Archive | November 29th, 2017

Tackling corruption: Why Saudi Prince Muhammad’s approach raises questions

Muhammad bin Salman

By James M. Dorsey

Leave aside for a moment questions of due process. Analysis of Saudi Arabia’s three largest corporate failures explains why Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s recent moves look more like a power and asset grab than a credible effort to eradicate corruption.

Dependency on government contracts was at the core of the bankruptcy of Saudi Oger, owned by the family of embattled Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, and the near-demise of the Saudi Bin Laden Group.

Granted, the $22 billion downfall of 70-year-old Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi & Brothers Company (AHAB), which took down two Bahraini banks as well as the Saad Group in one the largest financial collapses of the 2009 global credit crunch, occurred because of mismanagement, lack of corporate and financial governance, and allegations of fraud, theft and forgery.

Yet, like the Bin Ladens and the Hariris, a major chunk of the group’s business was with the government, selling steel piping to Saudi Aramco, the kingdom’s national oil and natural gas behemoth. The settlement of the collapse with more than 100 banks was long viewed as a litmus test for foreign investors.

For Saudi Oger and Bin Laden, the government’s predicament meant cancellation of projects and failure to pay. The government’s default had a ripple effect, including the companies’ inability to pay their workers, who in a country in which protests are banned, took their plight to the streets.

… the social contract that is now being unilaterally rewritten by Prince Muhammad involved popular surrender of political rights, adherence to a strict social code, and acceptance of an absence of transparency and accountability in exchange for cradle-to-grave welfare.

What emerges from the failures is the vulnerability of major private corporations at a time when government, the dominant economic player, was forced to diversify, rationalise and cut costs. The failures also highlighted the lack of oversight of corporate governance.

Ironically, a raid on the Saudi mansion of the head of the Saad Group, Kuwaiti billionaire Maan al-Sanea, two weeks before Prince Muhammad’s arrest of some 200 princes, officials and businessmen on charges of corruption, set the stage for the purge.

The history of the troubled companies as well as Mr Al-Sanea’s detention speak to a system in which beyond private enterprise dependency, members of the ruling family were rentiers of the state since its founding and allowed to drink at the trough, and concepts of conflict of interest were non-existent.

Transparency and accountability did not enter the equation in a country that did not tax companies or individuals except for zakat, a religious obligation for all Muslims who meet the necessary criteria of wealth. Instead, the social contract that is now being unilaterally rewritten by Prince Muhammad involved popular surrender of political rights, adherence to a strict social code, and acceptance of an absence of transparency and accountability in exchange for cradle-to-grave welfare.

Despite citizens being asked to increasingly contribute by moves towards market rates for services and the planned introduction of indirect taxes like a highway toll, there is no accountability with billions of dollars that the inhabitants of Riyadh’s Ritz Carlton Hotel-turned-gilded prison are being asked to surrender and transfer to a Finance Ministry account in exchange for their freedom. What happens to those funds once they have been transferred remains unclear.

In other words, transparency and accountability do not figure in Prince Muhammad’s top-down moves. Aides to Prince Muhammad have asserted that the arrests were the result of almost three years of investigations. No details of those investigations have been made public nor have their results been interrogated by a credible and independent judiciary.

The assertion would explain why the government announced the establishment of a new anti-corruption commission headed by Prince Muhammad only hours before the purge and why its functions were seemingly primarily defined as an arm of law enforcement rather than a vehicle to create an anti-corruption legal structure that would also govern the commercial relationship between the government and members of the ruling family. The commission’s powers include the ability to detain suspects, seize their assets and ban them from travel.

While one could argue that Prince Muhammad needed to set an example, that effort appears undermined by the fact that the alleged investigations and arrests have a selective or arbitrary taste to them.

The impression that power and assets rather than anti-corruption drove Prince Muhammad in his purge is enhanced by the fact that it appears designed to intimidate and put the kingdom’s elite on notice. There has been neither a decree nor a process in the country’s Shura (Advisory) Council to draft legislation as well as rules and regulation that would create a legal anti-corruption infrastructure, govern the way government agencies do business, and set a template for defining and preventing conflict of interest.

While one could argue that Prince Muhammad needed to set an example, that effort appears undermined by the fact that the alleged investigations and arrests have a selective or arbitrary taste to them. The fact of the matter is that in the permissive environment that was written into the kingdom’s DNA at founding, few, if any, members of the ruling family are likely to emerge with flying colours.

All of this, explains with the kingdom’s elite was caught off guard even though Mr Al-Sanea’s arrest should have set off alarm bells. Instead, the ruling family and the business community saw the arrest as a one-off event in a long-standing financial sage. It also clarifies why the elite grossly underestimated Prince Muhammad’s brashness and ruthlessness and ignored his warning in June that “no one who got involved in a corruption case will escape, regardless if he was a minister or a prince”.

For anti-corruption to be perceived as the main driver of the purge, Prince Muhammad will have to introduce due process, transparency and accountability to the process. In theory, that would mean targeting all who potentially could be under suspicion, an approach that would be tough, if not impossible, in an environment in which the suspicion of guilt is likely to include many who were not detained, rather than only some. Instead, Prince Muhammad would be better advised to focus on structural and institutional change.

Posted in Saudi ArabiaComments Off on Tackling corruption: Why Saudi Prince Muhammad’s approach raises questions

Where is Zionism taking us?

Naftali Bennett on killing Arabs

By Lawrence Davidson

The inevitable apartheid nation

We know where Zionism has taken Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 led the way. In that imperial and colonial document, the British promised the World Zionist Organisation a “Jewish national home” in Palestine. They did so, as Edward Said put it, in “flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory”.

Right from the start, the Zionists understood “national home” to mean an eventual Jewish state. Actualising that assumption has had enormous implications not only for the Palestinians, but also for the Jews. And, as it turns out, for the rest of us as well.

There is no instance of Israeli prejudice exercised against the Palestinians, no act of violence committed against them, that does not simultaneously dishonour and debase the Jewish religion and people.

You cannot introduce one people, in this case a large number of Europeans who happen to be Jewish, into a territory populated by hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans, without negative consequences. And, if the incoming Europeans have the goal of creating a state exclusively for their group alone, those consequences are going to be dire indeed. Surrounded by “the other”, the only way you can achieve your exclusive state is through discriminatory practices and laws ultimately producing an apartheid nation. And that is what happened.

While this has meant, and continues to mean, segregation, ethnic cleansing and Bantustans for the Palestinians, for the Jews it means that their religion is tied to a racist political ideology. There is no instance of Israeli prejudice exercised against the Palestinians, no act of violence committed against them, that does not simultaneously dishonour and debase the Jewish religion and people.

Worldwide consequences

How about the rest of world? The consequences of Zionism are threatening both security and equality everywhere. Here is how this is happening:

– As the Balfour Declaration indicates, Israel and its society are products of a colonial era. That is an era when the people of both Europe and the US openly practised racist policies and behaviour toward non-Europeans. They regularly trampled on the rights of alleged inferiors. Israel continues to operate in this fashion into the present.

– Following World War II it became understood that these behaviours and attitudes are morally indefensible and their consequences should be remedied. And so, the United Nations was established, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued, and a number of treaties embodying international laws designating crimes against humanity were signed. With this process the world entered a potentially more civilised, post-colonial age.

– When this happened the Zionist project instantly became an anachronism. In fact, Israel became a state that defied the modern norm the moment it was proclaimed.

– However, Israel does not want to be outside the norm. It wants to be accepted as a “normal” nation, particularly within the Western state system. There are only two ways this can happen: either (1) Israel must give up the racist ideology of Zionism and embrace a form of democracy accessible to all its people regardless of religion or ethnicity, or (2) the world must revert back to an acceptance of at least some of the colonial practices of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

You would think that choosing the anti-racist option, and therefore seriously pressuring Israel – as the world had done with white-ruled South Africa – to fundamentally change, would be the obvious choice for today’s statesmen. But it seems not. Why is that?

There is now an ongoing effort – we might call it the updated Zionist project – to move the world backward so as to accept racist past practices as “normal”. It consists of (a) an attack on international law protecting human rights (despite the fact that much of this law was created as a reaction to the anti-Semitic crimes of World War II), (b) an attempt to undermine the International Criminal Court, and (c) an attack on the United Nations and its efforts to protect the human and political rights of Palestinians.

Enter BDS

It is clear that very few of the world’s governments are willing to confront Israel, even though it is an apartheid state existing in an era that claims to detest such racist regimes. This has a lot to do with the financial and special interest strength of Zionist supporters, both Jewish and Christian, and the strategic use of such power to corrupt policy making. This can be seen most plainly in the United States. There are also Israel’s extensive high-tech and weapons-trading networks in Europe, Africa and South America that lead important political and economic institutions and individuals to support, or at least turn a blind eye to, the Zionist state. And then, of course, there are a growing number of states that themselves have plans to marginalise their own minorities.

Does this mean that there is no defence against the insidious effects of this reactionary regime – one which, according to its own past prime minister, Ehud Barak, is “infected with fascism”? No, there are options to oppose Israel. However, at present they are to be found outside of the realm of government action and, at least for the moment, outside occupied Palestine as well.

The latter is so because inside Palestine, 70 years of Israeli colonial savagery has worn down much of the indigenous population. This does not mean that resistance from within the occupied territories does not continue. It does, but at relatively low levels and at a high cost. Since the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004, too many Palestinian leaders have been co-opted into playing the role of modern-day Quislings. The Palestinians within Israeli-controlled territory are now fragmented into Bantustan-style enclaves, and their own “security forces” often work hand-in-hand with the Israeli oppressors.

As a consequence of these circumstances, right now the greatest pressure can be put on apartheid Israel through the activities of organised civil society. This pressure by itself may or may not be able to force fundamental change on Israel, but it can certainly raise the cost of its racist behaviour and affect public opinion.

Here we are talking about the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement that urges both individuals and organisations (be they economic, cultural or intellectual) to avoid interacting with Israel and its state-sponsored institutions and projects. To date, this has proved to be an effective weapon against Israeli racism and colonialism. For instance, if you go to the website of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, you can find a list of 200 recent victories falling within the boycott and divestment categories. State-based sanctions are still in the future.

Success in this regard has, of course, generated a fierce reaction from the Zionists. According to a Huffington Post article, “The Israeli government has reportedly committed tens of millions of dollars, one government ministry and its military and security intelligence assets to the fight. Israeli Minister of Transport, Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Yisrael Katz, recently called for “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders”. Actually, such a reaction reflects not only the fact that the cost of Israeli racism is on the rise, but also that the Zionists have lost the public (if not the governmental) debate when it comes to their behaviour towards the Palestinians.


Put broadly, BDS is an effort to help save the positive potential inherent in modern post-colonial society: the civilising potential to be found in international law, in human and civil rights, in a benevolent and egalitarian rule of law for all of us.

So successful has BDS been to date, and so much potential does it have to help force Israel down the same road as white-ruled South Africa, that Israel and its surrogates in the US and Europe are willing to undermine the very laws and rights that help uphold what freedoms there are within the public realm. For instance, in the US, the very right to engage in such a boycott is under Zionist attack and, by extension, so is the constitutional protection of free speech. American Zionists seem willing to subvert their own constitutional protections in order to support a racist foreign state.

Zionism can be seen as a strange twist on the Spanish philosopher George Santayana’s warning that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. The Zionists certainly remember the persecutions suffered by European Jews. But they forget that this mistreatment was most often organised by racist states that sought to ethnically cleanse the Jews. Having forgotten about this state-based aspect of their own past, the Zionist state now commits this same offence against the Palestinians. It also needs the rest of us to forget the sins of past racism if it is to carry on its effort to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Our response should be to embrace the motto, “Never Again!” It is time to direct this demand to the shameful behaviour of Israel and the Zionists.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Where is Zionism taking us?

Sudan Seeks Military Aid from Russia


Sudan Seeks Military Aid from Russia. President al-Bashir’s Meeting with Putin in Sochi

“We have been dreaming about this visit for a long time,” said Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir as he was being greeted by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Nov.23 at the Black Sea resort of Sochi. “We are thankful to Russia for its position on the international arena, including Russia’s position in the protection of Sudan,” he added. This is the first time the Sudanese leader visited Russia – the country he pins great hopes on.

The agenda included economic and military cooperation. The Sudanese leader said he had discussed modernization of the Sudanese military with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu before meeting President Putin.

We agreed with the defense minister that Russia will offer assistance to that,” he informed.

The sides agreed to increase the size of defense attaché staffs.

Omar al-Bashir asked the Russian president for “protection from the aggressive acts of the United States.” He expressed concern over the situation in the Red Sea, where he sees the US military presence as a problem, saying

we would like to discuss the issue from the point of view of the use of bases in the Red Sea.”

The Sudanese leader believes that the conflict in Syria is the result of US interference. The country would be lost if Russia did not lend a helping hand. The success in Syria boosts the Moscow’s reputation and makes other developing countries seek its friendship and cooperation.

According to President al-Bashir, Sudan could serve as a gateway to Africa for Russia. Khartoum is looking forward to cooperation with Moscow in oil exploration, transport and agriculture. In 2015, Russian company Siberian for Mining found large gold deposits in Sudan with only explored reserves standing at 46,000 tons and signed the biggest investment deal in the country’s history. Large gold deposits were discovered in two provinces – the Red Sea and the River Nile. The market value of the gold amounts to US $298 billion.

Al-Bashir, who rose to power in 1989, is on the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) wanted list for allegedly committing crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region. ICC prosecutors issued two warrants for al-Bashir’s arrest, in 2009 and 2010. The Russian government recognizes al-Bashir as the legitimate president of the country. In 2016, Moscow formally pulled out from the ICC. The reason was the failure of the ICC “to… become a truly independent and respected body of international justice”. According to Moscow, the judicial body is ineffective and one-sided. Some provisions of the Rome Statute contradict Russia’s constitution, including the mandatory transfer of investigated persons to the ICC, the right to sue heads of state and government figures, and non-compliance with the principle that no one should be held accountable twice for the same crime (“ne bis in idem”).

The Russia-Sudan summit is demonstration of Moscow’s growing impact in Africa. Russia has more than 40 full-fledged diplomatic representations on the continent and has fixed special trade missions to help facilitate trade and investment in a number of African countries. Russia has a special relationship with South Africa. Both countries cooperate within the framework of BRICS. Egypt, a traditional US ally, has shifted sides and allied with Russia since President Sisi took power. Russia’s relations with the countries of the continent are deepening. This is facilitated by negotiations at the highest level. Relations develop with leading regional associations, including the African Union.

The last couple of years have seen a rise in Russia–Africa trade, with aggregate turnover reaching $14.5 billion in 2016, up by $3.4 billion year-on-year. The bulk of it ($10.1 billion) was done by four countries, including Egypt ($4.16 billion), Algeria ($3.98 billion), Morocco ($ 1.29 billion) and South Africa ($718 million).

28 out of 55 African nations boast growing trade with Russia, with Ethiopia, Cameroon, Angola, Sudan and Zimbabwe leading the trend. According to the Eurasian Economic Commission, Africa was the only region to have expanded its trade turnover with Russia in 2016 (unlike the EU, MERCOSUR, APEC, and others).

Nuclear power development options in Africa are now a hot topic, with relevant agreements already signed with Sudan, Zambia, Morocco, South Africa and other countries. Africa is a promising market for Russian grain and agricultural machinery, with the country’s wheat exports heading to Morocco, South Africa, Libya, Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria and Egypt. Sudan, Congo and Senegal have recently indicated interest in pursuing joint oil and gas projects. Russian business holds a leading position in mineral exploration (bauxite, gold, and copper, and cobalt, and diamonds, and many more). Russian diamond-mining company ALROSA is active in South Africa, Sierra Leone, Namibia, and Angola (where it reportedly controls 60% of all extracted diamonds). An agreement with the African partners on economic and trade cooperation in order to avoid double taxation and protection of intellectual property is on the agenda.

Russia is a major supplier of arms to both North and sub-Saharan Africa. Russia continues to gain ground in North Africa, boosting its military exports to Algeria and Egypt while strengthening economic ties with Morocco and Tunisia. Russian arms are an increasingly popular alternative to US weaponry. Moscow’s historically strong arms trade with African countries has been growing in recent years, despite tough competition. Russia ranks first in arms imports to sub-Saharan Africa accounting for 30% of all supplies. Missiles, artillery, small arms, and aircraft are key Russia’s export items to Africa, with helicopters taking an increasingly important share.

There is something more to promote the Russia-Africa rapprochement. They have a common interest in the formation of a just and democratic world order, based on collective approach to the resolution of international problems and the superiority of international law. Both Russia and Africa, reject the unipolar model, the attempts of one country or a limited number of countries to impose their will on the rest of the world. Sudan is a good example of an African country getting closer to Russia in response to the pressure from the West. It seeks new partners to counter the diktat of the United States. Developing ties with Moscow offers such an opportunity.

Posted in Russia, SudanComments Off on Sudan Seeks Military Aid from Russia

The Betraying Arab League at a Time of Crisis in the Arab World


Once again, the Arab League woke up from its deep slumber on November 19th 2017. The League was in a deep paralyzing sleep despite the urgent need for its duties to deal and to solve the issues inflicting the Arab World such as the threat of terrorist groups, the Israeli brute oppression of Palestinian Arabs and the usurping of their farm land to build Israeli colonies, the starving siege against Gaza Strip Palestinians, the Saudi/Qatari conflict, and the Saudi aggression against Yemen; all are urgent crises within the Arab World in need of resolutions.

This urgent sudden new breath of life into the League was the result of a Saudi demand. The Saudis were struck with fear by a ballistic missile hitting the Saudi capital; Riyadh. The missile, expected to be the first of many to come, was fired by Houthi Yemeni forces as an expected self-defense reaction to the Saudi three years destructive bombardment of their country.

According to this Saudi request, the Arab Foreign Ministers in the League had totally ignored all the political and humanitarian problems spread all over the Arab World and had focused only on what they claimed to be an Iranian interference in the internal Arab affairs.

As accustomed by all the past meetings where the Arab League did not produce any real workable resolution to any problem, this meeting as well produced only a declaration openly condemning Iran and Hezbollah for what they claimed as the Iranian interference and threat to the Arab national security, demanding that Iran reconsider its foreign policies within the region, and threatening to resort to the United Nations.

Since its founding, the Arab League had never produced a decision that met the aspiration of the Arab World to resolve any issue in its issues. On the contrary, its decisions and declarations were always random and empty of real substance and unable to resolve any problem. Many of its decisions came out as obstacles to any possible solution to many of the Arab crisis starting with the Palestinian cause up to this very minute.

Rather than uniting the Arab World and to resolve its internal conflicts, the decisions of the Arab League were divisive, encouraged the aggression of some Arab countries against others, and punished other countries by revoking their membership in the League. Just to mention few examples, in 1990 when South and North Yemen united into Republic of Yemen with a unified parliament, the Arab League revoked its membership. The League had also revoked the membership of the Libyan Jamahiriya (republic) in 2011 demanding the government to secure peace when the American/Qatari armed terrorists spread havoc in the country under the guise of the Arab Spring. In the same year the League also revoked Syrian membership. Syria was one of the founding members of the League in 1945.

Many of the League’s decisions had devastating impact on the future of some Arab countries. These decisions gave false legality to some Arab leaders to wage wars against other Arab countries. Such decisions had isolated Syria and facilitated the seven-years terrorist war against the Syrian government that was faced with the most brutal terrorist attacks, yet it had defeated terror and stopped it from spreading into the region. Other decisions had also devastated Libya and turned it into a failing state impregnated with many terrorist groups. The League had also blessed what is called the Saudi coalition and its devastating war against Yemen murdering and starving besieged women and children.

Similar to what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia and its mercenary coalition have waged war against Yemen since March 2016, and has murdered thousands of women and children and made other thousands refugees in their own country. This Saudi coalition is imposing a siege by land, air and sea causing humanitarian crisis with food and medical shortages.

Those gathered Arab foreign ministers should be ashamed of themselves when compared with the foreign -non-Arab- humanitarian organizations, who are exerting great efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people and to lift the siege against them. Those Arab foreign ministers did not even spell one word about the Yemeni suffering and did not offer any mediation or any resolution to end this war and to resolve this conflict.

What these ministers are not aware of, or maybe they are trying to ignore, the fact that all the intra-Arab crises and wars are mere series in the Zionist Great Israel Project extending from Nile to Euphrates. This Zionist Project aims basically to divide the Arab World into small weak statelets and emptying the region from its local indigenous residents either through brutal genocides or ethnic cleansing and eviction to other countries.

Israel and the USA, and alas, with the full partnership of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Bahrain, as many evidences had proved, had created, armed, and financed terrorist groups (ISIS and its offshoots) into the terrorist Islamic Khalifate project to execute this Zionist project.

As the Arab League did not convene to defend the Palestinian Cause and to break the siege against the Gaza Strip, it did not convene either to form a united Arab military force to fight and defeat ISIS terrorist groups, who destroyed Syria, Iraq and threatened Lebanon, and who had slain their Arab brothers, raped their women and children, and sold them cheap in open slave markets. The League did not also convene when the Yemeni cities and civil infrastructures and civilians were continuously bombarded, starved, and died due to preventable diseases because of inhumane siege and lack of medical services.

When the terrorist Islamic Caliphate project failed and the Syrian, Iraqi, Hezbollah fighters supported by Iran and Russia were successful in defeating these terrorists and protected the whole region from the spread of terror, the Saudi-bribed Arab foreign ministers gathered in the League, instead of expressing gratitude, hastened to accuse Iran of threatening the regional security, and Hezbollah of terrorism. The governments of these ministers did not move one finger go fight ISIS but provided them with weapons, money and training facilities in their countries.

The Arab League was founded to unite and to strengthen the many Arab countries politically, economically and militarily to face foreign colonization, to free Palestine and to protect the region from the Zionist Greater Israel Project. Yet, alas, the League was turned into a stumbling block against any unifying regional economic project after its decisions were highjacked and controlled by the “Zionized” Saudi oil money. Instead of spending the trillions of oil money to strengthen the regional economy the Saudi family had spent, and still spending, trillions of dollars buying many tons of weapons from Britain, France and the US (the traditional foes of the Middle East) strengthening foreign economies, and using these weapons either to fight their Arab brothers or to store them in the desert until they rust and become obsolete.

Many Arab politicians and factions within the resistance axis rejected the League’s declaration and considered its accusation of alleged Iranian interference and violation of the regional security, and the accusation of Hezbollah of terrorism and of highjacking Lebanese foreign policy, an aggressive declaration against the whole Arab World. This declaration clearly exhibits the Saudi hegemony over the decisions and policies of the Arab League, that has become subservient to the demands of the Zionist World Order, who considers Iran and Hezbollah a real obstacle against the accomplishment of the Zionist Project.

Hezbollah is an integral core part of the Lebanese population. It is the only Arab force that inflicted defeats against the alleged undefeated Israeli army. Hezbollah was able to regain Lebanese sovereignty and independence when it kicked in 2000 the Israeli forces dragging their tails out of Lebanon. It also defeated and stopped the 2006 Israeli invasion attempt of south Lebanon destroying its many tanks and sending its rockets into the major Israeli towns. It is now serving as a strong military deterrent against any possible future further Israeli attack against Lebanon.

Hezbollah has been the only Arab force, who joined the Syrian army in the fight against ISIS until victory was achieved, while the rest of Arab armies slept cowardly in their own safe bunkers, while their Arab leaders offered training facilities and arms to the terrorist groups. Hezbollah had protected Lebanon first, Syria second, and the rest of the region third from ISIS when its leaders wisely discarded the self-defeating neutrality policy and rose to help and to rescue their Arab brothers and to protect the national security. Instead of offering thanks the Arab League joined the American Administration in calling Hezbollah a terrorist group.

Hezbollah’s victories against ISIS and deterrent against Israeli aggression, and the victories of the Syrian and Iraqi forces in defeating ISIS preserving the security of their countries and the security of the whole region would not have been accomplished without the help and the support of Iran, who provided its own intelligence and necessary military advice to defeat ISIS. We should also mention the role Russia had contributed in saving the region from ISIS and its offshoots.

Despite all this success the Arab League Secretariat; Ahmed Aboul Gheit, had the audacity to boldly accuse Iran of meddling in the Arab internal affairs and to declare what could be translated as “the missiles the Houthi Yemeni use to target Saudi Arabia are Iranian made …. Providing such missiles to the Houthis Iran is sending a message that ALL Arab capitals are within the Iranian firing range”he claimed.

Saudi Arabia is seeking to instigate political chaos in the region as a first step towards waging war against Iran with the help of Arab Gulf States and paid mercenary forces, under the protection of American military bases in the Gulf, to execute another phase in the Zionist Project aiming to control the strategic Red Sea entrances.

According to an agreement with Egypt, Saudi Arabia acquired the ownership of the Tiran and Sanafir Islands at the northern entrance of the Red Sea from the Gulf of Aqaba. As a result of its aggression against Yemen the Saudis are aiming to acquire control of the strategic Perim Island at the tip of the Bab al-Mandab Strait to control the southern exit of the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden leading to the Indian Ocean. This also includes the usurpation of Yemeni rich oil and natural resources.

The long term real and covert goal of all these Zionized Saudi games is the liquidation and termination of the Palestinian cause; the core existential cause of the Arab World, and the destruction of the Arab resistance axis and to normalize Arab Israeli relations in what has been dubbed the American “deal of the century”. This deal is a planned temporary short-term new phase in the Zionist Project whose goals are first to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinian Authority with the mandate of Jordan and Egypt, and second to normalize Israeli Arab relationship that include what is called “moderate” Arab regimes; gulf States, Jordan and Egypt, as a first step to form an Arab/Israeli military alliance to oppose the “Iranian threat”.

In the first step Egypt will be granted control over the Gaza Strip, Jordan will extend its mandate over parts of the West Bank, while Israel would maintain all its illegal colonies and grant Palestinians under its control some type of Israeli residency. To accomplish this the PA president; Mahmud Abbas, was summoned to Saudi Arabia where Mohammad bin Salman applied financial stick-or-carrot pressure on him to accept the deal. American president Trump had also hinted that his administration might close the PLO office in Washington if Abbas does not sit again at the negotiating table with Israel.

Delusional are those who expect Palestinians, who had been struggling against the Zionist Project for the last hundred years, would accept such a peace treaty, or that the Islamic and Arab World would accept the stupid concept that the Islamic Republic of Iran rather than the terrorist Jewish Israel is the main threat to the Middle Eastern region especially after the fact that the Islamic Republic had contributed greatly to save the region from terrorist ISIS that had been created and armed by Israel.

It is true that there might be some slight differences between the Islamic Republic and some Arabic Gulf states. Yet these differences had been artificially created by some Arab leaders with the encouragement of the American administration. Such differences could be easily resolved through peaceful negotiations. The conflict between the Arabs as a whole nation, plus the Islamic Republic, with Israel and it colonial project in the region is an existential conflict in its core and is posing a threat to the countries of the whole region without any exception.

The American administration and Israel with some of their puppet Arab leaders are no longer the main players determining the fate of the Middle Eastern region. The Zionist Greater Israel Project could no longer be easily implemented as they had planned in the past. The Arab resistance axis (Palestinian factions, Syria, Iraq, Hezbollah, Yemen, and some south African Arab countries) against the Zionist Project has grown, and gained more political and military experience, and had achieved support from main global powers (Islamic Republic of Iran, Russia, and China to a certain extent) that equals or might be stronger than World Zionist Organization and its stooges of NATO and American administration.

Finally, we should extend our sincere thanks to Saudi crown prince; Mohammad bin Salman, who had turned the Saudi regime upside down and declared without any doubt the kingdom’s betrayal to the Arab core existential cause; the Palestinian cause, an action that would, definitely, awaken many of the entranced Arab nations. And as the saying goes: “some good may come out of evil acts.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, Middle East, USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on The Betraying Arab League at a Time of Crisis in the Arab World

North Korean ICBM Able to Strike America? How to Avoid a Catastrophic Nuclear War

The only way to defuse tensions and avoid catastrophic war is through diplomatic outreach by Washington – an option Trump and hawkish administration generals reject.


According to Pyongyang’s KCNA news agency, “(t)he ICBM Hwasong-15 type weaponry system (test-fired Tuesday) is an intercontinental ballistic rocket tipped with super-large heavy warhead which is capable of striking the whole mainland of the US.”

The ballistic missile tested exceeds the capability of previous ones. A DPRK statement said it’s to defend the country against “US imperialists’ nuclear blackmail policy and nuclear threat.”

Its military hasn’t yet demonstrated re-entry technology capability – the ability of an object in space to reenter the earth’s atmosphere without incinerating.

Experts believe the DPRK is close to this expertise. It’s also unknown if it’s able to miniaturize a nuclear warhead enough for mounting on a ballistic missile.

Reportedly, the missile test-fired Tuesday traveled nearly 1,000 km, reaching an altitude of 4,475 km, potentially able to reach US cities. The international space station orbit at 250 miles above earth.

Defense Secretary Mattis said the missile was “higher…than any previous shot they have taken,” claiming it could strike “anywhere in the world.”

Trump responded tersely, saying we’ll “take care of it. It is a situation that we will handle.”Separately, he tweeted:

“After North Korea missile launch, it’s more important than ever to fund our gov’t & military!”

America’s only threats are invented ones. If it waged world peace instead of endless wars, it’s out-of-control military spending couldn’t be justified.

Washington, South Korea and Japan called for an emergency UN Security Council meeting in response to the DPRK test.

According to Union of Concerned Scientists’ co-director of its Global Security Program David Wright, a space weapons expert, if Tuesday’s missile launch flew on a standard trajectory instead of a lofted angle, its range would exceed 8,000 miles.

“Such a missile would have more than enough range to reach Washington DC, and in fact any part of the continental United States,” Wright explained.

North Korea vowed to continue developing its nuclear and ballistic capabilities because of threatened US aggression – these weapons considered its most effective deterrent.

During Trump’s Asia visit, a DPRK statement said

“(a)s long as the US and its puppets engage in hostile acts and invasive attempts against us, and as long as imperialism, the root of evil and injustice, is left on Earth, we will further build up our nuclear power.”

Reckless US brinksmanship on the Korean peninsula, ruling out diplomacy, risks unthinkable regional nuclear war.

Pyongyang’s response to threats by Trump, other US officials and regional ones is greater determination to develop its nuclear and ballistic missile expertise.

The only way to defuse tensions and avoid catastrophic war is through diplomatic outreach by Washington – an option Trump and hawkish administration generals reject.

The Korean peninsula remains a hugely dangerous tinderbox. Nuclear war remains an ominous possibility, a likely uncontrollable firestorm if launched.

Posted in USA, North KoreaComments Off on North Korean ICBM Able to Strike America? How to Avoid a Catastrophic Nuclear War

Nazi regime to Coordinate with Google, YouTube, to Censor Palestinian Videos of Conflict


Nazi Deputy Foreign Minister, Member of Knesset Tzipi Hotovely, held meetings this week with representatives of YouTube and Google, to find ways of cooperating to censor Palestinian videos from occupied Palestine, videos she dubbed as “inciting violence and terrorism.”  Zionist daily Maariv said Hotovely will be working with Google and YouTube officials in a joint mechanism that will be in charge of “monitoring and preventing” any publication of materials deemed by Tel Aviv to be “inflammatory.”

Nazi Hotovely announced in a Hebrew-only press release that she met with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki,and Google’s Director of Public Policy, Jennifer Oztzistzki, at Google’s Silicon Valley Offices.

Hotovely said that she received a comprehensive review mechanism for companies to monitor the films that allegedly incite violence, claiming that the supposed ‘incitement videos’ drive young children to go out and stab: ‘The attacks daily in Israel are the result of youths and children incited by the education system and the social networks, this is a daily war of incitement.’

She said that Google agreed to strengthen the bilateral relations with Nazi Foreign Ministry, and build a mechanism of “collaborative work” that would make both parties partners in monitoring the published materials and censoring them.

The Nazi move comes amidst escalating tension in occupied Palestine, and a large number of videos, including those showing Nazi soldiers and officers killing Palestinians execution-style after injuring them, and many videos that in general highlight the suffering of the Palestinian people, living under the illegal Nazi occupation of Palestine.

The Nazi coordination with Google and YouTube has very serious implications, and many journalists have spoken out in opposition, saying it is a direct assault on the Freedom of the Press.

All foreign journalists who report in the Occupied Territories are required to register with the Nazi military, and any footage that they film is required to go through the Nazi Military Censor’s office before it can be released.

With the recent advances in technology, many Palestinians and other civilians have been able to post videos uncensored online.

Nazi government has frequently voiced its discontent with this development, and have worked to find ways to continue to censor videos coming out of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi regime to Coordinate with Google, YouTube, to Censor Palestinian Videos of Conflict

Nazi racist regime Plans to Block Arabs from Living in 1,000 Neighbourhoods


Nazi racist regime is planning to block its Arab citizens from living in almost 1,000 neighbourhoods and villages under the pretext that they were built for Jews only, Quds Press reported on Tuesday. According to a report in Haaretz, the Knesset (Nazi parliament) is set to discuss a law to build Jew-only areas in the country.

Describing the proposed legislation as racist, the director of the Alternative Planning Centre, which specialises in planning and construction, said that it aims to prevent Arabs from living in new neighbourhoods. Hanna Sweed added that municipalities used to prevent Arab citizens from living in Jewish neighbourhoods, but this practice looks set to become enshrined in law.

“There have been indirectly-racist laws in Israel,” explained Sweed, “but this law stipulates clearly the building of Jewish neighbourhoods without any Arab residents.”

He warned that this might lead to more racist laws to put extra limits on Palestinian citizens, who make up 20 per cent of the population.

The former MK pointed out that there is no law that prevents Jews from living in Palestinian neighbourhoods.

“What’s more, consecutive Israeli governments have built hundreds of Jewish towns and neighbourhoods in occupied Palestine [Israel], but have never built any Arab neighbourhood since 1948.”

He noted that the Nazi regime have never even expanded Arab neighbourhoods, causing severe housing shortages and pushing Arabs to apply to live in new Jewish areas.

“Due to years of having their land confiscated, Israel’s Arab citizens do not have enough land to meet housing demand as the population continues to grow.”

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi racist regime Plans to Block Arabs from Living in 1,000 Neighbourhoods

John Kerry: ”Israel Was Pushing Us to Bomb Iran before Nuclear Deal” ‘Video’


According to former US Secretary of State John Kerry Israel and Egypt were pushing the US to “bomb Iran” before the nuclear deal was struck in 2015. He added that a number of kings and presidents told the US that a military action was the only language Iran would understand.

Kerry emphasized the role of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that was “genuinely agitating toward action.”

Kerry made the statement during a forum in Washington. He defended the deal and said that the military action suggestions were a “trap”. According to the former US secretary of state, the same countries would have publicly criticized the U.S. if it did carry out a bombing of Iran as they were secretly supporting.

The administration of US President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized the Iran nuclear deal made during the Obama presidency. Trump vowed to reconsider the terms and conditions of the deal and to put an additional pressure on Iran. These statements faced a very cold response from Tehran, which is against any deals that would limit his sovereignty.

Featured image is from South Front.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZI, IranComments Off on John Kerry: ”Israel Was Pushing Us to Bomb Iran before Nuclear Deal” ‘Video’

Media Erase NATO Role in Bringing Slave Markets to Libya


Twenty-first century slave markets. Human beings sold for a few hundred dollars. Massive protests throughout the world.

The American and British media have awakened to the grim reality in Libya, where African refugees are for sale in open-air slave markets. Yet a crucial detail in this scandal has been downplayed or even ignored in many corporate media reports: the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in bringing slavery to the North African nation.

In March 2011, NATO launched a war in Libya expressly aimed at toppling the government of longtime leader Muammar Qadhafi. The US and its allies flew some 26,000 sorties over Libya and launched hundreds of cruise missiles, destroying the government’s ability to resist rebel forces.

US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with their European counterparts, insisted the military intervention was being carried out for humanitarian reasons. But political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy3/22/16) used NATO’s own materials to show how “the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.”

NATO supported an array of rebel groups fighting on the ground in Libya, many of which were dominated by Islamist extremists and harbored violently racist views. Militants in the NATO-backed rebel stronghold of Misrata even referred to themselves in 2011 as “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin”—an eerie foreshadowing of the horrors that were to come.

The war ended in October 2011. US and European aircraft attacked Qadhafi’s convoy, and he was brutally murdered by extremist rebels—sodomized with a bayonet. Secretary Clinton, who played a decisive role in the war, declared live on CBS News (10/20/11), “We came, we saw, he died!” The Libyan government dissolved soon after.

In the six years since, Libya has been roiled by chaos and bloodshed. Multiple would-be governments are competing for control of the oil-rich country, and in some areas there is still no functioning central authority. Many thousands of people have died, although the true numbers are impossible to verify. Millions of Libyans have been displaced—a staggering number, nearly one-third of the population, had fled to neighboring Tunisia by 2014.

Corporate media, however, have largely forgotten about the key role NATO played in destroying Libya’s government, destabilizing the country and empowering human traffickers.

Moreover, even the few news reports that do acknowledge NATO’s complicity in the chaos in Libya do not go a step further and detail the well-documented, violent racism of the NATO-backed Libyan rebels who ushered in slavery after ethnically cleansing and committing brutal crimes against black Libyans.

O NATO, Where Art Thou?

CNN (11/14/17) published an explosive story in mid-November that offered a firsthand look at the slave trade in Libya. The media network obtained terrifying video that shows young African refugees being auctioned, “big strong boys for farm work,” sold for as little as $400.

CNN: People for Sale

CNN (11/14/17) does not bring up the US role in allowing people to be sold.

The flashy CNN multimedia report included bonuses galore: two videos, two animated gifs, two photos and a chart. But something was missing: The 1,000-word story made no mention of NATO, or the 2011 war that destroyed Libya’s government, or Muammar Qadhafi, or any kind of historical and political context whatsoever.

Despite these huge flaws, the CNN report was widely celebrated, and made an impact in a corporate media apparatus that otherwise cares little about North Africa. A flurry of media reports followed. These stories overwhelmingly spoke of slavery in Libya as an apolitical and timeless human rights issue, not as a political problem rooted in very recent history.

In subsequent stories, when Libyan and United Nations officials announced they would launch an investigation into the slave auctions, CNN (11/17/1711/20/17) again failed to mention the 2011 war, let alone NATO’s role in it.

One CNN report (11/21/17) on a UN Security Council meeting noted, “Ambassadors from Senegal to Sweden also blamed trafficking’s root causes: unstable countries, poverty, profits from slave trading and lack of legal enforcement.” But it failed to explain why Libya is unstable.

Another 1,200-word CNN follow-up article (11/23/17) was just as obfuscatory. It was only in the 35th paragraph of this 36-graf story that a Human Rights Watch researcher noted, “Libyan interim authorities have been dragging their feet on virtually all investigations they supposedly started, yet never concluded, since the 2011 uprising.” NATO’s leadership in this 2011 uprising was, however, ignored.

An Agence France-Presse news wire that was published by Voice of America (11/17/17) and other websites similarly failed to provide any historical context for the political situation in Libya. “Testimony collected by AFP in recent years has revealed a litany of rights abuses at the hands of gang leaders, human traffickers and the Libyan security forces,” the article said, but it did not recount anything that happened before 2017.

Reports by the BBC (11/18/17), the New York Times (11/20/17), Deutsche Welle (reprinted by USA Today11/23/17) and the Associated Press (reprinted by theWashington Post11/23/17) also failed to mention the 2011 war, let alone NATO’s role in it.

NYT: Sale of Migrants as Slaves in Libya Causes Outrage in Africa and Paris

New York Times story (11/19/17) was exceptional in connecting the rise in Libyan slavery to Muammar Qadhafi’s overthrow–yet it failed to mention the US’s leading role in that overthrow.

Another New York Times story (11/19/17) did provide a bit of context:

Since the Arab Spring uprising of 2011 ended the brutal rule of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Libya’s coast has became a hub for human trafficking and smuggling. That has fueled the illegal migration crisis that Europe has been scrambling to contain since 2014. Libya, which slid into chaos and civil war after the revolt, is now divided among three main factions.

Yet the Times still erased NATO’s key place in this uprising of 2011.

In an account of the large protests that erupted outside Libyan embassies in Europe and Africa in response to reports of slave auctions, Reuters (11/20/17) indicated, “Six years after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is still a lawless state where armed groups compete for land and resources and people-smuggling networks operate with impunity.” But it did not provide any more information about how Qadhafi was toppled.

A report in the Huffington Post (11/22/17), later republished by AOL (11/27/17), did concede that Libya is “one of the world’s most unstable [sic], mired in conflict since dictator Muammar Gaddafi was ousted and killed in 2011.” It made no mention of NATO’s leadership in that ousting and killing.

Part of the problem has been the unwillingness of international organizations to point out the responsibility of powerful Western governments. In his statement on the reports of slavery in Libya, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres (11/20/17) did not mention anything about what has happened politically inside the North African nation in the past six years. The UN News Centre report (11/20/17) on Guterres’ comments was just as contextless and uninformative, as was the press release (11/21/17) on the issue from the International Organization for Migration.

Al Jazeera (11/26/17) did cite an IOM official who suggested, in Al Jazeera‘s words, that “the international community should pay more attention to post-Gaddafi Libya.” But the media outlet provided no context as to how Libya became post-Qadhafi in the first place. In fact, Al Jazeera‘s source went out of his way to make the issue apolitical: “Modern-day slavery is widespread around the world and Libya is by no means unique.”

While it is true that slavery and human trafficking happen in other countries, this widespread media narrative depoliticizes the problem in Libya, which has its roots in explicit political decisions made by governments and their leaders: namely, the choice to overthrow Libya’s stable government, turning the oil-rich North African nation into a failed state ruled by competing warlords and militias, some of which are involved in and profit from slavery and trafficking.

Selective Attention to NATO’s Aftermath in Libya

Corporate media reporting on Libya largely mirrors reporting on Yemen (FAIR.org11/20/178/31/172/27/17), Syria (FAIR.org4/7/179/5/15) and beyond: The role of the US government and its allies in creating chaos abroad is minimized, if not outright ignored.

Strikingly, one of the only exceptions to this overwhelming media trend came back in April from, of all places, the New York Times editorial board. The Times editorial (4/14/17) did not mince words, directly linking the US-backed military operation to the ongoing catastrophe:

None of this would be possible if not for the political chaos in Libya since the civil war in 2011, when — with the involvement of a NATO coalition that included the United States — Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi was toppled. Migrants have become the gold that finances Libya’s warring factions.

This is a significant reversal. Immediately after NATO launched its war in Libya in March 2011, the Times editorial board (3/21/11) cheered on the bombing, effusing, “Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has long been a thug and a murderer who has never paid for his many crimes.” It waxed poetic on the “extraordinary,” “astonishing” military intervention, and hoped for Qadhafi’s imminent downfall.

The April 2017 Times editorial stopped far short of a being a mea culpa, yet it was still a rare admission of truth.

At the time this surprisingly honest editorial was written, there had briefly been a bit of media attention to Libya. The International Organization for Migration had just conducted an investigation into slavery in post–regime change Libya, leading to a string of news reports in the Guardian (4/10/17) and elsewhere. Practically as soon as this appalling story got the interest of corporate media, however, it quickly died out. Attention shifted back to Russia, North Korea and the bogeymen of the day.

Guardian: Migrants from west Africa being ‘sold in Libyan slave markets’

This Guardian piece (4/10/17) cites “the overthrow of autocratic leader Muammar Qadhafi,” but does not say that the US (or Britain) was instrumental in overthrowing him.

When Western governments were hoping to militarily intervene in the country in the lead-up to March 19, 2011, there was a constant torrent of media reports on the evils of Qadhafi and his government—including a healthy dose of fake news (Salon9/16/16). Major newspapers staunchly supported the NATO intervention, and made no secret of their pro-war editorial lines.

When the US government and its allies were preparing for war, the corporate media apparatus did what it does best, and helped sell yet another military intervention to the public.

In the years since, on the other hand, there has been exponentially less interest in the disastrous aftermath of that NATO war. There will be short spikes of interest, as there was in early 2017. The most recent spurt of press coverage was inspired by the publication of CNN‘s shocking video footage. But the coverage invariably rapidly peaks and goes away.

The Extreme Racism of Libyan Rebels

The catastrophe Libya might endure after the collapse of its state had been predictable at the time. Qadhafi himself had warned NATO member states, while they were waging war against him, that they were going to unleash chaos throughout the region. Yet Western leaders—Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the US, David Cameron in the UK, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Stephen Harper in Canada—ignored Qadhafi’s admonition and violently toppled his government.

Even from the small number of media reports on slavery in Libya that do manage to acknowledge NATO’s responsibility for destabilizing the country, nevertheless, something is still missing.

Looking back at Libya’s anti-Qadhafi rebels, both during and after the 2011 war, it is very clear that hardline anti-black racism was widespread in the NATO-backed opposition. A 2016 investigation by the British House of Common’s Foreign Affairs Committee (Salon9/16/16) acknowledged that “militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards.” But many rebels were not just fundamentalist; they were also violently racist.

It is unfortunately no surprise that these extremist Libyan militants later enslaved African refugees and migrants: They were hinting at it from the very beginning.

Most American and European media coverage at the time of NATO’s military intervention was decidedly pro-rebel. When reporters got on the ground, however, they began publishing a few more nuanced pieces that hinted at the reality of the opposition. These were insignificant in number, but they are enlightening and worth revisiting.

Three months into the NATO war, in June 2011, the Wall Street Journal‘s Sam Dagher (6/21/11) reported from Misrata, Libya’s third-largest city and a major hub for the opposition, where he noted he saw rebel slogans like “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.”

Dahger indicated that the rebel stronghold of Misrata was dominated by “tightly knit white merchant families,” whereas “the south of the country, which is predominantly black, mainly backs Col. Gadhafi.”

Other graffiti in Misrata read “Traitors keep out.” By “traitors,” rebels were referring to Libyans from the town of Tawergha, which the Journal explained is “inhabited mostly by black Libyans, a legacy of its 19th-century origins as a transit town in the slave trade.”

Dagher reported that some Libyan rebel leaders were “calling for the expulsion of Tawerghans from the area” and “banning Tawergha natives from ever working, living or sending their children to schools in Misrata.” He added that predominately Tawergha neighborhoods in Misrata had already been emptied. Black Libyans were “gone or in hiding, fearing revenge attacks by Misratans, amid reports of bounties for their capture.”

The rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous told the Journal, “Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata.”

Al-Halbous would later reappear in a report by the Sunday Telegraph (9/11/11), reiterating to the British newspaper, “Tawarga no longer exists.” (When Halbous was injured in September, the New York Times9/20/11—portrayed him sympathetically as a martyr in the heroic fight against Qadhafi. The Halbous brigade has in the years since become an influential militia in Libya.)

Like Dagher, the Telegraph‘s Andrew Gilligan drew attention to the slogan painted on the road between Misrata and Tawergha: “the brigade for purging slaves [and] black skin.”

Gilligan reported from Tawergha, or rather from the remnants of the majority-black town, which he noted had “been emptied of its people, vandalized and partly burned by rebel forces.” A rebel leader said of the dark-skinned residents, “We said if they didn’t go, they would be conquered and imprisoned. Every single one of them has left, and we will never allow them to come back.”

Gilligan noted “a racist undercurrent. Many Tawargas, though neither immigrants nor Gaddafi’s much-ballyhooed African mercenaries, are descended from slaves, and are darker than most Libyans.”

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization assisted these virulently racist rebels in Misrata. NATO forces frequently launched air attacks on the city. French fighter jets shot down Libyan planes over Misrata. The US and UK fired cruise missiles at Libyan government targets, and the US launched Predator drone strikes. The Canadian air force also attacked Libyan forces, pushing them out of Misrata.

In a public relations video NATO published in May 2011, early in the Libya war, the Western military alliance openly admitted that it intentionally allowed “Libyan rebels to transport arms from Benghazi to Misrata.” Political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy3/22/16) pointed out the implications of this video: “A NATO surface vessel stationed in the Mediterranean to enforce an arms embargo did exactly the opposite, and NATO was comfortable posting a video demonstrating its hypocrisy.”

Throughout the war and after, Libyan rebels continued carrying out racist sectarian attacks against their black compatriots. These attacks have been well documented by mainstream human rights organizations.

HRW: Libya: Stop Arbitrary Arrests of Black Africans

Human Rights Watch (9/4/11) documented racist persecution in post-Qadhafi Libya.

Human Rights Watch’s longtime executive director Kenneth Roth cheered on NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, calling the UN Security Council’s unanimous endorsement of a no-fly zone a “remarkable” confirmation of the so-called “responsibility to protect” doctrine.

Roth’s organization, however, could not ignore the crimes anti-Qadhafi militants committed against dark-skinned Libyans and migrants.

In September 2011, when the war was still ongoing, Human Rights Watch reported on Libyan rebels’ “arbitrary arrests and abuse of African migrant workers and black Libyans assumed to be [pro-Qadhafi] mercenaries.”

Then in October, the top US human rights organization noted that Libyan militias were “terrorizing the displaced residents of the nearby town of Tawergha,” the majority-black community that had been a stronghold of support for Qadhafi. “The entire town of 30,000 people is abandoned—some of it ransacked and burned—and Misrata brigade commanders say the residents of Tawergha should never return,” HRW added. Witnesses “gave credible accounts of some Misrata militias shooting unarmed Tawerghans, and of arbitrary arrests and beatings of Tawerghan detainees, in a few cases leading to death.”

In 2013, HRW reported further on the ethnic cleansing of the black community of Tawergha. The human rights organization, whose chief had so effusively supported the military intervention, wrote: “The forced displacement of roughly 40,000 people, arbitrary detentions, torture and killings are widespread, systematic and sufficiently organized to be crimes against humanity.”

These atrocities are undeniable, and they lead a path straight to the enslavement of African refugees and migrants. But to acknowledge NATO’s complicity in empowering these racist extremist militants, corporate media would have to acknowledge NATO’s role in the 2011 regime change war in Libya in the first place.

Posted in LibyaComments Off on Media Erase NATO Role in Bringing Slave Markets to Libya

Unprecedented Wealth Inequality in America: The Hundred Billion Dollar Man

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos

It’s an obscenity, not a mark of distinction or impressive achievement – symbolic of unprecedented wealth inequality in a nation obsessed with super-wealth and profit-making for its privileged class.

It comes at the expense of a growing underclass, tens of millions impoverished Americans, disadvantaged ones, their numbers increasing, not diminishing, greater numbers coming if the GOP tax cut scam becomes the law of the land.

It’ll enrich Bezos and other super-rich Americans more than already, gaining more wealth from the pockets of the nation’s low and middle income households – a diabolical scheme supported by Republicans, maybe enough to make it the law of the land, no matter the harm it causes.

Politics in America is money controlled, a system unlike in any other country, amounting to organized bribery.

In return for large campaign contributions (bribes by any standard), congressional members pass laws benefitting their benefactors, most often at the expense of the general welfare – the defining feature of dirty politics.

Earlier US robber barons were small-time compared to today’s mega-ones – lionized by media scoundrels as heroic figures, profiting at the expense of exploiting workers, paying them poverty wages – or gaining riches by using money to make more of it, contributing nothing to society.

Money power in private hands and democracy can’t co-exist. Wall Street crooks transformed America into an unprecedented money-making racket – making it the old-fashioned way by stealing it.

Other corporate predators operate the same way, functioning as legalized crime families, oligopolies and monopolies, eliminating competition, not fostering it.

Complicit with corrupt politicians, socialism for the rich, free market capitalism law of the jungle for ordinary people reflects the American way – rewarding predation, punishing the poor and disadvantaged, plutocracy, not democracy.

The Constitution’s general welfare clause (Article I, section 8) applies to the nation’s privileged class alone, no one else.

Jeff Bezos and other multi-billionaires earn more in a day than their workers in a year. Last April, as Amazon shares rose sharply, his net worth increased by $6 billion in 20 minutes.

A few weeks ago, his wealth increased by $1.5 billion in one day. Last year, he made $19.3 billion – on average around $52 million daily, over $2 million per hour, $36,000 a minute, $600 a second.

He has over fourfold the wealth of his alma mater, Princeton University. According to the Land Report, he’s the 25th largest US landowner.

Will he become the world’s first trillionaire in years to come? At age-53, he likely has many years ahead for greater wealth accumulation than already.

In contrast, most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck, one missed one away from hunger, homelessness and despair.

Tens of millions of people are food insecure, dependent on food stamps and food pantries to feed themselves and their families.

Hunger in America is a national disgrace. So is obscene wealth concentrated in few hands.

The nation’s three richest billionaires are wealthier than the bottom half of the population.

Bezos tops the list – the richest of America’s corporate predators, aiming to become more super-rich than already.

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis B. Brandeis once said:

“We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

A Final Comment

Bezos is well-connected. He has CIA ties, recipient of a $600 million agency contract for much more than Amazon Web Services (AWS). As owner of the Washington Post, he serves as its mouthpiece.

He has a disturbing history currying favor with national security officials. WaPo is a virtual CIA house organ, a major conflict of interest destroying its credibility.

AWS’ Secret Region cloud technology lets the CIA and other US intelligence agencies host, analyze and secure their data across all classification levels – from unclassified to top secret.

Bezos is the US intelligence community’s man at Amazon.

Posted in USAComments Off on Unprecedented Wealth Inequality in America: The Hundred Billion Dollar Man

Shoah’s pages