and employees of the Islamic endowment (Waqf) and took them out through al-Majles and al-Selsela gates. Dozens of worshipers gathered at al-Selsela gate after they were denied access to the mosque. They clashed with the Israeli forces that used clubs and sticks and fired sound bombs, tear gas canisters and rubber-coated metal bullets. As a result, over 110 persons suffered various wounds. The majority of them received medical treatment on the spot and the others were taken to nearby medical centres. Besides, 20 persons were transported to al-Maqased Hospital in al-Tour neighbourhood. In addition to the 2 abovementioned journalists, 9 other journalists sustained bruises as they were directly attacked by Israeli forces. The attacked journalists were identified as follows: Ahmed Gharabla, a photojournalist of the French News Agency; Dyala Jweihan, a reporter of al-Hayat Newspaper; Jihad al-Mohtaseb, a photojournalist of Ro’ya Sattelite Channel; Monther al-Khateeb, a photojournalist of al-Ghad al-Arabi News Channel; Diaa’ Hoshiye, a reporter of al-Ghad al-Arabi News Channel; Ethat Abu Ghariba, a freelance photojournalist; Mahfouz Abu Turk, a freelance photojournalist; Ali Yaseen, a photojournalist of Palestine Satellite Channel; and Mo’men Shabana, a photojournalist of Ma’an Satellite Channel.
  • At approximately 07:30 on Monday, 14 September 2015, Israeli forces moved into al-Aqsa Mosque and attacked the Palestinians, who were present in the yards, with sound bombs and rubber-coated metal bullets. Minutes afterwards, they raided al-Qibli Mosque, where Palestinian young men and worshipers were. They fired bullets and sound bomb, due to which 68-year-old Ghaleb Hussein Douri sustained a bullet wound to the eye and was taken to Tsha’ri Tseideq Hospital for medical treatment. Moreover, 6 young men suffered tear gas inhalation as they were trapped inside the Qibli Mosque and were sprayed with pepper spray. Surrounding the mosque by Israeli forces continued from approximately 06:30 until 11:00, which was the period when settlers stormed the mosque. It should be noted that 38 settlers stormed al-Aqsa Mosque via al-Maghareba gate in the Jewish New Year.

It is worth saying that Israeli special forces closed the doors of al-Qibli Mosque with iron bars and chains and sprayed pepper spray over Palestinian men, who were inside. In addition, they beat those who were present in the yards. Israeli forces closed most of al-Aqsa Mosque gates for the second day and erected police checkpoints at the open ones (Hetta and al-Selsela gates). They also imposed restrictions on the entry of Palestinian worshipers and denied those less than 45 years old entry. Furthermore, they launched an arrest campaign in the vicinity of the mosque, due to which 11 Palestinians were arrested and taken to al-Maghareba detention facility. The majority of these civilians were harshly beaten. The arrested civilians were identified as: Mostafa Nasser al-Kharouf (24), a photojournalist, Nasser Ahmed Nofal (23), Ramzi Zuhair al-Jo’ba (19), Mazen Halawa (21), Malek Ghanem, Ibrahim Abu Ermaila, Omer Wazwaz, Tamer Khalaf, Mohammed Abu Farha( 24) and Mahmoud Saleem. Moreover, Israeli forces arrested Madeleine Essa (36) and took her to al-Masqoubiya detention facility.

  • On Tuesday morning, 15 September 2015, Israeli forces raided al-Aqsa Mosque for the third day. They attacked the Palestinian worshipers with sound bombs and stones to secure the settlers’ raids on the Mosque in the new Hebrewyear. An eyewitness said that Israeli forces raided al-Qibli Mosque. They arrested two Palestinian civilians, including a child: Mo’men Ahmed al-Taweel (16), Isma’il al-Taweel (20) and Ahmed al-Razem,a paramedic. Israeli forces heavily fired sound bombs and rubber-coated metal bullets. As a result, Fida’ Rowaida sustained shrapnel wound to her leg by a sound bomb.


Use of excessive force against Palestinian civilians


  • At approximately 19:00 on Friday, 11 September 2015, dozens of settler guards and officers of special Israeli forces moved into Batn al-Hawa area in Silwan village, south of the old city in East Jerusalem, to support a big group of settlers clashing with residents of the area, as those settlers attacked a number of Palestinian children for noreason.

An eyewitness said to a PCHR fieldworker that a settler harshly beat Zaid Abu Quaider (8) in Batn al-Hawa for no reason. This coincided with the presence of a Palestinian young man in the place, who intervened to protect the child. The eyewitness added that the young man and the settler quarrelled, during which, about 20 settlers sprayed pepper spray over a group of children aged 5-14 years old. He said that the settlers had gone out of Jamal Sarhan building that was lately seized by the settlers. The eyewitness said that the residents of the area gathered to treat the children, but Israeli forces and settler guards moved into the place and fired sound bombs and tear gas canisters to disperse them and protect the settlers. As a result, Abdullah Abu Nab (60) and Mahdi al-Rajabi (14) sustained serious burns and suffered pepper inhalation, due to which they were taken to al-Maqased Hospital for medical treatment. Moreover, nine children and 3 women suffered tear gas inhalation.

  • On Monday, 14 September 2015, Israeli forces seized a PRCS ambulance in East Jerusalem. The ambulance was carrying a Palestinian who was wounded by Israeli bullets in al-Eisawiya village. Israeli officers obliged the ambulance at gunpoint to head to Hadasa Hospital and then arrested the wounded person.

According to a PRCS statement, Israeli officers stopped an ambulance and threatened its crew. They got into the ambulance and sat near the wounded person, Morad Sarandah (26). Afterwards, they obliged the ambulance to head to Hadasa Hospital. It should be noted that Sarandah was wounded during clashes between Israeli forces and Palestinians in the said village.

  • On Monday, 14 September 2015, Israeli forces arrested Mo’nes Emad Edkeidek, who was present in front of his family’s house in Ras al-Amoud neighbourhood, although he was wounded. The child’s father said to a PCHR fieldworker that his son Mo’nes was arrested when he was present in front of his family’s house in Ras al-Amoud neighbourhood. Israeli forces fired 3 rubber-coated metal bullet towards him. His son was wounded and was in pain on the ground, yet about 8 Israeli soldiers attacked and harshly beat him under the pretext of throwing stones. The father added that Israeli forces arrested his son, during which the family and Israeli forces quarrelled. Israeli forces refused to offer him any information about his son’s health condition.
  • In the afternoon, Sali Yusef Moheisen (13) sustained a bullet wound to the neck when clashes erupted between Israeli forces and Palestinian youngsters at the entrance of al-Eisawiya village, north of East Jerusalem. Mohammed Abu al-Hommos, member of the follow-up committee of al-Eisawiya village, Sali Moheisen sustained a bullet wound to her neck when she was with her family in al-Salam Park near the entrance of the village. He added that Israeli forces called an ambulance to transport her. Abu al-Hommos said that Israeli forces moved into the village through its main entrance and were deployed everywhere. They sprayed waste water at the houses, vehicles and everything around. They also fired rubber-coated metal bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters.
  • On Tuesday, 15 September 2015, Israeli forces opened fire at Hamza Mahmoud Hoshiya (17) from Shu’fat refugee camp, north of occupied Jerusalem, when they were chasing him in al-Eisawiya village, northeast of the city. As a result, he was wounded in the head and leg. Tha’er Fasfous, spokesperson of Fatah movement in Shu’fat refugee camp, said that Israeli forces chased a car driven by Hoshiya’s friend in al-Eisawiya village and opened fired at it. As a result, Hamza sustained two bullet wounds to the head and leg and he and his friend were arrested. Fasfous added that Israeli forces summoned Hoshiya’s mother to question her. Israeli forces took Hoshiya to receive medical treatment in the hospital without informing his family about his health condition.


Incursions and arrests

  • At approximately 01:00 on Thursday, 10 September 2015, Israeli forces moved into al-Tour neighbourhood, east of East Jerusalem. They raided and searched a number of houses from which they arrested 3 young men:Mohammed Yasser Abu al-Hawa (21), Shadi Ahmed Khweis (19) and Majdi Amed al-Sayyad (21).
  • At approximately 02:00 on the same day, Israeli forces raided and searched a house belonging to Ayman Salem Eweisat in Jabal al-Mukaber village, southeast of East Jerusalem. They arrested his son Ali (20) and took him to an unknown destination.
  • At approximately 07:30, Israeli forces arrested Khalil Ra’ed Abu Tayeh (17) while heading to the school via al-Nather gate of al-Aqsa Mosqueiin the old city in Jerusalem. They took him to a detention facility in the city.
  • At approximately 10:00, Israeli forces arrested Mahmoud Nader Edris (20) after harshly beating him, as he tried to enter al-Aqsa Mosque in coincidence with the raid of 30 settlers on the mosque. Israeli forces took the aforementioned person to al-Masqoubiya detention facility.
  • On Sunday, 13 September 2015, dozens of youngsters gathered around al-Louza valley neighbourhood in Silwan village, south of the old city in Jerusalem, in protest at raids on al-Aqsa Mosque. Israeli forces fired sound bombs and tear gas canisters and chased them between the houses. They also arrested Mahmoud Abu Nab (17) in the same neighbourhood.
  • In the morning too, Israeli forces arrested 2 Palestinian women and 3 young menafter al-Aqsa Mosque was closed and stormed by the Israeli Minister of Agriculture, Uri Ariel, along with other settlers. The arrested persons were identified as Alaa al-Daya (24), Elham al-Jo’ba (26), Mousa al-Ajlouni (24), Yehya al-Soutari (32) and Hazem al-Salehi (34).
  • On the same day afternoon, dozens of boys gathered at the southern and main entrance of al-Eisawiya village, northeast of occupied Jerusalem, in protest at raids on al-Aqsa Mosque. Israeli forces fired sound bombs and tear gas canisters at them and arrested Adam Moheisen (17).
  • At approximately 21:00 on Sunday, 13 September 2015, Israeli forces moved into Ras al-Amoud neighbourhood, east of the old city in East Jerusalem, after a group of Palestinian youngsters threw fireworks and Molotov cocktails at “Ras al-Amoud” settlement. Israeli forces fired tear gas canisters in response to disperse them and then fired rubber-coated metal bullets. Clashes continued until late night. Israeli forces withdrew later and neither casualties nor material damage were reported.
  • On Monday, 14 September 2015, Israeli forces moved into Helwa valley neighbourhood in Silwan village, south of the old city in East Jerusalem. They closed one of its entrances in coincidence with the arrival of dozens of settlers at the village to perform Talmudic rituals in the new Hebrew year. An eyewitness said to a PCHR fieldworker that Israeli forces were deployed in the main street when settler came to Ein Silwan in the village to perform their rituals. He added that the settlers where in large groups and intended to dance and sing to provoke the Palestinian civilians. Israeli forces attempted to arrest a child under the pretext of throwing a Molotov cocktail at a settler. The eyewitness said also that Israeli forces moved into the neighbourhoods of the village and tried to top the roof of a building overlooking the village, but young men confronted them. As a result, Israeli forces arrested Nour Samrin (16) and took him to an unknown destination.
  • On Tuesday, 15 September 2015, Israeli forces moved into Qa’ al-Hara area in al-Tour village, east of the old city in East Jerusalem. They arrested Mo’ath Ahmed al-Sayyad (12), who was in a grocery. They also seized the ID card of Ahmed Jasser Abu al-Haea (19) and refused to give it back. They withdrew later transporting the child to an unknown destination.
  • At approximately 16:00 on Wednesday, 16 September 2015, Israeli forces arrested 3 Palestinian children who were present in al-Amoud gate area in the old city in East Jerusalem. They took them to Saladin police station to be questioned. The arrested persons were identified as: Mohammed Isma’il Ahmed Hoshiya (11), Mohammed Adel Abdul Hadi Sweiti (11) and Yazan Ahmed al-Banna (12).

5. Settlement activities and attacks by settlers against Palestinian civilians and property


Israel has continued its settlement activities in the oPt, a direct violation of international humanitarian law, and Israeli settlers have continued to attack Palestinian civilians and property.


  • At approximately 09:00 on Wednesday, 16 September 2015, Israeli forces backed by military vehicles and a Civil Administration vehicle moved into Kherbet Khellet al-Mayeh, east of Yatta, south of Hebron. They handed Mohammed Ezzat Makhamra al-Adra a notice to halt construction works in his 2-storey house (200 square meters) under the pretext of non-licensing.
  • At approximately 10:30, Israeli forces backed by military vehicles and a Civil Administration vehicle moved into Kherbet Erfa’iya, southeast of Yatta, south of Hebron. They handed Mohammed Ra’ed Mahmoud al-Emour a notice to halt construction works in his 70-square-meter house under the pretext of non-licensing too.
  • At approximately 19:30 on Sunday, 13 September 2015, a number of settlers in a vehicle with an Israeli registration plate coming from the western part of Hawwara village, south of Nablus, attempted to kidnap Fadi Wesam Abdul Rahim Dmeidi (7), who was walking on the street and heading to a supermarket. The boy stepped out of his father’s car, 40 meters away from the supermarket when the abovementioned vehicle passed by. A settler tried to pull the boy into the car from his back, but the boy screamed and fell down over his back and head. His father panicked and hurried up to him. He put his boy in the car and chased the settlers’ car eastwards but he could not catch them. The father then took his son to Rafidiya Hospital in Nablus. It was found that he sustained bruises in the back and neck.


Recommendations to the International Community

PCHR emphasizes the international community’s position that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are still under Israeli occupation, in spite of Israeli military redeployment outside the Gaza Strip in 2005. PCHR further confirms that Israeli forces continued to impose collective punishment measures on the Gaza Strip, which have escalated since the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, in which Hamas won the majority of seats of the Palestinian Legislative Council. PCHR stresses that there is international recognition of Israel’s obligation to respect international human rights instruments and the international humanitarian law, especially the Hague Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the Geneva Conventions. Israel is bound to apply the international human rights law and the law of war sometime reciprocally and other times in parallel in a way that achieves the best protection for civilians and remedy for victims.

In light of continued arbitrary measures, land confiscation and settlement activities in the West Bank, and the latest 51-day offensive against civilians in the Gaza Strip, PCHR calls upon the international community, especially the United Nations, the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention and the European Union – in the context of their natural obligation to respect and enforce the international law – to cooperate and act according to the following recommendations:

  1. PCHR calls upon the international community and the United Nations to use all available means to allow the Palestinian people to enjoy their right to self-determination, through the establishment of the Palestinian State, which was recognized by the UN General Assembly with a vast majority, using all international legal mechanisms, including sanctions to end the occupation of the State of Palestine;
  2. PCHR calls upon the United Nations to provide international protection to Palestinians in the oPt, and to ensure the non-recurrence of aggression against the oPt, especially the Gaza Strip;
  3. PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to compel Israel, as a High Contracting Party to the Conventions, to apply the Conventions in the oPt;
  4. PCHR calls upon the Parties to international human rights instruments, especially the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to pressurize Israel to comply with their provisions in the oPt, and to compel it to incorporate the human rights situation in the oPt in its reports submitted to the concerned committees;
  5. PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to fulfil their obligation to ensure the application of the Conventions, including extending the scope of their jurisdiction in order to prosecute suspected war criminals, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator and the place of a crime, to pave the way for prosecuting suspected Israeli war criminals and end the longstanding impunity they have enjoyed;
  6. PCHR calls on States that apply the principle of universal jurisdiction not to surrender to Israeli pressure to limit universal jurisdiction to perpetuate the impunity enjoyed by suspected Israeli war criminals;
  7. PCHR calls upon the international community to act in order to stop all Israeli settlement expansion activities in the oPt through imposing sanctions on Israeli settlements and criminalizing trading with them;
  8. PCHR calls upon the UN General Assembly to transfer the Goldstone Report to the UN Security Council in order to refer it to the International Criminal Court in accordance with Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute;
  9. PCHR calls upon the United Nations to confirm that holding war criminals in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a precondition to achieve stability and peace in the regions, and that peace cannot be built on the expense of human rights;
  10. PCHR calls upon the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council to explicitly declare that the Israeli closure policy in Gaza and the annexation wall in the West Bank are illegal, and accordingly refer the two issues to the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Israel to compel it to remove them;
  11. PCHR calls upon the international community, in light of its failure to the stop the aggression on the Palestinian people, to at least fulfil its obligation to reconstruct the Gaza Strip after the series of hostilities launched by Israel which directly targeted the civilian infrastructure;
  12. PCHR calls upon the United Nations and the European Union to express a clear position towards the annexation wall following the international recognition of the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, as the annexation wall seizes large parts of the State of Palestine;
  13. PCHR calls upon the European Union to activate Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, which provides that both sides must respect human rights as a precondition for economic cooperation between the EU states and Israel, and the EU must not ignore Israeli violations and crimes against Palestinian civilians;

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Human Rights Violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (10 – 16 Sep. 2015)

Jeb Tried To OUT-TRUMP The Donald With His Own Past and Then Trump DID THIS!


trump jeb bush debate

Zionist Brother

Among the best highlights of the GOP debate last night was this very decent attempt by Jeb Bush to out-Trump the master of Trump gotchas – the man himself!

He did this by bringing up his own past with The Donald and how he tried to get the rights to build some casinos in Florida, and even dropped millions into Jeb’s campaign coffers in an attempt to do so. Trump’s reaction was pretty hilarious and classic Trump.

Watch below:

Jeb really seemed to get the upper hand for a second, but Trump just devastated him with the jab, “more energy tonight, I like that!”

Bush actually seemed to crumble a little after that and never recovered.

Later, Politifact found that Jeb’s claim was only a slight embellishment, but gave it a mostly true rating:

News reports from the 1990s show that Trump helped finance Bush’s campaign and the state Republican Party during Bush’s 1998 bid for governor — while Trump was seeking to open casinos in Florida.

Trump held a 1997 fundraiser, which reportedly raised $500,000 for Bush when he ran for governor, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. As the race continued the next year, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts donated $50,000 to the Republican Party of Florida, when Trump was pushing the state to allow him to open casinos on Seminole tribal land. The tribe was seeking to open Vegas-style slot machines and poker in casinos, to be managed by Trump.

Trump backed a 1998 Seminole proposal to state officials to share gambling revenue with Florida. He also hosted a Seminole leader on his vacation estate that year, reported the Tampa Bay Times.

Even still, Trump’s fans have shown that they don’t really care what’s true about him as long as he keeps fighting! Jeb may have been right, but the Donald took his victory away from him with his swift, clever verbal assaults.

Posted in USAComments Off on Jeb Tried To OUT-TRUMP The Donald With His Own Past and Then Trump DID THIS!

I$raHell Likud Troika: Burying the Oslo ‘Peace Process’


[Prefatory Note: This is a slightly modified text of an article published in Middle East Eye on September 1, 2015, and republished on my blog with permission.]

Israel’s relentless accumulation of territorial facts on the ground some years ago doomed the peace process associated with the Oslo Framework of Principles adopted in 1993. It became increasingly difficult to envisage an Israeli willingness to dismantle settlements and road network or remove the separation barrier, and without such steps there could never be achieved an independent and viable Palestinian state. It should be kept in mind, without even raising the issue of the right of return of at least five million Palestinian refugees living outside of Palestine, that the whole premise of Palestinian statehood was based on the green line ceasefire borders that emerged from the 1967 borders. Even if Israel were persuaded to withdraw from the entirety of occupied Palestine, it would amount to only 22% of historic Palestine, less than half of what the UN recommended to a much smaller population by way of partition in 1947 (GA Res. 181). Yet even in those days of illusion when Israel was purporting to be receptive to the two-state approach it insisted on carving out a permanent security zone in the agriculturally rich Jordan Valley and maintaining a significant measure of border control.

For years Israel has played along with the diplomatic consensus constructed on basis of a two-state solution of the conflict as the only reasonable politically compromise. Israel had lots to gain from upholding this consensus, but quite a bit to lose by actually implementing it in a reasonable manner. Maintaining the diplomatic track satisfies its own citizenry and world public opinion that it is doing everything possible to reach a peaceful end of the conflict. In the course of such events, Israel gained the time it needed to expand the settlement phenomenon until it became so extensive as to negate any reasonable prospect for substantial reversal. And yet by relying on its sophisticated control of the media it could pin most of the blame on the Palestinian Authority for one round after another of failed bilateral negotiations. This in turn made it possible to mount propaganda campaigns around even the false claim that Israel lacked a Palestinian partner for peace negotiations.

While this diversionary process has continued for more than two decades, Israeli consolidated its influence in the U.S. Congress, which strengthened an already unprecedented ‘special relationship’ between the two countries. These dynamics made a mockery of Washington’s claim to be a neutral intermediary. And above all, the consensus pacified the international community, which repeatedly joining the public chorus calling for resumed negotiations. This became a cynical process with diplomats whispering in the corridors of UN buildings that the diplomatic effort to end the conflict was a sham while their governments kept restating their faith in the Oslo approach.

As argued here, the present futility of Oslo diplomacy has been indirectly acknowledged by Israel, and should be explicitly abandoned by the world community. Whether Israel’s was ever prepared to accept a Palestinian state remains in doubt. The fact that each prime minister since Oslo, and this includes Yitzhak Rabin, endorsed settlement expansion raises suspicions about Israel’s true intentions, but there were also indications that Tel Aviv earlier had looked with favor upon the diplomatic option provided that it could, with American backroom help, persuade the Palestinians to swallow a one-sided bargain that incorporated the settlement blocs and satisfied Israel’s security goals.

In the last couple of years the veil has been lifted, and it is overdue to declare Oslo diplomacy a failure that has been costly for the Palestinian people and their aspirations. We can reinforce this assessment by pointing to three connected developments at the pinnacle of Israeli state power, dominated in recent years by the right wing Likud Party. The first is the election by the Knesset in 2014 of Reuven Rivlin as the tenth Israeli president.

Rivlin is a complex political figure in Likud politics, a party rival of Netanyahu, a longtime advocate of a one-state solution that calls for the annexation of the West Bank, and an opponent of international diplomacy. The complexity arises because Rivlin’s vision is one of humane, democratic participation of the Palestinian population, conferring citizenship based on fully equality, and even envisioning an ethnic confederation of the two peoples to be achieved within Israel’s expanded sovereign borders.

The second development was the campaign promise made by Netanyahu on the eve of the March elections that a Palestinian state would never be established so long as he was prime minister. This startling break with the American posture was also a reversion to Netanyahu’s initial opposition to the Oslo Framework, and bitter denunciations of Rabin for embracing a process expected to result in Palestinian statehood. Netanyahu’s 2015 campaign pledge seemed closer to his true position all along if judged by his behavior although contradicting what his talk at Bar Ilan University back in 2009 when he declared support for Palestinian statehood as the only way for Israel to achieve peace with security. To slightly mend relations with Washington after his recent electoral victory, Netanyahu always crafty, again modified his position, by saying that in the heat of the elections he only meant that no Palestinian state could be established so long as jihadi turmoil in the region persisted. Given the extent of Israeli territorial encroachments on occupied Palestine I would trust Netanyahu’s electoral promise much more than his later clarification, a feeble attempt to restore confidence in the special relationship with the United States.

The third development, which should remove the last shred of ambiguity with respect to a diplomatic approach, is the designation of Danny Danon as Israel’s next ambassador at the UN. Danon is a notorious settlement hawk, long an outspoken advocate of West Bank annexation, arrogantly disdaining the arts of diplomacy needed to deflect the hostile UN atmosphere. If Israel felt that it had anything to gain by maintaining the Oslo illusion, then certainly Danon would not have been the UN pick. There are plenty of Israel diplomats skilled in massaging world public opinion that could have been sent to New York, but this was not the path chosen.

How shall we best understand this Israeli turn toward forthrightness? In the first instance, it reflects the primacy of domestic politics, and a corresponding attitude by Israel’s leaders that it has little need to appease world opinion or accommodate Washington’s insistence that diplomacy, while not now working, remains the only road leading to a peaceful solution.

Furthermore, the Likud troika seems to be converging on a unilateralist approach to the conflict with the Palestinians, while doing its best to distract the international attention by exaggerating the threat posed by Iran. This unilateralist approach can move in two directions: The Netanyahu direction, which is a shade more internationalist, and involves continuing the process of de facto annexation of occupied Palestine, reinforced by an apartheid structure of control over the Palestinian people; the Rivlin/Danon direction overtly incorporating the West Bank into Israel, and then either following the democratic and human rights path of treating the two peoples equally or hardening still further the oppressive regime of discriminatory control established during over 48 years of occupation.

While this Israeli scenario of conflict resolution unfolds most governments, not sensing an alternative, continue to proclaim their allegiance to a two-state solution despite its manifest disappointments and poor prospects. At present, there are a series of international gestures toward lifting the peace process from its deathbed. Sisi of Egypt hosts Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority proclaiming a readiness to mediate bilateral negotiations, and even Netanyahu in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s inability to scuttle the Iran Nuclear Agreement has the temerity to indicate an interest in renewed peace talks. In effect, ‘Oslo is dead, long live Oslo.’ Put differently, the political death of Oslo is being disguised by a diplomatic afterlife. It will be shameful if the Ramallah leadership again enters this cynically set diplomatic trap. As the above analysis shows there is no evidence whatsoever that Israel is at all inclined to allow an independent sovereign Palestinian state to come into existence. Israel is even fought hard against allowing Palestine to fly national flag in front of the UN building. Of course, as in the past, Israel will for the sake of public relations, including rehabilitating its ‘special relationship’ with the United States, evidently again play this cruel game of charades. But why are the Palestinians willing to be partners to such a sham?

This see-no-evil posture of governments, and even the UN, ignores the emergence of two more promising alternatives: the gathering momentum of civil society activism exhibited via the BDS campaign and increasingly acknowledged by Israel as its most security threat, leading recently to the establishment of an official ‘Delegitimation Department’ assigned to do battle with the Palestinian solidarity movement.

And on a diplomatic level, pursued with some energy and imagination by the Palestinian Authority, is the use of international law and Palestinian statehood to engage the wider international community of states in support of its struggle. Several examples illustrate the approach: the 2012 General Assembly endorsement of Palestinian statehood; the adherence to prominent international law treaties and conventions; admission as member to UNESCO; adherence to the Rome Treaty framing the activities of the International Criminal Court; and just days ago, the GA approval of the wish of Palestine, although having the status of a non-member observer state, to fly its national flag alongside the flags of UN members at UN buildings. With the abandonment of armed struggle and the breakdown of bilateral diplomacy, Palestinian recourse to legitimacy tactics reinforces the civil society global solidarity network that has been exerting increasing pressure on Israel.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on I$raHell Likud Troika: Burying the Oslo ‘Peace Process’

India Under P.M. Modi


Image result for Narendra Modi CARTOON

By Sajjad Shaukat*

Since the leader of the Hindu fundamentalist party, BJP Narendra Modi became the Prime

Minister of India; Indian society is rapidly radicalizing, as unprecedented rise of Hindu

extremism, persecution of minorities, ban on beef and cow slaughter, inclusion of Hindu

religious books in curriculum and creation of war-like situation with Pakistan have been

accelerated. These nefarious moves have put questions about India under P.M. Modi.

While, the constitution declares India to be a secular state, granting equal rights to the religious

minorities, but in practice, ideology of Hindutva (Hindu nationalism) prevails. Hindu politics and

culture, dominated by the fundamentalist parties such as BJP, RSS VHP, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena

and other extremist outfits have been propagating Hindutva. Provocative utterances of their

extremist leaders have resulted into unending violence against the Muslim and Christians

Radicalization of India by Hindu fanatic parties could be judged from various recent

developments. On May 28, 2014, Rashtriya Hindu Andolan, a Mangalore-based Hindutva outfit

and activists from various right wing groups organized a protest in Mangalore in front of the

office of Deputy Commissioner by demanding the authorities to ban the morning Muslim call to

prayer (Azan) across the country. Besides, forcing the Muslim employee in a Parliament Canteen

by BJP leader to break his fast by stuffing piece of bread in his mouth, statement of Deputy

Chief of Goa, declaring India as a Hindu state, opposition to declaration of Sania Mirza as

Ambassador of Indian state by calling her daughter-in-law of Pakistan might be cited as

In this regard, in September 13, 2008, the communal riots in Uttar Pradesh killed more than 200

Muslims. In one of the most tragic incidents in Assam, Hindu extremists burnt alive six members

Similarly, in the recent years, assaults on Christians, their churches and property have been

executed by the Hindu mobs in various cities of India. In this respect, at least 100 Christians

have been assassinated by Hindu extremists, mostly in the state of Orissa. In the recent past,

frequent incidents of gang rape, specially the rape of elderly Nun shows the ugly face of India,

Other anti-Muslim incidents like the discovery of the unmarked graves of thousands of the

innocent Kashmiris, killed by the Indian security forces in the Indian-held Kashmir, pre-planned

destruction of the Babri Masjid (mosque) in 1992, and participants of the Indian high officials in

the events especially be cited as instance. Particularly, brutal killings of innocent Kashmiris by

Indian forces –an Israeli pattern followed on instructions of Modi/ BJP continues unabated.

It is mentionable that forced conversions of other religious minorities into Hindus also continue.

In this regard, Bajrang Dal, an offshoot of the RSS, converted at least 57 Muslim families (200

people) into Hindus at a ‘Purkhon Ki Ghar Vapsi’ (Coming home of the ancestors) or Shudhi

(Purification) ceremony in Agra, Uttar Pradesh.

Previously, in early September 2014, Christians were also forcefully converted to Hindus which

created unrest among Christian clergy. Four months ago, a similar event in Aligarh saw Christian

families converting to Hinduism. However, since installment of BJP government in the center,

RSS and its offshoots have accelerated their efforts for minorities’ conversion into Hindus.

As regards persecution of minorities in India, Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission

Testimony by Human Rights Watch presented before US Senate Committee (2014) on atrocious

attitude of Hindu majority has highlighted the plight of minorities in India.

It is of particular attention that on November 7, 2011, leader of the VHP, Pravin Togadia, in his

furious speech questioned the past of Muslims and Christians, and further gave a call to Hindus

to capture the Islamic holy places in Arab and Vatican of Europe.

But, it is strange that US government denied visa to Modi on the basis of his involvement in

Gujrat pogrom, however, after his election as Indian prime minister, American changed to his

favour. Undoubtedly, more than 2500 Muslims were massacred in 2002 in the BJP-ruled Indian

state of Gujara where Modi was Chief Minister. Therefore, someone has rightly called him as

In relation to that massive genocide, both Human Rights Watch in 2002 and Amnesty

International in 2003 charged the “Gujarat state administration” for involvement in “a massive

cover-up of the state’s role in that massacre” and pointed out numerous police

officials—specifically ministers, high officials and leaders of the VHP, BJP and Bajrang Dal as

It is noteworthy that particularly, on the basis of anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan slogans, BJP got

a land sliding triumph in the Indian elections 2014, and enabled BJP hardliner, Narendra Modi to

become Indian prime minister who is implementing his party’s agenda. Therefore, he is also

giving impetus to Hindu chauvinism against Pakistan, as under his direction, New Delhi has

intensified unprovoked firing at the Line of Control in Kashmir and Working Boundary across

Besides, Modi refused to wear a cap presented by Muslims during election campaign. But,

during is trip to the United Arab Emirates, he visited a mosque, while putting on Muslim prayer

Notably, Indian Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar, while using the Hindi phrase “kante se

kanta nikalna’ (removing a thorn with a thorn) assertively said on May 23, 2015, “We have to

neutralize terrorists through terrorists only…why does my soldier have to do it…the issue could

not be discussed beyond this…there are certain things that I obviously cannot discuss here.”

In this context, while addressing a ceremony during his Bangladesh tour, Indian Prime Minister

Narendra Modi openly stated on June 7, this year that Indian forces helped Mukti Bahini to turn

East Pakistan into Bangladesh. He elaborated that former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee

had played an active role in separating Bangladesh from Pakistan, and he had also come to Delhi

in 1971 to participate in the Satyagraha Movement, launched by Jana Sangh as a volunteer to

garner support for the Mukti Bahini members. But, Indian former Army Chief Gen. VK Singh

confessed that during his tenure, he supervised special army unit, Tactical Support Division

(TSD) on the instructions of the then defence minister to sponsor subversive activities in

Pakistan, particularly Balochistan, and to bribe the Kashmiri leaders.

Recently, Modi played his role in the release of Swami Aseemanand, a Hindu right-wing leader

who had already confessed during a court hearing that he and Indian Lt. Col. Purohit, including

several RSS preachers were directly involved in planning, financing and executing Malegaon,

Samjhauta Express, Ajmer and Mecca Masjid blasts. Especially, Modi governmet nurtures cold

blooded murderers who burnt alive innocent Pakistanis in Samjhota Express.

In fact, Modi who was also a volunteer worker of the extremist Hindu terrorist outfit RSS since 8

years of age is a natural born Hindu extremist, while RSS involved in Muslim genocide, rape of

women, demolition of mosques and alive burnings of the innocent persons.

However, these blatant admissions clearly prove that New Delhi has been sponsoring worse

kinds of terrorism inside Pakistan, and India. Hence, it is the right hour that the West and

especially the US must abandon its double standard by taking appropriate steps against India.

Otherwise, dangerous radicalization of India by Hindu extremists, under Modi’s rule may cause

World War 111 or clash of civilizations in wake of global war against terrorism.


* 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 IndiaComments Off on India Under P.M. Modi

The Nuclear Challenge (10): Seventy Years After Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Against Binaries


by Richard Falk

[Prefatory Note: This is the tenth, and mercifully the last, in this series of posts prompted by the 70th observance of the atomic attacks in 1945. The intention has been to explore several of the more important dimensions of what is called here ‘nuclearism,’ the securitization of nuclear weaponry in the face of international law, international morality, and simple common sense, and what can and should be done to achieve desecuritization of such weaponry of mass destruction, reviewing the stubborn adherence to nuclearism by the nuclear nine, the marginalization of the UN with respect to disarmament and denuclearization, and the rise and fall of antinuclear activism in civil society. Hopefully, the time will come when a less gloomy depiction of the nuclear challenge can be made by some future blog practitioner. This text is a slightly revised version of what was initially posted, written in grateful response to comments received.]

There have been a variety of philosophical assaults on either/or thinking, perhaps most notably flowing from the deconstructionist pen of Jacques Derrida. In more policy related contexts, the debate about dichotomizing gender has featured two sets of arguments: first the contention that it is important to distinguish lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender people, hence the LGBT designation of sexual ‘otherness,’ which enriches the either/or-ness of the reigning male/female gender binary. Identifications of sexuality also cuts against the grain of the dominant heterosexual or straight template, and is further contested by ongoing debates surrounding the societal, legal, and conceptual legitimacy of ‘same sex marriages.’

The New York Times columnist, Charles Blow, pushes the sexual identity envelope further by developing the case for ‘fluidity’ of preferences, that is, neither purely this or that. He personalizes the issue, indicating that he generally is attracted to women, but on occasion might also be attracted to men, which because the feelings of attraction are greater for women than men, it is not accurate to define himself as ‘bisexual.’ Such a blurring of boundaries corresponds with the actuality of his feelings that even cut across supposedly liberating socially constructed categories as LGBT is meant to be. [Sept 7, 2015] The point being that the biopolitical reality of life often does not divide neatly into binary categories, and when we address the issue as one of upholding societal norms by enacting laws disciplining sexual limits, adverse social, political, and psychological self-alienation and arbitrary distinctions follow. This encroaches upon our freedoms in unfortunate, often unconscious, ways, leading many individuals to stay in the closet to hide their true feelings or be open and face subtle punitive consequences. Or, at best, individuals conclude that their failure to fit their feelings into a single box is somehow ‘abnormal.’ Relaxing traditional roles of state, church, and society in policing politically correct identities is one of the few areas in which freedom in American can be said to have expanded in the last couple of decades, and this, largely due to the transcendence of gender and sexual binaries thanks to robust civil society activism that cut against the grain of majority sentiment.

Perhaps, the most blatant of all binaries bearing on nuclear weapons is between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ nuclear weapons states, which immediately reminds us of Mahmood Mamdani’s devastating critique of the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Muslims. [See Mamdani,Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror (2005)] The United States and its allies regard themselves as ‘good’ nuclear weapons states that the world has no reason to worry about while Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan are ‘evil,’ or at best ‘irresponsible’ or ‘insecure’ states that should if at all possible be disallowed to acquire nuclear weapons. It is this primary binary that provides the moral/political disguised infrastructure of NPT treaty regime, which when established was confined to the P5 of the UN Security Council, which while not conceived of as ‘good’ by the West were at least not part of ‘the axis of evil’ depicted by George W. Bush during his presidency.

In this series on the nuclear challenge as of 2015, I have myself succumbed to the ‘binary temptation’ in at least two respects—distinguishing arms control from disarmament, and separating nuclear disarmament from conventional disarmament. Relying on binaries can contribute to a certain clarity of analysis, leading I believe to useful political discourse, but it is also misleading unless qualified and transcended. Dichotomizing choice and consequences in these ways can be especially useful in pointing out weaknesses and pitfalls in ‘politically correct’ methods of solving societal problems. In this spirit, I continue to believe it is illuminating to insist on the critical difference between complete nuclear disarmament as transformative of the security scene as now embedded in world order and arms control as a series of more or less helpful reformist moves that stabilize and manage the role of nuclear weaponry in contemporary security structures. These arms control moves are made without posing any challenge to the fundamental distribution of power and authority in the world, and tend to make such a challenge appear less urgent, and even of questionable benefit.

From this perspective, then, a critique of the NPT regime as the preeminent stabilizing structure in relation to nuclearism seems justified. It provides the basis for setting forth an argument that the NPT approach is antagonistic, rather than complementary to denuclearization and disarmament. This is contrary to the way the NPT regime is generally explained and affirmed, which is as step toward achieving nuclear disarmament, and an indispensable place holding measure to reduce the risks of nuclear war. It is true that inhibiting the spread of nuclear weaponry seems to be in the spirit of what might be described as horizontal denuclearization, although even this limited assertion is not without controversy. The recently deceased Kenneth Waltz with impeccable logical consistency seemed to believe so deeply in rational decision making as embedded in the doctrine of deterrence that he favored the spread of nuclear weapons to additional countries because it would tend to make governments more cautious, and hence nuclear war less likely. Others, including myself, are more ambivalent about such an out of the box position, worrying about any further spread of the bomb, but thinking that only when there is a sense of a loss of control in the capitals of the nuclear nine will there arise a sufficient interest in denuclearization as a genuine political project (as distinct from more or less sincere rhetorical posturing). Obama’s Prague speech in 2009 still seems sincere as of the time of its delivery, but we need to notice that it lived and died as rhetoric because it lacked legs, that is, the rhetoric was never converted into a political project. In contrast, the NPT is definitely a political project and enjoys strong geopolitical support.

The policy emphasis on horizontal denuclearization has the sometimes intended and sometimes unintended effect of shifting public attention away from the greater problematique of promotingvertical declearization, that is, inducing the nuclear weapons states to enter a diplomatic process that would finish with zero nuclear weapons in their military arsenals. Again such a distinction, while useful for some purposes, employs the artificial binary of horizontal and vertical, and misses the nuance actuality of hybridity and interactivity, or what Blow describes as ‘fluidity’ or others have been delimiting by dwelling on the fifty shades of gray positioned between the black and white of conventional thinking. Decuclearization for each of the nuclear nine raises different issues depending on the outlook of their leadership, the political context, and the ease of making alternative non-nuclear security arrangements, as well as their interaction with one another and with neighboring states.

Perhaps, the most salient false dichotomy of all is between ‘nuclear weapons states’ and ‘non-nuclear weapons states.’ When countries have the enrichment facilities and materials, as well as the technical knowhow, they possess a breakout capacity that could materialize in a matter of months, or maybe already exists as a result of a secret program (as was the case with Israel). Yet without acquiring and exploding a bomb such states retain their status as non-nuclear. Israel is treated as belonging to the nuclear nine because its possession of the weaponry has been documented convincingly, although it has never officially admitted its possession of the weaponry, and keeps vindictively punishing Mordechai Vanunu because he exposed the truth about Israel’s nuclear program. North Korea may not have assembled a bomb when it was charged with violating NPT constraints. Germany and Japan, and perhaps a few other countries, are latent or threshold nuclear states, although their overt posture is one of being ‘non-nuclear.’ The fluidity of reality makes the binary classification, at best, a first approximation. At worst, it creates a deceptive distance between states that have nuclear weapons and those that do not presently possess the weaponry, but could do so in a short time. Or between those that pretend not to have the weapon but actually have it and those that pretend to have it but do not have it. The binary classification ignores the many differences with respect to nuclear weapons and doctrines surrounding use of the nuclear nine, but also the many nuances of technical and political proximity to nuclearism of non-nuclear states. Some states have allowed deployments of nuclear weapons on their territory, others have prohibited ships carrying nuclear weapons from entering their ports for even a short visit.

The situation becomes even more complicated if inquiry is extended to secondary political effects. It has been argued that vertical denuclearization undertaken by the United States would likely lead to horizontal nuclearization on the part of Japan and South Korea. Contrariwise, it is reasoned in strategic circles that the nuclearization of countries in Asia and the Middle East could induce vertical denuclearization on a systemic basis to avoid the instabilities and raised risks of a growing number of hands on the nuclear trigger, and to clear the way for regional securitization based on American conventional military dominance. Worries about continued proliferation combined with the realization that American military power would become more usable and effective in a world without nuclear weapons even led such realist mainstays as George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry, and Sam Nunn to support nuclear disarmament in the normally militarist pages of theWall Street Journal. [“A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” Wall Street Journal, Jan 4, 2007.]

A similar line of reasoning applies to the relationship between nuclear disarmament and conventional disarmament. Focusing on nuclear disarmament as a distinct undertaking avoids difficult issues of whether disarmament rests on a premise of pacifism and thus would be imprudent in view of centuries of political consciousness supporting the right and practical necessity of political communities acting in self-defense to uphold their security against external threats. This logic of a collective right to bear arms underlies the modern system of state-centric world order that conceives of security within bounded territorial entities as integrally linked to the war system.

At the same time, as discussed in relation to Gorbachev’s vision of nuclear disarmament discussed in The Nuclear Challenge (3), it is unrealistic to think of deep disarmament without introducing demilitarization into the process. Otherwise as Gorbachev points out, governments will be reluctant to take the last steps in a denuclearizing process if they understand that at the zero point for nuclear weapons, the world will be confronted by American military dominance, already prefigured by the U.S. government spending almost as much to maintain and develop its military machine as the entire rest of the world. For meaningful commentary it is necessary to view different types of disarmament as complements rather than as alternatives, and not to ignore different levels of interactivity. Although both Gorbachev and the Shultz group advocate nuclear disarmament, their geopolitical agendas are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Gorbachev seeks a demilitarized world of equally secure sovereign states whereas the Shultz group favors stabilizing American military hegemony.

One of the most frequently identified binary is that between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy or power. This binary is built into the NPT regime, giving non-nuclear states reassurances in Article IV that by foregoing the bomb they will not be denied the supposed benefits of nuclear energy, and that they can look forward to a denuclearized world as the nuclear weapons states accepted a legal duty to negotiate disarmament in Article VI. And then in Article X parties to the NPT are given a right to withdraw after giving three months notice in response to security imperatives, a right that can be overridden by the geopolitical insistence on non-acquisition of the weaponry as with Iran. The reality of the nuclear world subverts such a binary in a number of ways. If a nuclear energy program is established it creates conditions that makes it easier to cross the weapons threshold by having the capability to produce enriched uranium or plutonium and the technical knowhow to produce a nuclear warhead. Also, the kind of nuclear accidents that occurred at Chernobyl and Fukushima suggest that nuclear facilities are nuclear time bombs awaiting an igniting natural disaster or human error. Such nuclear power plants are also could be a priority target for unscrupulous political extremists. These nuclear facilities pose unknown risks of devastation that could terrorize millions of people, and spread intense fear across the globe following the release of large amounts of intense radiation. Vagaries of air currents might determine whether communities become afflicted or not.

And then there are issues of geopolitical fallout stemming from managing the NPT regime. Instead of the NPT contributing to stability, its maintenance can provide the rationale for recourse to threats and uses of aggressive force. The 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq was mainly justified as a NPT enforcement operation as was the imposition of damaging international sanctions on Iran coupled with frequent reiterations of the military option by American and Israeli leaders. In effect, the alleged need to prevent certain instances of unwanted proliferation is providing political actors, especially the United States, with geopolitical justifications for costly unlawful wars that displace millions and disrupt existing political arrangements. Characterizing nuclear energy as ‘peaceful’ does not seem compatible with the spirit or substance of a fully denuclearized world.

There is an even deeper divide that needs to be bridged conceptually and practically. Can drastic forms of demilitarization reliably occur without also addressing poverty and gross disparities of individual and collective existence? And can such socio-economic issues be resolved without a combination of life style adjustments and the dismantling of neoliberal capitalism as the ideological linchpin of economic globalization? And are any of these radical changes worth contemplating without the inclusion on the policy agenda of global warming and threats to biodiversity? And on and on.

What I favor, in effect, is retaining binaries to clear up basic choices that can be better understood without the complexities and subtleties of fluidity, but also moving toward a second level of interpretation that is immersed in the existential realities of the lifeworld. On this level, evaluation would be contextual and configurative, and not be pre-judged or appraised by reference to a reductive binary. From such angles, the NPT would be seen as both helpful and harmful, making its assessment change with time and context. The NPT may have, on balance, been a constructive step in 1968 when it was possible to believe that inhibiting proliferation would give nuclear disarmament time and space to establish a more favorable climate for negotiations. By way of comparison, in 2015 the world possesses overwhelming evidence suggesting the disinclination of the nuclear weapons states to consider disarmament as a serious policy option. Such an understanding may shift the balance sufficiently to make it now more constructive to repudiate, or at least challenge the NPT regime. Such an altered approach seems quite reasonable in light of the militarist and unlawful tactics of implementation employed to victimize the peoples of Iraq and Iran.

The question of how to think about nuclear issues is itself daunting, yet crucial. One way to go about it is the recognition of distinct discourses with some sensitivity to overlaps between binary and contextual or configurative forms of analysis as discussed above. Among the substantive discourses that seem particularly useful for the promotion of denuclearization and disarmament the following can be commended: international relations; geopolitics; international law; international morality; denuclearization; demilitarization; securitization. Obviously, the path to nuclear zero is long with many twists and turns, and where it will lead remains unknown. What is known is that the struggle for nuclear disarmament, denuclearization, and demilitarization bears heavily on the destinies of the human species, and we each have a responsibility to become a participant rather than a spectator.

Posted in JapanComments Off on The Nuclear Challenge (10): Seventy Years After Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Against Binaries

Washington Wants “Regime Change” in Ecuador


“What is the CIA Planning before Ecuador’s 2017 Elections?”

Global Research

The United States does not lack institutions that continue to conspire, and that’s why I am using this gathering to announce that we have decided to expel USAID from Bolivia” Bolivian President Evo Morales

Washington wants Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa removed from power. Washington says it is concerned about the freedom of the press in Ecuador because their non-government organization ‘Fundamedios’ funded and supported by United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Freedom House among others is in the process of being shut down by the Correa government. According to Telesur’s report on September 10th “Fundamedios engaged “partisan political activities” by sharing material on its social media accounts, publishing articles unrelated to its stated mission and inserting itself into political debates in the country”which according to the National Secretariat of Communication or ‘Secom’ is prohibited under Ecuadorian law. The White House released a press statement on the same day:

We are very concerned about the increasing restrictions on freedom of expression and freedom of association in Ecuador, particularly the Ecuadorian government’s September 8 decision to initiate legal steps intended to dissolve Fundamedios, a non-governmental organization that monitors and defends press freedom.

An active civil society and tolerance of dissenting views are vital components of any democracy. We share international concern over the Ecuadorian government’s efforts to silence critical voices and deny its citizens access to a diversity of information and ideas. Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists, among others, have all spoken out in opposition to the government’s latest action against Fundamedios.

According to TeleSur ‘Fundamedios’ is funded by the NED and USAID:

The work of the organization mostly consists of issuing “alerts” regarding alleged attacks against journalists in Ecuador.  The organization is funded in part through a US$84,000 grant from the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy. U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador Adam Namm told El Telegrafo that Fundamedios received US$300,000 in 2012 from USAID, which is receives its funds from the U.S. government

USAID and NED are in the business of “Democracy Promotion” which uses public money (from U.S. taxpayers) for secretive operations with the intention to support pro-U.S. governments with the help of political and social movements abroad. The goal is regime change.

Why Washington wants Correa Removed from Power

Since 2009, the world has seen what the Obama administration has done to sovereign nations in the name of democracy. Libya, Honduras and the Ukraine are some of the recent examples of U.S. foreign policy that has only proved to be disastrous on many levels. Ecuador would be added to Obama’s list of countries ripe for regime change.

First, Correa is a staunch ally of Latin America’s leftist governments of Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Argentina and Brazil who are critical of U.S. Foreign policy. What makes matters worse for Washington was the closure of the Manta Air Force Base in 2009, a promise made by Correa in a 2006 campaign.

Washington wants a new government in Ecuador to reopen the Manta Air Force Base for surveillance and the so-called “War on Drugs”. In 2008, the New York Times reported that President Correa fired high ranking military officials who were loyal subjects of Washington:

Mr. Correa — who this month dismissed his defense minister, army chief of intelligence and commanders of the army, air force and joint chiefs — said that Ecuador’s intelligence systems were “totally infiltrated and subjugated to the C.I.A.” He accused senior military officials of sharing intelligence with Colombia, the Bush administration’s top ally in Latin America

The New York Times admitted that Correa’s administration is a challenge for U.S. policy makers regarding the “War on Drugs” and its presence in Latin America:

The gambit also poses a clear challenge to the United States. For nearly a decade, the base here in Manta has been the most prominent American military outpost in South America and an important facet of the United States’ drug-fighting efforts. Some 100 antinarcotics flights leave here each month to survey the Pacific in an elaborate cat-and-mouse game with drug traffickers bound for the United States.

But many Ecuadoreans have chafed at the American presence and the perceived challenge to the country’s sovereignty, and Mr. Correa promised during his campaign in 2006 to close the outpost

Reuters’ also reported in 2007 what Correa had said about the possibility of renewing the lease to the U.S. military“We’ll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami — an Ecuadorean base,” Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy. “If there’s no problem having foreign soldiers on a country’s soil, surely they’ll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States.” Correa did make a good point.

Another reason Correa is on Washington’s “hit list” involves Wikileaks. Its founder Julian Assange was granted political asylum in an Ecuadorian embassy in London because he feared that if he ended up in U.S. custody over the secret files he released from Chelsea Manning to the world, could have him face an unfair trial in a U.S. courtroom. Ecuador granted Assange political asylum status where he still remains to this day. Neoconservative and former Presidential contender Sarah Palin said that Assange is an “anti-American operative with blood on his hands…Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?” Palin was saying that Julian Assange is in the same league as Al Qaeda so killing him is justified. Ecuador did take a stand to protect the life and liberty of Julian Assange, something Washington does not take lightly.

Ecuador’s Lawsuit against Big Oil

Litigation and various lawsuits against Chevron-Texaco has been going on for more than two decades which oil drilling operations which occurred between 1972 and 1990 in the Amazon as RT News reported in 2013:

Ecuador’s foreign ministry announced on Friday that the US has seemingly denied visas to a delegation that was set to travel to the UN General Assembly in New York to present their case regarding an ongoing dispute against Chevron-Texaco. According to the ministry’s official announcement, the visas for the five Ecuadorian nationals were returned by the US Embassy in Quito “without any explanation.”

That group was to present testimony during a special event at the UN regarding the ecological impact caused by Chevron-Texaco’s oil operations in the Amazon rainforest region of Ecuador – which contaminated two million hectares, according to the country’s government. At stake is a US$19 billion judgment awarded by an Ecuadorean court against Chevron for cleanup and ecological damage, which is currently being fought at The Hague.

Correa in Washington’s Crosshairs

From alliances with anti-Washington governments to the closure of the Manta Air Force Base, to protecting Julian Assange and a lawsuit against Chevron-Texaco for environmental damages to the Amazon, Correa is a target for regime change. Just remember back in history when the CIA orchestrated a coup against Ecuadorian President Carlos Julio Arosemena simply because he criticized the U.S. government and supported the Cuban revolution led by Fidel Castro. Correa has done a lot more to diminish U.S. power in Latin America than any other president in its current history.

Correa has accused the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) earlier this year of “being increasingly involved in the political opposition with the avowed aim of dragging the country into chaos” and weaken the Ecuadorian government by “a series of coordinated nationwide protests.” Something Correa should be familiar with, after all the CIA attempted a coup in 2010 under Obama’s watch. One of the key reasons of the attempted coup by the Ecuadorian police was the Public Service Organic Law signed in 2010. It was designed to place regulations on public service workers namely the police and military and create a standard base of compensation instead of receiving their bonuses from foreign sources (the U.S. government) under Ecuadorian law. The main problem before the law was passed was that the police of Ecuador was receiving bonuses from the US embassy to spy on Ecuadorian politicians and others who were considered opponents of Washington.

Interestingly, Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton was in Ecuador in June of that year to convince Correa to join the“Dark Side” but ultimately failed. U.S. Ambassador at the time was Heather Hodges who was assigned to disrupt and weaken the Correa government through USAID which contributed $40 million. The Ecuadorian police, military officials, USAID, NED, the CIA and a former president and a puppet of Washington during the Bush years, Lucio Gutiérrez who was ousted by the Ecuadorian people who demanded his resignation were all behind the coup plot.

Obama has 16 Months Left in Office

Will the Obama administration authorize another coup between now and 2016? It is Obama’s last 16 months in office since the first coup attempt. Correa knows he is on Washington’s “hit list” following his actions on Fundamedios who claim the freedom of speech is threatened as Washington threatens Julian Assange for exposing their crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq by killing of tens of thousands of civilians, which they tried to keep secret. Washington is consistent when it ignores the sovereignty of nations and bypasses international law on a regular basis.

Recently, the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (Conaie) and various trade unions called for a nationwide strike against the government, but many indigenous organizations opposed it. Telesur reported that WikiLeaks published diplomatic cables from the U.S. embassy in Ecuador from 2005 and 2006 that suggest members of CONAIE were interested in talking to U. S. Representatives within their own ranks including Vice President Santiago de la Cruz and Congressman Jorge Guaman who according to one cable “expressed interest in open dialogue.”Members of CONAIE also “asked the U.S. government to intervene with the president to get Conaie representatives back in these government institutions.” De La Cruz is described as “very interested in the possibility of visiting the U.S. on an exchange program,” and that he “appeared eager to engage in dialogue” with the U.S.  Wikileaks also released documents on Auki Tituana, a member of Pachakutik who also seemed interested.

Although representatives in both organizations have shown an interest in meeting with U.S. officials, other members are not so keen on the idea including Luis Macas, head of CONAIE. This is a positive sign that members within these indigenous organizations do not want to meet with U.S. diplomats.  Macas “has advised his organization to avoid dialogue with the U.S. government.” According to the cables “There appears to be division within the ranks of Pachakutik and (Conaie) on the level of interaction they should have with the Embassy”.

In 2007, Correa was an anti-neoliberal advocate was voted into power and has brought Ecuador political and economic stability. One other issue Washington is concerned about is what Correa said about the “Dollarization” of the Ecuadorian economy; he said it was a “technical error” after pro-US president Jamil Mahuad adopted the U.S. dollar in 2000. Correa did acknowledge that it is a difficult process to move out of the U.S. dollar at this time, however, he does support a regional South American currency that would allow Ecuador to move out of the dollar which is something U.S. officials’ do not like to hear especially when the dollar is about to lose its reserve currency status.

What is the CIA planning before Ecuador’s elections in 2017?

It is important to note that if a presidential recall vote were to take place in Ecuador today at least 60% of the people would vote for Correa according to the main-stream media’s ‘CNN Spanish’ poll this past June. Correa proposed constitutional reforms including two bills that would increase inheritance and capital gains taxes on the ultra-wealthy. Anti-government protests followed, which later turned violent. That is something Washington wants to see more of right before Ecuador’s 2017 presidential elections.

Posted in USA, South AmericaComments Off on Washington Wants “Regime Change” in Ecuador

The Unspoken Truth is Obama’s “Responsibility to Protect” the (ISIS)


The Objective is to “Degrade and Destroy” Iraq and Syria

Global Research

Obama’s so-called war to degrade and destroy it is a complete fabrication. Defeating it is simple. Stop recruiting, arming, funding, training and directing its elements.

Stop using terrorists as US proxy foot soldiers. Wage peace, not war. Isolated on its own, it’ll wither over time and disappear, or be too impotent to rampage like now.

Washington bears full responsibility for human floods fleeing war ravaged areas for safe havens anywhere. Bashar al-Assad told RT International the crisis is “not about that Europe didn’t accept them or embrace them as refugees. It’s about not dealing with the cause. If you are worried about them, stop supporting terrorists.”

If we ask any Syrian today about what they want, the first thing they would say: ‘We want security and safety for every person and every family.” The international community should unite around what the Syrian people want.

Ongoing conflict can only be resolved “through dialogue and the political process (as well as) unit(y) in the struggle against terrorism.”

With an approval rating of 89%, Vladimir Putin is likely the world’s most popular leader – for supporting nation-state sovereignty, multi-world polarity and opposing America’s ruthless imperial agenda, waging endless wars on humanity.

He’s vilified in the West for forthrightly supporting world peace and stability, as well as wanting all conflicts resolved diplomatically and proposing workable solutions if adopted.

At the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, he urged the international community to set aside geopolitical differences and unite against a common enemy.

“Extremists from many countries of the world, including, unfortunately, European countries, Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) undertake ideological and military training in the ranks of Islamic State,” he explained. “(C)ertainly we are worried that they could possibly return” and make trouble.

Russia, as you know, has proposed to form a wide coalition to fight extremists without any delay. It should unite everyone who is ready and is already contributing to tackling terrorism.

If Russia had not been supporting Syria, the situation in the country would have been worse than in Libya and the refugee flow would have been even bigger.

Moscow didn’t ravage and destroy Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Donbass, and other countries – or occupy any. It doesn’t use terrorist mercenaries as proxy foot soldiers – or wage endless wars on humanity.

It’s not responsible for exponentially growing human floods of desperate people fleeing war-torn areas for safe havens anywhere out of harm’s way.

It accepted over a million Ukrainian refugees fleeing Obama’s war on Donbass, treating them humanely, regularly supplying Donetsk and Lugansk with badly needed humanitarian aid – doing the same thing for Syrians.

Russia is Europe’s leading peace and stability proponent. Wherever America shows up, genocide, mass destruction and human misery follow.

Peace is anathema. So are democratic freedoms. America’s agenda intends a ruler/serf world unfit to live in – greed and rapaciousness triumphing over equity and justice for all.


Posted in Middle East, USAComments Off on The Unspoken Truth is Obama’s “Responsibility to Protect” the (ISIS)

The Malaysian MH17 Crash Investigation

Global Research

Dutch Safety Board (DSB) Prepares “Missile Attack On Moscow”

The Dutch Government has decided to launch a missile attack on Moscow in October. By suppressing all evidence obtained from the bodies of victims of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17, officials of the Dutch Safety Board and associated Dutch military officers, police and prosecutors are preparing to release a report on the crash with a gaping hole in its veracity.

At the same time, and apparently unknown in The Netherlands, an Australian coroners’ report on the identification and forensic testing of the bodies carried out in The Netherlands reveals post-mortem evidence to show that in their public statements the Dutch government officials have been lying about metal evidence they claim to have found. This evidence has not only been buried with the passengers’ remains. It has been buried by the Dutch Government and by coroners in the UK and Australia, who are now legally required to investigate independently what caused the deaths of citizens in their jurisdiction. All are withholding the CT scans, X-rays, autopsy and other post-mortem results, including metallurgical assays, the documentation of which accompanied the coffins of the aircraft’s victims from The Netherlands to their homelands.


Erwin Muller (below, left), co-chairman of the Dutch Safety Board (DSB), the official aviation accident body, and Fred Westerbeke (right), a Dutch police officer heading the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a forensics unit of the Dutch prosecution authority, have announced that on July 1 a draft “final” report on the destruction of MH17 was issued to the states participating in the investigation.


There are 7 of these states, according to the DSB: The Netherlands, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia The JIT is a more restricted group comprising Dutch, Ukrainian, Australian, and Belgian security and intelligence officers. The Malaysians asked to join the JIT three months after its inception. The Dutch officials also claim they have been considering comments from officials of the other governments, and have scheduled October 13 for public release of the DSB document.

What the DSB report means now hinges — government officials, pathologists and lawyers say — on four lookalike words with fundamentally different meanings. The “first” is onderdelen (parts) which DSB officials have been using to refer to a Buk ground-to-air rocket. The second term is “metallfragmente” and “metalen deeltjes”, which Westerbeke and his spokesman have been using interchangeably to mean metal from outside the MH17, and also from the fuselage itself. The third key word is “missile”, which Australian coronial investigators say refers, not to a Buk or any other type of explosive ordnance, but to “flying objects which strike the body”. The fourth term is “raket”, which Dutch investigators, including those engaged in the official identification of the MH17 victims, say applies to air-to-ground rockets like Buk, as well as to air-to-air, infrared and other rockets fired by aircraft.

For the Dutch to make the case that MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made and Russian-deployed Buk ground-to-air missile, the metal in the corpses and body parts is the only certain evidence which has been recovered from the crash site; analysed painstakingly in the record of the Dutch investigations; and repatriated in certified dossiers Dutch and other sources say accompanied the coffins when they were flown home. This documentation is now held in files in The Netherlands and in the coronial agencies of all the countries to which remains and coffins have gone.

Over the past week Dutch, British, and Australian officials all refuse to confirm they are holding this evidence. Nor will they answer questions about when, or if, they plan to commence inquests at which this evidence must be presented publicly.

Dirk Huyer, the chief coroner in Ontario, home province of Andrei Anghel, the lone Canadian passenger to lose his life on MH17, says Canada is not going to investigate. “It is very uncommon for the death investigation system to become involved in a death that occurred outside of the province… Our authority for investigation is limited to Ontario—we do not have any authority to direct investigation outside of our provincial jurisdiction.” Accordingly, his office has not been involved in the MH17 investigation, “and therefore there will be no inquest.”

If the inquest evidence does not substantiate the difference in meaning of the ambiguous terms issued publicly so far – and if the inquests themselves are postponed indefinitely so the evidence is kept secret, then one conclusion is certain – there is no evidence that a Buk missile explosion struck MH17 and caused the death of those on board.

Professor George MaatA Dutch pathologist, Professor George Maat (right) who had participated directly in the identification of the bodies at Hilversum military base, was fired in April by the Dutch government for presenting medical students studying identification techniques with illustrations of the records he made. Last month Maat wrote to contradict claims circulating on Ukrainian websites that an X-ray showing metal fragments originated from either an MH17 victim, or from the Dutch investigation. The fabrication can be examined here. Maat presented no X-rays at his controversial lecture, and has aired no claim that missile shrapnel was identified in victim bodies.

An Australian coronial investigation, reported at a professional meeting of international coroners and pathologists in Melbourne, Australia, last November, has reported the only authenticated details of the process which the Dutch undertook after the crash. The two authors of the report are David Ranson (below, left) and Iain West (centre); the first is an associate professor of forensic pathology and deputy director of theVictorian Institute of Forensic Medicine; the second is the deputy state coroner at theCoroners Court of Victoria. This is the official agency in charge of receiving all 27 Australian victims of the MH17 crash. The Victoria state coroner, Judge Ian Gray (right), is also in charge of conducting investigations and inquests on 18 victims who were residents of Victoria, and who have been returned for burial to families in the state.


Reporting “the features of the remains”, Ranson and West say that “fire damage” was pervasive: “all patterns [including]…complete incineration, partial incineration, unburned”. The injuries they identify include those which destroyed the body “variably” and “completely”. There were, they report, “massive internal injuries with little external signs” and “no haemorrhage round fractures”. According to sources involved in the MH17 investigation, this means there was no blood pressure, and the victims were dead before they hit the ground.

Most importantly, the Australian experts report: “missile injuries [were] rare but present.” An Australian expert source who is familiar with the evidence covered by the Ranson-West report but who spoke on background, warns: “Don’t confuse the meaning of the word missile. It means flying objects which strike the body.” It is not known whether Ranson and West were shown X-rays or CT scans of the Australian victims. Their full report can be read here.

When MH17 was downed over eastern Ukrainian territory on July 17, 2014, a total of 298 people were on board. To date, remains of 296 have been recovered and officially identified, according to Dutch reports. The nationalities of the victims, reported from airline releases, are Dutch, 193; Malaysian, 43; Australian, 27; Indonesian, 12; British, 10; German, 4; Belgian, 4; Philippino, 3; New Zealanders, 1; and Canadians, 1. The identities of the 2 unrecovered individuals have not been released.

The Australian report spells out the problems of gathering and authenticating evidence in Ukraine, where there was “no forensic control”; where the international air crash guidelines issued by Interpol weren’t followed; and where there was “inappropriate interim storage and body preservation.” When the bodies reached the Dutch military barracks, where investigation took place, there was, according to Ranson and West, “CT scanning of contents of coffin.” They describe the triage procedure followed: “If suspicious foreign objects [identified on the scans], Proceed to Limited Forensic Autopsy. If no suspicious foreign objects – Proceed to DVI [Disaster Victim Identification] examination area.”

This reveals that CT scans were done of all remains, and thus a CT scan has been recorded for every victim whose body has been recovered and repatriated or transferred to the next of kin. There is no reference to X-rays at this stage of the Dutch procedure; they may have been taken during the “limited forensic autopsy”. One reason for suspecting that X-rays appearing in Ukrainian media are fakes is that the Dutch procedures used CT scans instead.

Ranson and West explain the steps followed for the main nationalities and the kinds of testing and evidence collected for identification.


The Australian report does not reveal what evidence was gathered in the “limited forensic autopsy”. But Ranson and West reveal that “suspicious foreign objects” detected in the CT scans as “missile injuries” were “rare”. Just how rare has been admitted, inadvertently, by the Dutch prosecutor Westerbeke.

What is certain, medical pathologists say, is that the Dutch autopsied remains in order to remove what the Australians are calling “suspicious foreign objects” when they were spotted. The timing of the repatriation process also indicates that Westerbeke had taken control of these “objects” and had tested them, assaying the metals and comparing the results with munitions specifications, by the time in October when the last repatriations to Australia took place. There can be no doubt, says a Dutch source, that “by then Westerbeke knew exactly what metal or metals he was dealing with.”

When the Dutch DVI process was completed, and to ensure that remains were reliably identified before repatriation, the Australian report says there were “documents and identification label checks.” For each individual, these materials included “CT scan and photography.”

Australian sources report these materials were then attached to each coffin for repatriation. All the Australian coffins were flown to Melbourne, transported to the Victorian coroner’s morgue, and re-certified. Those victims whose residence and next of kin were in other states were flown on to those destinations.

Australian sources say the Australian forensic and coronial court process is “alive and ongoing, but not yet started.” The sources say also “there have been meetings with the Australian Federal Police” (AFP), and this process is also continuing. Included in this police and government intelligence investigation are the Australian pathologists who worked on the DVI line in Holland, as well as other experts. The AFP has already collected a dossier of evidence, covered by a summary brief, which is circulating for discussion at meetings the AFP has called with the experts. This process and the brief are secret; some of the experts and investigators involved in the ante-mortem and identification process have been excluded. According to one expert, “there is enormous variation among the victims. Lots of possibilities [on cause of death] are being canvassed.”

Victorian coroner Gray was asked to say whether he has decided that the inquests he will hold will be restricted to identification of the victims, or will be extended to cause of death and forensic issues. Inside sources believe Gray will be guided by the AFP report. Gray was asked to say whether he will “be taking and considering evidence of victim injuries, including X-rays, CT scans, and reports of the Dutch authorities (LTFO, JIT, DSB) which accompanied the remains on repatriation? Will [he] be taking testimony from the Australian Federal Police (AFP)?”

His spokesman, Nola Los, replied: “Judge Gray will need to approve the release of any information relating to details regarding the Victorian victims of MH17. Unfortunately he will not be available to do so until next week.”

Los and Gray confirm the Australian count of 27 victims in all; 18 Victorians. Their cases are “open”, Los says, “that an inquest date is being considered for later this year.”

In the UK, where press reporting of the alleged Buk missile attack is widespread – as it is in Australia and Canada — there is a similar blackout in the coronial system. Altogether, 10 British nationals or residents have been identified on board the aircraft. However, because some were dual nationals or resident in other countries, the UK media have reported just 4 burials in the UK. Others may have been buried in Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

The government in London has announced that “special arrangements were made by the Chief Coroner [Judge Peter Thornton QC], following the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 disaster in Ukraine in July 2014. Coroners have a duty to investigate violent or unnatural deaths which occur overseas where the body is returned to England and Wales. In this case, with the consent of all families concerned, all repatriated bodies were received first in one central coroner area where one senior coroner co-ordinated all arrangements with the assistance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the police. The coroner’s co-ordinated investigations will be subject to the outcome of the extensive Dutch inquiries.”

Catherine MasonThe coroner in charge is Catherine Mason (right), who heads the coroners court in Leicester. A lawyer and nurse by training, she previously served in junior coroner posts in other regions, and has been chief coroner in Leicester for 6 years. A check of her court records for the MH17 victims’ names reveals that on September 22, 2014, the inquest into Richard Mayne’s death was opened, then immediately adjourned without a new date. A month later, on October 27, the inquest into the death of John Alder was also suspended. The legal authority cited for Mason’s action was Schedule 1 Paragraph 5 of the Coroners and Justice Act of 2009. This provides carte blanche: “a senior coroner may suspend an investigation under this Part of this Act into a person’s death in any case if it appears to the coroner that it would be appropriate to do so.”

Last week Mason was asked how many MH17 victim inquests she is conducting and their individual names. What circumstances, she was asked, “have you deemed to be appropriate for suspension in these cases? Have you delegated authority for evidence gathering and forensic testing in these cases to another body, British or foreign? To whom has this delegation been made, and on what authority?” Finally, Mason was asked what post-mortem or autopsy evidence of the victims’ remains she is holdng. Mason refuses to answer. A source at her court says Mason is deferring “while inquiries are conducted abroad.” The source implies the British Government has decided to rely on the Dutch for evidence.

In The Netherlands, the aviation accident body, the DSB, published its preliminary report in September 2014. For details of what evidence it identified and what conclusions it drew, read this. The day after the DSB release, the principal Russian official responsible for Russian participation in the Dutch investigation, Oleg Storchevoy (below), Deputy Head of the Federal Air Transport Agency (RosAviation), said the DSB had missed crucial evidence.

Oleg Storchevoy

The investigation should further study the data from the radars and post mortems of the victims. All these steps are widely regarded as a must in civil aviation and no preliminary conclusions are usually made before completing all of them. Regrettably, significant time has been wasted, and some of the data will be unavailable – I now refer to the remains of the victim’s bodies and the plane’s debris which are not secured enough and located in the zone of an armed conflict. Nevertheless, this work must be done to ensure a speedy and unbiased investigation into the cause of the crash.

Storchevoy was telling the DSB what it was already admitting in the preliminary report. On page 4, the report claimed it would include the “result of the pathological investigations” in “further work…to substantiate the factual information.” At page 32 the DSB repeated the promise that for “Further Investigations” it would analyse “results of pathological investigation”.

On September 25, RosAviation released the text of the letter Storchevoy had sent to DSB itemizing the evidence the DSB investigation should cover for its final report. Here is the 24-point release. Point 3 is a priority for evidence: “Pathological examination of the dead passengers and crew members, including the presence of submunitions and other foreign bodies and substances.”

At DSB Chairman Muller was asked to confirm he had read Storchevoy’s letter, and to say what reply he had sent. He refuses to say. He was then asked: “When the remains were released to relatives and repatriated, what death certificate was issued by the Dutch authorities? What was given as cause of death? Were X-rays taken of all victims’ remains? What other pathology tests were conducted on remains and tissue samples? What official documents accompanied the remains on repatriation, and did these include X-rays and other pathological investigation results?”

Sara VernooijMuller’s spokesman Sara Vernooij (right) replied, saying “as long as the investigation is ongoing we can’t give any information or details. The Dutch Safety Board will publish the final report on 13 October, before that we won’t issue any information concerning investigation material or sources.” But that cannot be true, she and Muller were told, since in recent days the DSB has issued news releases disclosing “information or details” on the purported discovery and investigation of Bukmissile parts; and on the manner and consciousness of victims ahead of their deaths.

Vernooij then conceded these were “information or details”, but she now claims: “I can’t give any more details than we already gave.” As for the questions to Muller about what evidence had been collected before repatriation, and what went on the Dutch death certificates, Vernooij said: “The repatriation and the identification is done by the forensic team of LTFO, spokesperson is Mr. Fransman ( ).”

3_1712The Landelijk Team Forensische Opsporing (National Forensic Investigations Team, LTFO) in the Netherlands is a police and military organ of the Dutch Government, headed by Arie De Bruin (right). In investigating the MH17 victims’ remains, the Dutch were joined by a German officer of the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), the Federal Criminal Police, and the equivalent AFP officer from Australia.

According to a Malaysian government release, the MH17 victim identification operation was “assisted by Executive Officers of (a) logistic and accommodation, (b) Ante-mortem (AM) Process, (c) post-mortem (PM) Process, (d) Reconciliation process and (e) Release Process . The other countries involved in the MH17 operation were Malaysia, Belgium, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and Indonesia. The team leaders of the 6 countries were officially appointed as executive officers in the DVI MH17 Organisation. A team of international forensic experts led by Dutchman Gert Wibbelink of the Dutch National Forensic Investigations Team, or LTFO, was handed control of the investigation in Kharkiv. The LTFO has eight staff members in Ukraine, including Mr. Wibbelink. “We have been collecting DNA samples, hair, fingerprints, information about scars or tattoos or moles,” from the victims’ first-degree relatives, Jos van Roo, the LTFO team leader in the Netherlands, said in an interview.”

Jean FransmanFor LTFO, spokesman Jean Fransman (right) was asked on Friday whether the LTFO procedures for the MH17 victims included an autopsy to determine cause of death and find shrapnel, bullet or other metal fragments; and to attach CT scan, X-ray and other pathological test results to the repatriated remains. Fransman claimed: “I’m not the spokesperson for the LTFO. But I will forward your questions to my colleagues.” The first point was false; the second, a deadend. When informed that he had been identified as LTFO spokesman by the DSB and on the signature line of his own email, and that he was making a record of misinformation and evasion by LTFO, Fransman stopped responding.

Fransman, like his boss de Bruin, did not know that the questions they refuse to answer have already been published by the Australians. This is the only public disclosure by LTFO of what it has been doing.

The remaining Dutch official to be asked the questions the Australians answered last year is Westerbeke of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT). The Dutch, Ukrainian, Australian and Belgian governments have announced that the JIT is bound by its founding agreement on August 7, 2014, to keep confidential the evidence it has been finding. Westerbeke’s record is one of leaking to the Dutch and German media, and to the BBC, details DSB claims to be withholding until next month. Westerbeke has made a record too of leaking one detail, and then contradicting it later.

According to this graphic, published by Westerbeke’s men, one of the key forms of evidence in his criminal investigation is “metal particles from victims’ bodies”.



On September 12, 2014, Westerbeke told a Dutch paper, De Volkskrant, that metal fragments had been found in victims’ bodies. According to this report, Westerbeke (and a police spokesman, Patricia Zorko) counted 500 samples that had been taken; this appears to be a count of what the Australians are calling the “limited forensic autopsy”. Explaining why the Australians have reported “missile injuries rare but present”, Westerbeke told the local newspaper there were 25 “metalen deeltjes” – that’s to say, “metal particles”, just as Westerbeke had put into his chart. If 25 of 500 samples had tested positive for metal, that was a rate of 5%.

Another way of estimating the rarity of the metal found can be gauged from a report written by Ranson for Coroner Gray in Melbourne, and then circulated to the families of victims. This indicates that more than 700 body parts were identified at Hilversum. If 25 tested positive for metal, then that’s a rate of just 3.6%. That appears to be a very small incidence in a jet aircraft struck from outside the fuselage. This number is also less than half the metal particles in the purported X-ray published by the Ukrainians. Westerbeke’s 25 count eliminates the Ukrainian picture as a fabrication.

The Ranson-West report confirms that for timing, these pieces of evidence had been collected early in the triage process at Hilversum barracks, possibly weeks before Westerbeke leaked the details. The DSB failed to mention them in its September report. Westerbeke himself omitted to say what testing he had already done on the “metal particles” to identify the metal.

BBC version of what Westerbeke said on September 12, 2014, adds detail: “At a news conference in Rotterdam on Friday, Fred Westerbeke…said that the investigation was particularly interested in the origin of 25 pieces of iron [sic], drawn from 500 samples. ‘The most likely scenario was that the plane was shot down from the ground,’ he said. ‘If we can establish that this iron is coming from such a missile, that is important information of course,’ he said. ‘At this moment we don’t know that, but that is what we are investigating.’”

Two other reporters listening to Westerbeke detected ambiguity in what he was actually claiming about the metal evidence. A DutchNews website claimed to have heard Westerbeke say the metal was found “between the wreckage [on the ground] and in some of the bodies, which could come from a missile.” A Reuters reporterclaimed the metal particles had been found in passenger luggage, as well as in bodies. The location of both Westerbeke omitted to say, concealing thereby whether they were concentrated in a pattern of shrapnel, and whether the metal samples were identical in all 25 cases.

A month later Westerbeke tried again, this time for German consumption. On October 27, 2014, Der Spiegel quoted Westerbeke as conceding the “Metallfragmente” could be “shrapnel from a Buk missile, possibly also parts of the aircraft itself.” Between Westerbeke’s two press leaks, the reporters had failed to notice that Westerbeke had taken 45 days not to confirm the nature of the metal he was holding. But he was conceding the original leak was losing its initial meaning. If the metal had been tested and compared against the aluminium, titanum and other alloys in the aircraft wings, walls and floor, then Westerbeke must have known whether “iron” was ruled in, or out.

Nine months then elapsed before Westerbeke started leaking again. Here he is in aninterview obligingly scripted in advance by the BCC, and broadcast on July 17. This time Westerbeke omitted to say anything at all about “metal”—and the BBC forgot to ask. Notwithstanding, there was no hesitation in London to headline the story: “MH17 investigator: Missile strike most credible scenario”.

Last week Westerbeke was asked to explain where all the missile metal had flown. Specifically, the Dutch policeman was asked questions to which the Australian coronial investigators had already revealed the answers. “Were X-rays taken of all victims’ remains? What other pathology tests were conducted on remains and tissue samples? What official documents accompanied the remains on repatriation, and did these include X-rays and other pathological investigation results? What release to any party of the investigation, including next of kin, has there been of these data, the so-called metal particle data?”

Westerebeke refuses to answer. This is the black hole the Dutch have created in their own investigation, but they are unable to fill it with “iron”, and they cannot explain how the alleged detonation of a Buk warhead could release so little recovered shrapnel; possibly none at all.

Posted in RussiaComments Off on The Malaysian MH17 Crash Investigation

Shoah’s pages


September 2015
« Aug   Oct »