Archive | March 24th, 2020

Zio-Wahhabi calls on God to increase coronavirus torment against idolatrous nations

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

The Saudi Zio-Wahhabi (ISIS) has released a new newsletter from their Al-Naba’ publication, which appears to be a follow up on their previous article in which the terrorist group instructed its followers on how to deal with the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

The terrorist group began their newsletter by stating that God “has imposed something of His painful torment on the nations of His creation,” claiming that this is God’s response to idolatrous nations.

While ISIS does not specifically call the virus by its official name, they do highlight the impacts the illness has had on the world’s population.

The newsletter’s author then calls on God to increase the torment against the idolatrous nations and protect the believers from any harm.

“We ask God to increase their torment and save the believers from all that. Indeed He is harsh of punishment against the one who rebels against Him, and merciful to the one who obeys Him and stands with Him,” the terrorist group said, as quoted by researcher 

The Saudi Zio-Wahhabi terrorist group stated that this illness has forced the “crusader nations” to go into retreat and increase the presence of their militaries inside their own countries in order to contain the spread of the virus.

For a full translation of the interview, please see the following link:

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Zio-Wahhabi calls on God to increase coronavirus torment against idolatrous nations

New bill prohibits the Nazi military from using U.S. funds to detain and ill-treat Palestinian children

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

A young Palestinian girl confronts Nazi soldiers in the central West Bank village of Nabi Saleh on April 21, 2018. (Photo: ActiveStills / Anne Paq)

U.S. Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D-MN) introduced the Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Nazi Military Occupation Act also known as H.R. 2407 yesterday, a bill prohibiting U.S. taxpayer funding for the military detention of children by any country, including ‘Israel’.

While generally applicable, H.R. 2407 seeks to promote justice, equality and human rights by ensuring that U.S. financial assistance provided to the Nazi regime is not used to support widespread and institutionalized ill-treatment against Palestinian children detained by Nazi forces and prosecuted in Nazi military courts lacking basic fair trial protections.

“Israel’s system of military juvenile detention is state-sponsored child abuse designed to intimidate and terrorize Palestinian children and their families,” Congresswoman McCollum said after introducing the bill. “It must be condemned, but it is equally outrageous that U.S. tax dollars in the form of military aid to Israel are permitted to sustain what is clearly a gross human rights violation against children.”

By prohibiting U.S. financial support of abuses against Palestinian children in the Nazi military detention system, H.R. 2407 aligns U.S. policy toward Nazi with existing U.S. law and international law.

Specifically, the bill amends Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378d) commonly known as the ‘‘Leahy Law’’ by adding a new subsection that includes a generally applicable limitation prohibiting U.S. military aid from being used by foreign armed forces to support the military detention, interrogation, abuse, or ill-treatment of children in violation of international humanitarian law. The amendment would apply to any foreign armed forces body that is detaining children in a military court system, including ‘Israel’.

The bill includes a clear statement of policy that the Nazi system of military detention of Palestinian children amounts to gross violations of human rights inconsistent with international humanitarian law and the laws and values of the U.S.

If passed, H.R. 2407 would also authorize the appropriation of funds up to $19 million to monitor human rights abuses and provide treatment to Palestinian child victims of Nazi military detention and torture.

H.R. 2407 is the second piece of legislation introduced by the Democratic Congresswoman from St. Paul, Minnesota highlighting the Nazi abuses of Palestinian children under military detention. The groundbreaking legislation H.R. 4391 or Promoting Human Rights by Ending Israeli Military Detention of Palestinian Children Act was introduced in November 2017 by Rep. Betty McCollum and nine original co-sponsors to the 115th Congress, gathering support from a total of 31 members of Congress.   

During the Obama administration in 2015 and 2016, Rep. Betty McCollum also led efforts on two letters that raised grave concerns about the conditions of Palestinian children in the Nazi military custody.

Each year, the Nazi military detains and prosecutes some 700 Palestinian children. The Nazi regime is the only regime in the world to automatically prosecute children in military courts that lack basic safeguards for a fair trial. DCIP has documented Nazi forces’ routine ill-treatment and abuses of detained Palestinian children, including the use of physical violence, solitary confinement and torture.

“As Israel’s military occupation becomes more entrenched with no end in sight and the human impact of occupation is more and more visible, lawmakers are increasingly willing to challenge U.S. policy toward Israel,” said Brad Parker, Senior Adviser for Policy and Advocacy at Defense for Children International – Palestine.

“H.R. 2407 is sending a clear message to Israeli authorities that the systemic impunity enjoyed for so long concerning widespread ill-treatment of Palestinian child detainees must end,” said Parker.

DCIP’s joint advocacy campaign with American Friends Service Committee, the No Way to Treat a Child campaign, focuses on congressional advocacy to support legislative vehicles like H.R. 2407 to organize and support an extensive network of people demanding immediate protections for Palestinian children held in Israeli military detention.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on New bill prohibits the Nazi military from using U.S. funds to detain and ill-treat Palestinian children

Nazi regime crushed her dream and sentenced her to five years in jail

By: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

Ansam Shawahneh

Shawahneh, who got 97% in Tawjihi (General Secondary Education Certificate Examination), was preparing to study journalism at An-Najah National University.

Four years
Four years have passed since Ansam left her home without coming back. The only girl with five brothers, Shawahneh always filled her family’s house with energy and laughter.

“Our home feels empty without her. She is not only my daughter; she is my sister and friend, especially that my family live abroad. She was my life, but four years ago, she left and did not come back,” Shawahneh’s mother said.

“It was shocking to us. We did not know what happened with her and why she was arrested,” she said.

She continued, “We suffered a lot to be able to visit her with all those repeated transfers. Her trial was delayed 20 times too before the Salem Military Court sentenced her to five years in prison.”

Ansam spent the first six months of her detention unable to see any of her family members.

Shawahneh’s mother said in a trembling voice, tears filling her eyes, “I remember when I saw Ansam for the first time after six months of separation. I was crying but she kept telling me “don’t cry mom”. I could feel her holding back her tears. She did not want to look defeated in front of her jailers.”

Shawahneh’s father said that the Nazi occupation always falsify facts and fabricate stories to arrested young Palestinians and make them serve long prison sentences.

He described the court’s decision to imprison his daughter for five years as “null” and “baseless”. “Dozens of Palestinian girls and women have fallen victim to this arbitrary policy since the Jerusalem Intifada (October 2015),” he added.

No surrender
According to her mother, Ansam has invested her time at prison to improve herself by teaching the Quran, helping high school students, and taking courses in journalism. “She has not given up her dream yet,” she smiled.

“Despite the harsh prison conditions and endless suffering, Ansam has a strong determination. She is the one who gives us hope every visit not the other way around,” the mother said.

“This is Ansam’s last year at jail but it is going to be the longest. We impatiently keep counting the days. We cannot wait until she is finally free. We cannot wait until the sun shines again and Ansam starts a new life and becomes the TV reporter she always wanted to be.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi regime crushed her dream and sentenced her to five years in jail

What is stopping Europe from challenging the ‘Deal of the Century?’

The EU’s fixation on the two-state solution has detached it from changes in Israeli politics and U.S. policy. It has the clout to act, but does it have the will?

By Robert Swift 

Meeting of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, Germany, February 16, 2016. (Amos Ben Gershom/GPO)

Meeting of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, Germany, February 16, 2016. (Amos Ben Gershom/GPO)

If one were to ask a European politician or diplomat about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it would not take long before they uttered the weary words of “the two-state solution.”

Writing to +972 by email, a European Union spokesperson, who declined to be interviewed for this article, wrote: “The EU recalls its commitment to a negotiated two-state solution, based on 1967 lines… with the State of Israel and an independent… State of Palestine, living side by side in peace, security and mutual recognition.” Had the same question been asked of them two decades ago, the response likely would have been the same.

European policy has remained surprisingly static toward the conflict since the Oslo “peace process” began in the 1990s. Yet the situation on the ground in Israel and Palestine, and the diplomatic context in which it takes place, has changed dramatically.Get Our Weekly NewsletterSign up

As last week’s election demonstrated, Israeli politics have shifted rightward from the days when a two-state solution appeared more feasible. Under the Trump administration, the United States, Israel’s chief backer, has been unafraid to disrupt existing international norms around the conflict; indeed, President Donald Trump prides himself on tearing up the rulebook, including in Middle Eastern politics. Entering the 53rd year of indefinite occupation, growing numbers of Palestinians are also questioning the viability of a peace deal based on the 1967 borders.

Given these significant developments, why has the European Union — which asserts that human rights, democracy, and international law lie at the heart of its foreign policy — failed to adapt its approach?

An ultra-Orthodox Jewish man looks at a large billboard of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as part of the Likud election campaign, at the entrance to Jerusalem, Feb. 3, 2019. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

An ultra-Orthodox Jewish man looks at a large billboard of U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as part of the Likud election campaign, at the entrance to Jerusalem, Feb. 3, 2019. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

“The EU is still trapped by its focus on the two-state paradigm,” says Miguel Rodriguez Vidosa, a Mashreq officer at EuroMed Rights, a network of NGOs working on human rights in the Euro-Mediterranean region. The parameters of this paradigm, he notes, effectively “subordinates respect for international norms and human rights to direct negotiations, peace process, and bilateralism between the two parties.”

The attachment to the two-state idea has disconnected Europe’s policy from the new political realities that are countering this goal. Since 2009, Israel has been governed by three consecutive right-wing coalitions led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made the prevention of a Palestinian state a cornerstone of his policy.

Even now, as Netanyahu’s grip on power is in question after falling short of a coalition majority in last week’s election, his main rival, Benny Gantz, hails from the political right rather than the once-strong left. The fact that annexation of large swathes of the West Bank, once a fringe idea, has become a mainstream policy promoted by both the Israeli government and its leading opposition, further demonstrates this rightward lurch. The fusing of the Israeli economy and its infrastructure to ongoing settlement projects in the occupied West Bank has also continued unabated.

The U.S., meanwhile, has “shifted the goalposts entirely off the field” — as one European diplomat described to +972 — yet the EU has still kept to the same script. Even after the U.S. unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, endorsed Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, and suspended funding to Palestinian institutions, the EU said that it would wait to see the terms of the peace initiative led by U.S. special adviser Jared Kushner.

Now that the “Deal of the Century” has been released, the EU has deferred further discussions on a substantive policy response until after Israel’s elections. For the time being, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has merely stated concern that the U.S. plan “departs from these internationally agreed parameters” around the two-state solution.

Josep Borrell, during his hearing for the position of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union, October 7, 2019. (European Parliament)

Josep Borrell, during his hearing for the position of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the European Union, October 7, 2019. (European Parliament)

Privately, several EU governments are very unhappy with Trump’s deal but are unwilling to publicly exclaim their objections, the EU diplomat told +972. Member states are particularly alarmed by the growing calls for immediate annexation by many Israeli politicians. This, says the diplomat, partly explains Borrell’s tone when he declared that such action by Israel toward annexation would not go “unchallenged.”

So far, however, it is unclear what that “challenge” entails. For all the EU’s repeated warnings, Israel has in fact been consolidating its sovereignty on both sides of the Green Line, while confining Palestinians into a collection of cantons — or perhaps more fittingly, Bantustans — under its rule.

As Vidosa puts it, the fixation on the two-state paradigm “has effectively hindered the Europeans from addressing the actual situation on the ground, characterized by a one-state reality of institutional discrimination and de facto annexation of the Palestinian territory.”

‘Wait and see’

It seems surprising that the EU is unable, or unwilling, to adapt its thinking. It certainly does not lack the power: as Israel’s number one trading partner, the EU holds considerable clout if it chooses to wield it.

Accounting for a third of Israel’s trade, the EU is an essential export market for Israeli goods; between 2011 and 2016, $15 billion worth of products were shipped to Europe. The continent also accounts for nearly half of all imports into Israel and is an important research partner, with many Israeli high-tech companies applying for and receiving innovation funding from the EU’s Horizon 2020 program.

View of the port in the southern Israeli city of Ashdod. May 13, 2018. (Yossi Zamir/FLASH90)

View of the port in the southern Israeli city of Ashdod. May 13, 2018. (Yossi Zamir/FLASH90)

While both partners benefit from this trade, Israel as the junior partner has more to lose should economic relations turn sour. The apprehension shown by the Israeli Foreign Ministry to public criticisms from EU officials suggests that Israeli leaders understand and are wary of this power dynamic, says the EU diplomat.

As such, Europe’s intransigence has less to do with a lack of policy options as it does with the constraints and shortcomings of its consensus-based decision-making model. In this case, the system suffers from a split between states that are consistently critical of Israeli policy — like Sweden, Spain, and Ireland — and those unwilling to publicly chastise it — like Germany, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

In lieu of a decision, Europe is adopting a policy of “wait and see” — which, according to Said Mahmoudi, a professor of international law at Stockholm University, is tantamount to “total submission” to U.S. and Israeli actions. “They hope that the time of Trump will end and they can keep the status quo until a more moderate [U.S.] president takes over… [and] that Netanyahu will be replaced by a more moderate politician… who is ready to negotiate on different terms,” Mahmoudi says.

This strategy has its limits, however. For one, it presupposes that the situation in Israel and Palestine will become more conducive to peace-building with time, despite the opposite proving to be the case. For another, rather than striving to improve the circumstances, policymakers risk finding themselves in even less favorable conditions.

“If he [Trump] is re-elected, there might need to be a rethink”, the EU diplomat says, including the question of why Europe is sending money to support the building of a Palestinian state if they are not ensuring that state will come into existence.

Israeli soldiers stand guard during the demolishing of caravans that were donated by the European Union in the West Bank village of Khashim Al-Daraj, near Yatta, August 14, 2017. (Wisam Hashlamoun/Flash90)

Israeli soldiers stand guard during the demolishing of caravans that were donated by the European Union in the West Bank village of Khashim Al-Daraj, near Yatta, August 14, 2017. (Wisam Hashlamoun/Flash90)

This is even more perplexing given that several EU states are actively intervening in the diplomatic arena to maintain the status quo, even when it goes against their declared objective of achieving Palestinian statehood.

Last month, Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, and Hungary (along with Brazil and Uganda) submitted opinions to the International Criminal Court (ICC) arguing that the court does not have the jurisdiction to probe war crimes committed in the occupied territories because Palestine is not a state, and therefore, is unable to defer its sovereignty to the court for the investigation.

The contradiction between desiring Palestinian statehood while simultaneously undermining it remains unresolved. For now, however, EU members remain in agreement that the pursuit of the two-state solution is better than the main alternatives on the table: neither an apartheid single-state nor the status-quo are attractive options for them.

Moreover, the EU diplomat says, many people in Israel and in Palestine, and the consensus of the international community, continue to believe that the two-state solution is the best hope for peace. Still, he acknowledges, “It is not a denial of reality, but there may be an element of wishful thinking to it.”

This calculation could change if Israel carries out annexation of large parts of the West Bank, or if there is further construction of settlements, particularly around Jerusalem, that entrenches the discriminatory legal regime over millions of Palestinians, adds the diplomat.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Europe, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on What is stopping Europe from challenging the ‘Deal of the Century?’

Ten Questions for the U.S.: Where did the Novel Coronavirus Come From?

By Wang Fuhua

Global Research,

CGTN Editor’s note: The article is an edited version of an article which was first published on a WeChat official account named Gong Yi Kan Shi Jie. The article reflects the author’s opinions and does not necessarily reflect the views of CGTN..

Given that some major U.S. media and politicians made groundless claims that the novel coronavirus originates in China, blamed and slandered China, even asked for an apology from China, then I have every reason to ask 10 questions for the United States about its origin too. Better still, unlike the U.S., I did a lot of homework and will base my questions on international media coverage of COVID-19.

emphasis added

Question 1

Since the director of the U.S. Centers of Disease Control, Robert Redfield admitted that some Americans seemingly dying from flu were tested positive for the novel coronavirus, can I conclude that those people actually died from the novel coronavirus? Among the 34 million influenza patients, with a death toll of 20,000, how many were misdiagnosed?

When did the misdiagnoses start? And did it actually start from August 2019? These questions are so vital that the world is waiting for an explanation from the United States.

Question 2

When there were some misdiagnoses admitted by U.S. CDC, I’m scratching my head – isn’t the U.S. that owns the best medical technologies in the world? Why did that happen?

As the ground glass opacity (white patches) can be easily seen in CT scans of the lungs of patients with the novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia, it should have been an easy thing to separate the cases of COVID-19 and H1N1 flu. But why were there so many misdiagnoses?

Well, that reminds me of the U.S. Vice President Mike Pence’s request of controlling all messaging regard to the coronavirus. Why does the White House call for messaging control? Does the U.S. need to hide something? Are they plotting some conspiracy?

Director of the U.S. CDC Robert Redfield (front) speaks during a press conference on the coronavirus at the White House in Washington D.C., U.S., March 4, 2020. /Xinhua

Question 3

Why did the U.S. withdraw from the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) in 2001? Why did it try to prevent a monitoring mechanism for the execution of the Convention? Is it standing in the way of developing biological weapon for the U.S.?

If not, why are there new biological laboratories in Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan? Are those labs for biochemical warfare? It’s impossible that they are keeping viruses as pets. If the U.S. is aiming at provoking a biochemical war, who would be the first target then?

Also, how about the swine flu outbreak in China last year? The odd thing is that it broke out in different places simultaneously instead of breaking out separately. Why were drones used to poison the pigs? Was the U.S. behind all that? I heard that it was the pork speculators. But that theory makes no sense – since the swine flu killed millions of pigs in China during the same period of time, pork speculators would suffer great loss instead of profits.

The best possible answer to that was foreign meddling. I was among those who wondered if the U.S. had anything to do with that and hoped for an explanation.

Question 4

The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, located on Fort Detrick, Maryland, was shut down in July 2019. Was it because there was a virus leakage incident?

Just one month later, there was an influenza outbreak across the country. Were those two things related in any way?

Were the misdiagnoses simply cooked up to cover up such secrets? Did that also become a motive for the U.S. to shift the blame to other countries by labeling them as the origin of the novel coronavirus?

Was that an epic coincidence or a dirty secret in disguise? Why did the U.S. erase huge number of English news reports on the internet covering the shutdown in March 2020? Is there anything to hide, or is there anything to worry about?

Question 5

At the 7th Military World Games (October 18-27, 2019) held in Wuhan, why did the U.S. team (369 members) win ZERO gold medal? Did that even look like a reasonable record for the world’s leading military power? Did your government do it on purpose?

Was anyone among the 369 participants ever (mis)diagnosed with influenza? Was it possible they were carriers of the novel coronavirus?

The best thing for the U.S. now is to stop burying its head in the sand and give the 369 people PCT tests to see if they are infected.

Question 6

Why did the U.S. hold Event 201, a global pandemic exercise in October 2019? Why was the CIA deputy director participating it? Is it because the U.S. has foreseen a highly-infectious virus is about to cause a pandemic? One month later, cases of pneumonia of unknown cause were detected in China and there was a pandemic three months later. Probably, it’s not just a coincidence.

Question 7

Japan, South Korea, Italy and Iran all reported that many of their first COVID-19 confirmed cases had no exposure history with China but showed connection with the United States. How come?

Genetic research shows that the type of novel coronavirus found in China belongs to Group C, but Group A and Group B viruses – Group C’s parental and grand parental viruses – are both found in the United States. Why? A Japanese patient was diagnosed with influenza in Hawaii but was tested positive for COVID-19 when he returned to Japan. How to explain that?

Some COVID-19 cases in the U.S. had no connection with China whatsoever. So where does it come from?

Question 8

You’ve got no reason to deny that the 1918 Pandemic originated within your territory. But you let Spain bear the blame for as long as a century. Don’t you feel shame on that?

History seems to repeat itself. So, is the U.S. playing the trick again and attempting to label the novel coronavirus as the “Chinese Virus”?

Question 9

The 1918 Pandemic, causing 1 billion infections, with a death toll “estimated to have been anywhere from 17 million to 50 million, and possibly as high as 100 million… one of the deadliest epidemics in human history,” according to wikipedia, was proven originating in the U.S., but the U.S. has never apologized to the world.

So far, the origin of the novel coronavirus is still unknown, but the United States is requiring China for an apology, how ridiculous is that! Just to remind the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic killing 300,000 people also originated in the U.S., and also the same for HIV AIDS. So why not confess to the world?

Question 10

In movies, the U.S. is fond of playing the role of the world savior. The image of Captain America is one of its most popular symbols. However, in reality, in the face of a disaster like COVID-19, where is Captain America?

The U.S. is not doing enough to protect its citizens at home or on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. It even attempted to make Japan responsible for Americans on Diamond Princess. How does the U.S. have the brass to do all these and accuse China of being irresponsible?

While China bought the world valuable time to battle COVID-19, the U.S. accused China of being passive and lacking transparency. Well, when the White House instructed the CDC to stop tallying the people tested for novel coronavirus, did that count as transparency?

When the U.S. government advised its people not to wear masks, was it not being passive? Just too many questions call for the U.S.’s explanations.

Posted in HealthComments Off on Ten Questions for the U.S.: Where did the Novel Coronavirus Come From?

International Women’s Day: 43 Palestinian women held in Nazi Camp’s

Israeli security forces take Naide Salah, who is the sister of 1948 Palestine Islamic Movement Leader Raed Salah, into custody alongside 4 Palestinian women at Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem on January 28, 2020 [Jerusalem Islamic Waqf/Handout - Anadolu Agency]

Nazi security forces take Naide Salah, who is the sister of 1948 Palestine Islamic Movement Leader Raed Salah, into custody alongside 4 Palestinian women at Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem on January 28, 2020 [Jerusalem Islamic Waqf/Handout – Anadolu Agency]March 8, 2020 at 4:45 pm

A statement marking International Women’s Day by the Palestinian Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs Commission said there are 43 Palestinian women held in Israeli jails, Palestine Information Center reported.

Head of the commission’s studies and documentation unit Abed al-Naser Farwana said that the Nazi occupation authorities have arrested over 16,000 Palestinian women since 1967.

Farwana said that the brutal methods used by Nazi occupation forces against Palestinian men during arrests are no different from those used against women.

Arrests are aimed at intimidating Palestinian women and limiting their influence, he said, adding that sometimes women are detained to pressure male relatives to confess to charges brought against them.

Farwana noted that women in Nazi Camp’s are subjected to severe interrogation, physical and psychological torture, abuse, oppression and deliberate medical neglect with no regard to their gender and special needs.

READ: Asylum seekers demonstrate on International Women’s Day

Arrested on 14 October 1967, Fatima Bernawi was the first Palestinian woman to be arrested by Nazi occupation forces. She was sentenced to life imprisonment over an alleged bombing attempt.

Farwana said that 128 Palestinian women were arrested by Nazi occupation forces in 2019, adding that 29 Palestinian women have been arrested since the beginning of 2020.

Nazi illegall occupation authorities are holding 43 Palestinian women in their prisons, 16 of whom are mothers and four are under administrative detention.

Amal Taqatqa from Beit Fajjar town in Bethlehem is the longest serving Palestinian woman in Nazi Camp who is serving a seven-year sentence. She was arrested in December 2014.

Hanaa Shalabi from Jenin had the longest hunger strike among Palestinian women detainees. It lasted for 44 days before she was released later and expelled to the Gaza Strip in April 2012.

“The world celebrates women on 8 March every year in appreciation of their struggles and sacrifices and in honor of their different roles in life but ignores Palestinian women and their aggravating suffering under Israeli occupation, especially women in Israeli prisons,” Farwana said.

He called on all human rights institutions concerned with women to exert more efforts to save Palestinian women in Nazi Camp’s, talk about their suffering and what they are exposed to, and pressure for their freedom.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on International Women’s Day: 43 Palestinian women held in Nazi Camp’s

Iranian military nearly fired on US F-18 jet

DEADLY MISSION: A US F-18 Hornet combat jet which bombed an Islamic State control centre in Syria

The Iranian military nearly opened fire on a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet jet three days ago after the latter did not obey the warnings from Tehran.

In a video that was released on the YJC news site, the Iranian military’s air defenses locked in on the U.S. F-18 aircraft and nearly fired on the jet before it turned away from the Iranian border.

Saeed Biglari@Haman_Ten · 45m

#BREAKING:#Iran nearly shot down a #US F-18 super hornet three days ago when they did not obey commands by Iranian AF.

F-18 was coming close to our border at a fast speed, didn’t obey commands to change course, was locked on by radar, got scared and changed course.

Saeed Biglari@Haman_Ten

The moment US fighter jet was nearly shot down.
Funny thing is that this collision happened when a reporter was inside the command center for an AF air defense division, making a report about the readiness of the division.154:56 PM – Mar 22, 2020Twitter Ads info and privacy17 people are talking about this

As shown in the video above, a reporter was with the Iranian military’s air defense division during the incident and he later interviewed the commander after the near confrontation.

The U.S. has yet to comment on these accusations; however, this marks the first time that the Iranian and U.S. militaries have come close to a confrontation since the January 8th missile strikes in Iraq.

Posted in USA, IranComments Off on Iranian military nearly fired on US F-18 jet

Vietnam War Started 55 Years Ago: Neoliberalism and “The Vietnam Model”. Who Won the Vietnam War?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Fifty five years ago, March 8 1965 marks the commencement of the Vietnam war.

April 1975 marks the official end of the Vietnam War. 

Yet today, almost 44 year later Vietnam is an impoverished country.  The Hanoi government is a US proxy regime. Vietnam has become a new cheap labor frontier of the global economy. Neoliberalism prevails.

In a bitter irony, Vietnam which was a victim of US war crimes has become a staunch military ally of the US under Washington’s  “Pivot to Asia” which threatens China. 

And now The Trump administration has been pressuring North Korea to adopt the “Vietnam Model” as a prerequisite to “normalization” and the lifting of economic sanctions.

The Vietnam Model is not a Solution for North Korea.

In 2019, the minimum hourly wage in Vietnam’s export manufacturing sector is of the order 20 cents an hour.

Health services have in large part been privatized. Education is grossly underfunded. Poverty is rampant.

Al Jazeera, April 17, 2013 

In 1994 following the lifting of US sanctions, I undertook field research in Vietnam with the support of Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture, which enabled me to visit and conduct interviews in rural areas in both the North and the South. 

This article was written twenty five years ago, initially published on April 30th 1995 in the context of the 20th anniversary of the Liberation of Saigon. A more in-depth analysis focusing on Hanoi’s neoliberal reforms was subsequently published as a chapter in my book, The Globalization of Poverty, first edition 1997, second edition, 2003.

Michel Chossudovsky, March 21, 2020


Who Won the Vietnam War

by Michel Chossudovsky

Peace Magazine, July 15,  1994

On April 30, 1975, the Vietnam War ended with the capture of Saigon by Communist forces and the surrender of General Duong Vanh Minh and his cabinet in the Presidential palace. As troops of the People’s Army of Vietnam marched into Saigon, U.S. personnel and the last American marines were hastily evacuated from the roof of the U.S. embassy. Twenty years later a fundamental question still remains unanswered: Who won the Vietnam War?

Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the U.S. for the massive loss of life and destruction, yet an agreement reached in Paris in 1993 required Hanoi to recognize the debts of the defunct Saigon regime of General Thieu. This agreement is in many regards tantamount to obliging Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war.

Moreover, the adoption of sweeping macro-economic reforms under the supervision of the Bretton Woods institutions was also a condition for the lifting of the U.S. embargo. These free market reforms now constitute the Communist Party’s official doctrine. With the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington in 1994, reference to America’s brutal role in the war is increasingly considered untimely and improper. Not surprisingly, Hanoi had decided to tone down the commemoration of the Saigon surrender so as not to offend its former wartime enemy. The Communist Party leadership has recently underscored the “historic role” of the United States in “liberating” Vietnam from Vichy regime and Japanese occupation during World War II.Why Does Trump Like Communist Vietnam? Because It’s Capitalist.

On September 2, 1945 at the Declaration of Independence of Ba Dinh Square in Hanoi proclaiming the founding of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, American agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the predecessor of today’s CIA) were present at the side of Ho Chi Minh. While Washington had provided the Viet Minh resistance with weapons and token financial support, this strategy had largely been designed to weaken Japan in the final stages of World War II without committing large numbers of U.S. ground troops.

In contrast to the subdued and restrained atmosphere of the commemoration marking the end of the Vietnam War, the 50th anniversary of independence is to be amply celebrated in a series of official ceremonies and activities commencing in September and extending to the Chinese NewYear.

Vietnam Pays War Reparations

Prior to the “normalization” of relations with Washington, Hanoi was compelled to foot the bill of the bad debts incurred by the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. At the donor conference held in Paris in November 1993, a total of nearly $2 billion of loans and aid money was generously pledged in support of Vietnam’s free market reforms.

Yet immediately after the conference, a secret meeting was held under the auspices of the Paris Club. Present at this meeting were representatives of Western governments. On the Vietnamese side, Dr. Nguyen Xian Oanh, economic advisor to the prime minister, played a key role in the negotiations. Dr. Oanh, a former IMF official, had been Minister of Finance and later Acting Prime Minister in the military government of General Duong Van Minh, which the U.S. installed 1963 after the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother(f.2). Dr. Oanh, while formally mediating on behalf of the Communist government, was nonetheless responsive to the demands of Western creditors.

The deal signed with the IMF (which was made public) was largely symbolic. The amount was not substantial: Hanoi was obliged to pay the IMF $140 million (owned by the defunct Saigon regime) as a condition for the resumption of new loans. Japan and France, Vietnam’s former colonial masters of the Vichy period, formed a so-called “Friends of Vietnam” committee to lend to Hanoi” the money needed to reimburse the IMF.

The substantive arrangement on the rescheduling of bilateral debts (with the Saigon regime), however, was never revealed. Yet it was ultimately this secret agreement (reached under the auspices of the Paris Club) which was instrumental in Washington’s decision to lift the embargo and normalize diplomatic relations. This arrangement was also decisive in the release of the loans pledged at the 1993 donor conference, thereby bringing Vietnam under the trusteeship of Japanese and Western creditors. Thus twenty years after the war, Vietnam had surrendered its economic sovereignty.

By fully recognizing the legitimacy of these debts, Hanoi had agreed to repay loans that had supported the U.S. war effort. Moreover, the government of Mr. Vo Van Kiet had also accepted to comply fully with the usual conditions (devaluation, trade liberalization, privatization, etc.) of an IMF-sponsored structural adjustment program.

These economic reforms, launched in the mid-1980s with the Bretton Woods institutions, had initiated, in the war’s brutal aftermath, a new phase of economic and social devastation: Inflation had resulted from the repeated devaluations that began in 1973 under the Saigon regime the year after the withdrawal of American combat troops(f.3). Today Vietnam is once again inundated with U.S. dollar notes, which have largely replaced the Vietnamese dong. With soaring prices, real earnings have dropped to abysmally low levels.

In turn, the reforms have massively reduced productive capacity. More than 5,000 out of 12,300 state-owned enterprises were closed or steered into bankruptcy. The credit cooperatives were eliminated, all medium and long term credit to industry and agriculture was frozen. Only short-term credit was available at an interest rate of 35 percent per annum (1994). Moreover, the IMF agreement prohibited the state from providing budget support either to the state-owned economy or to an incipient private sector.

The reforms’ hidden agenda consisted in destabilizing Vietnam’s industrial base. Heavy industry, oil and gas, natural resources and mining, cement and steel production are to be reorganized and taken over by foreign capital. The most valuable state assets will be transferred to reinforce and preserve its industrial base, or to develop a capitalist economy owned and controlled by Nationals.

In the process of economic restructuring, more than a million workers and over 20,000 public employees (of whom the majority were health workers and teachers) have been laid off(f.5). In turn, local famines have erupted, affecting at least a quarter of the country’s population(f.6). These famines are not limited to the food deficit areas. In the Mekong delta, Vietnam’s rice basket, 25% of the adult population consumes less than 1800 calories per day(f.7). In the cities, the devaluation of the dong together with the elimination of subsidies and price controls has led to soaring prices of rice and other food staples.

The reforms have led to drastic cuts in social programs. With the imposition of school fees, three quarters of a million children dropped out from the school system in a matter of a few years (1987-90)(f.8). Health clinics and hospitals collapsed, the resurgence of a number of infectious diseases including malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea is acknowledged by the Ministry of Health and the donors. A World Health Organization study confirmed that the number of malaria deaths increased three-fold in the first four years of the reforms alongside the collapse of health care and soaring prices of antimalarial drugs(f.9). The government (under the guidance of the international donor community) has also discontinued budget support to the provision of medical equipment and maintenance leading to the virtual paralysis of the entire public health system. Real salaries of medical personnel and working conditions have declined dramatically: the monthly wage of medical doctors in a district hospital is as low as $15 a month(f.10).

Although the U.S. was defeated on the battlefield, two decades later Vietnam appears to have surrendered its economic sovereignty to its former Wartime enemy.

No orange or steel pellet bombs, no napalm, no toxic chemicals: a new phase of economic and social destruction has unfolded. The achievements of past struggles and the aspirations of an entire nation are undone and erased almost with a stroke of the pen.

Debt conditionality and structural adjustment under the trusteeship of international creditors constitute in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, an equally effective and formally nonviolent instrument of recolonization and impoverishment affecting the livelihood of millions of people.

Posted in VietnamComments Off on Vietnam War Started 55 Years Ago: Neoliberalism and “The Vietnam Model”. Who Won the Vietnam War?

Flash, March 17: Second mistrial declared!

New Evidence of Police Plotting vs. Movement Against Fascism

The #Freeway9 Are Back in Court—AGAIN!—Facing Years in Jail for Sounding the Alarm on the Trump/Pence Fascist Regime

March 9, 2020 |

Flash: In the second trial of two of the #Freeway9, Alex and Chantelle, the jury was deadlocked on all six charges, and on Monday, March 16, the judge declared a mistrial—again! When is enough enough! Call LA City Attorney Mike Feuer to demand the charges be dropped: 213.978.8100 or tweet @Mike_Feuer.

An outrageous case of political persecution is going on right now in Los Angeles, against five of the #Freeway9—members of Refuse Fascism and the Revolution Club who were part of courageous actions in 2017 aimed at sounding the alarm on the Trump/Pence fascist regime. These protesters blocked morning rush hour traffic on the 101 Freeway—twice—with a 50-foot banner declaring “Trump/Pence Regime Must Go.” These actions were just and inspiring, and the #Freeway9 should be thanked and celebrated—but instead they have been subjected to prosecutorial persecution, now for the second time, and are facing up to three years in jail.

For almost two and a half years now, the LAPD and the Democratic LA City Attorney’s office has targeted, spied on, and prosecuted these heroes. Right now there are two cases resulting from the 101 Freeway actions going to trial. The two defendants in one of the cases, Alex and Chantelle, already went through a trial last year, which resulted in a mistrial, and they are being tried again. The trial of three other defendants in the second case, facing the same charges, is also coming up this month.

Prosecutors Fail to Convict in First Trial—Yet Vengeful Prosecution Continues in New Trial

The defendants in the trial last year fought to bring out the political stakes of the trial. Their supporters, who filled the courtroom at key times in the trial, wore shirts stating things like “Would you have convicted Rosa Parks?”; “Trump = American Hitler”; and “Children in Cages: Which Side Are You On?” Chantelle and Alex got on the witness stand and, defying the prosecutors’ attempts to silence and limit their message, talked about why they got on the freeway to disrupt business as usual. They also published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, “The LAPD spied on our group. Here’s why we shut down the 101 Freeway,” reaching millions. The trial ended in a hung jury, with 9 of the 12 jurors voting for acquittal. This was an important victory—and the charges against all the #Freeway9 should have been dropped right then and there. But instead, LA City Attorney Mike Feuer is moving ahead with trials on these unjust charges.

One of the #Freeway9 defendants put it this way: “Who are the real criminals here? We just watched the real criminals in the White House get off the hook with a sham trial—where evidence was suppressed and truth meant nothing. These criminals have done horrendous things to immigrants, children, women, and LGBTQ people and in their wars around the world. And here we are, the people who have stood up against this, and we are being criminalized and dragged through the court for two and a half years by a Democrat city attorney, Mike Feuer—who by his actions is collaborating with these fascists. Imagine the horrors that could have been prevented if people had answered our call in 2017. Instead of being celebrated for our foresight and courage, we’ve been harassed and targeted by the LAPD, targeted for unconstitutional surveillance and dragged through endless court dates! Everyone has to ask themselves, which side are you on? Free the Freeway9! Drop the charges!”

More Spills Out on How a Pig Informant Tried to Set Up the Protesters

The #Freeway9 case broke into national news last year when the LA Times and the Guardian reported that the LAPD had sent a “confidential informant” (i.e., a spy) from the Anti-Terrorism Division into Refuse Fascism meetings at a church, within days of the nonviolent protest actions on the freeway. In response to the exposure of this spying, the LAPD said they would conduct an “investigation.” At a police commission meeting, the LAPD chief announced the result of the “investigation”—that their spying was legal and needed no “independent oversight” because this was an investigation into “criminal” activity and not political surveillance. The chief pig gave a completely false narrative of unsubstantiated charges of “criminal” activity in a whole different part of the state, with no proof offered. In other words, the political spying was perfectly OK… “because we say so!”

More recently, during the pretrial process for the new trial, portions of audio recordings of the LAPD confidential informant at the Refuse Fascism meetings came to light. One of the defense attorneys reported in open court that in the audio, the spy can be heard repeatedly trying to entrap Refuse Fascism. In the first meeting he spied on, in a discussion about white supremacists, the spy said, “You can give me a gun any day, I’ll shoot them.” And further, the attorney said, “Somebody at the meeting immediately responded, ‘This is not what we are about.’” In addition, this attorney reported that at the same meeting, when one attendee said that “there are millions of people who voted for Trump and we have to reckon with that,” the LAPD spy can be heard on the audio saying, “No, we have to wreck that”—once again trying to incite violence. In each instance, Refuse Fascism members can be heard on the audio clearly saying that what the spy was trying to stir up was not what Refuse Fascism is about, that it’s calling for mass nonviolent protest. The point the defense attorney was making was that this informant was not just coming in to get information about possible crimes being planned, but was engaging in attempts to incite and entrap others in major illegal activity, acting as an agent provocateur.

Repressing Political Speech to Speed a Fascist Railroad

The judges in both remaining #Freeway9 cases have already denied motions arguing that the charges should be dismissed because this is a case of selective prosecution—in other words, political persecution. This is despite evidence presented supporting the defense case that the prosecution handled the #Freeway9 defendants differently than in other cases involving blocking of freeways, and that this was due to the political views they hold.

In the retrial of Alex and Chantelle, the prosecution has filed an outrageous motion, asking the judge to ban the use of the words “Trump,” “fascism,” and the “First Amendment” in court (including in the testimony of witnesses for the defense); to ban all signs, banners, T-shirts, and leaflets; and to ban anybody from talking about “social injustices” within 50 yards of the courthouse! The defense has argued that this move by the prosecution is a completely outrageous attempt to muzzle the defendants from giving their defense.

In the latest hearing, on Friday, March 6, one of the #Freeway9 lawyers raised these questions: “What is the role that the state plays when the people exercise their rights to dissent against the government?” and “How did the police respond to Refuse Fascism’s nonviolent action blocking the freeway?” This kind of police surveillance—authorized at the highest levels of the LAPD—“is detrimental to a civil society, including the right to conduct peaceful political protests and nonviolent civil disobedience.” The lawyer pointed to what has come out about the LAPD not only spying on Refuse Fascism but trying to incite violent activity—and then connected this up with the history of how the U.S. government has surveilled, imprisoned, and outright assassinated many political activists and leaders.

The prosecution had the gall to claim that the LAPD’s spying and entrapment operation was not a big deal—because they didn’t find what they were looking for! The #Freeway9 lawyers countered that police carrying out these kinds of operations has larger and very harmful effects on society. If people get involved in nonviolent protests, will they be spied on, targeted as “terrorists,” and be set up to be tried in court? Will it put a chill on dissent and silence voices who otherwise would have come forward to call out the crimes of their government? Will First Amendment activity be criminalized?

YOU Are Urgently Needed to Support These Defendants

There are big questions involved in the political persecution of the #Freeway9. What kind of example will be set if those who are standing up against the crimes of this government are allowed to be railroaded into prison? What will be the consequences for humanity if the mass protests that are so urgently needed at this time are criminalized? How much further will the expansion of police powers go, with American Nazis in the driver’s seat, if the people do not draw the line right here, right now?

Posted in USAComments Off on Flash, March 17: Second mistrial declared!

Nazi regime must release all Palestinian child detainees amid COVID-19 pandemic

Nazi forces detain a young Palestinian protester in the occupied West Bank city of Bethlehem on December 22, 2017. (Photo: AFP / Musa Al Shaer)

Defense for Children International – Palestine calls on the Nazi regime to take immediate action to release all Palestinian child detainees in Nazi Camp’s due to the rapid global spread of the COVID-19 virus.

Palestinian children imprisoned by the Nazi Gestapo live in close proximity to each other, often in compromised sanitary conditions, with limited access to resources to maintain minimum hygiene routines, according to documentation collected by DCIP. COVID-19’s impact is exacerbated by these living conditions making Palestinian children in Israeli prisons and detention centers increasingly vulnerable.

As of March 19, 573 Zionist had tested positive for the COVID-19 virus, according to Ha’aretz. Four Palestinian prisoners detained in Nazi Camp Megiddo, located inside Israel northwest of the occupied West Bank city of Jenin, were placed in isolation after they were in contact with a COVID-19 positive Nazi officer, according to Ha’aretz. Megiddo prison is one of several detention facilities located inside Israel where Palestinian child “security prisoners” are held.

“We know the best way to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is for people to avoid being in close proximity to each other,” said Ayed Abu Eqtaish, Accountability Program director at DCIP. “There is no way Israeli prison authorities can ensure the health and well-being of Palestinian child detainees as long as they continue to be in a custodial detention setting.” 

An investigation by DCIP previously found Palestinian child prisoners detained in Nazi Damon Nazi Camp were held in poor conditions, including small rooms without access to clean and private bathroom facilities. Conditions such as these increase risks and exposure to unsanitary conditions where the COVID-19 virus thrives.

In a headcount at the end of December 2019, 186 Palestinian children were detained in Israeli prisons, according to the latest figures released by the Nazi regime Service (NRS). While international law demands that children only be detained as a measure of last resort, custodial pre-trial detention is the norm for Palestinian children detained by Nazi forces from the occupied West Bank. 

The Nazi regime has the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world that automatically and systematically detains and prosecutes children in military courts that lack fundamental fair trial rights and protections. Nazi regime detains and prosecutes between 500 and 700 Palestinian children in military courts each year. Nearly three out of four Palestinian children detained by the Nazi forces experiences some form of physical violence, according to documentation collected by DCIP.

Since 1967, the Nazi regime has operated two separate legal systems in the same territory. In the occupied West Bank, Nazi Jewish settlers are subject to the civilian and criminal legal system whereas Palestinians live under military law. No Zionist child comes into contact with the military courts.

The Nazi regime ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1991, obligating itself to implement the full range of rights and protections included in the treaty, including that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all decisions affecting children. The CRC demands that children must only be detained as a measure of last resort, and obliges states to ensure and protect the right to life, survival, and development, as well as the right to health.

As of March 18, worldwide there are 191,127 cases of COVID-19, and 7,807 fatalities, according to the World Health Organization

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported, as of March 19, there were 47 confirmed cases in the West Bank, mostly in Bethlehem and two nearby towns. There were no reported cases in the Gaza Strip, OCHA reported. Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh declared a state of emergency across the Occupied Palestinian Territory on March 5 in an attempt to contain the spread of COVID-19. 

Michael Lynk, UN Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, in a statement released on March 19 urged the Nazi regime, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to live up to their international legal responsibilities by ensuring that the right to health is fully provided to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The legal duty, anchored in Article 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, requires that Israel, the occupying power, must ensure that all the necessary preventive means available to it are utilized to ‘combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics,’” said Lynk.

The Nazi regime must take immediate action to release all Palestinian child detainees in Nazi Camp’s and detention centers due to the increasing vulnerability created due to the rapid global spread of the COVID-19 virus and to safeguard their right to life, survival, development, and health in accordance with international law.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi regime must release all Palestinian child detainees amid COVID-19 pandemic

Shoah’s pages