Archive | July 16th, 2017

Message from UK High Court

Message from UK High Court: Carry on arming the Saudis (and never mind the slaughter in Yemen)
UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia kill Yemenis

By Stuart Littlewood

Campaigners are furious with a High Court decision in London allowing the British government to carry on exporting arms to Saudi Arabia for use against Yemenis.

The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) brought the legal action against the secretary of state for international trade for continuing to grant export licences for arms to Saudi Arabia, arguing that this was against UK policy, which states that the government must refuse such licences if there’s a clear risk that the arms might be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law.

It is undeniable that Saudi forces have used UK-supplied weaponry to violate international humanitarian law in their war on Yemen. According to the United Nations, well over 10,000 people have been killed, the majority by the Saudi-led bombing campaign which has also destroyed vital infrastructure such as schools and hospitals and contributed to the cholera crisis. Three million Yemenis have been displaced from their homes and seven million are on the brink of dying from famine. The UN children’s charity UNICEF reports that a child is dying in Yemen every 10 minutes from preventable causes, including starvation and malnourishment.

… the UK has licensed £3.3 billions worth of arms such as aircraft, helicopters, drones, missiles, grenades, bombs and armoured vehicles to the Saudi regime and refused to suspend the supply of weaponry for use in Yemen in the face of the horrors perpetrated.

A crippling naval blockade of the country by the US has been key to the cruel onslaught. The European Parliament and numerous humanitarian NGOs have condemned the Saudi air strikes as unlawful. And 18 months ago a UN Panel of Experts accused Saudi forces of “widespread and systematic” targeting of civilians.

Yet the UK has licensed £3.3 billions worth of arms such as aircraft, helicopters, drones, missiles, grenades, bombs and armoured vehicles to the Saudi regime and refused to suspend the supply of weaponry for use in Yemen in the face of the horrors perpetrated. It is claimed that the government has even ignored warnings by senior civil servants and its own arms control experts, and that some records of expressed concern have gone missing.

So who is the UK’s helping hand behind that vile regime’s murderous adventure in the Yemen? Why, it’s none other that senior Israel stooge Liam Fox, now secretary of state for international trade and the lead on trade and investment in the defence and security sector. He of course oversees export licensing. He also has “form” when it comes to thinking silly thoughts and doing stupid things in the foreign affairs arena, and he’s known as a crazed flag-waver for Israel and a sworn enemy of Iran.

While secretary of state for defence, Fox told us: “Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.”

Fox was forced to resign as Defence Secretary in 2011 following the scandal involving him, his “close friend” Adam Werritty, the UK ambassador to Israel, and Israeli intelligence figures allegedly involved in plotting sanctions against Iran.

The reason for the British government’s hostility towards Iran was spelled out by David Cameron in a speech to the Knesset in 2014:

A nuclear armed Iran is a threat to the whole world not just Israel. And with Israel and all our allies, Britain will ensure that it is never allowed to happen.

That position carries forward into the present day.

And in June 2015 Fox declared:

It is logical to assume that Iran’s intentions are to develop a nuclear weapons capability and any claims that its intentions are exclusively peaceful should not be regarded as credible… Iran’s nuclear intentions cannot be seen outside the context of its support for terror proxies, arguably the defining feature of its foreign policy. The risks are clear.

What he omitted to say was that Iran’s intentions must also be seen in the context of Israel’s foreign policy, its refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the grave threat posed by the Zionist regime’s 200 (or is it 400?) nuclear warheads. Israel hasn’t signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention either, and has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, likewise the Chemical Weapons Convention. Iran and all the other nations in the region have every right to feel nervous.

As is well known, Israel and Saudi Arabia have formed a cosy alliance. No entities deserve each other more. And Britain will do anything, it seems, to get at Iran through these repulsive “friends”.

Instead of dangling from a lamp-post on Tower Bridge, Fox was quickly rehabilitated and re-promoted to senior office by fellow stooges like Theresa May. Just lately Prime Minister May has accused Iran of working with Hezbollah, interfering in Iraq, sending fighters to Syria to help Assad, and supporting the Houthis in the conflict in Yemen. The British government, of course, can meddle where it pleases and do dirty weapons deals with the Saudis which, Mrs May assures us, are for the sake of long-term security in the Gulf. “Gulf security is our security,” she says, arguing that the same extremists who plot terror in the Gulf states are also targeting the streets of Europe.

Toxic relationship with Saudi Arabia exposed

So, how did Fox manage to defeat the campaigners in court? After all, as Rosa Curling of Leigh Day (acting for CAAT) said:

The law is clear: where there is a clear risk that UK arms might be used in the commission of serious violations of international law, arm sales cannot go ahead.

Nothing in the open evidence presented by the UK government to the court suggests this risk does not exist in relation to arms to Saudi Arabia. Indeed, all the evidence we have seen from Yemen suggests the opposite: the risk is very real… Our government should not be allowing itself to be complicit in the grave violations of law taking place by the Saudi coalition in Yemen.

Andrew Smith of CAAT said:

If this verdict is upheld then it will be seen as a green light for government to continue arming and supporting brutal dictatorships and human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia that have shown a blatant disregard for international humanitarian law….

This case has seen an increased scrutiny of the government’s toxic relationship with Saudi Arabia. It is a relationship that more than ever needs to be examined and exposed. For decades the UK has been complicit in the oppression of Saudi people, and now it is complicit in the destruction of Yemen.

Rachel Sylvester in The Times noted that the judges concluded there was “a substantial body of evidence suggesting that the [Saudi-led] coalition committed serious breaches of international humanitarian law in the course of its engagement in the Yemen conflict”, but the ruling was based on a narrow legal point about whether ministers had followed proper procedures and acted rationally in assessing the risks.

“Whatever the result of the legal process,” she wrote, “it’s time for the government to reconsider Britain’s poisonous relationship with Saudi Arabia, starting with the suspension of arms sales to a country that stands accused of appalling human rights abuses within its own borders as well as the funding of extremism abroad. What is UK foreign policy for if not the promotion of this country’s values around the world?”

And, as she points out, last year the UK committed £85 million to the aid effort in Yemen, making the Department for International Development the fourth largest donor to the crisis.

So, just as we pour millions of pounds of aid into the Palestinian territories to subsidise the illegal Israeli occupation while at the same time supplying the regime in Tel Aviv with arms to sustain its occupation, we are spending all this taxpayers’ money in Yemen to clean up the mess we’re helping the Saudis to make.

Secret evidence favours the evil

Fox succeeded thanks to “closed sessions”. This meant that CAAT and their legal team weren’t allowed to see much of what was presented by the government, which could only be examined by a security-cleared “special advocate”.

The secret evidence is said to have included Saudi Arabia’s “fast-jet operational reporting data”, “high-resolution MoD-sourced imagery” and “UK defence intelligence reports and battle damage assessments”. The MoD (Ministry of Defence) and Foreign Office analysis had “all the hallmarks of a rigorous and robust, multi-layered process of analysis” while the evidence presented by the campaigners was “only part of the picture”. The court said the secret evidence could not be referred to in open court for reasons of “national security”.

But what has all the MoD’s highfaluting technical tosh to do with justice? Or the basic concept of right and wrong? And especially international humanitarian law?

And our national security? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So the slaughter must go on in that distant land.

Labour’s shadow international trade secretary, Barry Gardenier, suggested in the House of Commons that the “secret” evidence should be made available to MPs for scrutiny “on privy council terms” or handed to the Intelligence and Security Select Committee. Sounds reasonable enough.

But Fox is reported saying:

This idea that somehow, if we have closed sessions, that makes the judgment less valid, I simply don’t accept. Because I don’t accept this idea that we simply can’t have closed sessions that protect our national security or the personnel involved in our national security. Our sources need to be protected.

Yeah, and so do Yemeni civilians – from us.

He admitted that “Yemen is indeed a humanitarian disaster” but said it was right to keep selling arms to Saudi Arabia. He may have won the legal point – for now. But he has clearly lost his moral compass, if he ever had one.

Posted in Campaigns, Saudi Arabia, UKComments Off on Message from UK High Court

Judea declares war on British musician Roger Waters

Roger Waters writing "We don't need no thought control" on Israel's apartheid wall

Gilad Atzmon writes:

I am not the only musician whose career they are trying to destroy. The musician Roger Waters is also being subjected to a vile Zionist smear campaign. The Jewish press reports that a documentary titled Wish You Weren’t Here by Ian Halperin is about to hit the screens in every shtetl around the world.

According to the Wish You Weren’t Here trailer, Waters is to blame for the rise of anti-Semitsm, the failing of Israel and, for good measure, all other current Jewish problems. Impressive achievement, I must admit.

Halperin says: “To me, an attack on Israel is an attack against the Jewish people.” I guess Halperin deems both Israel and the Jewish people are beyond criticism. At least we know what choseness means these days. The question that remains open is whether the so-called goyim (gentiles) are going to buy into this intense delusional nonsense.

Halperin says he met psychologists who work with holocaust survivors and their families. After the meeting, he could diagnose the effect of Waters’s floating pig bearing the Star of David as “unforgiveable” for survivors. For once, I see Halperin’s point. As an ex-Jew who eats everything but kosher, I was also a bit offended by Waters’s attempt to give pork a kosher stamp.

The cinematic tactics used to defame Waters are boiler plate by now. The film juxtaposes Jewish suffering with Waters. “The terrorist’s friend”, the one who supports Arabs and Muslims. Halperin attempts to score points by appealing to the lowest xenophobic, racist intuitions. Waters, I guess, will easily survive this bombastic Zionist campaign for the same reason Corbyn survived the “anti-Semite” slur. People out there aren’t as stupid as the Hasbara (Israeli propaganda) book wants them to be.

Waters’s opposition to Zionism and Israel is anti-authoritarian and consistent with his long-standing general message of peace and reconciliation. The British Jewish lobby failed to detect that the more they attacked Corbyn and his amicable attitude towards Hamas and Hezbollah, the more popular he became…

Wish You Weren’t Here is set to portray Waters as a bigot, but instead it will be a window into tribal vindictiveness. Portraying an endless stream of right wing ultra-Zionists denouncing a dedicated peace advocate as a bigot and an anti-Semite for criticising Israeli apartheid is a dangerous game. It could easily backfire and might well prove very dangerous for the Jews.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Judea declares war on British musician Roger Waters

Instead of Taylor Force Act, Congress should consider Rachel Corrie Act, Orwah Hammad Act


From top left: Emily Henoschowitz, Tariq Abukhdair, Brian Avery, Tristan Anderson, Rachel Corrie, Orwah Hammad.
By Kathryn Shihadah | If Americans Knew 

Sometimes it takes a tragedy to bring about change. The story of Taylor Force is one such tragedy. A young American in the prime of his life was stabbed to death in an unnecessary, unprovoked act of terrorism while  in Israel on a Vanderbilt University study program. Perhaps the only good that can come of such a dreadful event is in learning a lesson to ensure that it never happen again.

Our government wants to protect its citizens wherever they are in the world, so enacting some constructive legislation would be a smart move. Unfortunately, that’s not what Congress is currently contemplating.

The US Senate is debating a bill right now—the Taylor Force Act—that would prohibit foreign aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories unless the Palestinian Authority ends stipends to the families of those who have been killed, injured, or imprisoned. Congressional reasoning is that the so-called “Martyrs’ Fund” encourages terrorism.

The United States currently gives The Palestinian Authority a relatively small amount of aid each year (in 2016 about $300 million, roughly 8 percent of what Israel receives); the Taylor Force Act would withhold about $230 million until the Fund disappears.

It is important to understand that this fund is not an incentive for Palestinians to commit terrorism. It is a social program to provide for the families of those killed, injured, or held prisoner by hostile forces. 

Most of the fund provides for those killed or injured while peacefully demonstrating, defending their property, or going about their business, and the thousands wrongly imprisoned or detained without charge. This is the program that would be shut down by the Taylor Force Act.

The fund also supports Palestinians killed by Israel while using armed resistance – in the case of Taylor Force, a knife – against a country that has one of the most powerful, advanced militaries on earth.

It is customary for members of an oppressed population to resist. In fact, it is an internationally recognized right, as stated by the UN in 1982:

The General Assembly…reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of all peoples for independence….and liberation from…foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.

Palestinians have engaged in this struggle for independence from foreign occupation since 1967, only to find themselves losing more lives, land, and rights every day.

Undeniably, the killing of Taylor Force and other civilians is a war crime, and it is legitimate to abhor such a crime–no matter the nationality of the criminal. All countries that engage in war have killed large numbers of civilians–nevertheless, all governments provide for the families of soldiers who have died in the line of duty. This includes the Palestinian government. Enabling these families to put food on the table is not an endorsement of any act of terrorism but a humane, compassionate act. No country should be required to withhold such support.

It must also be said that the shutdown of this social program would likely result in the opposite of the intended outcome: it may lead to yet more resentment and extremism.

Proposed legislation that could make things better, not worse

Perhaps instead of the Taylor Force Act, Congress should bring some other bills to the floor—bills that would begin to address the real problems in Israel/Palestine.

Here are a few suggestions.

We could start with the Rachel Corrie Act, prohibiting the U.S. from giving aid to countries that practice home demolitions. Rachel Corrie was killed in 2003 as she worked in Palestine with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). Rachel, clearly visible with a neon vest and bullhorn, confronted an IDF soldier on a bulldozer, about to demolish the home of a Palestinian pharmacist, when she was run over in what is widely believed to be a deliberate act.

The incident was investigated by the Israeli army and deemed “a regrettable accident” (as is often the case when Israelis are violent). An IDF spokesman explained that the group of protesters that day were “acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger.” Interestingly, peacekeepers were the danger, not the demolition team at the home of an innocent man and his family.

The Rachel Corrie Act might discourage Israel from this ongoing, illegal practice. (Over 48,000 homes and other structures have been destroyed since the occupation began in 1967.) Rachel Corrie was from Washington, so Senators Patty Murray (D) and Maria Cantwell (D) from Washington should consider sponsoring such a bill. It might encourage Israel to desist from the collective punishment practice of demolishing homes.

Another idea for legislation would be the Brian Avery Act. This bill would prohibit the U.S. from giving aid to countries that use curfews as a form of collective punishment. Brian Avery was shot in the face in an unprovoked attack by Israeli soldiers during a curfew in the West Bank city of Jenin.

Curfews often last for days or weeks, sometimes even months, with only brief respites to obtain food. Sometimes the interludes are cut short without warning, and then enforced punitively. Palestinians have often been killed or injured during curfews; many more have their education disrupted, lose their jobs, or go out of business; the health of others suffers due to lack of medication or medical treatment. In addition, curfews often include home invasions and detentions.

Brian Avery, an American, was acting as an international observer during the curfew as he, like Rachel Corrie, worked for the ISM. He was wearing a reflective vest and had his hands up, but he was shot and seriously injured. His injuries were too severe to handle in the local hospital, but Israel spent several hours in negotiation before allowing him to be transported to an Israeli hospital. Even still, the ambulance was stopped at the border for an hour.

The investigation into this incident was completely botched and Brian’s injury was deemed “an unfortunate incident” because according to IDF Colonel Dan Hefetz, ISM activists “knowingly endanger themselves.” The Brian Avery Anti-Curfew Act might stop this dangerous form of collective punishment from causing any more tragedies. Brian came to Palestine from New Mexico, so Martin Heinrich (D) and Tom Udall (D) should consider sponsoring the bill. It could save the lives, careers, businesses, and health of many Palestinians.

Another possible piece of legislation would be the Emily Henoschowitz Act, which would limit aid to countries that illegally besiege another country or practice piracy on the high seas. Emily Henoschowitz is an Israeli-American who got involved with ISM in 2010 when she found the Palestinian situation too compelling to ignore.

While Emily was in Palestine, the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, loaded with humanitarian aid and construction materials for Gaza, was attacked by Israel. Nine Turkish citizens (one also an American citizen) were killed. When Emily heard about this incident, she joined in a demonstration. She was hit in the face with a tear gas canister.

Emily resents the attention she has gotten over her injury, compared to hordes of Palestinians who are injured or killed daily without notice. “I’m white, I’m Jewish, I’m an Israeli citizen and American,” she points out. “When I’m hit by tear gas there are articles, the Israeli government gets involved. When Palestinians are hit, who gives a s***?”

The root of this issue is not Emily’s presence at a demonstration or even the act of piracy against the Freedom Flotilla. The root is the siege of Gaza—now in its tenth year—that necessitated international intervention. The siege by Israel has sealed off Gaza by land, sea, and air, and destroyed the region’s economy. Combined with “wars” against the people of Gaza, contaminated water, and electricity shortages—all perpetrated by Israel—the siege is the real problem. The Emily Henoschowitz Act might cause Israel to finally pull back its brutal blockade. Emily is from Maryland, so Senators Ben Cardin (D) and Chris Van Hollen (D) should bring some accountability by sponsoring this bill.

The Tristan Anderson Act would limit U.S. aid to countries that restrict other countries’ freedom of movement by building barriers. In 2009, Tristan Anderson was in the town of Ni’lin, at one of the weekly demonstrations against the West Bank Barrier. Most of Ni’lin’s residents get their income from agriculture, and the wall was set to cut farmers off from 1/3 of their land. Israeli Border Police rarely allow such protests occur without reprisal. ISM describes the incident: “Tristan was shot in the face from about 60 meters away, crushing his skull, blinding him in one of his eyes, and sending shards of bone penetrating deep into his brain.” This occurred after the demonstration had finished.

Investigation showed that at the time of the incident, Tristan was half a mile from the wall and had not been near it for hours. Why he was shot with a tear gas canister is not clear—no one has given an explanation. Meanwhile, eight years later, “Tristan continues to require around the clock care because of cognitive impairment and physical disability. He is also paralyzed on half his body and uses a wheelchair.”

The “good” news is that Israel has since begun using a less lethal method of crowd control in Ni’lin. It is nicknamed “skunk water,” [see this video] and Reuters paints a vivid picture of the practice: “Imagine taking a chunk of rotting corpse from a stagnant sewer, placing it in a blender and spraying the filthy liquid in your face. Your gag reflex goes off the charts and you can’t escape, because the nauseating stench persists for days.”

In an official statement that denies freedom of speech and assembly to both Palestinians and visitors, the IDF announced its regret that “foreign nationals co-operate with violent rioters against the building of the security fence, whose purpose is saving the lives of Israeli citizens. [Anyone] who illegally participates in a violent demonstration takes upon himself the risk of personal harm during the dispersal of these disturbances.” The Tristan Anderson Anti-Barrier Act could give Israel the motivation to tear down that wall and so that Palestinians can enjoy the freedom that all people deserve. Tristan is from California, and his senators, Dianne Feinstein (D) and Kamala Harris (D) ought to sponsor this bill in order to encourage the deconstruction of the Wall.

Congress might also consider a Tariq Abukhdeir Act, which would limit U.S. funding of countries that imprison and/or detain minors. Tariq Abukhdeir is an American citizen who was visiting his family in Palestine for the summer. His cousin Mohammed had been burned alive in a horrific act just a day earlier by Israeli settlers.

In the summer of 2014 Tariq, then 15 years old, was severely beaten by two Israeli police, then dragged and repeatedly kicked before being arrested for allegedly throwing stones. He adamantly denied the charge, but remained in prison for several days. In spite of a video of the assault, “showing at least two Israelis methodically delivering blows to Tariq’s limp body,” only one officer was prosecuted. He was found guilty and sentenced to 45 days of community service.

This case got wide attention because Tariq is an American citizen. At least 8,000 Palestinian children have been arrested since 2000 and placed in a military detention system “notorious for the systematic ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian children.” Most are accused of throwing stones, which carries a potential maximum sentence of 10 to 20 years.

As for adults, If Americans Knew reports, “Since the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory in 1967, more than 800,000 Palestinians have been detained under Israeli military orders in the occupied Palestinian territory. This number constitutes approximately 20 percent of the total Palestinian population in the oPt and as much as 40 percent of the total male Palestinian population.”

The United States should not tolerate this excessive incarceration–especially of minors. The Tariq Abukhdeir Act might cause Israel to think twice before imprisoning children. Bill Nelson (D) and Marco Rubio (R) of Florida, Tariq’s home state, need to lead the way by sponsoring this bill.

And finally, Congress should propose the Orwah Hammad Act, which would cut off funding to any country that encourages the practice of building of settlements inside other countries.  Orwah Hammad, an American citizen, was 14 years old in 2014 when he participated in a weekly demonstration in the town of Silwad. He was shot in the neck with a live bullet, and died that night. During his funeral, IDF soldiers fired rubber-coated steel bullets and tear gas.

Silwad residents have been fighting for their property and livelihood for 20 years, since Israel confiscated much of their farmland to build a settlement. This is an illegal act under international law.

International law hasn’t stopped Israel from building over 250 settlements all over the West Bank, with approximately 500,000 Israeli settlers. In addition to the built-up areas, Jewish-only roads and closed military zones—also illegal—give Israel control of fully fifty percent of the West Bank. The Orwah Hammad Anti-Settlement Act might cause Israel to rethink the wisdom of breaking yet another international law. Senators John N. Kennedy (R) and Bill Cassidy (R) of Orwah’s home state of Louisiana should sponsor the bill.

The stories of Rachel, Brian, Emily, Tristan, Tariq, and Orwah have been heard around the world because they are—or were—American citizens. A handful of European advocates for Palestinians have also been killed or injured, and have also made the papers. A number of Israelis have also tragically died or been hurt. But thousands of Palestinian children, women, and men have died; tens of thousands have been injured; hundreds of thousands live in poverty; millions are without hope and without help.

The Taylor Force Act would lead to more suffering for Palestinians, and more boldness on the part of Israel, as US complicity would only reinforce Israel’s current actions. Home demolitions, detention of minors, the West Bank barrier, settlements, curfews, and skunk water would all continue unchecked.

These illegal practices and collective punishment methods only make Palestinians angrier and more hopeless, resulting in an ever-escalating cycle of violence.

The Foreign Assistance Act, which “prohibits…assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violation of internationally recognized human rights,” sounds like it can be applied to Israel. Why are we forking over $10 million a day, $3.5 billion a year, to the Israeli government?

The answer is in the fine print: “except when extraordinary circumstances exist which necessitate continuation of such assistance or the national interest of the United States requires such assistance.” Our leaders seem to think Israel’s continued human rights abuses are in our best interest.

How is a system of oppression and illegal occupation, that births resentment and violence, good for America? Or Israel? Or anyone?

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Instead of Taylor Force Act, Congress should consider Rachel Corrie Act, Orwah Hammad Act

John Laughland: Non-interventionism: the Forgotten Doctrine


Image result for Non-interventionism CARTOON

Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute 

“Non-interventionism: the Forgotten Doctrine”

John Laughland (France) – Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, Director of Studies

Posted in USAComments Off on John Laughland: Non-interventionism: the Forgotten Doctrine

US court dismisses Yemen drone strike wrongful death suit


Image result for US drone IN YEMEN CARTOON

A US appeals court has upheld a decision dismissing a lawsuit brought by a Yemeni man whose family was killed by a US drone strike. The plaintiff alleges that his family members were innocent bystanders when they were struck by the missile.

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which consisted of a three-judge panel, came to an agreement with lower courts that stated they, too, did not have the authority to judge government military actions. An August 2012 drone strike in Yemen, which killed, among others, Salem bin Ali Jaber and Waleed bin Ali Jaber, is what this case is based upon.

Faisal bin Ali Jaber is a Yemeni engineer. He and his family sued the US government for the deaths of Salem, his brother-in-law, and Waleed, his nephew. Jaber made the claim that the deadly strike was in violation of the Torture Victim Protection Act and the Alien Tort Statute.

Jaber’s family members were killed by a “signature strike,” which target individuals through information and data obtained from electronic devices such as mobile phones.

In 2015, the families of the two deceased men brought a case against the US government, then-President Barack Obama and other US officials, for “wrongful deaths.”

Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote a rare separate opinion, although she also wrote the decision in the case as the three-judge panel was unanimous.

“Of course this begs the question, if judges will not check this outsized power, then who will?”

The outcome that Jaber and his family wanted for the case was a declaratory judgement, which would make the court admit that the US violated international law governing the use of force when killing his family members with the drone strike.

Court documents from 2015 say the family made the claim that the hellfire missile attack by a US drone, which was deployed in the Yemeni village of Khashamir, which killed their family members, was unlawful.

Judge Brown didn’t hesitate to question some of the US government’s practices in the case.

“Of course this begs the question, if judges will not check this outsized power, then who will?” She continued, “the spread of drones cannot be stopped, but the US can still influence how they are used in the global community – including, someday, seeking recourse should our enemies turn these powerful weapons 180 degrees to target our homeland. The Executive and Congress must establish a clear policy for drone strikes and precise avenues for accountability,” Brown said in her opinion of the case.

Brown also stated that US congressional oversight is a “joke” and that “our democracy is broken.”

The other two judges on the panel did not join in Brown’s separate opinion, Reuters reported.

Read more:

  Families sue US govt, seek official apology over drone killings in Yemen

Posted in USA, YemenComments Off on US court dismisses Yemen drone strike wrongful death suit

Alford about Hollywood and its relationship to the Army


Image result for Hollywood CARTOON

RT Deutsch

Matthew Alford interviewed by Jasmin Kosubek from “Der fehlende Part” about Hollywood and its relationship to the Army.

Posted in USAComments Off on Alford about Hollywood and its relationship to the Army

Orwell’s Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change


Image result for Orwellian CARTOON


Who controls the temperature datasets controls the past, and who controls the past controls the future. Welcome to the Orwellian world of temperature adjustments and climate alarmism. Sit up straight and buckle up tight, because this is consensus science as brought to you by Big Brother.


Posted in USAComments Off on Orwell’s Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change

6 Americans who should be investigated for their Ukrainian ties


By Adam Garrie | The Duran 

Incoming FBI Director Cristopher Wray has stated that he would be interested in investigating links between officials of the Ukrainian regime and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

With evidence mounting that high level officials in Kiev actively worked with the Clinton campaign to try and influence US voters, it is imperative that any future investigation isn’t whitewashed simply because Kiev’s tactics failed to win the election for Clinton.

Although the investigation into Donald Trump’s non-existent links with Russia have unsurprisingly come up with virtually nothing of interest, the methods of the investigation ought to be examined and replicated where necessary in a future Ukraine-Clinton investigation.

One of the most fascinating aspects of the so-called Russiagate investigation is that seemingly anyone connected to Donald Trump who ever had a conversation with a Russian, irrespective of their lack of involvement in Russian politics, is a person of interest to investigators.

The same tactics could be accurately applied to an investigation into Clinton and the Democratic party’s links with Ukraine.

Here are the people that ought to be questioned.

1. Hunter Biden 

Hunter Biden is the youngest son of Barack Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden. In April of 2014, just two months after the February coup in Kiev, Joe Biden visited Ukraine where he gave a tub-thumping speech about the need for the Ukrainian regime to rely less on Russian gas supplies.

Weeks later, Hunter Biden was appointed to the board of directors of Ukraine’s largest private sector gas company, Burisma.

While many spoke of a prima facie conflict of interest in the appointment, the US mainstream media’s favourable stance towards the Obama administration meant that the story never saw the light of day.

The issue remains prescient, especially in light of allegations regarding wide spread Ukrainian collusion with the Democratic party in respect of the 2016 election.

2. Joe Biden

The timing of Joe Biden’s anti-Russian Ukrainian gas speech and his son’s appointment to the board of a major Ukrainian energy company necessarily means that the former American Vice President is a person of interest.

No one could reasonably believe that the proximate timing of the former VP’s speech and his son’s appointment to the board of Burisma was coincidental.

This is a matter which speaks of itself.

3. Alexandra Chalupa

For over 10 years, Chalupa, a US citizen of Ukrainian origin worked for the Democratic party. It has been established that she had multiple meetings at the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. in order to dig up dirt on former Trump campaign worker Paul Manafort.

Chalupa claims that her visits to the Ukrainian Embassy were for unrelated endeavours. Her word should not be take at face value. Her interactions with foreign officials in relation to the 2016 US election should be fully investigated.

 4. John McCain 

Unlike Chalupa, McCain is not a Democrat, McCain has more political ties to Ukraine than anyone in the US Senate. His position as a former Presidential candidate and a strong critic of Donald Trump makes him a person of interest.

McCain is something of a fanatic when it comes to the Ukraine issue. Prior to the coup of February 2014, McCain was frequently pictured in Kiev with many extremist and fascist leaders who actively participated in the coup.

McCain recently visited Ukrainian leader Petro Poroshenko along with troops loyal to the regime during the 2016/2017 New Year’s holiday.

This visit, just weeks  before Donald Trump’s inauguration ought to be thoroughly investigated as well as McCain’s other connections to a plethora of Ukrainian politicians, leaders, business and military figures.

For these reasons and because of McCain’s increasingly dubious role in allegedly leaking the so-called ‘Urinegate’ dossier to the media, he is clearly a person of interest.

5. Maxine Waters 

Maxine Waters is a Democratic Congresswoman from Los Angeles whose anti-Russian rhetoric is vile and at times incoherent, but nevertheless protected by free speech.

It is not clear if Waters has any direct connections with Ukrainian authorities, but an innocent prank call by the Russian comic callers Vovan and Lexus to Waters, reveals that she is highly susceptible to anti-Russian propaganda. The fact she engaged with the prank callers, seemingly believing that they were officials from Kiev, means that Waters ought to be questioned about any real calls she may have taken from actual Ukrainian regime officials.

For those who believe that Waters is far removed from the sandal, one ought to be reminded that political commentator Alex Jones has been accused by Hillary Clinton of being a Russian agent. It was later confirmed by Jones and other media outlets that the FBI is currently investigating whether Jones’s platform InfoWars as well as Breitbart had direct links with Russia.

InfoWars and Breitbart can hardly be considered Russophile outlets, but the fact remains that Waters has said far more in favour of Ukraine than InfoWars or Breitbart have of Russia.

What’s good for the goose is good for a much more prominent gander.

6. Lindsey Graham 

Lindsey Graham was a Trump opponent before it became fashionable in certain quarters. During the Republican primary, Donald Trump read out Graham’s private phone number and encouraged his supporters to ring up the Senator.

Graham was furious with Trump and later had to change his phone number.

When it comes to being a US Senator with close ties to the Ukrainian regime, only John McCain has more than Graham. Graham indeed accompanied McCain to Ukraine on his infamous New Year’s excursion and has close personal contacts with many individuals in Kiev.

For the same reasons McCain should be of interest to anyone who wants to unearth the extent of Ukrainian interference in American democracy, Graham ought to be on the list too.

Posted in USA, UkraineComments Off on 6 Americans who should be investigated for their Ukrainian ties

Nazi firms promote military tourism at fantasy terror camps


A growing number of Nazi firms promote the regime’s military tourism in the occupied territories by offering tourists from across the world courses that include simulated situations of killing assailants who suspiciously look like Palestinian Arabs.

Half a dozen Nazi firms run several fantasy terror camps across the occupied territories, which allow foreign tourists to receive training like Nazi forces for $115 per person in a variety of situations such as explosions, stabbing attacks, sniper tournaments and live demonstrations with attack dogs.

The two-hour camps also allow the tourists to use actual guns and have former soldiers and retired officials guide them as to how to shoot the targets, which are usually photos of Palestinian Arabs.

Apart from the training programs, the Nazi companies are also earning revenues from merchandise they sell, including T-shirts and hard-core military equipment.

Caliber 3 in the West Bank settlement of Gush Etzion, the first and reportedly “the most popular” facility of its kind in Israel, attracts approximately 15,000 to 25,000 tourists each year.

The facility also runs a three-month summer camp for teenage boys, which includes training and lessons on Zionism.

In a Tuesday report, Zionist daily Haaretz described the camps as “part-propaganda and part-morbid amusement.”

Observers warn that the facilities, which are constantly profiting from the idea of threat of war in Israel, are mainly aimed at promoting anti-Palestinian sentiments and forging a moral image for the Nazi army.
The file photo by Zionist daily Haaretz shows a poster for the Caliber 3 military training camp in July 2017.

While most of the visitors comprise American Jews, the facilities have also attracted a considerable number of tourists from Brazil, Argentina, France, Italy, Russia and China.

Nazi are also promoting the idea of fantasy terror camps abroad, with Cherev Gidon, a US-based Nazi military training school, providing specialized courses on Nazi tactical shooting techniques at its branches across America.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi firms promote military tourism at fantasy terror camps

Nazi regime 24-7 ‘War’ on Palestine Rights Movement

Israel’s 24-7 ‘War’ on Palestine Rights Movement Torpedoes Events, Advances Anti-boycott Legislation

Israel’s 24-7 ‘War’ on Palestine Rights Movement Torpedoes Events, Advances Anti-boycott Legislation

The 29th floor of Tel Aviv’s Champion Tower is the nerve center of a 24-7 ‘war’ against Palestinian rights supporters around the world. Israeli agents working behind the scenes advance legislation, torpedo events, organize counter protests, close bank accounts. The Director says: ‘In order to win we must use tricks and craftiness.’

By Alison Weir | If Americans Knew 

An Israeli newspaper reports that a special office in Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs is advancing anti-boycott, pro-Israel legislation around the world.

Israel’s Ynet News reports: “The State of Israel is waging one of its most important and difficult battles: The war on delegitimization and on the boycott movement.” The Ministry has mapped 150 entities and has implemented what it calls a “combat doctrine” against them.

According to Ynet, the ministry has created a $70 million unit that works “24-7” to monitor and counter activism in support of Palestinian rights.

The unit, named “The Battle,” has worked to advance legislation, torpedo events, block bank accounts, thwart funding, and organize counter protests. It has also placed agents in Israeli embassies around the world.

The Ministry’s Director-General Sima Vaknin-Gil says that in order to win, Israel must “must use tricks and craftiness.”

According to Ynet, the office monitors “all protests, conferences, publications calling for an anti-Israel boycott and international bodies’ boycott initiatives. It then transfers the information to the relevant people to provide a proper response to these activities, whether through a counter-protest or through moves to thwart the initiative behind the scenes.”

Israel’s justice department has agreed to exclude the unit from Israel’s Freedom of Information Law.

Gilad Erdan, Minister of Public Security, Strategic Affairs and Information, states:

“Since the ministry began leading the war on the boycott movement, boycott organizations have been under constant pressure.

“Legislation is being advanced in Israel and in the world, the organizations are under financial pressure which includes closing bank accounts and thwarting donations, and the hypocrisy of bodies disguised as ‘human rights organizations’ is being exposed. My policy of moving from the defense to the offense has proved itself, but there’s a lot more to be done.”

Numerous anti-boycott, pro-Israel bills are making their way through U.S. governmental bodies.

The U.S. Congress passed anti-boycott legislation in 2015, at least 22 state legislatures throughout the country have enacted anti-boycott bills, and anti-boycott legislation in other states is in process.

In addition, legislation calling criticism of Israel “anti-Semitic is being advanced at both the federal and state levels, and similar regulations are being adopted on college campuses. Related laws and resolutions are also being promoted internationally.

Israeli efforts to influence events in the U.S. are not new. In 1994 a former Mossad agent described on C-Span how the Mossad used pro-Israel organizations to plant claims that individuals critical of Israel are “antisemitic.”

In 1963 Senator William Fulbright discovered that Israel had given more than $5 million ($40 million in today’s dollars ) to organizations and individuals in the U.S. to influence public opinion in favor of Israel.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi regime 24-7 ‘War’ on Palestine Rights Movement

Shoah’s pages