Archive | March 30th, 2018

For the World Community, Palestinian Lives Don’t Matter

NOVANEWS

(stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)

Throughout its sordid history, Israel turned the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and especially Gaza into free-fire zones – killing, injuring, maiming, and otherwise brutalizing Palestinians with impunity.

The world community doesn’t care about Palestinian lives and welfare – doing nothing to stop Israeli occupation harshness, nothing to hold its officials accountable for Nuremberg-level high crimes, nothing to protect the rights and welfare of millions of tyrannized Palestinians.

March 30, 2018 will long be remembered as bloody Friday – the horrific toll through 8:00PM local time included 17 Palestinians murdered by Israeli snipers and tank fire, another 1,416 wounded, mostly by live fire, including use of expanding (dumdum) bullets, designed to cause maximum internal injuries – according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

The toll should shock the conscience of everyone. At least 20 wounded Palestinians suffered life-threatening injuries, the death toll virtually certain to rise.

Israeli viciousness came in response to day one of a 45-day nonviolent “Great March of Return” – in Gaza and elsewhere in Occupied Palestine.

Israeli soldiers attacked nonviolent Palestinian demonstrators near Ramallah with live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets and toxic tear gas – numerous injuries reported.

In Bassem/Nariman/Ahed Tamimi’s home Nabi Saleh village, dozens of demonstrators were attacked the same way.

Other towns and villages across the West Bank were assaulted by Israeli viciousness.

Perhaps the Friday horror will continue throughout the 45-day period. A Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) press release said the following:

“This huge number of victims proves that the Israeli forces continue to commit further crimes and use of excessive force against Palestinian civilians in disregard for their lives upon an official political decision.”

“PCHR emphasizes that before occurrence of demonstrations -previously declared by the organizers as peaceful demonstrations only calling for implementation of United Nations Resolution 194 and raising only Palestinian and UN flags – the Israeli forces sent threatening letters to intimidate the organizers and Gaza Strip residents in addition to deploying snipers and dog sniffer units along the borders with Gaza as declared by the spokesperson of the Israeli Army on his Facebook page.”

“The spokesperson also threatened that ‘if needed, we will respond in the center of the Gaza Strip against those behind these violent protests,’ hinting about committing crimes of extra-judicial killings (assassinations).”

PCHR blamed international community silence for Friday’s bloodbath and countless others like it since the creation of the Jewish state.

On Friday, state-sponsored violence was preemptively unleashed on nonviolent Palestinian demonstrators threatening no one.

A separate article explained the following:

Friday demonstrations commemorated the 42nd anniversary of Land Day since 1976 in response to Israel’s announced intention to steal thousands of dunums of Palestinian land for settlement construction.

On March 30, 1976, Israeli police lethally shot six Arab citizens, protesting peacefully against theft of Palestinian land.

Since then, annual Palestinian protests commemorate that fateful day throughout the territories and in Israel.

The current Palestinian “Great March of Return” will continue through mid-May Nakba Day.

How much more Israeli violence will occur between now and then? How much more bloodshed?

How many more Palestinians die, be injured or maimed for life? How much Israeli-inflicted Palestinian suffering is too much?

How great a price must Palestinians pay to be free at last from Israeli occupation viciousness?

A Final Comment

The late Palestinian scholar/activist Edward Said (1935 – 2003) once said “(w)hat George Bush knows about Palestine can be engraved on the head of a pin.”

The same goes for Obama, Trump and most congressional members.

Commenting shortly before his September 2003 death, Said ridiculed Bush’s touting of “American” values, explaining:

“What Arabs, Muslims, and Europeans more and more see is a country that flouts international law. It tears up some treaties and refuses to sign others. It thinks of itself above and exceptional in all things.”

The same criticism applies to Israel, operating extrajudicially, embracing the false notion of Jews as “God’s chosen people,” claiming exclusive right to historic Palestine, stealing the land dunum by dunum, the so-called peace process the greatest hoax in modern times.

Said called it “a repackaging of the Israeli occupation.” He cited “the absence of (strong leader-led) initiative (as) our greatest enemy.”

So is US-led Western support for Israel, Washington partnering in its high crimes, providing billions of dollars annually, used for militarism, aggression and repression.

Palestinians are largely on their own, prevented from living free on their own land in their own country by a ruthless occupier.

Resistance remains their only option – struggling one day to be free at last.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on For the World Community, Palestinian Lives Don’t Matter

US National Security Advisor John Bolton Backs MEK Terrorists

NOVANEWS
 

Talk surrounding US President Donald Trump’s move to appoint John Bolton as his new National Security Advisor has focused on Bolton’s role in promoting the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and the profound contrast his appointment signifies in light of President Trump’s 2016 campaign promises to “drain the swamp.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W197RF0sp8k

However, Bolton’s appointment carries with it greater implications both to those apparently criticizing him as well as those attempting to promote him. Bolton has – for years – lobbied for a terrorist organization guilty of kidnapping and killing both US service members as well as US civilian contractors, along with an untold number of Iranian civilians and politicians in a campaign of terror that has stretched over several decades and continues today.Worst of all, the terrorist organization Bolton lobbied for was literally listed on the US State Department’sForeign Terrorist Organizations list during his lobbying activities – in direct violation of US counter-terrorism laws. That organization – Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and its political front, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) – has since been delisted as of 2012. However, the organization was delisted not because it has fully given up armed terrorism, but because the US has planned since at least as early as 2009 – according to Washington’s own policy papers – to use MEK as armed proxies against the nation of Iran.MEK are Terrorists, Even According to Their US Sponsors

Despite claims by a growing army of MEK advocates spanning various social media platforms, MEK is without doubt a dangerous terrorist organization. Even those seeking to sponsor MEK as a militant proxy against Iran have admitted as much.In the 2009 Brookings Institution policy paper, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran,” US policymakers openly admitted MEK’s candidacy as a US proxy (emphasis added):

Perhaps the most prominent (and certainly the most controversial) opposition group that has attracted attention as a potential U.S. proxy is the NCRI (National Council of Resistance of Iran), the political movement established by the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq). Critics believe the group to be undemocratic and unpopular, and indeed anti-American.

In contrast, the group’s champions contend that the movement’s long-standing opposition to the Iranian regime and record of successful attacks on and intelligence-gathering operations against the regime make it worthy of U.S. support. They also argue that the group is no longer anti-American and question the merit of earlier accusations. Raymond Tanter, one of the group’s supporters in the United States, contends that the MEK and the NCRI are allies for regime change in Tehran and also act as a useful proxy for gathering intelligence. The MEK’s greatest intelligence coup was the provision of intelligence in 2002 that led to the discovery of a secret site in Iran for enriching uranium. 

Brookings policymakers also openly acknowledged that MEK was without doubt a terrorist organization (emphasis added):

Despite its defenders’ claims, the MEK remains on the U.S. government list of foreign terrorist organizations. In the 1970s, the group killed three U.S. officers and three civilian contractors in Iran. During the 1979-1980 hostage crisis, the group praised the decision to take America hostages and Elaine Sciolino reported that while group leaders publicly condemned the 9/11 attacks, within the group celebrations were widespread.

Undeniably, the group has conducted terrorist attacks—often excused by the MEK’s advocates because they are directed against the Iranian government. For example, in 1981, the group bombed the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, which was then the clerical leadership’s main political organization, killing an estimated 70 senior officials. More recently, the group has claimed credit for over a dozen mortar attacks, assassinations, and other assaults on Iranian civilian and military targets between 1998 and 2001. At the very least, to work more closely with the group (at least in an overt manner), Washington would need to remove it from the list of foreign terrorist organizations.”

It should be noted that Brookings’ mention of MEK was made under a chapter titled, “INSPIRING AN INSURGENCY Supporting Iranian Minority and Opposition Groups,” indicating that groups being considered for US sponsorship would undoubtedly be armed and carry out a campaign of violence – if not terrorism, then the full-scale military operations similar US-sponsored militant groups have been carrying out in Syria.

Brookings recommendation that MEK be removed“from the list of foreign terrorist organizations”would eventually be fully realized by 2012 – spearheaded by lobbyists led by prominent US politicians and policymakers including US National Security Advisor John Bolton.

MEK’s Decades of Terrorism and its Future Terrorism

MEK has carried out decades of brutal terrorist attacks, assassinations, and espionage against the Iranian government and its people, as well as targeting Americans including the attempted kidnapping of US Ambassador Douglas MacArthur II, the attempted assassination of USAF Brigadier General Harold Price, the successful assassination of Lieutenant Colonel Louis Lee Hawkins, the double assassinations of Colonel Paul Shaffer and Lieutenant Colonel Jack Turner, and the successful ambush and killing of American Rockwell International employees William Cottrell, Donald Smith, and Robert Krongard.

Admissions to the deaths of the Rockwell International employees can be found within a 2011 report written by former US State Department and Department of Defense official Lincoln Bloomfield Jr. on behalf of another lobbying firm – Akin Gump – in an attempt to dismiss concerns over MEK’s violent past and how it connects to its current campaign of armed terror.

The report would state:

The State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 document says that the MEK killed the deputy chief of the US Military Mission in Tehran in 1973, two members of the US Military Assistance Advisory Group in 1975, and two employees of Rockwell International in 1976, and that it claimed responsibility for killing an American Texaco executive in 1979. 

MEK’s violent past of armed terrorism, coupled with admissions by the US that it seeks to use MEK as an armed proxy against Iran calls into question the US State Department’s decision

Regarding that decision,  the US State Department’s 2012 statement titled, “Delisting of the Mujahedin-e Khalq” would claim:

With today’s actions, the Department does not overlook or forget the MEK’s past acts of terrorism, including its involvement in the killing of U.S. citizens in Iran in the 1970s and an attack on U.S. soil in 1992. The Department also has serious concerns about the MEK as an organization, particularly with regard to allegations of abuse committed against its own members.

The Secretary’s decision today took into account the MEK’s public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.

The US State Department admits that the organization carried out terrorism in the past and continues today with abuses toward its own members. And as US policymakers within the pages of Brookings papers admit, the entire campaign aimed at delisting MEK in the first place was to legitimize the organization’s use as a militant proxy against Iran – a role that will most certainly violate MEK’s supposed“renunciation of violence” and contravene the grounds upon which MEK was delisted as a terrorist organization by the US State Department in the first place.

John Bolton’s Advocacy of Terrorists

Considering the undeniable terrorist nature of MEK past, present, and Washington’s own admitted plans for its terrorist future, the troubling nature of John Bolton’s advocacy for the group comes into full focus. This is particularly so within the context of Bolton’s new role as National Security Advisor.

Bolton’s role in lobbying for MEK and NCIR has been promoted most prominently by his own supporters among the US media. Right-leaning CNS – for example – in an article titled, “Senior US, Saudi Figures Call for Tehran Regime to be Overthrown,” would admit:

Bolton, who has attended the annual NCRI event for a decade, cited Iran’s military intervention in Syria, in maneuvering in Iraq, and its support for Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists and for Houthi militia in Yemen.

The same article would note however, that:

Supporters view the NCRI and affiliated People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran (MEK) as a viable opposition to the clerical rulers in Tehran, and praise it for exposing the regime’s covert nuclear programs. 

Detractors view with suspicion its history of support for the regime of Saddam Hussein, and what critics have described as cult-like behavior. 

The MEK was designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. until 2012, when the Obama administration delisted it, citing a renunciation of violence and “the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade.”

Foreign Policy would also expose Bolton’s lobbying efforts. In FP’s 2011 article titled, “MEK rally planned for Friday at State Department,” it would include mention of a full-paged ad taken out in the Washington Post. The ad included a letter to then US President Barack Obama which stated:

We are writing to you with urgency to underline the need for an immediate decision to remove Iran’s opposition group the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO). 

The 2011 adwas signed by John Bolton along with other prominent US politicians including Howard Dean, Rudy Guiliani, and Tom Ridge.

Since MEK has only been removed from the US State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organizations list since 2012, CNS, Foreign Policy, and the lobbying efforts of Bolton himself serves as evidence that Bolton provided support and lobbying services to what was a listed terrorist organization in blatant violation of18 U.S. Code § 2339A – providing material support to terrorists.

Bolton’s speeches openly supporting MEK prior to 2012 are easily found online. One published in 2010 features Bolton speaking in Paris openly advocating not only the US removing MEK from its Foreign Terrorist Organizations list, but also lobbying for US support to be provided to MEK and others in what he called the “Iranian opposition.” Since the 2012 delisting, Bolton has continued attending MEK events and advocating both support for MEK and openly calling for the US-led overthrow of the Iranian government.

While some have attempted to defend Bolton and others lobbying for MEK claiming that MEK could not have been removed from the State Department’s list even if it was no longer a threat to the US without the aid of lobbying – it should be remembered that the job of adding or removing terrorist organizations from the State Department’s list is the responsibility of the Bureau of Counterterrorism in the State Department – not political lobbyists.

The State Department itself notes on its website that:

The Bureau of Counterterrorism in the State Department (CT) continually monitors the activities of terrorist groups active around the world to identify potential targets for designation. When reviewing potential targets, CT looks not only at the actual terrorist attacks that a group has carried out, but also at whether the group has engaged in planning and preparations for possible future acts of terrorism or retains the capability and intent to carry out such acts.

Clearly – however – the presence of immense lobbying campaigns like those led by Bolton on behalf of MEK indicates that the State Department’s list is dictated by political motivations, money, and lobbying, not independent analysis provided by US security and intelligence professionals either in the US State Department or elsewhere within the US government.

Furthermore, it is clear by the US State Department’s own criteria that MEK is still very much a foreign terrorist organization. According to its own criteria, any organization that is even planning or preparing for possible future acts of terrorism, must be included on the list. US policymakers and even John Bolton himself have openly stated that MEK will be used as an armed proxy against Iran.

A Terrorist Collaborator Advising on US National Security

A National Security Advisor openly guilty of violating US anti-terrorism laws having provided material support to a US State Department-listed foreign terrorist organization for years illustrates just how profoundly compromised US institutions are and reflects an agenda that not only exclusively serves special interests – but does so at the cost of the American people’s actual security.

The position of National Security Advisor – officially known as “the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs” – is describedby the US White House’s official website as part of the National Security Councilas follows:

The National Security Council (NSC) is the President’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. Since its inception under President Truman, the Council’s function has been to advise and assist the President on national security and foreign policies. The Council also serves as the President’s principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.

A National Security Council that includes lobbyists representing terrorist organizations with American blood on their hands constitutes not only a dire threat to actual US national security, but global security as well.

MEK terrorists backed by a nation possessing nuclear weapons and a history of provoking wars through fabricated evidence and staged incidents ensures that America’s foreign policy will continue to pursue destructive wars abroad at the cost of US treasure and blood and the resources and lives of nations the US sets its industrialized military aggression upon.

John Bolton – however – is not the architect of the policy he has advocated for well over a decade. He is simply fulfilling what US policymakers themselves have meted out in the pages of US policy papers for just as long. These policymakers – in turn – are funded by American arms manufacturers, energy conglomerates, financial institutions, and other immense corporate-financier special interests.

The Brookings Institution whose 2009 paper, “Which Path to Persia?” spelled out verbatim the steps Bolton has since undertaken with his lobbying efforts, has a long list of such corporate-financier interests underwriting and directing its work.

Understanding that efforts to remove MEK from the US State Department’s  Foreign Terrorist Organizations list and prepare them for their role as armed proxies against Iran transcended the administrations of George Bush, Barack Obama, and now Donald Trump exposes the continuity of agenda – regardless of who occupies the White House or US Congress – advanced by these unelected corporate-financier interests.

While exposing John Bolton’s complicity in the material support of egregious terrorists and his efforts to use them as armed proxies against Iran in a war he has attempted to promote and instigate for years is important, it is equally important to expose, confront, isolate, and extinguish the influence of the corporate-financier interests that have underwritten and directed Bolton’s efforts and the efforts of countless others working to drag the United States, its allies, and the rest of the planet into another destructive conflict.

Posted in USAComments Off on US National Security Advisor John Bolton Backs MEK Terrorists

Palestine: 773 shot with Nazi live ammunition

NOVANEWS

Palestinians hold day of mourning after 773 ‘shot with live ammunition’

At least 15 killed when Israeli soldiers open fire during mass demonstrations in Gaza

A wounded Palestinian is evacuated during the clashes between demonstrators and Israeli troops.
 A wounded Palestinian is evacuated during the clashes between demonstrators and Israeli troops. Photograph: Xinhua / Barcroft Images

Gaza hospitals, running low on blood and overstretched by the huge number of wounded, were reeling after one of the enclave’s bloodiest days outside of open war, in which Israeli soldiers shot 773 people with live ammunition, according to the ministry of health.

Fifteen of the wounded died, said the ministry spokesperson Dr Ashraf al-Qidra. “Most of the dead were aged between 17 and 35 years old,” he said. “The injuries were on the upper part of the body.” He added that the remainder of the wounded, some of whom were in a critical condition, had been “shot with live ammunition”.

The violence erupted on Friday after mass demonstrations took place demanding the right of return for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to land in Israel.

Tens of thousands of people, including women and children, had planned to camp several hundred metres from the Israeli frontier, which surrounds the 140-square-mile Gaza strip on two sides, on the first day of a peaceful, six-week protest.

But from the main camps, groups of mostly young men approached the border at several locations and started throwing stones and burning tyres. Soldiers responded by opening fire throughout the day.

More than 1,400 people were wounded, mostly by bullets but also rubber-coated rounds and tear-gas inhalation, the health ministry said. The Guardian was unable to independently verify the ministry’s figures.

On Friday, in less than 30 minutes, reporters saw 10 people with bullet wounds carried away on stretchers at one of the demonstrations.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, declared Saturday a national day of mourning. More demonstrations are planned.

Israel said it has positioned snipers and responded to “rioting” Palestinians with “dispersal means” and “firing towards main instigators”. It said the movement was a Hamas-orchestrated ploy and it was identifying “terror attacks under the camouflage of riots”.

The military pointed to what it said was an “attempted shooting attack by a terror cell” in the northern part of the Gaza strip on Friday. It added that it had responded with gunfire and by targeting three nearby Hamas sites with tanks and fighter jets. The military sent a video to journalists showing men appearing to tamper with the separation fence and said that Hamas had earlier sent a seven-year-old girl across the border, whom Israeli soldiers returned to her parents.

The Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said: “The international community must not be deceived” by what he called “a well-organised and violent terror gathering”.

Play Video
0:38
 Gaza-Israel border calm one day after deadly protests – video

Hamas, which backed the protest, has fought three wars with Israel since 2008. In the past few weeks, Israeli forces say they have caught people attempting to cut through the frontier to launch attacks.

The UN security council held emergency talks to discuss the risks of further escalation but failed to agree on a statement. “There is fear that the situation might deteriorate in the coming days,” said the assistant UN secretary general for political affairs, Tayé-Brook Zerihoun.

The UN secretary general, António Guterres, has called for an independent and transparent investigation into the violence, according to his spokesman Farhan Haq.

The Palestinian ambassador to the UN, Riyad Mansour, said what happened in Gaza was a “heinous massacre”. He said Palestinians “expect the security council to shoulder its responsibility” and “defuse this volatile situation, which clearly constitutes a threat to international peace and security”.

Friday’s death toll stood at 16 and included a farmer killed by an Israeli tank shell before dawn as he picked parsley near the border, according to the health ministry. An Israeli army spokesman said the man was operating suspiciously.

Al-Qidra said hospitals were running low on several blood types.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Palestine: 773 shot with Nazi live ammunition

Gaza Mass Murder Postmortems

NOVANEWS
 

by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)

On Friday, Israeli soldiers killed 16 unarmed Gazans in cold blood, wounding over 1,400 others, some with life-threatening injuries, the death toll sure to rise – another 49 Palestinians shot on Saturday.

A Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) press release said Israeli soldiers killed or wounded peaceful Gazan demonstrators, including women and children, threatening no one – a high crime demanding accountability, stressing:

“This huge number of victims proves that the Israeli forces continue to commit further crimes and use of excessive force against Palestinian civilians in disregard for their lives upon an official political decision.”

Netanyahu disgracefully praised what happened, falsely claiming soldiers were “guarding the country’s borders” – a bald-faced lie.

IDF spokesman General Ronen Manilis turned truth on its head, saying Palestinians killed were involved in violence – twisting reality, adding only several dozen at most were injured by live fire.

Netanyahu spokesman David Keyes shamefully said the UN should be investigating Hamas, not Israel.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry repeated the Big Lie about Hamas, claiming the fence along Gaza’s border “separates a sovereign state and a terrorist organization…a state that protects its citizens from murderers who send their countrymen into danger,” adding:

“The fence separates an army that uses force in self-defense and in a focused and proportionate manner, and Hamas, an organization that sanctifies murder and death, that for years – yesterday included – has been intent on harming millions of Israelis.”

“Anyone who mistakenly views in this murderous spectacle even an iota of freedom of expression is blind to the threats the State of Israel faces.”

IDF forces faced “violent riots and terror attacks. (They acted) “in strict accordance with the rules of engagement, firing only when necessary and avoiding civilians strategically placed by Hamas in harm’s way.”

All of the above is a disgusting perversion of truth. Israel’s only threats are invented ones, no others.

The IDF used scores of snipers, one or more tanks, and drones to attack defenseless Palestinians – gunned down in cold blood, not a single Israeli soldier or civilian killed or injured, none threatened.

Separately, the IDF lied claiming 10 of 16 Gazans killed on Friday were members of “terrorist groups.”

Hamas acknowledged the deaths of five Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades members – Strip security force members, not terrorists.

A Hamas statement said they participated “in popular events side-by-side with their people.”

PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashwari issued a scathing statement, saying:

“Palestinians in all of historical Palestine continue to endure destruction, displacement and dehumanization at the hands of the right-wing and extremist Israeli government and its unlawful policies and draconian measures.”

“(B)y means of its egregious violations, primarily the persistent annexation of land and the expansion of the illegal settlement enterprise, military checkpoints and apartheid walls in the occupied Palestinian territory, Israel is acting with impunity and prolonging the military occupation.”

“It is also causing grave suffering for its Palestinian citizens with discriminatory and unjust laws, proposals and measures and denying them of their basic and fundamental rights as citizens of Israel.”

“(A)ll Palestinians, whether in the West Bank (including occupied East Jerusalem), Gaza, 1948 Israel, or in exile, remain steadfast and committed to the land and to defending their inalienable rights and legitimate aspirations for freedom and self-determination.”

“As we observe this national (Land) day and honor our brothers and sisters who were murdered, we pay tribute to the Palestinian people everywhere for their courage and resilience in the face of Israeli racism, colonialism and violence.”

“With every obstacle and barrier implemented by Israel, we will persevere and provide hope in the face of devastation and despair.”

“We remain committed to popular non-violent activism and political, legal and diplomatic efforts, and we will persist in the struggle for our freedoms, rights and dignity.”

Separately on Saturday, the Trump administration blocked a draft Security Council statement, calling for an independent investigation into Friday’s massacre.

It expressed “grave concern” about the attack on nonviolent demonstrators, affirming “the right to peaceful protest, along with calling “for respect for international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including protection of civilians.”

All Security Council members supported the statement, Washington alone opposed.

Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook explained every Gazan killed or wounded “did not come close to the border fence and did not attempt to take it by storm. They were killed by snipers from a long distance when they were inside the Gaza Strip.”

Israeli live fire caused half or more of Palestinian casualties. Gaza continues to be illegally blockaded under siege – for political reasons unrelated to security.

Israel remains unaccountable for decades of high crimes of war, against humanity, and slow-motion genocide – Palestinians victimized by its viciousness.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human RightsComments Off on Gaza Mass Murder Postmortems

Media Coverage of the Gaza Massacre

NOVANEWS

Media Coverage of the Gaza Massacre: Had the Dead Been Israeli then VOA, CNN, NBC, ABC & CBS Would No Doubt Have Interrupted Their Schedule

17 unarmed civilian refugees murdered in one day and 1400 protesters injured, by Israeli state-armed snipers. Had the dead and injured been Israeli then VOA, CNN, NBC, ABC & CBS would, no doubt, have interrupted schedules and programs within minutes.  However, the dead and dying were only Palestinians and life is cheap in Gaza, but expensive in Tel Aviv.

It’s the Not So New normal justice of the Middle East where some lives are of value and others worth less than a New Israeli Shekel.  All Men Are Born Equal unless they live in Gaza and die by a bullet in the back or between the eyes by an Israeli government sniper enjoying live target practice.

This then is the tragedy of Gaza and the Occupied Territories in 2018.  The world weeps at the gross injustice and the atrocities still being perpetrated by a government already condemned by the United Nations under UNSC Resolution 2334 of which the international community of nations still awaits compliance and implementation. However, as of this date, the U.N. is treated with complete contempt by the very State it established in 1948 as a safe haven for some of the stateless survivors of Europe after World War 2.

Those are now the perpetrators of the Occupation and the snipers safely picking-off and killing unarmed Palestinians from behind a 3m high wall, using high-powered rifles, after disabling their targets with tear gas.

What a terrible travesty of justice and the rights of man to retain his land, his home, his family, his freedom and his life.

What a terrible indictment of those governments that support and arm the military who carry out such atrocities.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human RightsComments Off on Media Coverage of the Gaza Massacre

The Culture of Racism in America

NOVANEWS

America’s history of racism. Did it influence Nazi Germany

James Q Whitman the Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law at Yale Law School has written a timely book about American racism and its influence on Adolf Hitler, the Nazi party, and the Nuremberg laws.
 
The author uses historical facts and documentation to illustrate the connection between the American extermination of Native Americans and the Jim Crow models, namely  the guiding light for Hitler and his Nazi Germany that led to the extermination of millions of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals.
.
The book links American race laws to the shaping of Nazi policies in Germany.
.
In addition, Whitman states that in the 1930s the United States, as the Nazis frequently noted, stood at the forefront of race-based lawmaking. American immigration and naturalization law, in the shape of series of laws culminating in the Immigration Act of 1924, which conditioned entry in the United States on race-based tables of “national origins.” It was America’s race-based immigration law that Hitler praised in Mein kampf. Furthermore,
.
The United States also stood at the forefront in the creation of forms of de jure and de facto second-class citizenship for blacks, Filipinos, Chinese, and others; this too was of great interest to the Nazi, engaged as they were in creating their own second-class citizenship for Germany’s Jews. As for race mixing between the sexes, stood once again at the forefront there as well. America was a beacon of anti-miscegenation law, with thirty different state regimes-many of them outside the South, and all of them carefully studied, catalogued, and debated by Nazi lawyers.1
 .

American racism in the 21st century

 .
In the United States, a false view of American identity is perpetuated by the corporate media and the politicians when it is deemed to be politically expedient and convenient. Hence, America is portrayed as a tolerant and kind melting pot. Meanwhile, the duplicitous media and Hollywood remain the number one purveyor of stereotypes, sexism, and racism in their news coverage, as well as in their portrayal of minorities in television shows and movies, despite Hollywood’s public assertions of advocacy for fairness and equality.
.
Thank god for Donald Trump who finally unveiled the hidden truth by addressing the big elephant in the room, and exposing the American lies about equality and liberty in the most racist nation in history. It is no surprise, that demagogues like Mr. Trump would quickly rise on the political ladder as soon as they used the American racist card.
 .
Unfortunately, American ideology is immersed and based in deep racist roots. Thus, Trump appeals to the masses’ primitive instincts, and caters to the disgruntled public with the corrupt political system. As a result, he rejuvenates the genuine and raw emotions of racism that tend to impel and motivate people to love him and follow him, as he bluntly proclaims their fantasies, and acts out their rage. Trump elicits in white Americans their authentic racist feelings without shame or reservation. He reignites their sense of entitlement and severe narcissism, as well as their pathological denial of their own genetic mixology and hybridity, that have for centuries plagued the Anglo-American mentality.2
.
Eerily, The Anglo-American Protestants claim racial superiority and ownership over morality through their distorted Christian beliefs.
.
Let’s take for example the white evangelicals in the American South who are comparable to the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia in their extremist and twisted religious creeds. At the same time, their beloved Southern biblical states are bedeviled with physical and sexual abuse of children and women, chauvinism, racism, hatred, ignorance, misogyny, as well as the highest rate of divorce in America.4
.
Ironically, the American South has the same values as Donald Trump, therefore, their evangelical love affair with him will prove to be fruitful as both Parties experience in their deranged rapture a “folie àdeux” or “mass psychosis.” Moreover, the culture of Anglo-American racism appears to emerge from a culture of narcissism that is fostered by an unquenchable lust for power, domination over others, and a delusional belief of superiority.
.
Finally, Mr. Trump is perfect for America! As a matter of fact, He is America, where the culture of narcissism and the culture of racism converge into one entity and thrive forever after.Meanwhile Mr. Trump and his evangelical cohorts will write the new American race laws for the 21st century.
 
Notes
1. Whitman, James Q (2017). Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the making of nazi race law. Princeton university press (2017)
4.  https://www.census.gov › … › Releases › Marital Status & Living Arrangements

Posted in USAComments Off on The Culture of Racism in America

New Poll Shows Republicans Losing Voter-Base

NOVANEWS
 
The Morning Consult poll released on March 30th headlines “Republicans Drive Biggest Decline in Voter Optimism Since Trump Took Office: Record drop isn’t matched by a similar decrease in president’s approval rating.”
.
The U.S. budget-bill and its soaring federal deficits and debt, are driving this, as I pointed out on March 23rd, but I was mistaken at that time to interpret the data as showing more of a Republican disenchantment with Trump than a Republican disenchantment with congressional Republicans. It now seems clear that Republican voters aren’t moving away from Trump; they’re instead moving away from the Republican Party. Basically, there are as many Republicans as before, but their intensity of support for their Party is diminishing, and this declined voter-intensity will probably show up in November’s elections by a decreased voter-turnout at the polls in the mid-term elections.
.
The just-released MC poll was taken during 26-27 March, which was after my analysis on March 23rd, “Trump’s Base Abandoning Him”, had pointed out (correctly) that,
“Increasing the size of the U.S. Government’s debt is, to Trump’s main base of political support (as reflected by the biggest online news-site that informs his electoral following), absolutely unacceptable. … The federal-debt issue is killing Trump politically. His voters don’t much care whether he starts World War III by his respecting and appointing such people as the super-neoconservative John Bolton. Bolton’s being loathed by ‘The libbys’ (liberals) convinces Trump’s followers that Bolton is ‘the right man for the job.’ By stark contrast, they’re rabid against Trump’s signing the Government’s budget bill. And, to them, that’s a much bigger issue than whether there will soon be a WW III.”
 .
They’re not angry against Trump on account of their opposition to the soaring federal debt, such as I had inferred; they are instead blaming their Party for it. 
Is Trump, consequently, like Reagan was, “the Teflon President”? Or, perhaps, instead, a tendency might exist for any authoritarian political party (such as Trump’s Republican Party, and also Clinton’s Democratic Party) to avoid despising its leader, regardless of how bad he or she might actually be (in this case, bad enough, even in the view of increasing numbers of Republicans, so as for Trump’s followers to start acknowledging that even when their Party controls all branches of the government, such as now, things become yet more “wrong track” than they had been before). After all: in authoritarianism, all praise goes upward to the leader, and all blame goes downward to the followers, and that’s exactly what’s now happening. Trump is home-free because he’s the leader, so only congressional Republicans receive their voters’ blame. (Perhaps, if Hillary Clinton were President, congressional Democrats would be the ones feeling the heat, as much as congressional Republicans are now. American voters were given a real choice only between two unappealing options, and the outcome could just as well have been determined by a coin-toss.)
Whereas Trump infuriated his base on March 23rd by saying he’d sign the budget-bill, Republicans are overwhelmingly blaming congressional Republicans, instead of blaming the Republican President, for this outcome, which so depresses Republicans.
.
The MC poll shows that among Republicans (including Trump’s core base):
.
“there was a 22 point negative swing on the right direction/wrong track question, with 64 percent of Republicans saying the country is moving in the right direction and 36 percent taking the opposing view. In the March 15-19 survey, 75 percent of GOP voters were optimistic and 25 percent were pessimistic.”
.
That’s a sudden +11% surge in national pessimism, and a sudden -11% plunge in national optimism, among Republicans, which, together, has produced a 22% swing amongst Republicans toward the pessimism-direction. (By contrast, “Among Democrats, net approval of the nation’s direction in the latest poll slid 8 points, while independents had a 14 point decline.” Those figures are obviously much smaller than the 22% decline amongst Republicans. Right after the budget-bill which so disturbed the Republican base, their national optimism plunged from 75/25 optimism, a 3-to-1 ratio, to 64/36 optimism, a 1.78-to-1 ratio — a huge and sudden fall — and the simultaneous appointment of the hyper-neoconservative Bolton had nothing to do with any decline of support from Trump’s base. But the soaring federal debt definitely does.
.
The Morning Consult article also says, “This time around, though, public opinion and political experts interviewed on Thursday struggled to reach consensus on why voter optimism declined so significantly.” In my March 23rd article, I had explained it on the basis of key data: the massive swing was amongst core Trump-supporters, because they are enraged that their Party is causing the federal debt to soar, which is thus clearly the biggest issue among Trump’s base. But are they really blaming only their members of Congress for that? They’re not at all blaming their Republican President? Seems so, on the basis of the data.
.
The Morning Consult article then provided analysis from some of those “political experts”: for example, “Henry Olsen, senior fellow at the conservative Ethics & Public Policy Center, said the drop could be attributed to volatility in the stock market or recent developments regarding a potential conflict with North Korea.” However, according to my methodology — and no methodology was provided for Olsen’s analysis — neither of those factors shows in any data as being even relevant. However, I was wrong to have assumed that Republicans would blame the President instead of their Party. Here is how this absolution of Trump for the Republican core’s rage shows in these latest two MC polls:
.
Looking more deeply into the latest Morning Consult poll: Amongst Republicans, job-approval for Trump is 45% “Strongly Approve” (and this 45% of Republicans would constitute yet another measure of his voter-base, as consisting now of 45% of Republicans) and 36% “Somewhat Approve”; while 10% “Somewhat Disapprove” and 7% “Strongly Disapprove.” The total Republican electorate is the group which includes his voting-base, and his voting-base is measured either by that currently 45%, or else by the readers at Breitbart News — which latter group can reasonably be assumed to be even higher “Strongly Approve” than is the 45% of Republican voters who show up in MC’s “Strongly Approve” column for Trump. By comparison against that 45%: The second-highest-approving group for Trump that was tabulated by Morning Consult was “Conservative” at 38%; the third-highest was tied between “Evangelical” and “Retired,” both at 31% “Strongly Approve”; and the fourth-highest was “Rural” at 27%. So, clearly, Trump’s voter-base is mainly Republicans — even more than it’s conservatives, or evangelicals, or retireds, or rural voters. (Democrats, therefore, would be, at the very opposite extreme: progressives, seculars, young, and urban. Those are the weakest groups for Trump.)
.
In the immediately-prior MC poll, on 15-19 March, Republicans’ job-approval for Trump was 48% “Strongly Approve” and 33% “Somewhat Approve”; while 7% were “Somewhat Disapprove” and 9% were “Strongly Disapprove.” So: in the interim between these two pollings, the “Strongly Approve” went down, -3% from 48%, and the “Strongly Disapprove” also went down, -2% from 9%; and this simultaneous decline at both ends of intensity, means that amongst Republicans, sentiments regarding Trump’s Presidency are moving toward lowered intensity. Though overall there was 81% approval of Trump by Republicans in both of the pollings, Republicans are now less intense than they previously had been regarding Trump.
.
Inasmuch as the main impact is therefore against congressional Republicans, and those are the very people who are running in the mid-term elections, this is yet another indication that the Democratic Party stands a chance of retaking either or both the House and the Senate. (Unless, of course, the anti-Bernie-Sanders — pro-Hillary-Clinton — Democratic Party faction continues its control of that Party so much so that voter-turnout on the Democratic side becomes likewise depressed in November — which could happen; it might even be likely to happen, because the Clintonites won the battle for the DNC’s leadership after Hillary’s defeat; they’re even especially seeking out candidates from the military.)
.
The Breitbart homepage on March 30th was dominated not by stories about the soaring federal debt (which the readers there are more concerned about than they are about any other issue), but by stories about gun-control, though with sprinklings of other targets of hostility from conservatives, such as against prominent Democrats, and such as against perceived threats or dangers to Christianity in America. Whereas Democratic Party propaganda focuses on minorities and women as being victims, Republican Party propaganda focuses on the majority and men as being victims. The two Parties label opposite ends of the political power-structure as ‘victims’, which are being characterized, as such, depending not on economic class, but instead upon such factors as gender and ethnicity.
.
Both Parties focus away from economic class as being an issue, and make their voter-appeals on the basis of other factors, such as race, religion, gender, etc., in order to keep the focus away from the money-power matter — the aristocracy’s control over the country. 
.
This is the standard way for political parties to operate. For thousands of years, partisan (cultural and gender) differences have been the way the aristocracy — the 0.01% who own more than the bottom 50% and who always fund politics — get each “I” among the public (the bottom 99.9%) to self-identify, so as to blame some “non-I” category (men, women, Whites, Blacks, etc.), instead of to blame the aristocracy, for any problems the particular “I” might have. The rulers’ purpose is to prevent their accountability — for each citizen, all blame will go either sideways, or else downward to that individual’s ‘inferiors’; and all credit will go only upward, to the person’s ‘superiors’. For examples of this: both Bush and Obama are viewed merely as former Presidents, instead of as also having been traitors; and both Charles Koch and George Soros are seen merely as successful businessmen and “philanthropists,” instead of as top gangsters, who shape and bend the laws, instead of merely break the laws. That’s normal.
Especially worthy of note is that the Breitbart site — where, on March 23rd, it was clear that the overwhelming concern of Republican voters is the federal debt — the response from Republican propagandists has been to turn away from the Government-debt issue, into strictly partisan issues, instead: that is, into, basically, distractions. Democratic Party propagandists, likewise, use this tactic, on their side (its Hillary faction especially does; its Bernie faction, which doesn’t control the Party, does not, but instead focuses on class-issues — and it loses because the aristocracy don’t want that type of political focus). 
By thus confusing and distracting the voters, the same Establishment continues to rule, regardless of which of the two Parties is in control. Thus, for example, Americans went from invading and occupying Iraq for the U.S. aristocracy in 2003, to invading Libya for the U.S. aristocracy in 2011, and to invading and occupying Syria for the U.S. aristocracy since 2012, and increasingly to surrounding Russia by our weapons and troops (in Ukraine and in NATO) for the U.S. aristocracy, thus constantly all the while militarizing the U.S. economy. So long as the voters remain distracted and split by nationalistic or other partisan concerns, the Government remains the same, and it effectively controls the public (and public policy), in the ways (such as militarizing the economy) that the people who are in actual control require the public to be controlled, in America’s ‘democracy’. It’s like a guided economy, but the real “guides” are billionaires, instead of Government officials (who actually are indirectly being paid by, and serving, those “guides”).
For at least thousands of years, the aristocracy have commonly controlled the public by spreading dissension amongst the public, and especially by demonizing the residents (and especially the leadership) in a foreign territory that the given aristocracy wants to grab: ‘the nation’s enemies’. (For example, the Sauds and Israel’s aristocracy are America’s ‘allies’, while Iran’s and Russia’s are America’s ‘enemies’.) It’s the same now, as ever. In such a country, there’s no change, but there instead is ‘change’. So: usually, the ‘change’-candidate wins. And the more that things ‘change’, the more they just stay the same. And voters consequently become increasingly alienated from ‘their’ government, because it’s not really theirs. That’s what’s actually happening, to America, as shown by the relevant data.

Posted in USAComments Off on New Poll Shows Republicans Losing Voter-Base

Towards “NATO-Exit”? Shift in the Structure of Military Coalitions. Turkey’s Alliance with Russia, China and Iran?

NOVANEWS

Reminiscent of World War I, shifting alliances and the structure of military coalitions are crucial determinants of history.

Today’s military alliances, including “cross-cutting coalitions” between “Great Powers” are equally dangerous, markedly different and exceedingly more complex than those pertaining to World War I. (i.e  the confrontation between “The Triple Entente” and “the Triple Alliance”).

Contemporary developments point to a historical shift in the structure of military alliances which could contribute to weakening US hegemony in the Middle East as well as creating conditions which could lead to a breakup of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

NATO constitutes a formidable military force composed of 29 member states, which is largely controlled by the Pentagon. It is a military coalition and an instrument of modern warfare. It constitutes a threat to global security and World peace. 

Divisions within the Atlantic Alliance could take the form of one or more member states deciding to “Exit NATO”. Inevitably an NATO-Exit movement would weaken the unfolding consensus imposed by our governments which at the this juncture in our history consists in threatening to wage a pre-emptive war against the Russian Federation.  

***

In this article, we will largely be addressing a concrete case of a NATO member state’s intent to exit the Atlantic Alliance NATO, namely Turkey’s “NATO-Exit” and its evolving rapprochement with Russia as well as with Iran and China.

Turkey is contemplating a “NATO-Exit”, the implications of which are far-reaching. Military alliances are being redefined.

In turn, Turkey in Northern Syria is fighting against America’s proxy Kurdish forces, i.e. one NATO member state is fighting another NATO member state.

Russia’s stance in relation to Turkey’s military actions in Northern Syria is ambiguous. Russia is an ally of Syria, whose country has been invaded by Turkey, an ally of Russia.

From a broader military standpoint, Turkey is actively cooperating with Russia, which has recently pledged to ensure Turkey’s security. “Moscow underscores that Turkey can calmly withdraw from NATO, and after doing so Ankara will have guarantees that it will not face any threat [from US-NATO] in terms of ensuring its own security,” (According to statement of Turkish Air Force Major-general Beyazit Karatas (ret))

Moreover, Ankara will be acquiring in 2020 Russia’s state of the art S-400 air defense system while de facto opting out from the integrated US-NATO-Israel air defense system. The S-400 deal is said to have caused “concern” “because Turkey is a member of NATO and the [S-400] system cannot be integrated into NATO’s military architecture”.

Russia’s S-400 Triumf (NATO reporting name: SA-21 Growler) is the latest long-range antiaircraft missile system that went into service in 2007. It is designed to destroy aircraft, cruise and ballistic missiles, including medium-range missiles, and surface targets. The S-400 can engage targets at a distance of 400 kilometers and at an altitude of up to 30 kilometers. (Tass, December 29, 2017)

What does this mean?

Has NATO’s “heavyweight” (in terms of its conventional forces) namely Turkey chosen to exit the Atlantic Alliance? Or is Turkey involved in an alliance of convenience with Russia while sustaining its links with NATO and the Pentagon?

The Atlantic Alliance is potentially in shatters. Will this lead to a NATO Exit movement with other NATO member states following suit?

Moscow’s intent in this regard, through diplomatic channels is to build upon bilateral relations with selected EU-NATO member states. The objective is to contribute to NATO “military deescalation” on Russia’s Western frontier.

Apart from Turkey, several EU countries including Germany, Italy, Greece (which has established defense ties with Russia) as well as Bulgaria could contemplate a NATO-Exit.

Turkey’s “Rapprochement” with Russia is strategic. While playing a key role in the Middle East, Turkey also controls naval access to the Black Sea through the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. (see image right)

In other words, Turkey’s withdrawal from NATO would have an immediate impact on NATO’s land and naval deployments in the Black Sea basin, which in turn would affect NATO military capabilities on Russia’s doorstep in Eastern Europe, The Baltic States and the Balkans.

Needless to say, the Moscow-Ankara alliance facilitates the movement of Russian and Chinese naval forces to and from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean via the Bosphorus.

Turkey’s realignment is not limited to Russia it also includes Iran as well as Pakistan, which is in the process of severing its military ties with the US, while extending its trade and investment relations with China. Pakistan as well as India are full members of the Shanghai Cooperation Agreement (SCO).

The broader structure of military as well trade/ investment alliances must also be addressed, including maritime routes and pipeline corridors.

US Influence and Hegemony in the Broader Middle East

These geopolitical shifts have served to weaken U.S. influence in the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia.

Turkey has an alliance of convenience with Iran. And Iran in turn is now supported by a powerful China-Russia block, which includes military cooperation, strategic pipelines as well extensive trade and investment agreements.

In turn, the unity of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States is now in jeopardy, with Qatar, Oman and Kuwait building an alliance with Iran (as well as Turkey), to the detriment of Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Saudi Arabia’s economic blockade directed against Qatar has created a rift in geopolitical alliances which has served to weaken the US in the Persian Gulf.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is profoundly divided, with the UAE and Bahrain siding with Saudi Arabia against Qatar. In turn Qatar has the support of Oman and Kuwait. Needless to say, the GCC which until recently was America’s staunchest Middle East ally against Iran is in total disarray.

U.S. Central Command Military Base in Qatar 

While Turkey is deploying  troops in Qatar, it has also established the Tariq bin Ziyad military base in Qatar (in cooperation with the Qatari Ministry of Defense) under an agreement signed in 2014.

The Qatar based Al Udeid US military facility is the largest in the Middle East. Under USCentCom, it hosts the command structure of all US military operations in the entire Middle East-Central Asian region.

Al Udeid –which houses some 10,000 US military personnel–, has played a strategic role in the ongoing conduct of US air operations against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

There is however a fundamental contradiction: America’s largest military base in the Middle East which hosts USCentCom is at present located in a country which is firmly aligned with Iran (i.e. an enemy of America). Moreover,  Qatar’s main partners in the oil and gas industry including pipelines are Iran and Turkey. In turn, both Russia and China are actively involved in the Qatari oil and gas industry. 

In response to Qatar’s rapprochement with Iran, the Pentagon has already envisaged moving its Central Command headquarters at the Al Udeid Air Force base (image left) to the Prince Sultan Air Force base in central Saudi Arabia, 80 km south of Riyadh.

The structure of military alliances pertaining to Qatar are in this regard strategic.

Why? Because Qatar is a Geopolitical Hot Spot, largely attributable to its extensive maritime reserves in natural gas which it shares with Iran.

Iran and Qatar cooperate actively in the extraction of  maritime natural gas under a joint Qatar-Iran ownership structure. These maritime gas fields are strategic, they constitute the World’s largest maritime gas reserves located in the Persian Gulf. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Middle East and Asia Geopolitical Alliances, Global Research, September 17, 2017)

In March 2018, Washington demanded that Qatar’s Al Jazeera News agency register in the U.S. as a “Foreign Agent” intimating that Doha has an “alliance” with enemies of America, including Iran and Russia.

Is this not a prelude to “Qatar-Gate” under the helm of Trump’s newly instated “war cabinet” (with Pompeo taking over from Tillerson at the State Department)?

Screen shot Middle East Monitor, March 9, 2018

In November 2017, Qatar’s Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani intimated during a visit to Washington that “Qatar does  not rule out the possibility of a Saudi-led military operation against it”. While this option is unlikely, a “regime change” in Doha sponsored by the US and its Saudi ally is a distinct possibility.

The Incirlik Air Force Base in Southern Turkey 

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is envisaging moving US Air Force facilities and personnel out of the Incirlik base in southern Turkey:

Earlier in March, Johnny Michael, the spokesperson for the US European Command (EUCOM), denied “speculative” reports that the US military reduced its operations at Incirlik base, adding that all military activities continued normally.

A day before Michael’s remarks, a Wall Street Journal report suggested that the US “sharply reduced” combat operations at the airbase and was considering permanent cutbacks there. (Al Jazeera, March 26, 2018)

Concluding Remarks: With NATO in shambles, America’s “war hawks” do not have a leg to stand on.

The alliance between Washington and Ankara is in crisis. NATO is in crisis. In turn, a Turkey NATO-Exit could potentially destabilize NATO.

We are at a dangerous crossroads. The US-NATO military agenda threatens the future of humanity.

How to reverse the tide of war? What concrete actions should be taken?

“NATO-Exit” could become a rallying call, a movement which could spread across the European landscape.

Both the European and North American anti-war movements should concretely focus their grassroots campaign on country-based “NATO-Exit” with a view to breaking the structure of military alliances required by Washington to sustain its global military agenda.

No easy task. This movement will not emanate from the governments. Most of the heads of State and heads of government of  NATO member countries have been coopted.

Moreover, many of the West’s civil society organizations and NGOs (financed by corporate foundations) are tacitly supportive of US-NATO “humanitarian wars”.

What this means is that the anti-war movement has to be rebuilt.

Posted in USA, Europe, TurkeyComments Off on Towards “NATO-Exit”? Shift in the Structure of Military Coalitions. Turkey’s Alliance with Russia, China and Iran?

The End Game! Those Who Speak against War and Tell the Truth are Targeted

NOVANEWS

The most powerful military forces of NATO have engaged in a pre-war blame game against Russia.  The official story is that Mr. Putin personally ordered the death of a former British spy (Sergei Skripal) and his daughter by poisoning them with Novichok, a Russian nerve agent.

Detectives in the U.K. have allegedly identified a high concentration of Novichok poison on the front door of the victims. At the same time, they are reporting that the condition of Mrs. Yulia Skripal -the daughter- is improving however she is not able to talk to investigators yet.

Beyond this story, they have not shown any verifiable evidence or a meaningful motive why Russia would be behind this horrible act. However, they all are in agreement that it is “highly likely” that Russia has committed this crime since nobody else could possibly do such thing!  In other words, their evidence lies in a mountain of accusations!Of course, the corrupt media tirelessly rushed in putting all kinds of old stories with the new footage (some which look like scenes from Sci-Fi movies) to prove that Russia is guilty. CNN (the number one warmonger among news channels in the U.S.) believes they have already established a strong “case” against Russia just by saying Russia, Russia, Russia, every few minutes 24/7!

Obviously the immediate result of this game was the expelling of diplomats from all sides.

Now the question on everybody’s mind is what is next?

What is the end game?

While the leaders of the Western “democracies” are proudly patting each other’s back in their anti-Russian campaign, they are perplexed in how to go forward!

This show of unity among some NATO members against Russia has different economic consequences for different members.

This unevenness makes unity among major countries in the west shaky and short-lived.

Germany is already questioning the U.K./U.S. regarding concrete evidence that Moscow has been behind the nerve toxin attack in the city of Salisbury. Meantime, the U.S. leadership is entangled with their own unique set of problems that makes a clear foreign policy impossible and the circling of the wagons impractical.

The logical result of the U.S./U.K. anti-Russian campaign is a military conflict.

The 1% in the U.S. and U.K. are well aware of the rise of working people who are demanding change (this fact is also true in Russia). People are tired of decades of “War on Terror” and certainly are not ready for a major nuclear war against any country. The tangible danger of the anti-Russian campaign is the attack against Freedom of Speech. In the U.S. we are witnessing how the specter of censorship is creeping up against all Americans who are discussing the possibilities of a better system to solve our fatal social, economic and environmental problems.

Today those who speak against war and tell the truth are targeted and will be the victims of unfounded government accusations.

The recent decision of the government of Ecuador to cut off the WikiLeaks editor, Julian Assange’s access to the outside world and his visitation right at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London; is an ALARMING SIGN for all free thinkers.

Peace activists and democratic-minded people around the world should unite and organize against the censorship and war regardless of their ideology.

Posted in Campaigns, UKComments Off on The End Game! Those Who Speak against War and Tell the Truth are Targeted

Emergency U.N. Security Council Session on Bloodbath in Gaza

NOVANEWS
Image result for Bloodbath in Gaza CARTOON

Late Friday, Security Council members met in emergency session – in response to Israeli violence in Gaza.

Nearly all SC members called on both sides to show restraint, ignoring Israeli mass murder, the session lasting a scant 66 minutes – from 7:42 – 8:48PM, accomplishing nothing for long-suffering Palestinians, especially besieged and attacked Gazans.

According to UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affair Taye-Brook Zerihoun, Israeli forces attacked peaceful Palestinian demonstrators with live fire, adding:

“The developments in Gaza today are again a painful reminder of the consequences of a missing peace between Israel and Palestine and the need to step up our efforts in support of a peaceful resolution of the conflict.”

UN special coordinator for the (no-peace) Middle East Peace Process Nikolay Mladenov explained Palestinians called on everyone to exercise restraint and avoid violence, adding:

“There is fear the situation might deteriorate in the coming days.  We will continue to underline that civilians, in particular children, not be targeted and that all actors refrain from putting children at risk.”

So-called “actors” are Israelis, not Palestinians, flouting core international laws and standards. Urging them to “exercise maximum restraint” is meaningless without holding them accountable for murder, other forms of violence, and oppression of a beleaguered people.

Representing the Trump administration at Friday’s SC session, deputy political coordinator Walter Miller disgracefully blamed Gazans, not Israel for Friday’s violence, saying:

“Bad actors who use protests as a cover to incite violence endanger innocent lives.”

Russian deputy UN envoy Vladimir Safronkov shamefully urged both sides to show restraint – ignoring premeditated Israeli mass murder, continuing a decade-long pattern, perhaps much more to come through mid-May.

Bolivian envy Pedro Luis Inchauste Jordan alone among SC members condemned Israeli violence, blaming 70 years of conflict and 50 years of occupation.

Permanent observer of the State of Palestin Riyad Mansour attended the session, demanding an immediate halt to Israeli slaughter, along with holding its officials accountable for what happened, adding:

The SC “must take a stance and condemn the massacre while providing protection for the Palestinian people, (acting with) a sense of repugnance and urgency.”

“There is nothing more repulsive than a massacre of unarmed defenseless people, including women and children.”

“We call on the Council to swiftly uphold its Charter duties and the integrity and authority of its resolutions in light of the violations and provocations against the rights and legitimate national aspirations of the Palestinian people.”

The world body and member states have done nothing to relieve Palestinian suffering, nothing to hold Israel accountable for high crimes of war, against humanity and slow-motion genocide, nothing to end over half a century of illegal occupation harshness.

US support for the Jewish state lets its rogue officials get away with mass murder and much more.

Palestinians have been victimized for decades, no relief in prospect for a long-suffering people because the world community doesn’t give a damn about their rights and welfare.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human Rights, UNComments Off on Emergency U.N. Security Council Session on Bloodbath in Gaza


Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

March 2018
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031