Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.Syrian Army units on Thursday carried out large-scale military operations, targeting terrorists' dens and assembly points in several areas around the country, SANA news agency reported.
Citing a military source, SANA said that units of the armed forces eliminated the last gatherings of the terrorist groups in Telal al-Abboudiyeh, Berghlan al-Gharbiyeh and al-Sharqiyeh in Qusseir countryside of Homs.
The source added that dozens of explosive devices which were planted by terrorists in the region were dismantled and terrorists were eliminated.
In Deir Ezzor of Aleppo, army units killed dozens of terrorists, some of whom are Saudis and Tunisians, and destroyed a tunnel they were using for transporting and transferring weapons and ammunition.
A source told SANA that an army unit clashed with al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front terrorist group in al-Erfi neighborhood, killing a big number of them, the majority of whom are Saudis and Tunisians.
Another unit liquidated eliminated an armed terrorist group including a sniper near Bemo Bank branch in al-Reshdia neighborhood in the city of Deir-Ezzor.
The source added that a 19-meter tunnel in al-Bousaraya street was destroyed with all terrorists and weapons inside.
A mortar launcher and a terrorists' den were also destroyed in al-Moreiyeh village, where many terrorists were killed including the terrorist Abdul-karim al-Jassem al-Nahar.
Moreover, a military source told SANA that army units killed a number of terrorists in al-Ghazmati, al-Fardous, Karm Maisar, al-Shaar, al-Halek and Bani Zaid neighborhoods in Aleppo city.
The source added that an armed terrorist group was eliminated near the water station in Sulieman al-Halabi area. Other army units destroyed terrorists’ gatherings and hideouts with all the weapons and ammunition inside them in the villages of Maarat al-Artiq, Hilan, Haritan, al-Sheikh Lutfi, the industrial city, Rasem al-Abboud, al-Sheikh Najjar, Andan,Ebtin, Hadadin and surrounding Aleppo central prison.
In Idleb, army units eliminated a number of terrorists in the villages of Tal Salmo, Um Jern in Abu al-Dohour, KaferTala and the youth camp.
A 23mm anti-aircraft machinegun was destroyed, and a number of terrorists were killed and wounded surrounding al-Yarmouk School, the old customs, the shoes factory in Daraa al-Balad. A unit of the armed forces eliminated an armed terrorist group in Maaloula town in Damascus Countryside.
Syria was hit by a violent unrest since mid-March 2011, where the Syrian government accuses foreign actors, mainly the Saudi Arabia and Turkey, of orchestrating the conflict by supporting the militant opposition groups with arms and money.
Source: Agencies
30-01-2014 - 18:08 Last updated 30-01-2014 - 18:08
Among dozens of Syrian and foreign journalists covering the Syria peace talks in Geneva, Elissar Moualla stands out.
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.
The popular Syrian news anchor, working for the state-sponsored Syrian TV, never misses an opportunity to confront the opposition delegation.
With a loud and agitated voice, she asks tough questions in press conferences and she challenges statements the opposition representatives make in the more informal media hub, the garden of the UN headquarters.
“Can you tell me why the armed groups [you support] are holding women and children hostage in Homs?” she yells to an opposition spokesman.
“You claim you want to stop the fighting, but do you have control over the armed groups?” she asks another.
The conference in Switzerland is the first time the Damascus-based anchor has interacted with the Western-backed political opposition trying to overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad.
She says the opposition representatives were “shocked” when they faced reporters from Syrian state media. “Even though they are trained to answer journalists’ questions, this is the first time they’ve been grilled by journalists coming from inside Syria. This is why they couldn’t deliver their messages as effectively as they wanted,” the 37-year-old told Al Jazeera.
For Moualla, the peace conference is a media parade – but also a battlefield of countries she believes are trying to meddle in the affairs of her country.
“This is the first time I see how big is this game of nations and how the fighters in Syria are manipulated,” she says as she sips her coffee in the press bar at the UN building, where the US- and Russian-backed talks are taking place.
Spotlight
“For the first time I pity the [opposition] fighters because I realize just how misled they are. They think they are fighting for the cause of freedom or a religious cause or whatever cause it is. But in reality, they are fighting the battles of other countries,” Moualla says.
“Despite all the suffering they have caused, I still cringe every time I watch them dead on TV. I don’t like them and I hate extremism, but I am human,” Moualla says.
“I always tell my colleagues: ‘When you film them, do not take these harsh images; they are humans. Cover them when you film them.’” She then quickly adds: “Those same people would kill me if they saw me.”
Many rebel groups consider state media employees legitimate targets because they defend the Syrian government. Presenting the views of her channel has come at a great cost for Moualla, who says she has received a barrage of death threats and vicious bashing. “I receive countless phone calls and messages. They once threatened to kill my father. And the swearing is as ugly as it can get”.
Going from her home in a flashpoint area on the outskirts of Damascus to her workplace in the center of the capital is also a daily challenge. She recounts the day she thought her life was nearing its end: “One time, three armed men wearing black bands around their heads tried to attack me in my car after they recognized me. They ran away after the police arrived. I will never forget that day.”
Her parents, who lived in the coastal province of Latakia, have left their hometown and moved to Damascus because they are worried about her safety.
But the threats have not deterred her from carrying on with her job. She remembers her colleagues who lost their lives and says some other pro-government journalists suffer even more than she does.
At least five employees of Syrian TV have been killed in the conflict, and the fate of one of Moualla’s friends in the channel, Mohammad Saeed, remains unknown after he was kidnapped.
Over the past three years, scores of journalists reporting on the Syrian conflict have been killed, arbitrarily arrested, subjected to enforced disappearances or tortured.
Moualla believes that the government’s narrative of events in Syria has now become an undeniable truth. “Nobody can deny it,” she says. “The government is defending its territory from terrorists.”
Moualla says that the coverage of the Syrian conflict by most media organizations has been biased, whether intentionally or unintentionally. She says atrocities committed by opposition forces have not been covered well by foreign media and the Syrian state media.
The government has at times covered up crimes committed by armed groups in divided cities like Homs, to prevent a rift among the people, she says. “The government demanded from reporters [of state media] that they do not film these atrocities, so that the Christian wouldn’t view the Muslim in a negative way, so that the Alawite wouldn’t view the Sunni in a negative way.”
“The Syrian army is killing, but it’s killing the terrorists,” Moualla insists. “There is a truth that should be acknowledged: They are monsters. They are monsters that have been released on Syrian land. Not humans. Some of them hold Syrian citizenship. But they have lost all ability to live in a normal society.”
Moualla will leave the peaceful city of Geneva for war-riddled Damascus, and return to the same death threats, the same sounds of shelling, and another news bulletin full of blood and death.
I don’t see a diplomatic war happening in Geneva . i see that this was a joint staged event by Russia and USA which outcome and failure was known . Don’t talk to me about diplomatic wars .
People gather at the scene of a car bomb explosion which went off in front of the main government administration building in Hermel, a stronghold of Lebanon's Hezbollah near the border with Syria, on January 16, 2014. (Photo: AFP - STR).
Published Friday, January 31, 2014
A primary round of investigations into Omar al-Atrash established him as a suspect in a string of suicide bombings and attacks in Lebanon’s Bekaa, Dahiyeh, and Saida. Atrash’s statements provided invaluable information, as the detained cleric allegedly confessed to transporting two Saudi suicide bombers, who are still at large, to Beirut. Atrash has now been officially charged, paving the way for further questioning.
On January 30, an official statement by Lebanon’s army command confirmed previous press reports regarding Atrash’s confessions to his role in the recent wave of deadly bombings in Lebanon. Atrash has been referred to a military court, which charged him over his alleged role in the attacks.
Al-Akhbar learned that the military court intends to request the intelligence directorate to expand the scope of the investigations into Atrash. According to informed sources, the information the suspect may be in possession of cannot be extracted from him in just a few days of investigations.
Atrash reportedly spoke at length during his interrogation about his role in the terrorist bombings in Lebanon. The cleric also revealed some secrets about the work of jihadi organizations, but many details need to be followed up and verified. It is understood that there have been talks with the Ministry of Justice and the military court to get their consent to keeping Atrash in the custody of army intelligence for a longer period of time.
According to the same sources, Atrash was apprehended while army intelligence was in pursuit of a Saudi national, who, according to US intelligence tips, had entered Lebanon to carry out a major terrorist attack. During the search for the Saudi, information surfaced that made Atrash a suspect.
Atrash was subsequently arrested. Shortly after, he admitted his intent to move the Saudi national, who remains at large, to the capital. Atrash also confessed that he had previously brought another Saudi to Beirut, revealing that both of the Saudis were commissioned in Syria to carry out two suicide attacks in areas with sizeable Hezbollah influence.
Atrash also confessed that the registration papers found in his possession belonged to cars in the process of being moved to Beirut, to be handed over to suicide bombers for detonation in Dahiyeh or other areas. The suspect also said he was helping with logistics, including transferring funds.
The sources said Atrash disclosed information about certain events, details of which had been hitherto secret, including facts like:
– Atrash transported to Beirut the two suicide bombers who attacked the Iranian embassy, handing them over to the Palestinian fugitive Naim Abbas. Abbas operates from Palestinian refugee camps, including Ain al-Hilweh in South Lebanon.
– Atrash transported one of the suicide bombers involved in the Haret Hreik bombings to Khaldeh, also handing him over to Abbas.
– Atrash sent one of the suicide bombers using a microbus from Bekaa to Beirut, where Abbas was waiting for him. Abbas then moved the bomber to another location, where he gave him the explosive-rigged vehicle and an explosive belt.
– He transferred funds to Abbas, which he obtained from inside Syria.
– The two suicide bombers who blew themselves up at Lebanese army checkpoints in Awwali and Saida, and who until now had not been identified, were Qatari nationals, whom Atrash helped move from Bekaa to Beirut.
– The suicide bomber in the recent attack in Hermel was probably the brother of a Lebanese national who blew himself up in Syria a while ago.
Naim Abbas: The Mastermind
Investigations into Atrash revealed Abbas, born in 1970, as a prominent al-Qaeda figure in Lebanon and the mastermind of a number of suicide attacks that targeted the southern suburbs of Beirut. In statements given by Islamist prisoners in Lebanon years ago, Abbas was named as the perpetrator of the assassinations of Army Major General Francois al-Hajj and MP Walid Eido. The prisoners cited leaders of Fatah al-Islam as the source of this information, but security services were not able to verify its accuracy.
According to reports, Abbas resides in South Lebanon’s Ain al-Hilweh camp, bearing in mind that security reports indicate Abbas often vanishes from the camp before reappearing with his beard shaven.
Atrash’s confessions have revealed that Abbas, who is a former member of the Islamic Jihad, is the same person known as Abu Suleiman. The latter was previously identified by the army as the owner of a warehouse in an area near Dahiyeh. Abbas, according to the same reports, gave a bomb-rigged car to Qutaiba al-Satem, the perpetrator of the first suicide bombing in Haret Hreik, after receiving it from Atrash.
The sources pointed out that Atrash confessed when he was confronted with damning evidence, including recordings of phone conversations proving his involvement, in addition to images sent by phone of the rigged cars and the perpetrator of one of the suicide attacks in Dahiyeh.
According to the sources, the army tasked a doctor to examine Atrash before handing him over to the military judiciary, to prove that he was not beaten in custody. Both the forensic doctor and Atrash have signed a report to this effect, the sources added.
Government commissioner to the military court, Judge Saq Saqr, charged Atrash and 12 others, including Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian nationals and other unidentified suspects, with joining an armed terrorist group with the goal of carrying out terrorist attacks, recruiting people for terrorist acts, and involvement in the bombings in Haret Hreik. Judge Saqr referred the case to the military investigative judge.
In the meantime, the army’s crackdown on terrorism continues. According to reports, more than 20 suspects have been arrested over the past two months, including Danish, Belgian, and German nationals suspected of being members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Nusra Front, and the Abdullah Azzam Brigades.
In the same vein, investigations with detainee Jamal Daftardar, who was arrested by the intelligence directorate in Kamed al-Loz, continue. Daftardar had been under close surveillance after Lebanon received US tips regarding the movements of the now-deceased leader of Abdullah Azzam Brigades Majed al-Majed, as Daftardar was in charge of medical care for the latter in Lebanon.
According to reports, Daftardar is from the second generation of al-Qaeda operatives. His role focused on explosives and combat training. Al-Akhbar learned that his 16-year-old wife has since been released by the authorities, but was referred to General Security for processing, as she is a Syrian national. It appears that Daftardar knew the real identity of Majed, unlike others who were taking the Saudi terror leader to hospital or paying his medical bills.
(Al-Akhbar)
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.Hundreds of Syrians on Friday morning gathered in front of the UN's Headquarters in Geneva to express their support to the motherland, Syria, its army and Syria's official delegation to Geneva 2.
They expressed their rejection of the terrorism backed by regional and international countries.
Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi told the participants in the march that the next round of dialogue should include all spectra of the national opposition with which we agree regarding the love of the homeland and drawing its future.
Zoabi stressed that the opposition will not be able to obtain via politics what the terrorist acts failed to provide them with.
Syria's permanent representative to the United Nations Dr. Bashar al-Jaafari, also addressed the participants saying : " We conveyed your voice into the hall of dialogue and told them who wants to know what the Syrian people want should go outside the meeting hall to see the gathering people."
For her part, Presidential political and media advisor Buthaina Shaaban affirmed that Syria is for all Arabs and for the world’s freedom fighters, adding that the secret of its strength lies behind its great people, and it did not and won't abandon any of its or Arab rights.
Deputy Foreign and Expatriates Minister Fayssal Mikdad said that the Syrian people are against terrorism and want restoration of security, adding that Syria has withstood due to the people’s continuous support to President Bashar al-Assad.
Source: Agencies
31-01-2014 - 14:45 Last updated 31-01-2014 - 14:45
By Roger Tucker The quenelle is first inserted into the cavity...
The current flap over the gesture called a “quenelle” is revealing in a number of ways. It’s instructive to look first at a couple of Wikipedia entries. “The word quenelle is derived from the German Knödel (noodle or dumpling)” (which we know from Yiddish cuisine as a knadel). “French political activist and comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala is credited with creating and popularizing the gesture, which he first used in 2005 in his sketch entitled 1905 about French secularism and has been used since in a wide variety of contexts.. The first time Dieudonné used the gesture in a political context was for his 2009 European election campaign poster for the "anti-Zionist party", he stated that his intention was "to put a quenelle into Zionism's butt".. “The name quenelle comes from an elongated fish meatballs dish, which is said to look like a suppository. Hence, the phrase 'mettre une quenelle' ('to give someone the quenelle'), with a gesture simulating fisting practice, is similar to the English 'up yours'. The arm outstretched refers to the length of the arm going up one's bottom." Such a rich word, with so many Jewish-related meanings.
“When French footballer Nicolas Anelka of West Bromwich Albion F.C. performed the quenelle to celebrate scoring a goal on 28 December 2013, the gesture, which was already considered ‘something of a viral trend’ in France, became an international news story and one of the most searched terms on Google. Anelka described the gesture as anti-establishment rather than religious in nature, and said he did a quenelle as a "special dedication" to his friend Dieudonné.
However, French minister for sport Valérie Fourneyron called his actions "shocking" and "disgusting", adding: "There’s no place for anti-Semitism on the football field.." In response to the incident, club sponsor Zoopla announced that it would not continue its sponsorship deal with West Bromwich after the 2013–14 season..” (The Wikipedia entry fails to mention that Zoopla is co-owned by Jewish businessman Alex Chesterman.) “Each year, the ‘Golden Quenelle’, (Quenelle d'Or) is given, in a parody of the Oscar ceremony, to the people who expressed the most anti-establishment views.” Quelle phénomène!
Enough from Wikipedia; let’s move on. Is the quenelle anti-semitic, anti-Zionist or anti-establishment? That is the question that seems to crop up all the time and encapsulates the theme of this essay. As in the case of the quenelle, a gesture, like a word, can have different meanings depending on who is displaying it and in what context. The more is at stake, the more fraught the arguments over interpretation. In the case in question, we have a very hot potato. I think that mashed potatoes make a lovely complement to a well made quenelle.
Let’s ask another question. Why is this brouhaha important, if indeed it is? From the tribal Jewish perspective, they obviously feel very threatened. We could ignore that, because Jewish voices have been crying wolf forever. But somehow this is different - who is being attacked? The Jews? The Zionists? The Establishment? Aha! It’s all three! It’s the conflation, the melding of meanings, that bothers them the most, because it cements the linkage. This is the genius of Dieudonné. The professional victims are being exposed by the real victims, their victims. The expert, talmudic manipulators are being out-manipulated. Tribal Jewry is being hoist on its own petard. Gotta love it.
When I refer to 'them', i.e., tribal Jewry, the reference is not ethnic nor is it religious; it is memetic, a cultural identity. I am Jewish, by birth and upbringing, but the tribal identification didn't take. I didn’t ingest the memes; instead, I spat them out. The taste didn't agree with me. I chose to regard myself simply as human. Moreover, I am more than happy to act and to advocate on behalf of that identity group. This view is generally referred to as humanist, or universalist. A universalist chooses the human race as his or her tribe. Conflicts generally arise because people choose to identify with some secondary, lesser category.
To neatly characterize what the terms ‘Jewish’, ‘Zionist’ and ‘the Establishment’ add up to in combination, we do have a potentially useful word - fascism. The accepted dictionary definition is, sadly, inadequate and misleading, which is why many people regard the word as essentially meaningless. It needs to be redefined, because, properly defined, it would be extremely useful. Fortunately, there has been an honest attempt at doing so. I know it's a good one because I wrote it. No false modesty here. See 'Us vs. Them: On the meaning of Fascism'. Then you'll be up to speed and we can proceed.
Pause, followed by further elucidation...
Abuse of power, combined with some sense of supremacy or entitlement is at the heart of fascism, which distinguishes it from tribal pride and self-respect. That's why, when confronted by the police, demonstrators invariably shout "fascist pig!" Throughout history there has been an ongoing battle between numerous outbreaks of fascism and what could best be described by the quaint old word, civilization, just ordinary human society in some stable, non-aggressive form. Oh, as for the canard that the quenelle is an inverted Nazi salute, see Zionism and Nazism: Is there a difference that makes a difference?
The three main forms of fascism are ethnic, religious and nationalist. In the current conflict between tribal Jewry and the rest of the world, all three are in play - secular Jewish ethno-centrism, Judaism in its various forms (it is hard to imagine a non-fascist Judaism – they would have to throw out the Old Testament) and bellicose Israeli nationalism. It's the perfect storm.
Jewish culture has been around for a long time. Some Jews, as well as gentiles, have recognized it as the source of 'the Jewish problem.' For example, “If this hostility, even aversion, had only been shown towards the Jews at one period and in one country, it would be easy to unravel the limited causes of this anger, but this race has been on the contrary an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself. It must be therefore, since the enemies of the Jews belonged to the most diverse races, since they lived in countries very distant from each other, since they were ruled by very different laws, governed by opposite principles, since they had neither the same morals, nor the same customs, since they were animated by unlike dispositions which did not permit them to judge of anything in the same way, it must be therefore that the general cause of anti-Semitism has always resided in Israel itself and not in those who have fought against Israel.” ~ Statement regarding the expulsions of Jews, by noted Jewish author Bernard Lazare in “L’antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes,”published in 1894
Over the millennia, the nature of the problem has hardly changed at all, except for the innovation of there being a Jewish State, which, ironically, was created for the specific purpose of solving the problem. Instead, 'The Problem' has metastasized from a persistent source of pain and suffering into a world threatening disease. This will only get worse until the unholy trinity of Jewish tribal identity, Zionism and the Establishment disintegrates and the leaders of “the Free World” stop prostrating before the altar of the Golden Calf.
In the meantime, we the people have the le grand geste de Dieudonné to keep our spirits up.
An injured Palestinian protester is carried by comrades during clashes with Israeli occupation forces on the outskirts of Jalazun refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Ramallah, on January 31, 2014. (Photo: AFP - Abbas Momani)
Published Friday, January 31, 2014
Updated 6:30 pm:Israeli occupation forces shot and wounded 10 Palestinians near the West Bank town of Ramallah Friday during a protest over the killing of a teenager, Palestinian medics and security sources said.
In Gaza, meanwhile, medics said five more Palestinians were wounded by Israeli gunfire near the border in two separate incidents.
Security sources said the Palestinians were hit by live rounds on the outskirts of Jalazun refugee camp and hospitalized in Ramallah, including one with serious injuries.
Hundreds of Palestinians took part in the protest, many of them hurling rocks at the soldiers.
The demonstration was called to protest at the Israeli army's killing on Wednesday of Mohammed Mubarak, a 19-year-old from Jalazun working on a project funded by USAID and son of the camp's locally elected leader.
The army said he was shot dead near a Jewish settlement outside Ramallah after having opened fire at them, but witnesses insisted he was unarmed.
Palestinian housing and public works minister Maher Ghneim condemned what he branded the "cold-blooded killing" of a laborer who was working on a project run by the ministry in coordination with USAID.
Ghneim said the youth had been "carrying a sign to direct the traffic" when he was shot.
Separately in Gaza, medics said a 27-year-old farmer is in "moderate condition" after being shot in the foot by occupation forces in the town of Beit Lahiya, Ma'an news agency reported.
Later, occupation forces shot four other Palestinians east of Jabaliya, Ma'an said.
A Palestinian protester throws a stone towards an Israeli soldier aiming his weapon during clashes on the outskirts of Jalazun refugee camp, near the West Bank city of Ramallah, on January 31, 2014. (Photo: AFP - Abbas Momani) "Two riots erupted near the security fence in northern Gaza. In one riot, 50 Palestinians crowded in a prohibited area and hurled rocks at IDF soldiers at the scene," Ma'an cited an occupation authority as saying.
Friday's shootings comes after early morning Israeli air strikes left seven people injured in the besieged strip.
Israeli soldiers shot dead a young Palestinian protester on the Gaza border last week.
A total of 27 Palestinians were killed by the occupation army in the West Bank and nine in Gaza in 2013, three times more than the previous year, figures from Israeli rights watchdog B'Tselem showed.
Last November I wrote a piece entitled "Is a new revolution quietly brewing in France?" in which I described struggle which was taking place between the French people and the Zionist plutocracy which has ruled France over the past decades (roughly since 1969) and today I am returning to this topic as events have rapidly accelerated and taken a sharp turn for the worse. A number of most interesting things have happened and the French "Resistance" (I will use this collective designator when speaking of the entire Dieudonne/Soral movement) is now being attacked on three levels. Intellectual level:
This is, by far, the most interesting "counter-attack". A well-known French commentator, Eric Naulleau, agreed to a "written debate" with Alain Soral in which both sides would discuss their differences and the transcript would be published in a book entitled "Dialogues Désaccordés" (which can roughly be translated as "detuned dialogs" or "dialogs out of tune" or even "disagreeing dialogs"). To explain the importance of this publication I have to say a few words about Naulleau himself. Everybody in France knows Eric Naulleau as one of the two partners of a "journalistic tag team" called "Naulleau and Zemmour" in which one of the partners - Eric Naulleau - is a Left-leaning progressive and the other - Eric Zemmour - is a Right-leaning conservative. Together they form a formidable and, sometimes, feared team of very sharp and outspoken critics and commentators which was featured on various shows on French TV. Zemmour, in particular, is an extremely intelligent and very charming person whose wonderful sense of humor combined with a outspoken attitude often got him in trouble. He is one of the few French Jews who actually got sued by the notorious LICRA (rabid Zionist organization formed by Trotskists to attack those opposing them) for daring to say "French people with an immigrant background were profiled because most traffickers are blacks and Arabs... it's a fact" on TV. Together, Naulleaua and Zemmour are known for being formidable debaters and very tough and even blunt critics who can take on pretty much anybody. Naulleau explained that, according to him, it made no sense at all to ban Soral from the mass media because that still gave the option for Soral to record his shown on the Internet were they would be viewed by million of people (that is not an exaggeration, by the way, Soral's videos do score more views that some national TV channels!). Naulleau explained that in his videos Soral was always alone, free to say whatever he wanted, without anybody contradicting or challenging him and that his goal was precisely that - to unmask, challenge and defeat Soral in an open debate in which he would show all the fallacies and mistakes of Soral's theses. To say that Naulleau failed in his goal would be an understatement. Soral absolutely crushed every single one of Naulleau's arguments to the point where I personally felt sorry for Naulleau (whom I like a lot as a person). Worse, not only did Soral absolutely obliterate Naulleau, he also made a prediction and said: "you will see the shitstorm which will hit you for agreeing to make this book with me!". And that is the crux of the disagreement between Soral and Naulleau: do the Zionists control the French media yes or not? Can they blacklist somebody or not? Is there a shadow "Zionist censorship" in France or is public speech still free? Soral's thesis is that France is in the iron grip of a "behind the scenes" Zionist mafia which is exactly Naulleau vehemently denies. The problem for Naulleau is that he proved Soral to be right. The French media immediately attacked Naulleau for "providing Soral with a platform to spew his hateful theories" to which Naulleu logically replied that Soral was already doing so on the Internet and that, besides, he - Naulleau - did not believe in censorship but in a strong and free debate. Naulleau also got attacked for not saying this or not saying that - in reality for getting so totally defeated by Soral in the debate. The book, by the way, became an instant bestseller with, indeed, made it possible for even more French people to think through Soral's arguments and make up their own mind. So, ironically, and even though Naulleau clearly wanted to challenge Soral, he did him a huge favor by allowing him to break the media blockade around his name - Soral is never ever invited on a talkshow - and by allowing the ideas of Soral to come right back into the public debate via this book, Naulleau de facto helped Soral. Some have even speculated that Naulleau might be a secret sympathizer of Soral and that he did all of this deliberately. I don't believe that at all - Naulleau is sincere, and Naulleau is also naive: he is now only slowly coming to grips with the fact that Soral's core thesis - that the Zionists completely control the French media - is a fact and that Soral's prediction about Naulleau getting in trouble for this book was spot on. Right now, Naulleau and his friend Zemmour still have a show on a small local TV station, but clearly Naulleau has now deeply alienated the French plutocracy. As far as I know, nobody has dared to speak in Naulleau's defense. The funniest thing of all is that even though both Soral and Naulleau are officially coauthors of this book and even though Naulleau attempts to deny that Soral is blacklisted, onlyNaulleau got interviewed on the French talkshows, never Soral. Not once. What better way could there be to prove Soral right? "Personalities lynch mob" level: While Naulleau was trying to defend himself against attacks from all sides for daring to coauthor a book with Soral, something absolutely unprecedented took place: day after day after day, media personalities were shown on TV trashing Dieudonne and his "quenelle" gesture. This really looked like a "virtual lynching" or a Stalinist trial - politicians, journalists, comedians, commentators, actors - you name it - all took turns to ridicule, insult, denounce and otherwise express their hatred for Dieudonne. This truly became an orwellian "two minutes of hate" in which Dieudonne was designated as the target of an absolutely vicious hate campaign.
A mediocre comedian named Nicolas Bedos was even given 12 minutes of uninterrupted air time to compare Dieudonne to both Hitler and Osama Bin Laden and his shows to a Gestapo interrogation room. It was surreal, really. If an extraterrestrial had just tuned in and watch this display of vicious hatred he would have imagined that Dieudonne was a 2nd Hitler about to invade France with a huge army of bloodthirsty Nazis. For me, it was clear that the reason why all these different personalities were standing in line for the chance to outdo each other in taking a shot at Dieudonne was to prove their loyalty to the Zionist "deep-state". This was as transparent as it was sickening. And again, it proved that Soral was right and that, if anything, he was under-standing the degree of control of the Zionist plutocracy over France. State level: Finally, from more or less covert, the persecution of Dieudonne and Soral by the French state became completely overt. I already mentioned how in early January the French Minister of the Interior, Manuel Valls, used his powers to ban the latest show of Dieudonne (see here and here). Over the last weeks, this repression has reached a new level with even more lawsuits against Soral (12 simultaneous lawsuits, see Google-translated list here) and administrative harassments (evening "visits" by bailiffs, abusive arrests, threats, police search of his small theatre in Paris) against Dieudonne. All these events taken together - and it is really not hard at all to connect the dots - for a very clear picture: the power of the state is used to persecute, harass and repress Dieudonne and Soral. And that, of course, just goes even further in proving that Soral is right in his central thesis about France being run by a shadow occupation "deep government" whose loyalties are not to the French people, but to the Zionist plutocracy and Israel. The reaction against this state of affairs is also becoming stronger and the amount of people supporting Dieudonne and Soral has literally skyrocketed. The reason for that is not only that a lot of French people share the same views as Soral and Dieudonne, but also a deep running French cultural tradition of admiring rebels and disliking the state. Add to this that Hollande is the most hated President in French history and that the French economy is doing down the tubes triggering untold suffering and rage in the people suffering form the crisis, and you get a very explosive mix: the so-called "Day of Rage". Check out these videos before they are removed form YouTube (like this one):
Anybody who knows France well will tell you that this is very serious stuff because unlike other demonstrations which typically oppose a law, or a policy or a specific event, these demonstrators clearly are rejecting the legitimacy of the entire political system: they want regime change. So far, the French media has tried to minimize the coverage of this event and the French elites are trying hard to pretend like this is some small, fringe, extremist group, which is utter nonsense. France is bubbling with rage. Zionist panic: The Zionists are actually aware of that, and they are now in the panic mode. Just take a look at the headlines of this Israeli-French website:
On the top right, you can see the Israeli founder of this website - Jonathan-Simon Sellem and on the top left you see Arno Klarsfeld, a well-known "French" (Jewish/German/French) lawyer and rabid Zionist. Here is what they are quoted saying: Jonathan-Simon Sellem: "Dieudonne, you will never be a martyr. You will not a hero. Your name will be cursed in history, by history".
Arno Klarsfeld: "They is a crucial moment in history: Jews are already beginning to leave France". Clearly, these two gentlemen see Dieudonne as some modern mix of Agag, Hamman, Titus, Hitler and Bin Laden - a terrifying, bloodthirsty and infinitely dangerous and evil man who threatens the survival of the Jewish race (nevermind that Jews are not a race). Could that be a little bit of an over-reaction? What are these folks so terrified of? I think that the answer is obvious: what they are so terrified of is not that Dieudonne and Soral will reopen Auschwitz somewhere near Paris, or that French Jews will be expelled from France. They know that this is paranoia (which Gilad Atzmon calls "Pre-Traumatic Stree Disorder") is absolute crap: French Jews are safe, happy and welcome in France and nobody is seriously out there to do them any harm. No, what this small clique of Zionist Jews (representing a tiny fraction of the much more diverse French Jewry) really fears is that the truth about them and their power over the French deep-state will come out. And this is not only about Jews. There is a non-Jewish plutocracy formed around the Jewish core of French bankers and financiers which is also completely in bed with the Zionists and whose future depends on maintaining the Zionist control over France: politicians, of course, but also actors, journalists, academics, etc. - a full constellation of Shabbos Goyim willing to do Israel's Sayanim's dirty job for them. It is this entire elite and the system which it built which is threatened by Soral and Dieudonne and by what the movement "Equality and Reconciliation" stands for: a union of all the French people (native or immigrants) which together are determined to resist the Zionist oppression of France and who, just as in WWII, will resist the occupier until the Liberation. When and how could such a "Liberation" occur? I don't know. These events are very complex and multi-dimensional and it is, I believe, impossible to predict what could happen. What I am sure of, is that this movement, this Resistance, will not be crushed, nor will it somehow magically disappear. To paraphrase the Communist Manifesto, the French people "have nothing to lose but their chains": their country is ruined and they are ruled by an evil foreign occupier. In terms of dynamics, every move which is made against Soral and Dieudonne only makes things worse for the occupation regime - the harder the strike, the harder the blowback. The legitimacy of the regime, in particular, is greatly affected by such absolutely ridiculous actions like the "overkill" of a Minister of Internal Affairs using the highest court in the country (the State Council) in an emergency session to ban a single comedian's stand up show. Sure, for the time being most people in France comply, obey, or look the other way. But everybody know, everybody understands and very few believe in the official lies, especially in the younger generation. This all reminds me of the Soviet Union of the 1980s were externally nothing much was happening and where the system itself look ugly but safe. Russians were making anti-Brezhnev jokes at private parties while the KGB from time to time attested dissidents. But nobody - not even the KGB officers - had any respect for the system, the regime, the official ideology and its propaganda. Everybody did what they were told, but nobody believed in what they were doing. That is the exact situation not only for the French cops who are constantly used to ban, harass and arrest Dieudo and his supporters, but also of an increasing percentage of the general public. Right now the pressure on the dam is getting stronger and stronger, and the cracks more and more visible. So far, the elites have had enough fingers to stick into the cracks, but this is clearly a futile attempt to delay the inevitable. And when the French dam will burst, it will impact on only France, but also a good segment of western Europe. So while the pro-US Ukrainian nationalists want to subordinate their country to the EU, the EU is threatened with an inevitable and violent explosion. But, like on the sinking Titanic, the media's "orchestra" will be playing its music until the last second. The Saker
For well over a decade now the United States of America has defined its foreign policy around President George W Bush's axis of evil theory, forever justifying its infringements on international law, freedom and democracy by playing its national security card.
Since 2001, world's relations have been solely defined by "Islamic terrorism", to the point where geo-strategic alliances were thrown out of their axis, with countries forced to contemplate putting their immediate interests at risks not be branded sympathizers to "Islamic terrorism".
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.The moment New York Twin Towers fell, America was at war with an invisible and elusive enemy, so-called "radical Islam"!
One has only to look at the Islamic world- spanning from the African continent to the Middle East and Asia - to understand that America's war on terror has not only transformed foreign relations, it has plunged the world into a never-ending cycle of violence and bloodshed, tearing apart communities.
But could it be that the world has been sold on the biggest lie yet? Could it be that the very country which has assumed the role of global crusader against terror has been covertly promoting radicalism; using fear as a weapon to subdue and conquer nations?
Behind Washington's deceit, lies a cunning and rather clever agenda - global control -
The founding father of democracy, the advocate of civil liberties and freedom, the United States of America is in fact a neo-imperialistic state which has worked to enslave other nations through fear, political manipulation and economic blackmail. Standing behind the wheels of the world's most powerful organizations - the United Nations Security Council, the International Monetary Funds, NATO, World Bank, World Food Program - the US can with the flick of its hands isolate, bankrupt or invade any given nation, at any given time, should its leadership oppose its supremacy.
All those who dared challenge Washington's authorities paid the ultimate political price, which on occasions meant actual assassination. In 2002 Late Venezuela President Hugo Chavez was ousted by a CIA-backed coup d'état for he refused, among other things to distance himself from Iran and the Hizbullah. Late President Chavez infuriated Washington when he publicly denounced US President George W Bush bombing campaign in Afghanistan. «This is fighting terror with more terror» he declared on national television in October 2001.
In 2003, the US invaded Iraq by claiming now-deceased Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. When no weapons were found the US flipped its narrative by alleging the Iraqi regime had been working with al-Qaeda. Tricked by the media machine into believing that Saddam Hussein was the spawn of evil, many forget that his only sin - in the eyes of Washington - had been to challenge the US economically by attempting to make a break from the petro-dollar. Rather than sell its petrol in dollars, late President Hussein wanted to switch to the Euros, a move which would have directly threatened Washington's monopoly on the Oil and Gas trade industry.
While the Pentagon was able for a decade to cover its terror tracks, playing the media and the public to its propaganda tune, Syria has been its undoing. A key power in the Levant and the Middle East, Syria's protracted war has forced world's powers to lay bare their agendas, opening for the first time a window onto Washington's inner strategy and network of alliances. After a decade of playing the terror card, Washington came to openly declare its support of radical Islamists, alleging Takfiris militias are a necessary evil against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
As of January 2014, the US Congress has decided it will provide military and financial support to militants in Syria, having classified Takfiris fighters as moderates. According to US military sources weapons are delivered to militants in Syria via Jordan, where it is important to note Saudi Arabia and Qatar have set up training camp for al-Qaeda wannabe Jihadists.
Professor Michel Chossudovsky - author of America's war on terrorism - concurs in the view that the US is actually radical Islam's biggest supporter and sponsor. He stressed, "The Western military alliance has covertly supported terrorists with a view of destabilizing Syria as a nation state. There's ample evidence to the fact that the United States, NATO and "Israel" are behind the rebels, and that these rebels are trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and then they come in and commit atrocities."
Marcia Kreiter, a security analyst with Wikistrat, noted that America's longstanding relationship with terror and terrorists as geo-strategic weapons are now catching up with its officials. "People's understanding of Washington's policies in the Islamic world is changing as more evidences of its colluding with Islamic radicals have been confirmed. Interestingly, Washington has somewhat of a track record when it comes to terrorism... The US is the only country that was condemned for international terrorism by the World Court and that rejected a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law."
She added, "What we see in Syria is the product of state-promoted terrorism. In a nutshell, the fighters have become Washington's colonial armies and the fear of terror a tool the Pentagon utilizes to deny people their civil rights." However way one choses to look at the world, America has become the biggest exporter and promoter of terrorism.
As per declared by Lt. General William Odom, Director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan "Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today's war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world."
Source: al-Ahed news
* Catherine is a commentator and political risk consultant. Her writings have appeared in Foreign Policy Association, the Guardian and Majalla among many others.
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice speaks after voting to affirm a UN Security Council resolution on Iran on June 9, 2010 in New York City. (Photo: AFP)
Students living in Cuba, Iran and Sudan who are enrolled in US-based online learning services, known as “MOOCs,” will now be forced to drop out, thanks to US sanctions.
If there’s one thing US missions around the world feel they can confidently boast, especially in poor countries, it’s their commitment to fostering partnerships with local schools and universities to support education and build the “next generation of leaders,” or something like that. Students in Lebanon, for example, may have noticed those tacky, red, white, and blue USAID stickers slapped on furniture at some schools, proudly identifying desks and bookcases as gifts “from the American people.”
In the Arab region alone, the United States has put $600 millioninto its Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) since 2002 with stated goals of “enhancing education,” and spreading other values it claims to hold sacred, like, “women’s empowerment.” That figure calculates to about one-fifth the $3 billion America sends each year to finance Israel’s occupation of Palestine, which served as the basis for the recent USacademic boycott of Israeli academic institutions, but more on that later.
Taken at face value, the United States would appear to have some interest in supporting education at a global level. Maybe that’s why some were shocked with the January 29 announcement that US economic and trade sanctions against their enemies should now be interpreted to include free US-based online learning services known as “MOOCs.”
Coursera, one of the affected education websites, said in a statement that it had “recently received information” that led it to believe it could no longer offer online classes to students in Cuba, Iran, and Sudan because of the United States’ so-called export control regulations.
“Certain United States export control regulations prohibit US businesses, such as MOOC providers like Coursera, from offering services to users in sanctioned countries. ... Under the law, certain aspects of Coursera’s course offerings are considered services and are therefore subject to restrictions,” the statement read.
Syria was also included on the list of sanctioned countries whose Internet users that try to log in to Coursera’s site arekindly informed that they’ve been blacklisted, but US authorities later had a change of heart and added an exception for residents of the wartorn nation. American officials appear to have only recently discovered a soft spot for the well-being of the Syrian people.
In a particularly pointed letter posted online and addressed to his students, University of Copenhagen professor Ebrahim Afsah accused “boneheaded” US authorities of imposing sanctions simply “to score cheap domestic political points.”
“These moves are really counterproductive,” Afsah, who has students in some of the affected countries, said in an interview with Al-Akhbar. “These students are exactly the kind of people who want to reach out to an American audience.”
Afsah noted that the sanctions are largely symbolic, as a variety of software exists to circumvent blocked websites.
“The practical impact is rather small, as people in these countries are used to using these technologies to circumvent restrictions by their own governments,” he said. “But I think this issue is a matter of principle that affects everybody.”
Students from the blacklisted countries reacted to the news in the comments section of Coursera’s blog. A Cuban named Manuel Gutierrez wrote: “In behalf of many Cuban students I tell you: No hard feelings Coursera, we know what's going on, [it’s] just the way it is. Keep up the good work!”
Iranian Pooya Hosseini wrote: “I'm Iranian, a Coursera user. I've passed a lot of courses with distinction. Specially EPFL online courses. I think banning free education is so embarrassing. Is it your democracy? It is so funny.”
Funny or not, that’s open to interpretation. But what’s clear is that the move follows a pattern of insincerity when it comes to US officials and their claims of caring about foreign students and their education.
American congressional members threw a fit after the US-based American Studies Association (ASA) last month voted to sever ties with Israeli universities to protest the obstruction of Palestinian students’ and scholars’ mobility and access to academic institutions with checkpoints, raids and arbitrary arrests.
Earlier this month 134 US Congress members signed a letter to decry the ASA’s “bigoted,” and “morally dishonest double standard” in voting to boycott Israeli universities. Those 69 Democrats and 65 Republicans “believe that the decision to blacklist Israeli academic institutions for Israeli government policies with which ASA disagrees demonstrates a blatant disregard for academic freedom.”
Maybe that says more about the US Congress’ servitude to the pro-Israel lobby than it does about their lack of compassion for a population subjected to daily crimes by a colonial force. But then, where is their indignation over the “blatant disregard for academic freedom” when it comes to US sanctions preventing students from taking free courses in Cuba, Iran, Sudan, or elsewhere? Is the targeting of nations with sanctions simply because they refuse to obey US orders not “morally dishonest,” or “bigoted?”
Please share this letter with your readers and ask them to contact their representatives, whether in America or abroad. I give permission for my words to be reprinted and my contact information shared. January 31, 2014 Leila Piazza
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.As I write this letter to you, my family, in our village in Syria, is preparing for combat between the Syrian Army and the terrorists, who have taken up residence nearby and have been attacking and harassing our people for over two years now. Two weeks ago, these “rebels,” as the US administration calls them, ran a car off the road near our village, shot one of the boys, and beheaded the other because he was wearing a cross.
As a Syrian(American) with family in the middle of the combat, let me be perfectly clear. We DO NOT appreciate the US government’s policies against Syria. The United States is NOT helping the Syrian people. You are hurting us, both the people living in Syria, under constant threat of violence and death, and also those living all around the world, who lay sleepless with worry over the safety of their loved ones. We do not fear the Syrian Army, but rather the animals that you are currently aiding with training, supplies and weapons.
When the Syrian army came to the village this week, the people I spoke with, both here and in the village, had only one thing to say, “Thank God!” We are relieved that the army is in the village, we pray for the victory of the Syrian Army over the radical Islamists and FSA traitors in our country. We pray that President Bashar Al Assad and the Syrian Army win the war so the Syrian people can begin to rebuild the country. It is up to the Syrian people to decide who their president is, it is not up to the United States government, or any other government in this world.
As an American, I am outraged that the US government continues to follow the same immoral policies as the previous administration. I am thoroughly fed up with our tax dollars being spent to finance regime change, so we can align other governments to our economic and geopolitical agenda. The use of propaganda to once again destroy a sovereign nation on the flimsiest of pretexts is completely unacceptable. This adminstration’s continuing support of the same radical, jihadists that were responsible for the largest terrorist attack on U.S. soil is unjustifiable in any circumstance, but even more so in this instance, when it is so clearly against the will of the Syrian people themselves, and against any hope of peace and safety in Syria.
And so, as a Syrian-American, and as your constituent, I implore you to take whatever steps necessary to stop all aid to any and all anti-government fighters against the Syrian government and the Syrian army. I also ask that the US government demand that its allies, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Great Britain and Turkey, immediately STOP supporting the same anti-government groups. If this is done, then YES, President Al Assad and the Syrian Army will quickly win this war. And that is precisely the point. This is neither a civil war, nor a popular uprising. This is an attempt by foreign governments to hijack the Syrian peoples’ call for reforms to create regime change and divide and destroy the country.
If you have any questions about the situation in Syria, or about anything I have written, I urge you to contact me. I am in direct contact with my nephews, D.Y., S.Y. and M.Y. as well as a family friend, M.H., who are at this very moment, in our village. I am also in direct contact with my brother, Y.Y. and sister, J.Y. who have left the village with their children and grandchildren for their safety, (having fled from the terrorists, NOT the Syrian army) as well as my niece, S.H. who lives in Damascus. I would appreciate the opportunity to educate you further about what is really happening in Syria. Please do what you can to stop the killing. The US government is absolutely wrong in this. I pray you take action to prevent any more needless deaths. I pray you take action before I lose anyone I love.
Daniel Listen to your Sayyed taking about the complete revolution all the people (Except Mubarak thugs) and learn who conspired with the Military council hijacked the revolution and betrayed the people and the Sayyed. It is the same people (Minus MB plus fulloul) who occupied the same streets and the same squares to put an end to the sectarian plot.
Who is the sleeping giant, Daniel? Is it the masses that ousted Mursi? or the it is the MB trying to bring him back. In both cases, both are not sleeping.
Now, your great ANAL-ysis
"The Revolution was about to happen after the end of Mubarak’s rule , "
Before or After, Daniel
"people were not going to let Mubarak continue to rule through his son or some one he chooses and this is something every Egyptian agreed upon . This is something that the NGOs and the army felt strongly and knew about and they are the ones who worked on aborting the revolution and channeling the popular dissatisfaction to serve the World Order Agenda instead of serving the people’s aspirations."
"People -All People" Every Egyption" Thus said Daniel "the spokesman of Egyptians -All Egyptians". The NGO's and the army did it, not all people, and not everyEgyptian as the Sayyed claimed.
Moreover:
He should know that Satan Brotherhood were not part of 25 Jan uprising. They joined it on Jan, 28th.
The OPPORTUNIST Brotherhood were neither against re-electing Mubarak or his son, as long as their share is guaranteed,
"In order to serve the sectarian anti Resistance World agenda, Morsi was chosen and even the Nasserites supported the sectarian agenda of Morsi . . "
So, you agree the sectarians and the anti-resistance are the MB. If so why you are calling to turn the page with sectarianists? Again, Nasserists- All Nasserists, you claim, supported the sectarian agenda. Why ignoring that those who elected Muris did that to avoid Mohammad Shafiq. Neither, Nasserists, secularists are the enemy. GET OUT of your Islamist veil.
"When this agenda failed in overthrowing Assad and the isolation of HAMAS from the axis of the Resistance succeeded , it was time to get rid of Morsi. The NGOs and the army again manipulated the masses through TAMAROD and their like… The Nasserites – who supported the sectarian agenda of Mors- turned against him and supported the secular agenda of the army ."
Which Agenda?? Its the the USA/Satan brotherhood aganda. Get it.
Why you avoid saying: Hamas isolated itself, by revealing its Ugly sectarian face.? Daniel, please decide, Are Nasserists sectarians or secular?
"The instability , the chaos and the Libyan and Syrian bloody models and the religious and sectarian warfare in addition to the terrorist threats made the Egyptians sick of the Revolution and in favor of the return of Mubarak as Al Sisi .Now Egypt is back to sleep again until some major event happens and wakes Egypt up and this will happen sooner or later and Egypt will wake up but now the Revolution was aborted and al Sisi is NOT Nasser ,"
PLEASE TELL US: Who is responsible for the instability, who ignited the terrorist threat or the "so-called "Terrorist' threat" as you claimed elsewhere?
The majority of the Egyptians are not sick of revolution, whether true or not, they see in Sisi a new Nasser. Sisi IS NEITHER NASSER NOR MUBARAK, despite his intentions, he took the right decision in the right moment and responded to millions of Egyptians who took the streets to stop the sectarian iblishood's agenda.
Egypt's Sisi is at a crossroads, walking in a huge mine field. Egypt can't refuse the Saudi life support, its hands are tied with camp David treaty, surrounded by the so-called Qaeda/Brotherhood's terrorist from the west (Libya), the South (Sudan) and the East (Hamas) and the North (Turkey).
"the Egyptians do not want this revolution and they are right because it has turned violent and chaotic and has gone out of the hands of the people,.
I guess you mean June 30 uprising. Please tell us, who put the people between two bitter choices: Either us for ever, or civil war? And what Egyptians you are talking about? Are they the librals, the left, the nasserists, the qopts etc...?
Who is Left?
Qaeda and Brotherhood
"Egypt is extremely important that is why the World Order was intent on remaining in control and restoring Mubarak’ s rule except that now this is being done with the Egyptian people blessings after the false flag revolution failed them ."
So its done with the Egyptian people blessings after the false flag revolution failed them.
Yes its done bu with the Egyptian people's shoes and Army's boots after the Iblishood hijacked the Jan 25 uprising and sold Egypt to Satan.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said his country’s delegation had rejected a US request for direct talks unless Secretary of State John Kerry apologized for his remarks on the future of President Bashar al-Assad.
"The Americans asked us to negotiate directly with them in Montreux," Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.Moallem told Syrian state media on the plane home from 10 days of peace talks in the Swiss cities of Montreux and Geneva.
"But we refused to do so before Secretary of State John Kerry apologised for what he said at the conference," the Syrian FM added, in remarks carried by state news agency SANA. Syria's government and opposition began the so-called Geneva II talks on January 22, with the participation of dozens of nations, including Russia, and the United States.
In his opening remarks at the conference, Kerry said Syria's President Bashar al-Assad "will not be part" of any transitional government.
"There is no way, not possible in the imagination, that the man who has led the brutal response to his own people could regain legitimacy to govern," Kerry said.
The top Syrian diplomat also dismissed the "coalition of the so-called 'opposition'" in his comments Saturday.
"If they do not abandon their illusions, they will get a rude shock because we are a country of institutions and a constitution and we have a president of the republic," SANA quoted Moallem as saying.
He said it was "a stain" on the opposition that they refused to sign a declaration condemning "terrorism" in the country.
A second round of talks has been tabled for February 10, with the opposition already committed to attending.
Source: AFP
01-02-2014 - 20:29 Last updated 01-02-2014 - 20:32
Israeli soldiers arrest a Palestinian teen in the occupied West Bank town of Al-Eizariya on Jan. 17, 2014. (Photo: Rami Alaria)
Ramallah, January 30, 2014—Three in four Palestinian children detained by the Israeli military in the occupied West Bank last year endured physical violence during arrest and interrogation, according to Defense for Children International Palestine research.
Data compiled by DCI-Palestine from 98 affidavits of Palestinian children aged 12 - 17 also showed that night arrests between midnight and 5 am increased to 56.1 percent from 45.4 percent in 2012. In 21.4 percent of cases, Israeli military, police and security agents held children in solitary confinement for an average of 10 days for interrogation purposes.
“Despite international condemnation and awareness of Israel’s widespread and systematic ill-treatment of Palestinian child prisoners, there have been no practical steps taken to curb violations,” said Ayed Abu Eqtaish, Accountability Program director at DCI-Palestine. “The international community must demand justice and accountability.”
Israel is the only state to automatically and systematically prosecute children in military courts that lack basic standards of due process. Around 500 - 700 Palestinian children, some as young as 12, are arrested, detained and prosecuted in the Israeli military detention system each year. The majority of Palestinian child detainees are charged with throwing stones. No Israeli children come into contact with the military court system.
DCI-Palestine research shows that children arrive to Israeli interrogation centers blindfolded, bound and sleep deprived. Unlike their Israeli counterparts, Palestinian children have no right to be accompanied by a parent during an interrogation. In 96 percent of cases documented by DCI-Palestine in 2013, children were questioned alone and rarely informed of their rights, particularly their right against self-incrimination.
The interrogation techniques are generally mentally and physically coercive, frequently incorporating a mix of intimidation, threats and physical violence with a clear purpose of obtaining a confession. More than one in five of the 2013 cases, children signed statements in Hebrew, a language they do not understand.
DCI-Palestine demands that Israeli authorities end night arrests, prohibit the use of solitary confinement, and ensure that evidence obtained by force or coercion during interrogations is excluded as evidence in the Israeli military courts. DCI-Palestine calls on Israeli authorities to allow access to legal counsel prior to interrogations and the presence of a parent during interrogations.
Impunity for violations was a significant obstacle in 2013 as DCI-Palestine filed 15 complaints with Israeli authorities concerning the ill-treatment and torture of 10 children while in Israeli military detention. Not a single indictment has been issued against a perpetrator. Many Palestinian families refuse to file complaints for fear of retaliation or simply because they do not believe the system is fair or impartial.
Recent amendments to Israeli military laws concerning children have had little to no impact on their treatment during the critical 24 - 48 hours after an arrest, where most of the ill-treatment occurs at the hands of soldiers, policemen and interrogators.
The relationship between Saudi Arabia and the west, primarily the United States, has always been a critical component of the Saudi political policy. However, the recent changes to the strategy undertaken by Washington and its various European allies to resolve both the Syrian crisis and the Iranian nuclear program have forced Riyadh to amend its foreign policy priorities and to alter any further co-operation with the western countries.
These policy changes that Washington and its main ally, London, have undertaken in the Middle East are being called no less than a “betrayal and a deceitful attitude towards Riyadh” by representatives of the Saudi Arabian royal family. Such claims were particularly applied toThe Telegraph newspaper by the Saudi ambassador in London, prince Mohammed bin Nawaf bin AbdulAziz Al Saud and it has been stated that from now on, Riyadh “will not be idly standing by”. His advisor Nawaf Obaid has, meanwhile, accusedAmerica and the west of “being dishonest with Saudi Arabia” and announced that the Saudis will be adopting a new “defence doctrine” to accomplish their foreign policy goals and that “our strategic posture is moving from reactive to proactive”, that is, they will be taking an active position in terms of their foreign policy.
Saudi Arabia’s refusal to strategically partner with the United States was also voiced to a host of foreign media at the end of 2013 by the head of the Saudi Intelligence Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who claimed that a “decisive shift” was occurring in Saudi Arabian foreign policy. He has stated that the Saudi monarchy will now cease to focus on Washington, who has been “ignoring Riyadh interests”.
Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy has certainly never been public. This is primarily because the leaders of this kingdom have never had to be accountable before their own people with regards to their plans and policies. This is why Riyadh’s plans on the foreign arena were always hidden behind a veil of secrecy and only in certain circumstances did well-known foreign players become privy to this knowledge through “confidential talks” with Saudi diplomats. Even then, this information was less of a “revelation” and was instead clearly well-placed information that was disseminated in a skilled manner through the “confidential talks” to reinforce certain Saudi manoeuvres or to implement certain secret monarchy plans. This is why the information pertaining to Riyadh’s shifting political focus that “accidentally” ended up in the hands of a host of western news agencies, primarily The Wall Street Journal,The Telegraph, Reuters, The New York Times and others at the end of last year was really an expertly-executed informational campaign aimed at warning Washington and London that they their risk losing their main ally in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia. It’s not hard to guess that Prince Bandar bin Sultan could have been the one behind this campaign, as he is in charge of not only the national intelligence but virtually all of the kingdom’s foreign policy.
This “informational leak” was quickly followed by Riyadh’s “demonstration of strength” in the form of financial flirting with various Arab countries as well as those in the Middle Eastern region (in particular Lebanon, Egypt and others) and their readiness to fully replace the United States as a source of funding for their military and technical modernization programs as well as a source of foreign weapons, a task that would instead be relegated to a “trusted Saudi Arabian ally”. This political game undertaken by Riyadh began to actively attract leaders of other nations, those who also felt “offended by Washington”. Or, simply put, those who, like Saudi Arabia, have become outcasts within the new American policies. In this environment, the Saudi’s first choice fell to the French president François Hollande, who was eager to play along to the Riyadh tune during a time when his ratings were falling catastrophically low among the French population.
This led to François Hollande visiting Riyadh at the end of 2013 where the Saudi Arabian king allocated a $3 billion grant to fund the Lebanese Army on the condition that weapons will be purchased in France. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia also stated that it is ready to spend over $50 billion on the further foreign policy rapprochement with France, which is based on their common views with respect to the situation in Syria and Iran.
This led to a severely negative reaction in the United States, where this grant approval was seen as a public insult of the American position on Iran and Syria, a position that is contrary to the Saudi policies surrounding these countries. The United States believes that Riyadh intends to create a new axis with Paris after having met the rather soft, from the Saudi point of view, platform undertaken by Washington with respect to their Middle Eastern policies. The foundation of this new axis will be involving Paris in billion dollar operations relating to the regions’ weapons and military equipment, something France cannot refuse. At the forefront of the French-Saudi political alliance is the Saudi oil money which has caught the interest of the deeply troubled French economy. The French have already signed a $1.5 billion contract agreeing to modernize the Saudi navy, which has led François Hollande to undertake three additional visits to Saudi Arabia.
Although the French and Saudi Arabian foreign policy is fairly close on issues surrounding Syria, Lebanon and Iran, there are serious disagreements regarding Egypt with respect to the role that the Muslim Brotherhood should have in the country and in the region as a whole. These disagreements could undermine the burgeoning “axis of good” in the future, however, Riyadh can presently count on their “valuable ally, uncompromising with respect to Assad” on Syrian issues.
Washington is not only worried about losing Saudi Arabia as the sole client for American weapons, but is also concerned about the hit to the United States’ reputation as the provider of aid to Lebanon to help strengthen their military power. After all, the financial support being provided to Lebanon seems to be a lot more generous from Saudi Arabia than it is from the U.S.
The United States’ foreign policy image with respect to Syria is also suffering due to France’s growing activity in establishing contacts with the Syrian opposition with the aid of the Saudis. While François Hollande was having talks with Riyadh’s protégé and head of the national coalition for Syrian opposition Ahmad Dzharba, Washington’s highest politicians did not once attempt to make these types of contact themselves.
France’s growing efforts to anchor in the Persian Gulf and the Saudi attempts to define partners who would help resolve pressing regional issues (Syria, Iran and others) without involving the United States has led to serious concerns in Washington. The American plan to control the process of transforming the gulf monarchies (Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf) into an economic, military and political bloc are now under serious threat. This could also mean that various U.S. projects would grind to a halt, such as the creation of the unified integrated ABM system in the Persian Gulf, the launching of the new co-ordination mechanism – a Council of the Defence Ministers of the U.S. and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, and even the creation of a unified military and political bloc of the gulf monarchies.
This has forced the hand of U.S. State Secretary John Kerry, who travelled to Saudi Arabia with a short visit at the beginning of January of this year. Although the main topic of conversation was the issue of reconciling the Middle East, behind closed doors there were also talks of other issues that have cast a shadow over Saudi-American relations (military-technical co-operation and their disagreements on Iranian and Syrian policies). The Saudis once again linked resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with how the situation will be developing with regards to the regional problems that are central to Saudi interests.
Within these circumstances, the United States’ position on these issues will be a defining characteristic that will determine the further particulars of the Saudi co-operation with the Americans. Experts also note that Saudi Arabia will not be able to agree that the Arab countries should recognize the Jewish character of the Israeli state, a point which is being advanced by the Americans and John Kerry himself.
In a word, the “boiling Middle East” is a fitting name for the region as the intrigues here seem to be perpetually growing. They are followed by new informational provocation, which in turn prepares a foothold for the possible upcoming deterioration of the military-political situation in the region. One example of this is the new recent claim by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding the possibility that Syria has the manufacturing capabilities to produce not just chemical, but biological weapons which will, once again, give the U.S. a reason to send a military operation to Damascus, something of particular interest to Riyadh who is ready to pay any amount of their oil money to achieve their goals.
However, let’s not forget that the times are changing and the world is changing with them. New calls for military action, even those that are financed well and generously funded by the Wahhabi monarchy, will not only fail to generate an income for the puppeteers in Washington and Riyadh, but will instead hasten their political downfall.
Vladimir Odintsov is a political commentator exclusively for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook.
Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.In recent days the Middle East has witnessed an exacerbation of the Sunni-Shiite conflict, which has taken the form of a fratricidal civil war in Syria, of large-scale terrorist attacks in Iraq and Lebanon, and of uprisings, civil unrest and public protests in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, accompanied by harsh reprisals against the protesters by authorities. What lies behind this ongoing wave of violence in the region? Who is inciting animosity among Muslims? A brief excursion into the history of relations between the two main branches of Islam demonstrates that there is no evident cause or objective premise supporting war between them.
Sunnis-Shiite antagonism is rooted in the distant past. After the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 A.D. a dispute broke out among his followers regarding who should inherit political and spiritual authority over the Arab tribes. The majority supported the candidacy of the Prophet’s close companion and the father of his wife – Abu Bakr. They subsequently formed the Sunni camp, today making up 85% of all Muslims. The remaining Muslims supported the nomination of Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, declaring that the Prophet himself had named him as his successor. Resultantly, they became known as Shiites, which in translation from Arabic means literally, “Followers of Ali”. Proponents of Abu Bakr took the upper hand in the conflict, gaining him the title of Caliph. The ensuing power struggle led to the murder of Ali by Sunnis in 661. His sons, Hassan and Hussein, were also murdered. Hussein’s death in 680 near the Iraqi city of Karbala is regarded by Shiites to this day as a tragedy of historic proportions. For centuries the Sunnis retained power over the Arab (Islamic) Caliphate, with the Shiites consistently remaining in the shadows, professing the true leadership of their Imams – descendants of Ali.
The subsequent history of Sunni-Shiite relations did not involve serious armed conflict.
Today, Shiites, along with various smaller sects with similar beliefs (Ahmadiyyas, Alawites, Alevis, Druze, Ibadis, Ismailis and others), comprise up to 15% of the Muslim population. Followers of this branch of Islam make up the overwhelming majority of Iran’s populace, two-thirds of Bahrain, more than half of Iraq and a significant portion of the Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Lebanon and Yemen. For the majority of these, the central element of Shiism is considered faith in the 12 Imams, the final of whom is hidden by Allah, and will one day appear to the world to fulfil his sacred will.
Apart from the Koran, Sunnis are guided by the Sunnah – a collection of rules and practices based on examples from the life of the Prophet Muhammad. The Sunnah is built on the Haditha: legends about the words and deeds of the Prophet. Traditional followers of Islam look upon adherence to the Sunnah as the main component of life for every true Muslim. There is often discussion about the literal application of the holy book’s regulations without any sort of modification. In several strains of Islam this takes an extreme form. For example, during the period of Taliban control in Afghanistan special attention was paid to men’s beard length and type of clothing; every detail of life was strictly regulated in accordance with the Sunnah’s requirements.
Shiites look upon their ayyatollahs (a Shiite religious title) as messengers of Allah on earth. Because of this, Sunnis often accuse Shiites of heresy, and Shiites in turn point to the excessive dogmatism of Sunni doctrine, which gives rise to various extremist movements, such as Wahhabism.
The Caliphate is long gone, owing to the powers which began the division of Muslims into Shiites and Sunnis, and along with it the very subject for dispute. Theological differences among the various strains of Islam are so insignificant that they could practically be ignored for the sake of unity and peace among Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad, shortly before his death, said to a group of Muslims, gathered in a mosque: “Beware that after me you do not turn into infidels, cutting each others’ throats…”. All Muslims today unanimously profess that Allah is the only God and that Muhammad is his Prophet. They all observe the five main pillars of Islam – including fasting during the month of Ramadan – and the Koran is the main holy book for all. During the Hajj – the pilgrimage of Muslims to Mecca and Medina – Sunnis and Shiites bow together before the sacred stone of Kaaba in the Holy Mosque. Shiites make a similar pilgrimage to the mosques at their holy shrines in the Iraqi cities of Karbala and Najaf.
Western media tries to convince us that the blood currently being spilled in the Middle East is a result of the Sunni-Shiite conflict. Ostensibly, Muslims kill Muslims solely on the strength of their religious dissension. Such a version frees the US and its allies from the responsibility of interfering in the internal affairs of the region’s countries and of double standards and dubious alliances with the most reactionary of regimes and radical groups, including extremists and international terrorists. The externally fomented Sunni-Shiite conflict creates an eminent threat of “Somalization” of the region, and of sowing chaos and violence in it for long years to come. It becomes ever more apparent that there is no Sunni-Shiite conflict, as such – there are only external players, striving to realize their own national and corporate goals and objectives (control of resources, the militarization of the region, the enrichment of war lords, etc.) on the blood of Muslims.
It is not merely Sunnis that are standing against Shiites, but the political elite, tied to the West by dozens of economic, political, military, financial and other threads, receiving guarantees that persecution of Shiites will not kindle the outrage of the “international community” nor become a subject for the international tribunal in Hague or of US Congress hearings. Additionally, myths were fabricated in the corridors of the State Department and the CIA for propaganda purposes – myths about Shiite fanaticism, the Iranian nuclear threat, the “bloody dictatorship of the ayatollahs” and the anti-civilian regime of Bashar Al-Assad – in summary, an ideological base was created for a new witch hunt.The most visible goal for the artificial fomenting of the Sunni-Shiite conflict is clear: the destruction or weakening of Iran’s strategic regional partners such as the Assad government in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon, increased pressure on the Shiite-majority government in Iraq, and the future isolation of Iran and the Persian Gulf region as a whole. As Imam Khomeini justly stated: “Animosity between Sunnis and Shiites is a Western conspiracy. Discord among us is profitable only to enemies of Islam. Whoever does not understand this is not a Sunni or a Shia…”.
It should be noted that the “Sunni front” struggle with Shiites is headed by the US’s regional allies -Saudi Arabia and Qatar; involved to a lesser extent are Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE. Only one Arab Gulf state stands apart – Oman, where the wise Sultan Qaboos has not allowed his country to be dragged into sectarian strife. What, then, provides the basis for the willingness of Riyadh and its partners in the Gulf to follow the traditional policy of Western countries: “divide and conquer”?
First, Riyadh and its partners are not happy with the growth of Iran’s authority and influence in the region and in the Muslim world as a whole (the Shiite regime in Iraq, the Alawites in Syria, the role and significance of Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon), nor with the growing popularity of the idea that Shiism is a more equitable way of life for ordinary Muslims.
Second, the monarchs of the Persian Gulf are alarmed by events of the Arab Spring, which rocked the entire Arab world and sparked a wave of protests specifically in the Gulf countries. The most large-scale, spontaneous displays by the civilian population were observed in the Eastern province of Saudi Arabia, and in Bahrain, where Shiites live in close quarters. Dependant on their Sunni elite, leaders of the Gulf countries did not wish to share power or profits with the Shiite population and again resorted to violent methods of dispersing demonstrations and quelling insurgency. The Saudis even sent a punitory military contingent to Bahrain with this express purpose.
Third, their own impending doom is becoming increasingly clear to the morally and physically declining kings, sultans, emirs and sheikhs of the Gulf countries, who wish to extend their period of unchallenged dominance for as long as possible. The expression, “Caliphs for an hour” is particularly applicable to these, who believe that transforming Syria, Lebanon and Iraq into an arena of open armed conflict between Sunnis and Shiites will not only help them to remain in power, but also bring them into positions of leadership across the Arab and Muslim world. Such monarchs will not stop at footing the cost for this war- numbering in the billions of dollars – or at recruiting fighters worldwide for cooperation with infamous terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Dzhagbu en-Nusra, and the like.
Flywheel violence and Sunni-Shiite strife are promoted by Washington and its satellites in the region and are unlikely to be solved by a “Geneva II”, “Geneva III” or any other formal international conference which will serve sooner as a screen to cover international crimes in Syria. Stopping the death of Syrians and Iraqis could be accomplished only by convening a special session of the UN Security Council (UNSC) and adopting a resolution prohibiting any foreign interference in these conflicts. At the same time, the UNSC must decide to conduct peacekeeping operations (humanitarian intervention) in order to establish control over the borders of Syria and Iraq and prevent new jihadi militias from entering these countries. Sponsor-nations of international terrorism should be subjected to UN sanctions such as those which, until now, have been placed only on Iran.
Stanislav Ivanov, leading researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies, PhD in history, exclusively for the “New Eastern Outlook” online magazine.
The Israelis do not want the Palestinians to have an independent state, even if this state has nothing more than the facade of self-governance. Israel does not even want the Palestinians to have an independent entity, so how would they ever allow them to have a state, about which the Israelis are extremely sensitive?
Even if the Palestinians agree to implement all of Israel's preconditions for the peace talks, the Israeli government will surely invent new and even more ridiculous terms to delay yet further the establishment of a viable state of Palestine. This is not surprising given that the then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said, before his assassination by a Jewish extremist, that he wished that he could wake up one day to find that the sea has swallowed Gaza. His successor Benjamin Netanyahu has since added, "If only the Palestinians would disappear from the face of the earth." That is the prevailing attitude which frames Israel's approach to the negotiations.
The Israelis do not want the Palestinians to have an independent state, even if this state has nothing more than the facade of self-governance. Israel does not even want the Palestinians to have an independent entity, so how would they ever allow them to have a state, about which the Israelis are extremely sensitive? That is why they continue to create difficult preconditions in an attempt to prolong the "peace process" and delay the establishment of a Palestinian state which, they believe, would be detrimental to Israel's survival and lead to its eventual demise, even if it is demilitarised and lacks complete sovereignty.
For this reason, Israel has deemed Jerusalem to be the "undivided and eternal capital of Israel" and it also rejects completely the Palestinian refugees' right of return. When the proposal was made by the then President Bill Clinton to allow a limited return of refugees through family reunification, which has been adopted recently by US Secretary of State John Kerry, it was rejected by the Israelis. Furthermore, Israel has proposed a land swap of an area known as the Triangle, home to the majority of Palestinians living in Israel, for large settlement blocs in the West Bank. Israel is well aware that most of its Palestinian citizens would reject this proposal and that the Palestinian Authority would not accept it under any circumstances because it would mean that Palestinians agree to transfer fellow Palestinians from their homes.
Israel has a list of the settlement blocs (all illegal under international law) which it intends to annex under any agreement with the Palestinians. Netanyahu has told Kerry of this. The four blocs in question house a total of 400,000 settlers.
The latest condition imposed by Israel is to keep troops in the Jordan Valley, which is the border between the West Bank and the Hashemite Kingdom. Netanyahu's government has rejected Secretary Kerry's proposal that American or international troops could be based in this area to allay security fears; this suggests that Israel will be able to enter Palestinian territory whenever it sees fit. This is not fiction, nor is it a "what if" scenario. We saw how Ariel Sharon justified his invasion of the Palestinian Territories in 2002; Israel will not need any excuse to reoccupy any Palestinian territory which may become part of the new state. In other words, if Israel leaves Palestine through the front door, it will find a way back in through the window.
Land issues aside, Israel also insists on Palestinian recognition of it as "the Jewish state". Acceptance of the false Israeli narrative about this would threaten, by necessity, the security of the Palestinians in Israel; hence, the scenario of Palestinians having to approve the transfer of other Palestinians from their land. Palestinians must also accept that Palestine is the Jews' historic homeland and that Palestine "was a land without a people for a people without a land", with no Arab or Islamic history.
Although they were meant to be dealt with in the so-called "final status talks" dictated by the Oslo Accords, the Israelis are bent on killing-off the negotiations be refusing to compromise on two critical issues: the status of Jerusalem and the refugees' legal right of return to their land. According to Israeli law, any current or future head of state or government official is prohibited from discussing or negotiating these two issues without the approval of the Knesset (parliament). Due to the changing nature of Israeli politics, as it heads further towards political extremism, this more or less means that, as things stand, these issues will never be on the table for discussion.
Israel annexed Jerusalem in 1967, illegally, and since this date it has refused to broach this subject in any talks; it remains off-limits, regardless of what was agreed in Oslo. If the Knesset refuses to move on this issue, it is quite possible that it will become impossible to discuss and Israel's adamant refusal to talk about the very nature of a two-state solution will lead to the demise of the peace process. Furthermore, Israel's insistence on preserving the "Jewishness of the state" makes it impossible for Israel to be a truly democratic state. It could be Jewish or it could be democratic; it could not be both.
The demise of the two-state solution has not happened by chance; it was the result of many of the factors mentioned above. These make it impossible to establish a contiguous and integrated Palestinian state because settlement expansion continues to confiscate Palestinian land under the pretext of Israeli security, the government's main excuse for not allowing the establishment of an independent and viable Palestine. Bizarrely, despite this, Palestinians and Arabs are still calling for a two-state solution, ignoring the obvious impossibility of this being realised. The two-state solution has become nothing more than an illusion. The Palestinians need to move on and not be bound by the intractable current situation.
This is a translation of the Arabic text published by Al Quds newspaper on 29 January, 2014
Syrian Army units on Thursday carried out large-scale military operations, targeting terrorists' dens and assembly points in several areas around the country, SANA news agency reported.
Clik here to view.