Archive | April 17th, 2015

ZIO-WAHHABI DIRTY WAR IN YEMEN مع الحدث العدوان السعودي على اليمن







Posted in YemenComments Off on ZIO-WAHHABI DIRTY WAR IN YEMEN مع الحدث العدوان السعودي على اليمن

American Zionists launch Islamophobia campaign

16th April 2015   American stoogesHome

By Lawrence Davidson

Promoting hatred

On 1 April 2015 an anti-Muslim advertisement started appearing on 84 municipal buses in the Philadelphia regional area. The ad space was purchased for a four-week period by the American Freedom Defence Initiative (AFDI), which paid USD 30,000 to run its message: a picture from the early 1940s of Adolf Hitler speaking to Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti (chief Muslim religious authority) of Jerusalem, with an accompanying text, “Islamic Jew hatred: It’s in the Quran” and a call to “end all aid to Islamic countries”. Philadelphia is just the latest city to experience this sort of offensive Islamophobia. Indeed, running Islamophobic attack ads on transit systems across the nation seems to be AFDI’s specialty.

The AFDI is part of an extremist organisation called Stop Islamisation of America (SIOA), which is led by the a hyperactive Islamophobe and strident right-wing Zionist Pamela Geller. The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which has long tracked right-wing extremist organisations, has labelled the SOIA a “hate group”.

Pamela Geller

Pamela Geller is a notorious right-wing Zionist bigot

Philadelphia’s regional transit authority (Southern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, SEPTA) tried to refuse the advertisement because it so blatantly did what it incorrectly alleged the Quran does – promote hatred. But the AFDI took SEPTA to court and won with a freedom of speech argument.

Analysing the AFDI advertisement

The ad now appearing in the Philadelphia area is actually a piece of propaganda. There is no accurate context given for the photo it displays, and the reference to the Quran lacks a citation. So let’s fill in what is missing with some analysis.

The photograph of the Grand Mufti speaking to Hitler

Amin al-Husseini (1895-1974) was a member of a leading family in Jerusalem. Early in the British occupation of Palestine he was appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, making him one of the most influential Muslim leaders in the colony. The British assumed they could control Husseini, who was only 26 years old at the time, and hoped that his appointment would placate Arab nationalist feelings. However, they had seriously underestimated him. Husseini’s goal was to achieve independence for Arab Palestine, and that made him a staunch opponent of the Zionist colonial project.

When a major anti-colonial Arab revolt broke out in 1936, the British mistakenly believed that Husseini was one of its major organisers and sought to arrest him. If they had managed to do so he probably would have been deported to one of Britain’s African colonies. To avoid this fate, Husseini fled to Iraq, which at this time was also a British colony in open revolt. When the British suppressed the Iraqi rebellion, Husseini fled to Fascist Italy from where he was eventually moved to Germany.

The advertisement that now appears on Philadelphia area buses shows Husseini speaking with Adolf Hitler. The implication, which is false, is that Palestine’s Muslim religious leader was himself a Nazi. If one does the research, one can find other pictures and documents that show Husseini recruiting Muslim soldiers in the Balkans to fight in the German army. He also did propaganda broadcasts in Arabic for the Germans urging resistance to British imperialism. Thus, it cannot be denied that he collaborated with Nazi Germany during the war years. However, none of this activity was undertaken because he was a Nazi. It was done because he was opposed to British imperial rule in Palestine and other Arab territories. If the British had been at war with Sweden instead of Germany, Husseini would have sought refuge among the Swedes and broadcast propaganda for them.

Whatever one might think of the Mufti’s activities in wartime Germany, he was driven to them not by any belief in Nazi doctrines, but by the ongoing oppression of his native land by British policies in support of Zionist ambitions.

The same can be said for Husseini’s attitude toward a Jewish Palestine. He was adamantly against it. When he proclaimed, as part of his pro-German propaganda, that he wished to see Jews driven from the Arab lands, the most logical interpretation of this statement is that it was Zionist Jews he sought expelled, for in other statements to German leaders of the time he said the best solution for Palestine was for the Jews to go back to their countries of origin. Thus, Husseini’s statement seems to have no relevance for Palestine’s indigenous Sephardic Jews. There is no convincing evidence that he supported the holocaust (though he was aware of it) despite an on-going Zionist effort to make it appear that he did.

Whatever one might think of the Mufti’s activities in wartime Germany, he was driven to them not by any belief in Nazi doctrines, but by the ongoing oppression of his native land by British policies in support of Zionist ambitions. Much like the British and American wartime alliance with Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union or, for that matter, the US alliance with Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahedin in Afghanistan, Husseini’s alliance with Hitler’s Germany was a function of the enemy of my enemy is, at least for the moment, my friend.

 “Jew hatred” and the Quran

The AFDI bus ad goes on to declare that “Jew hatred” can be found in the Quran. It is hard to take such a charge seriously, because the Quran, like the Old and New Testaments, is a book of scripture in which one can find, and then misinterpret, almost anything one wants. Thus, through selective and out-of-context quoting, or by simple innuendo, one can make outrageous accusations. Of course, the present bus ad forgoes quotation or citation and just makes an unsupported declaration.

if you compare the Quran and the Old Testament on the violent treatment of “the other”, the Old Testament is much worse. It is a very bloody affair… featuring a wrathful deity who arranges cruel fates for any group that gets in the way of ancient Hebrews.

One has to keep in mind that the Quran is approximately 1,500 years old, and so framing the attitude of all modern Muslims in terms of a few statements critical of early 7th-century Jews (while ignoring statements that are positive) is like saying that all educated English people dislike Jews because they revere the same Shakespeare who, in the late 16th century, wrote the Merchant of Venice.

Actually, if you compare the Quran and the Old Testament on the violent treatment of “the other”, the Old Testament is much worse. It is a very bloody affair (for instance, see Book 1 of Samuel), featuring a wrathful deity who arranges cruel fates for any group that gets in the way of ancient Hebrews. My personal opinion is that such a God deserves to be avoided rather than worshipped. On the other hand, the Quran’s portrayal of hell is pretty awful, but then its pains and tortures are attributed to that same wrathful deity found in the Old Testament.

Just to be even-handed on this topic, the New Testament’s Book of Revelations seems to inspire many Christian fundamentalists to earnestly yearn for global annihilation.

 Stop the aid!

Finally, the ad calls for a halt to aid going to Islamic countries. Actually, this might not be a bad idea, considering that a lot of this aid is made up of loan gurantees to dictatorships for the purchase of US weapons. If we could balance this out by halting the yearly USD 3 billion-plus in aid to Israel, we would have a win-win situation. However, on both counts the US munitions manufactures would scream bloody murder (pun intended) because they are the ones profiting from such “aid”.


When a bigoted extremist like Pamela Geller places misleading and hate-promoting propaganda on buses, the Zionist establishment has nothing critical to say. They treat it as if it is all very proper and upheld by “free speech”. However, when supporters of the Palestinian cause put up billboards picturing a series of maps that show the absorption of Arab Palestine by Zionist settlers between1948 and today, pious rabbis and Zionist lobbysts protest and call it anti-Semitic. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.

This is all about the ongoing battle to control the message, that is, the history and reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the early 1970s, when I started supporting the Palestinian cause, the Zionists had a near monopoly on that message. There were almost no venues that would allow someone who was pro-Palestinian to speak or publish, and on the rare occasion that one found a platform, one was subjected to heckling and threats.

The situation has really changed. At least outside of the Washington Beltway, those who support Palestinian rights are on the offensive, and the Zionists on the defensive. However, the Zionists certainly have not given up, and the most egregious of them, such as those at the AFDI, still lash out with hate-filled messages. So, the fight goes on.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on American Zionists launch Islamophobia campaign

Palestinian Prisoners’ Day End Nazi Torture and Ill-Treatment



Shehdeh Dorgham (2008)
To mark Palestinian Prisoners’ Day (17 April), four human rights organizations – Adalah, Al Mezan, PHR-I and PCATI – issued a joint statement calling on the international community to urge Israel to abide by international law regarding the human rights of Palestinian prisoners and detainees. The statement highlights the rising number of cases of torture and ill-treatment in Israel, and the particular need to protect Palestinian children who have been detained, tortured or ill-treated.The Israeli authorities have continued using numerous measures to target prisoners’ rights. Two days before Prisoners’ Day, the Israeli Supreme Court upheld a sweeping ban on higher education for Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli prisons. This decision is a dramatic break with past precedents, as prisoners have been allowed to study via the Open University for over 20 years.Another example is the conditions of transport for prisoners to medical centers and courts. Despite the promises to improve these conditions, prisoners continue to be subjected to long commutes in “posta” vehicles without food, water or bathroom breaks, leading many to refuse medical treatment or judicial proceedings.

Adalah is anticipating the continuation of harsh policies and legislation targeting prisoners’ rights with the establishment of the new government coalition. In the last year, the state dramatically increased its use of administrative detention, which more than doubled from 181 in February 2014 to 424 in February 2015; and targeted the political expression of Palestinians in the Occupied Territory, particularly East Jerusalem. Adalah will continue to monitor pending bills that affect detainees’ rights such as the force-feeding bill, and other proposals concerning criminal procedures against Palestinians designated as “security detainees”, which increase the likelihood of torture and ill-treatment, and the extraction of false confessions under duress.

The legal defense of prisoners’ rights should also be coupled with medical interventions to confront the physical and psychological consequences of torture, and to provide rehabilitation for victims. In honor of Prisoners’ Day, Adalah, PHR-I and the Treatment and Rehabilitation Center convened a workshop in Ramallah to exchange information on legal and medical methods to combat torture.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Palestinian Prisoners’ Day End Nazi Torture and Ill-Treatment

Cuba and Venezuela defend justice at Panama Summit

By Gloria La Riva
Cuba and Venezuela defend justice at Panama Summit

In Caracas, boxes containing 13 million signatures are presented to President Maduros for delivery to the Panama Summit. Photo:

As the Summit of the Americas opened in Panama this morning, more than 13 million signatures have already been collected to back revolutionary Venezuela’s demand that President Barack Obama rescind his March 9 Executive Order. That order declares Venezuela to be an “extraordinary and unusual threat to the national security” of the United States. President Nicolás Maduro is expected to present the petitions to Obama at the summit.

Although Obama and other U.S. officials have been pushed back by the massive denunciation of millions of people and yesterday Obama admitted that Venezuela is not a threat, the Executive Order and sanctions are still in effect.

This is just one of many disputes between the United States and its allies, on one side, against the rising unity of revolutionary and progressive governments and peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean, on the other.

On April 8, the Cuban and Venezuelan official delegations protested vehemently outside the Panama Hotel, over the U.S. government’s manipulations to include anti-Cuba terrorists and mercenaries at a civil society forum of the Summit of the Americas.

The Cuban revolutionaries demanded the expulsion from the forum of a U.S.-backed “delegate,” Felix Rodríguez Mendigutía. He is the notorious CIA operative who murdered revolutionary Che Guevara in Bolivia in 1967.

Rodríguez is part of a group of Cuban right-wingers who were hand-picked by the U.S. government to falsely represent Cuban “civil society” in the parallel meetings to the Summit of the Americas conference for the 35 heads of state in the Western Hemisphere.

Cuba’s delegates declared in a press conference they would not dignify a forum where U.S.-paid mercenaries who support terrorism against Cuba are participating.

Millions in solidarity with Venezuela

Venezuela is another major focus, with some 13 million signatures collected in just a few weeks, demanding that Obama revoke the Executive Order. The U.S. officials’ claim that the decree’s “extraordinary threat” phrase was a “misstatement,” was seen by Venezuela’s supporters as simply a ploy to minimize condemnation of Washington at the summit.

Today, Bolivian President Evo Morales spoke in an exclusive interview with TeleSUR, expressing his fullest solidarity with Venezuela. “Obama will remember that the worst error he made was the decree against Venezuela.”

Morales said that the ALBA countries—the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas—will meet to discuss a further response to the imperial decree.

Cuba’s presence at summit a victory

The Summit of the Americas is a project of the Organization of American States. The OAS was created by the U.S. government in 1947 as an international body that included all countries of the Western Hemisphere, to assert domination of the region.

Cuba has been excluded from the OAS since 1962, when it was expelled by U.S. initiative for being “Marxist-Leninist.”

Cuba’s resistance to imperialism and its growing prestige in Latin America and the Caribbean—as well as Washington’s isolation in the region—forced Obama to concede to Cuba’s participation this year.

President Obama’s announcement on December 17—seeking diplomatic relations with Cuba, and of a prisoner exchange including the freeing of the three remaining Cuban Five heroes—was timed to help improve Washington’s profile before the Summit.

Facing growing protest from Latin American leaders that Cuba’s continued exclusion from the OAS could no longer be tolerated, Obama also stated that Cuba would be “permitted” to participate in the upcoming April 10-11 Summit of the Americas in Panama.

In a rush before the two-day summit concludes, Obama has finally recommended that Cuba be removed from the list of states designated as supporting terrorism. That ignominious list of the U.S. State Department enables the government to apply severe sanctions on the countries of Iran, Syria and Cuba. Cuba’s removal would be a major relief for the socialist nation, as it will be able to resume transactions with international banks that up to now were fined billions of dollars for doing business with Cuba, Iran and Syria.

Of course, the machinations of U.S. imperialism against both Cuba and Venezuela continue. Just before traveling to Panama, Obama was in Jamaica—the first U.S. president to visit that country in over 30 years—to try to lure Jamaica and the member states of Petro-Caribe away from their economic alliance with Venezuela. To that end, the U.S. established the Caribbean Energy Strategy Initiative last June as part of its destabilization strategy against the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela.

This year’s summit could result in a defeat for the United States, similar to the 2005 summit that took place in Mar del Plata, Argentina. There, the Bush administration was unable to secure its goal of continent-wide free-trade agreements to favor U.S. corporations.

Instead, Hugo Chávez, revolutionary president of Venezuela, announced the expansion of ALBA and the creation of Petro-Caribe to assist the Caribbean islands with oil, and economic solidarity with debt-ridden Argentina.

The massive expressions of international solidarity for Cuba, Venezuela and other countries carrying on progressive struggles in the continent signal a new era in which the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean no longer accept being dictated to by Washington.

Posted in VenezuelaComments Off on Cuba and Venezuela defend justice at Panama Summit

Walter Scott killed by lying cop

By Jessie Farine
Walter Scott killed by lying cop

Walter Scott

Walter Scott, a 50-year-old Black resident of North Charleston, SC was shot to death in a grassy field on the morning of April 4 after being pulled over for a broken tail light. As of April 10, police in the United States have killed 319 people in 2015 according to data collected by Thus Black people are now being executed by police more frequently than once every 28 hours.

According to the police report, Officer Michael Slager was forced to shoot and kill Walter Scott because he grabbed Slager’s taser in the midst of a fight and attempted to use it on Slager, and the officer feared for his life. Media outlets immediately and obediently reported the incident with the officer’s interpretation of events.

This story was exposed as a complete fraud when Feidin Santana, a bystander who recorded the last moments of Scott’s life, released the video to the media. The video shows Slager shooting Scott in the back as he fleed, planting the taser near Scott in the presence of another cop to corroborate his report, and absurdly ordering Scott to put his hands behind his back as he lay dead or dying. At no point in the video do any cops on the scene try to save Scott’s life, despite the fact that Slager had been trained in CPR and first aid. The delay in releasing the video allowed the officer, the police department, and the media to entrap themselves in the lie.

Walter Scott’s needless, tragic death mirrors countless other such incidents in the U.S. Scott was an unarmed working-class Black person gunned down by a white officer. North Charleston is a working-class town with a population that is 63 percent Black or Brown but a police force that is 80 percent white.

Like many others, Scott’s name was tarnished in the media, which went into great detail about his past record of nonviolent offenses. These details are irrelevant as Slager would not have known this at the time and would not have factored it into his decision to consider Scott a “threat” to be killed, nor do such facts make him more deserving of being shot. Like many others, his family has had to face the indignity of defending his reputation in the media, countering the police narrative with the truth, that Scott was a family man with a job.

However, whether or not Scott had a job or a family, his life mattered. And as is so typical for killer cops, Slager claimed he had to shoot because he “feared for his life.” How an officer with a gun can fear for his life when an unarmed person is running away from defies logic.

What sets this particular incident apart from the many others like it is in the aftermath of the video’s release. After the video gained widespread notoriety, Slager was fired, arrested, and charged with murder. His first lawyer dropped the case. The police chief, police association, and the mayor have all come out denouncing the officer’s actions and refused to help Slager’s case.

It is unusual for a cop to be charged and disowned by institutions that almost always defend cops. A study by The State newspaper found that over the last five years, South Carolina police fired at 209 suspects, killing 79 who were disproportionately Black. Out of these shootings, only three cops faced charges, and none were convicted.

How did this change come about? The bourgeois media – which had spread the police’s story without challenge – credits the eyewitness video for making the difference. But the video alone cannot possibly explain this change in the usual pattern. This is not the first video of an unarmed person being executed by cops. For example the deaths of Oscar Grant, Kelly Thomas, and Eric Garner were all caught on video. The results were mixed in these particular cases: the killer of Grant was convicted of the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter and served two years in a private, protected cell; the murderers of Kelly Thomas were charged but found not guilty; and Garner’s killer faced no charges after a grand jury declined to indict him.

This is not to minimize the importance of the video, which will be crucial for prosecuting the officer and has vindicated police brutality victims’ claims of police cover-ups and lies. Feidin Santana should be commended for his courageous decision to release this video. Santana said he now fears for his life, and sadly it seems like he has reason to. Ramsey Orta, the bystander who filmed Eric Garner being choked to death, has since been stalked by police and arrested twice, this latest time resulting in a hunger strike out of fear of his food getting laced with rat poison by prison guards. However, the video alone does not explain why circumstances are different in Walter Scott’s case.

What makes the difference in this case is the heightened consciousness and increased pressure put on public officials thanks to the #BlackLivesMatter movement that rose up in the wake of the Ferguson rebellion. Since then, millions in the U.S. and around the world have come out into the streets and called out the racist injustice system, bringing about a seismic shift in attitudes toward racism, mass incarceration, and police brutality and lack of accountability. If anyone ever wondered what the #BlackLivesMatter movement would accomplish – what shutting down downtown centers and interstate highways, rallies and mass marches, die-ins and speak-outs would change – this is only the start of what’s to come.

Some may argue for immediate reforms such as body cameras and police training against racist biases rather than building a movement. Body cameras will not be effective if we don’t combat the widespread stereotype of Black people as inherently extra dangerous, which is employed to put the victims on trial and justify their summary executions by police or vigilantes. As for training to combat racism in cops, Slager himself passed his police training – which according to his supervisor included classes on relations with “ethnic groups,” “bias,” and “bias base profiling” – with flying colors.

What makes the difference is an organized mass movement that takes aim not only at the symptoms of police brutality and mass incarceration but the disease of white supremacist capitalism itself, a system that treats Black and Brown workers as surplus labor to be superexploited in prisons and killed like unruly animals. Such a movement can bring justice for Walter Scott’s family and end the epidemic of killing by cowardly, unaccountable, racist cops.

Posted in USAComments Off on Walter Scott killed by lying cop

Ed Miliband And The Jews


Image result for Ed Miliband WEARING YAMAKA PHOTO

By Gilad Atzmon 

Just a few month ago, in a speech in front of the Labour Friends Of Israel Lobby group, Ed Miliband – the Labour party’s current leader, produced one of the most embarrassing statements in the history of modern British politics:

“I want you to know”, Miliband told The Lobby, “that if I become Prime Minister in less than a year’s time, I will be proud to do so as a friend of Israel, a Jew and, most of all, someone who feels so proud to be part of the community gathered here today.” 

I guess that many British people would actually expect their Labour party candidate to be primarily a ‘proud Brit’ as well as a friend of the Kingdom. I would have loved to believe that such a clumsy statement on Miliband’s part would be enough for the Labour party to expel the man from its ranks. After all, the above statement proves that more than anything, Ed is much more ‘Blue & White’ than ‘simply Red,’ let alone a British patriot.

Surprise surprise, Labour didn’t react at all. Even the British public, known for its tolerance, was very forgiving. Funny enough, it is the Jews who actually dumped Ed Miliband, they do not believe him nor do they like him at all.

A poll published last week in the Jewish Chronicle revealed that an overwhelming majority of Jews prefer the Conservatives over Labour. 69 percent of Jews questioned said they were going to vote for David Cameron’s Tories. Only 22 percent sided with Labour and Ed Miliband.

Rather than voting for Labour under the leadership of the man who vowed ‘as a Jew’ to be a ‘friend of Israel,’ our British Jews actually want a ‘Goy’ to dwell at 10 Downing Street. How strange? Or is it…

A few analysts have tried this week to grasp this peculiar Jewish collective attitude. They wondered why are British Jews so opposed to the first Jewish candidate with a realistic chance of becoming the country’s leader?

Haaretz’ writer Anshel Pfeffer suggested that “the most obvious reason being given to this question is that while Cameron is widely regarded as ‘the most pro-Israel prime minister in British history,’ Miliband is considered indifferent at best and by many as downright hostile to the Jewish state.”

However, Pfeffer suggested correctly that Miliband is far from being an enemy of Israel. As we read above, Miliband is a staunch supporter of The Jewish State. “He [Milliband] has repeatedly said he is committed to Israel’s right to exist in security and strenuously voiced opposition to any form of anti-Israel boycott.”

Pfeffer is kind enough to provide us with a further insight into Jewish identity, psychic, and ideological attitude. “Historically, the majority of British Jews supported Labour because they saw the left wing as staunch opponents of any form of racism, of which they were so often the targets. In the last quarter of the 20th century, as they became better integrated and wealthier, they began drifting towards the Conservatives, particularly when Margaret Thatcher, who represented the north London Finchley constituency, became party leader.”

What Pfeffer is saying is pretty simple. In the old days, Jews supported Labour not because they were ‘anti racist,’ but just because they didn’t like being persecuted as Jews. But as they moved up the ladder, they actually decided to support the party that is committed to big money and the fight against Anti Semitism. With 80% of our Conservatives MPs being CFI members (Conservative Friends of Israel), the Tory party provides all Jewish needs – it is good for business but it is also united against one kind of racism, namely ‘Anti Semitism.’

Pfeffer correctly states that “the last three prime ministers, all proud Christians, have all felt very much at home with the Jewish community. Miliband came over at best as a polite but awkward stranger.” By now this is easy to explain.  The majority of British Jews prefer a ‘Sabbos Goy’ to run the country on their behalf; a politician that can be pushed and squeezed, a person that would take the country to the next Zionist global conflict without raising too many questions. A person that would support Israel when support is requested by The Lobby, a PM that would react to the imaginary fear of Anti Semitism even before the Jews themselves would sense such a fear. Only a dedicated Sabbos Goy can provide the goods. But Miliband will not be able to satisfy any of these demands. For the Jews, his Jewishness is clearly an obstacle. It only means that he will work hard to convey an image of impartiality and reason and, as we know, these two do not agree with Zion.

This Jewish attitude is far from being new, it is in fact as old as the Jews themselves. The Book Of Esther teaches Jews how to manipulate, mobilize and interfere with their rulers rather than becoming the rulers themselves. British Jews need a leader who will easily succumb to their lobby pressure. They suspect that Ed may be more resistant than any other candidate and truth must be told, they may as well be correct.

Posted in UKComments Off on Ed Miliband And The Jews

Zio-Nazi Vandals attack Christian graveyard in northern Palestine


Maronite Christians carry what is said to be the longest rosary in the world as they head to Sunday mass in Bkerke, Lebanon, on December 21, 2014 (AFP Photo/Anwar Amro)

Maronite Christians carry what is said to be the longest rosary in the world as they head to Sunday mass in Bkerke, Lebanon, on December 21, 2014.

Vandals have smashed gravestones at a Maronite Christian cemetery in a village near Palestine northern border with Lebanon, Israeli police said on Wednesday.

Zio-Nazi Police opened an investigation after receiving a report about damage to a number of graves at a Christian cemetery in the village of Kufr Bir’im, spokeswoman Luba Samri said, indicating that the tombstones were “broken and displaced”.

Kufr Bir’im is derelict Palestinian village whose inhabitants were evicted by the Zio-Nazi  army in 1948, six months after the Nazi regime was established, and never allowed to return. The village was almost totally razed by the Nazi army in 1953.

Last year, Lebanese patriarch of the Maronite church Beshara Rai paid a historic trip to the Holy Land during which he visited Kufr Bir’im, pledging to help the displaced villagers return. There are some 11,400 Maronite Catholics living in occupied Palestine..

The police did not say who was behind the attack but in recent years there have been a spate of hate crimes targeting Christian churches and cemeteries, with the perpetrators believed to be Nazi Jewish extremists.


Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zio-Nazi Vandals attack Christian graveyard in northern Palestine

U.S. Blocked Declaration of “Right to Health Care”, Says Bolivia’s President at OAS Summit

Global Research
Bolivian Flag

Bolivia’s President Evo Morales has blamed U.S. President Barack Obama for the failure of the recent OAS (Organization of American States) Summit of the Americas to issue a final declaration, and he says that a major sticking point for Mr. Obama was Obama’s opposition to a provision in the proposed declaration that would have said that health care is “a human right.” Mr. Obama insisted that it’s instead a privilege, access to which must be based primarily upon an individual’s ability-to-pay, as is the case in the United States.

Said Mr. Morales: “One point (in the drafted declaration) was important: health as a human right, and the U.S. government did not accept that health should be considered a human right … President Obama did not accept” that concept.

The 8-point draft had resulted from four months of negotiations between the participating countries prior to the Summit in Panama, which was held on April 10-11. There was such strong sentiment for declaring health care to be a right, so that this provision was included in the draft despite Obama’s opposition to it.

report from the Latin American television network Telesur (majority-owned by the Venezuelan government, which Obama unsuccessfully tried to overthrow via an aborted February 2015 coup, announced at the start of the conference, that, “The Seventh Summit of the Americas begins Friday in Panama without a final declaration because the US Government has expressed its disagreement with some of the clauses, which blocked agreement.” Furthermore, this was personally done by U.S. President Obama: “This information was confirmed by Foreign Minister of Argentina, Hector Timerman, who described the event as ‘a debate among presidents.’” That’s how personal, and top-level, the ideological disagreement here was.

On April 15th, German Economic News reported that Morales said in his speech at the conference:

“The United States has regarded Latin America and the Caribbean as their backyard, and the peoples of this region as their slaves. That is the reason for the extreme poverty in the region. I ask the United States: what we have done, to justify treating us as U.S.’s slaves? I tell you, President Obama, Latin America has changed forever. We are no longer submissive. It is no longer possible to carry out in our countries coups. We are determined to shape our own futures. We are no longer in the shadow of US imperialism. For we say what we think. And we do what we say. We urge you to respect our democracy and our sovereignty. Latin America has been kidnapped by the United States. We do not want this to continue. We do not want any longer decrees by the US President, in which we are declared as a threat to your country. [He was condemning Obama’s having declared Venezuela to be a threat to U.S. national security.] We do not want to be spied upon. We want to live in peace. We urge the United States to end the destruction of entire civilizations.”

Here’s the background to that: Latin America was originally colonized by European aristocracies, whose agents in the Americas treated the locals like dirt. According to the classic 1992 historical account, by David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, nearly eight million native Americans or ‘Indians’ were killed by the European invaders (employees of Europe’s aristocrats) within the first 21 years after Christopher Columbus’s landing in the Americas. And that was just the start. In 1898, the American aristocracy grabbed Cuba from the Spanish aristocracy; and, ever since, all countries to the south of the U.S. have been the U.S.’s “backyard.”

President Morales said that Cuba does not need “help” from the U.S.: ”What you need to do is repair all the damages you have caused in that country!”

Regarding the disagreements with Morales and other populist leaders in Latin America, the criticisms of Mr. Obama would be no different if any of the Republican or Democratic candidates replace Obama (except, perhaps, for U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders). For example, Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Party bulwark of the coup that overthrew the democratic populist President of Honduras in 2009, Manuel Zelaya and replaced him with a far-right junta run by that country’s fewer-than-twelve “oligarchs” or, actually, aristocratic families. And, she told The New York Times in a 27 March 2008 interview, when asked about a single-payer health insurance system — which necessarily entails the concept of health care as being a right instead of merely a privilege — “I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system.” A follow-up question asked her about whether she might find a single-payer system acceptable, and she said, “I think that, you know, there’s too many bells and whistles that Americans want that would not be available in kind of a bare-bones Medicare-like system.”

That’s totally a rejection of the concept of health care being at all a basic human right. She wants greed to rule, even in the provisioning of healthcare. Then, in recent times, she has given $200,000 private ‘speeches’ to healthcare-industry groups (such as this) where she has received repeated standing ovations as a champion of for-profit health care, and those industries have been large financial backers of her political career. Her private email is being hidden from the public, but her communications with health care CEOs (outside even those closed-to-the-press $200,000-a-pop private ‘speeches’ with them) are among the chief concerns among Democrats who want to know what she is hiding.

In her 2008 campaign, her top donor-group were the Wall Street megabanks and their law firms.However, they will also be the top donors to many Republican candidates. Ms. Clinton’s broader 2008 donor-sources listed in the first two categories “Lawyers” and Retired,” but with no indication of the source of those people’s money. Her #3 was “Securities & Investment,” then, below that, in order: “Real Estate,” “Women’s issues,” “Education,” “Business Services”; and, then, in eighth place, “Health Professionals.”

So, the concept of health care being a right, is not going to become a part of American politics, even if that concept is basic to lowering the cost and increasing the accessibility to health services, and simultaneously to increasing the quality of that healthcare — all of which is the case: benefits to everyone but the aristocracy, who own those healthcare services.

In healthcare, the evidence is clear that where capitalism (the profit-motive) predominates, waste and inferior health-care results — and costs a lot more to consumers. On things that should be a right instead of a privilege, capitalism produces waste, not efficiency. But if a country is extremely corrupt, capitalism will dominate even in those parts of the economy. So, Obama’s, and virtually all other U.S. politicians’, support of profit-making health care is understandable. However, for U.S. President Obama to insist that all other countries in the Americas be at least as corrupt as the U.S. is, won’t be appreciated abroad. In any field — health care or any other — where other countries are less corrupt than America, the idea of their taking dictation from America won’t be appreciated. In the present case, Obama has blocked an OAS declaration of a basic human right which even the aristocracies in other American nations believe to be a basic human right. The U.S. is now its own “banana republic,” and won’t likely win converts to this status. In the new Latin America, even much of the aristocracy has had more than enough of Milton Friedmanite thinking.

The best that can be said of Obama is that other successful U.S. politicians are no better than he is — in other words: that the U.S. is pervasively corrupt. This is not something that any American politician will admit (i.e.: that “You can’t get where I am unless you’re corrupt”). Nor will the aristocratically controlled U.S. ‘news’ media permit it to be published. The same aristocracy that controls the U.S. Government, controls the U.S. ‘press.’ Thus, ‘freedom of the press’ has degenerated to merely freedom of the aristocracy to control the government — and to control what the public sees, and does not see, of that government. Consequently, Americans buy ‘the free market’ in everything.

The profit in the press depends mainly on the influence it can peddle. For example, when Donald Graham sold theWashington Post to Jeff Bezos, holder of a $600 million ten-year contract to sell cloud computing services to the CIA, the influence in Washington that Bezos was purchasing was, even alone, enough to make the investment a sure winner for him, even if it didn’t let him also now receive the advertisements from Raytheon etc., to sell congressmen on weapons-systems — and to sell the benefits of expanding the CIA itself. So: just as corporations answer to the aristocracy, so does the government, now. And so does ‘our free press.’ It’s not “ours”; and it’s not “free.”

And this is the reason why you probably didn’t know, until now, that (and why) Obama blocked a final declaration at the OAS Summit, and got treated with contempt at that conference, which took place on April 10th and 11th.

Posted in South AmericaComments Off on U.S. Blocked Declaration of “Right to Health Care”, Says Bolivia’s President at OAS Summit

The Geopolitical Right of Exception at the United Nations


by Dr;  Richard Falk

The notorious, yet influential, German jurist, Carl Schmitt famously insisted that ‘a right of exception’ was the core reality of national sovereignty. By this he meant that internal law could be put aside by ‘the sovereign,’ inhering as the crux of the relationship between state and society. In this regard international law has no overriding claim of authority with respect to sovereign states, at least from the perspective of statist jurisprudence. This discretion to ignore or violate law is distinct from submission to law as a realistic adaptation by weak states to political realities or compliance undertaken voluntarily for pragmatic reasons of convenience and mutual benefit.

When the UN was established, it was configured, to appeal both to realist minds who were eager to show that they had learned the lesson of Munich and to those architects of international cooperation that did not want the folly of the League of Nations, seen as a politically irrelevant sanctuary for utopians and dreamers to be repeated in this newly created organization.

To achieve these ends the UN Charter vested only the UN Security Council with the power of decision (as distinct from recommendations), and limited its membership originally to nine states of which the five designated winners of World War II were given both permanent membership, and more importantly, a right of veto. In effect, the right of veto was a constitutional right of exception embedded in the UN Charter. It formulated the master procedural rule of the Charter as one that allowed permanent members of the Security Council to block any decision that was perceived to be sufficiently against their national interests or those of its friends. Just as Woodrow Wilson falsely misled the world with his pledge after World War I of ‘making the world safe for democracy’ the UN was more effectively manipulated into the actuality of ‘making the world safe for geopolitics.’

In effect, the UN was set up on the basis that it would never be strong enough to challenge these five major states, and that its effectiveness would rest on two possibilities: sustaining the voluntary cooperation that had worked successfully during World War II to thwart European fascism and Japanese imperialism or cooperating on issues of secondary concern in the peace and security area on which the permanent members could agree and persuade enough non-permanent term members to lend support.

As was discovered several decades ago, these permanent members could only agree on what to do in the Security Council on the rarest of occasions, and that decisions relating to secondary issues, although often useful, left the really dangerous conflicts beyond the reach of the UN. The UN also committed itself to respect territorial sovereignty of its members, and by virtue of Article 2(7) of the Charter, placed all forms of civil strife beyond its writ unless the Security Council agreed that there were present substantial threats to international peace and security.

This constitutional right of exception to some extent contradicts the basic imperative of the Organization “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” that is set forth in the Preamble to the Charter. To the extent that major wars have been avoided during the lifetime of the UN it is not due to the efforts of the Organization. It is rather a consequence of deterrence, and geopolitical self-restraint and prudence, which were greatly encouraged by the awareness that any war fought with nuclear weapons would be a catastrophe regardless of which side prevailed. Major wars were prevented by a reliance on traditional notions of balance, containment, and countervailing power fine tuned for the realities of the nuclear age.

These were realist instruments of statecraft associated with the European state system as adapted to the distinctive contemporary challenges. In the over 400 pages of his 2014 book, World Order, Henry Kissinger, the realist par excellence of this era, hardly mentions the UN, and accords it no significant role in shaping or even misshaping the ‘world order’ in the 21st century.

The UN is simply seen as a diplomatic sideshow. He sees the present world order need to be primarily concerned with incorporating the non-Western major states, especially China, in an enlarged conception of a state system that is based on European ideas. For this process of incorporation to occur smoothly it will be essential that Westphalian logic of statism be newly perceived as reflecting the values and worldview of these diverse civilizations, and no longer be understood as an integral aspect of the Western world domination project.

Although the UN is a disappointment when it comes to ‘war prevention’ or the encouragement of a global rule of law, it has managed to achieve universality of membership. Unlike the League that failed to induce the United States to join and lost along the way several important members, the UN has neither expelled countries from its ranks nor have states withdrawn. The Organization has proved sufficiently useful as a site of diplomatic interaction and contestation that every government regardless of ideology or outlook finds it useful to participate in its activities. Even Israel that consistently complains loudly about the flawed and biased character of the UN, still tries with all its diplomatic ingenuity to influence its various activities in directions consistent with its foreign policy.

What has received too little attention so far is what I would call ‘the geopolitical right of exception’ that is quite distinct from the constitutional veto, but at least as pernicious from the perspective of enabling the UN to promote the human interest in its actions throughout the world. The geopolitical right of exception reflects the ability of one or more political actor in the world to promote or undermine policies that express its particular interest. In UN contexts the geopolitical right of exception allows a state to prevent the implementation of behavior that has been otherwise given formal approval. For instance, in the UN Human Rights Council there is no operative constitutional right of exception, and this allows certain steps to

be taken on the basis of majority approval. Yet when it comes to implementation or enforcement, acting behind the scenes, threatening funding cuts and actions for and against a high official, the political will of the Organization is effectively resisted and controlled. For instance, Israel despite ignoring strongly backed UN General Assembly resolutions dealing with such matters as refugees, Jerusalem, the separation wall, has been able to be defiant over the course of decades without experiencing any inter-governmental adverse consequences, and this is because it is protected by the United States exercise of its geopolitical right of exception on its behalf. The availability of such a geopolitical right is in direct proportion to the perceived hierarchy of hard and soft power in the world, which has meant that since World War II, the United States far more than any other political actor has enjoyed a geopolitical right of exception within the UN.

The existence of this geopolitical right of exception undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the UN. It is integral to regimes of double standards, and cuts directly against the grain of global justice that seeks to treat equals as equally as possible. It also implicitly endorses backroom strong arm tactics and procedural manipulation, as well as modifies and distorts the rights and duties of membership in the UN.

Overcoming the geopolitical right of exception would require its repudiation by the United States, in particular, through a recognition that its exercise is incompatible with the search for a peaceful, just, sustainable, and more participatory form of world order. Because it is often exercised invisibly, this geopolitical right is also a vehicle of influence relied upon by private sector corporate and financial interests that are contrary to the global public interest. At present, it seems hopelessly out of touch to expect any moves by the American and other powerful governments to forego the benefits of the geopolitical right of veto. Because its exercise is neither claimed nor acknowledged, there can be no accountability, thus operating in a manner that is contrary to the democratic spirit. The constitutional veto has the benefit of discourse and debate as various political actors try to offer convincing reasons for casting a veto to block a Security Council decision. For this very reason the geopolitical right of exception is often a more desirable option than the constitutional right if the policy or position being promoted is unpopular with public opinion and other governments. The U.S. Government struggles often behind the scenes at the UN to provide effective support for Israel in ways that get the job done without having to achieve such an unpopular result by a seemingly arbitrary reliance on its veto.

Unless a full-fledged world government were to be established, which seems slightly less likely than awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Vladamir Putin, there is no prospect of any renunciation of the geopolitical right of exception at the UN in the foreseeable future. The best that can be hoped for is a recognition of its existence and role, some sort of greater self-restraint exhibited in its exercise, and critical commentary by those who conceive of their political identity as that of ‘citizen pilgrims.’

Posted in WorldComments Off on The Geopolitical Right of Exception at the United Nations

American politicians & CIA personnel have destabilized the Middle East for 6 decades – all for OIL.

Image result for CIA LOGO
America’s Politicians At Their Best! 

Discover how American politicians


, CIA personnel, and much of the

blissfully unconcerned American public, destabilized the Middle East for

six decades, starting with the 1953 CIA overthrow of the democratically-

elected Iranian government headed by Prime Minister Mossadegh, as

experienced by a former airline captain and a group of former CIA




 the key roles played by them and Israeli Zionists in

bringing about the world-record Middle East humanitarian crisis, with no

end in sight.

Expected public reaction: zero, of course!

For more information:



U.S. Corporate Interests in Controlling Middle East’s Oil

See: Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about “why they hate us.”

It may be comforting to pretend that our enemies “hate our freedoms,” as President Bush stated, but it is a mistake to ignore the truth.

President Bush is not the first to ask: “Why do they hate us?” In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about “the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people”.

His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is “opposing political or economic progress” because of its interest in controlling the oil resources of the region.

“Democratization is not on the American agenda in the Middle East. The reason? Because Washington finds it more efficient to support a range of dictators across the Arab world as long as they conform to U.S. foreign policy needs.”- Graham E. Fuller former CIA 8/24/98

Those policy “needs” are actually the demands of powerful corporations. It is the undermining of democracy that people in the Middle East hate. The people in the Middle East hate the fact that the United States is supporting oppressive harsh governments which block democracy and development and that the U.S. is doing it because we want control of their oil resources. You can find the same things when the Wall Street Journal does analyses of opinion there today.


Posted in Middle East, USAComments Off on American politicians & CIA personnel have destabilized the Middle East for 6 decades – all for OIL.

Shoah’s pages