Saturday, 26 November 2011

The ‘Israeli Puppets’ against Syria

Posted on |
Relatives comfort the widow (C) of Hassan al-Hussein, a 46-year-old Syrian
soldier gunned down while riding his scooter, at a mourning tent in the
flashpoint city of Homs on 24 November 2011. (Photo: AFP - Anwar Amro)
Turkey’s top daily, Milliyet, has reported that French military forces are training Syrian rebels belonging to the US-Israel sponsored ‘Free Syrian Army’ in Turkey and Lebanon. The daily has also claimed that France, Britain and Turkey have agreed to send arms into Syria to bring a regime change in Damascus.

The Turkish daily also stated that the governments of the three countries have received green light from Washington to support the Syrian rebels in every possible way.

The influential French Israel-Firster Jew, Bernard-Henri Levy is running a vicious anti-Bashar campaign and putting pressure on the Crypto-Jew French President Nicolas Sarkosy to eliminate Assad like Qaddafi earlier. Levi ran a similar anti-Muslim campaign against Pakistan in 1971 which resulted in the dismemberment of the country and creation of Bangladesh. Levi is one of the founders of the Libyan rebel National Transitional Council (NTC). Levi had convinced Sarkozy to become the first head of state to recognize NTC in exile. Later, Levi met Israeli Prime Minister Benji Netanyahu and informed him that NTC leaders had promised to recognize Israel. On July 2011 – Bernard-Henri Levi organized a conference of Syrian rebel groups which was attended by Israeli officials and a member of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood.

In a revealing installment of his weekly column at Le Point magazine titled “Endgame in Syria,” Bernard-Henri Levy claims that Syrian opposition figures he’s in touch with are increasingly coming around to the view that military intervention, Libya-style, may be the only way to get rid of the regime in Damascus.

Levy, who bragged in his last book about the strong influence he has over French President Nicolas Sarkozy, confessed that the two conspired together to marginalize the French foreign ministry so that it would not impede NATO’s intervention in Libya.

In his recent column, Levy reveals secret efforts he has undertaken in the past few months to convince Syrian opposition figures to support him in what he calls the “Gaddafi theory.”

In the column, Levi admits that what is holding back France, Britain, the US and NATO to conduct Libyan-style direct military intervention in Syria – is because Syrian opposition leaders whom he met told him that “they would prefer to die than say the word ‘intervention’ or ‘international intervention’.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Libya and the manufacture of consent

By whitewashing the Libyan rebels and demonising the Gaddafi regime did the leading US intellectual Noam Chomsky help facilitate an imperialist invasion? In a wide-ranging interview with Chomsky, Dan Glazebrook asks him

Click to view caption
'There were two interventions, not one, by NATO. One of them lasted about five minutes. That's the one that was taken under UN Security Resolution 1973, which called for a no-fly zone over Benghazi when there was the threat of a serious massacre there... but the three traditional imperial powers of France, Britain and the United States carried out a second intervention that had nothing to do with protecting civilians and certainly wasn't a no-fly zone, but was rather about participating in a rebel uprising'

This was a difficult interview for me. It was Noam Chomsky who first opened my eyes to the basic neo-colonial structure of the world and to the role of the corporate media in both disguising and legitimising this structure.

Chomsky has consistently demonstrated how, ever since the end of World War II, military regimes have been imposed on the Third World by the US and its European allies with an ascribed role to keep wages low (and thus investment opportunities high) by wiping out communists, trade unionists, and anyone else deemed a potential threat to empire. He has been at the forefront of exposing the lies and real motives behind the aggression against Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia in recent years, and against Central America and Southeast Asia before that. But on Libya, in my opinion, he has been terrible.

Don't get me wrong: now the conquest is nearly over, Chomsky can be quite forthright in his denunciation of it, as he makes clear during the interview. "Right now, at this moment, NATO is bombing a home base of the largest tribe in Libya," he tells me. "It's not getting reported much, but if you read the Red Cross reports they're describing a horrifying humanitarian crisis in the city that's under attack, with hospitals collapsing, no drugs, people dying, people fleeing on foot into the desert to try to get away from it and so on. That's happening under the NATO mandate of protecting civilians."

What bothers me is that this was precisely the mandate that Chomsky supported.

US General Wesley Clark, NATO commander during the bombing of Serbia, revealed on US television seven years ago that the Pentagon had drawn up a "hit list" in 2001 of seven states they wanted to "take out" within five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. Thanks to the Iraqi and Afghan resistance, the plan has been delayed -- but clearly not abandoned. We should, therefore, have been fully expecting the invasion of Libya.

Given former US president George Bush's cack-handedness over winning global support for the war on Iraq, and Obama's declared commitment to multilateralism and "soft power", we should have been expecting this invasion to have been meticulously planned in order to give it a veneer of legitimacy. Given the CIA's growing fondness for instigating "colour revolutions" to cause headaches for governments it dislikes, we should have been expecting something similar as part of the build-up to the invasion in Libya. And given Obama's close working relationship with the Clintons, we might have expected this invasion to follow the highly successful pattern established by former US president Bill Clinton in Kosovo: cajoling rebel movements on the ground into making violent provocations against the state, and then screaming genocide at the state's response in order to terrorise world opinion into supporting intervention.

In other words, we should have seen it coming, and prominent and widely respected intellectuals such as Chomsky should have used their platform to publicise Clark's revelations, to warn of the coming aggression, and to draw attention to the racist and sectarian nature of the "rebel movements" the US and British governments have traditionally employed to topple non-compliant governments. Chomsky certainly did not need reminding of the unhinged atrocities of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the Nicaraguan Contras, or the Afghan Northern Alliance. Indeed, it was he who helped alert the world to many of them.

But Chomsky did not use his platform to make these points. Instead, in an interview with the BBC one month into the rebellion -- and, crucially, just four days before the passing of UN Security Council 1973 and the beginning of the NATO blitzkrieg -- he chose to characterise the rebellion as "wonderful". Elsewhere he referred to the takeover of the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi by racist gangs as "liberation" and to the rebellion as "initially non-violent".

In an interview with the BBC, he even claimed that "Libya is the one place [in North Africa] where there was a very violent state reaction repressing the popular uprisings," a claim so divorced from the truth it is hard to know where to begin. Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak is currently being prosecuted for the murder of 850 protesters, whereas, according to Amnesty International, only 110 deaths could be confirmed in Benghazi before NATO operations began -- and this included pro-government people killed by rebel militia. What really makes Libya exceptional in the North African Arab Spring is that it was the only country in which the rebellion was armed, violent, and openly aimed at facilitating a foreign invasion.

Now that Amnesty has confirmed that the Libyan rebels have been using violence since the very start and have been rounding up and executing black Libyans and African migrants in droves ever since, I began the interview by asking Chomsky whether he now regrets his initial public support for them.

He shrugs. "No. I'm sure what Amnesty International reports is correct -- that there were armed elements among them, but notice they didn't say that the rebellion was an armed rebellion. In fact, the large majority were probably people like us [sic], middle-class opponents of Gaddafi. It was mostly an unarmed uprising. It turned into a violent uprising, and the killings you are describing indeed are going on, but it didn't start like that. As soon as it became a civil war, then that happened."

However, in fact it did start like that. The true colours of the rebels were made clear on the second day of the rebellion, 18 February, when they rounded up and executed a group of 50 African migrant workers in the town of Bayda. A week later, a terrified eyewitness told the BBC of another 70 or 80 migrant workers who had been cut to pieces in front of his eyes by rebel forces. These incidents -- and many others like them -- had made clear the racist character of the rebel militias well before Chomsky's BBC interview on 15 March. But Chomsky rejects this. "These things were absolutely not clear, and they weren't reported. And even afterwards when they were reported, they were not talking about the uprising. They were talking about an element within it."

This may be how Chomsky sees it, but both incidents were carried by mainstream media outlets like the BBC, US National Public Radio and the British newspaper The Guardian at the time. Admittedly, they were hidden away behind reams of anti-Gaddafi bile and justified with the usual pretext of the migrants being "suspected mercenaries", yet Chomsky's expertise in analysing media should have been able to see through that. Moreover, the forcing out last month of the entire population of the majority black Libyan town of Tawarga by Misrata militias with names like "the brigade for purging black skins" was recently given the official blessing of Libyan National Transition Council (NTC) President Mahmoud Jibril. To present these racial crimes as some kind of insignificant element seems wilfully disingenuous.

But Chomsky continues to stick to his guns. "You're talking about what happened after the civil war took place and the NATO intervention, whereas I'm not. Two points, which I'll repeat. First of all, it wasn't known, and secondly it was a very small part of the uprising. The uprising was carried out by an overwhelmingly middle-class, non-violent opposition. We now know there was an armed element and that quickly became prominent after the civil war started. But it didn't have to, so if that second intervention hadn't taken place, it might not have turned out that way."

Chomsky characterises the NATO intervention as having two parts. The initial intervention, authorised by the UN Security Council to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, he argues was legitimate. But the "second" intervention, in which the triumvirate of the US, Britain and France acted as an air force for the militias of Misrata and Benghazi in their conquest of the rest of the country, was wrong and illegal.

"We should remember that there were two interventions, not one, by NATO. One of them lasted about five minutes. That's the one that was taken under UN Security Resolution 1973, which called for a no-fly zone over Benghazi when there was the threat of a serious massacre there, along with a longer-term mandate of protecting civilians. It lasted almost no time, [as] almost immediately, not NATO but the three traditional imperial powers of France, Britain and the United States carried out a second intervention that had nothing to do with protecting civilians and certainly wasn't a no-fly zone, but was rather about participating in a rebel uprising, and that's the one we've been witnessing."

"It was almost isolated internationally. The African countries were strongly opposed -- they called for negotiations and diplomacy from the very beginning. The main independent countries -- the BRICS countries -- also opposed the second intervention and called for efforts at negotiations and diplomacy. Even within NATO's limited participation, outside of the triumvirate, in the Arab world, there was almost nothing: Qatar sent a couple of planes, and Egypt, next door and very heavily armed, didn't do a thing."

"Turkey held back for quite a while and finally participated weakly in the triumvirate's operation. So it was a very isolated operation. It has been claimed that it was carried out under an Arab League request, but that's mostly fraud. First of all, the Arab League request was extremely limited and only a minority participated -- just Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. They actually also issued a request for two no-fly zones -- one over Libya and the other over Gaza. We don't have to talk about what happened to the second one."

On most of this we agree. My argument, however, is that it was always painfully clear that Security Council Resolution 1973 was intended by the triumvirate as a fig leaf for precisely the "second intervention" Chomsky decries.

"It wasn't clear, even for those five minutes, that the imperial powers accepted the resolution. It only became clear a couple of days later when they started bombing in support of the rebels. And it didn't have to happen. It could have been that world opinion, most of it -- the BRICS, Africa, Turkey, and so on -- could have prevailed."

It seems bizarre and na--ïve for a man of Chomsky's insight to feign surprise at the imperial powers using UN Resolution 1973 for their own purposes in order to topple one of the governments on their hit list. What else would they have used it for? It is also exasperating: if it had been anyone else talking, I would have told them to read some Chomsky.

Chomsky would have told them that imperial powers don't act out of humanitarian, but instead that they act out of totalitarian impulses and to defend and extend their dominance of the world and its resources. He would also have told them, I would have thought, not to expect those powers to implement measures designed to save civilians, because they would only take advantage of them and do the opposite.

However, on this occasion Chomsky seemed to be following a different logic. Does Chomsky accept that his whitewashing of the rebels and demonising of Gaddafi in the days and weeks before the invasion was launched, may have helped to facilitate it?

"Of course I didn't whitewash the rebels. I said almost nothing about them.

The original interview took place before any of this -- it was in the period when a decision had to be made about whether even to introduce a UN resolution to call for a no-fly zone -- and incidentally I said after that had passed that I thought that a case could be made for it, and I would still say that today.

Yet, even after the British, French and US aggression in Libya had become abundantly clear, Chomsky published another article on Libya on 5 April. By this time thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Libyans had been killed by NATO bombs. This time Chomsky's piece opened by criticising the British and American governments not for their blitzkrieg but for their alleged support for Gaddafi "and his crimes". Didn't this feed into the demonisation that justified and perpetuated NATO's aggression?

"First of all, I don't accept your description. I wouldn't call it NATO aggression, as it's more complex than that. The initial step -- the first intervention, the five-minute one -- I think was justifiable. There was a chance -- a significant chance -- of a very serious massacre in Benghazi. Gaddafi had a horrible record of slaughtering people, and that should be known -- but at that point, I think the proper reaction should have been to tell the truth about what's happening."

I can't help wondering why the responsibility to "tell the truth about what's happening" only applies to Libya. Should we not also tell the truth about what's happening in the West? About its unquenchable thirst for diminishing oil-and-gas reserves, for example, or about its fear of an independent Africa, or its long track record of supporting and arming brutal gangsters against governments it wants removed? Chomsky is familiar enough with the examples. Should we not tell the truth about the crisis currently enveloping the Western economic system and leading its elites increasingly to rely on war-mongering to maintain their crumbling dominance? Isn't all this actually a lot more pertinent to the war on Libya than recounting the alleged crimes of Gaddafi from 20 years ago?

Chomsky argued with US academic and activist James Petras in 2003 over his condemnation of Cuba's arrest of several dozen US agents and execution of three hijackers. Petras had argued then that "intellectuals have a responsibility to distinguish between the defensive measures taken by countries and peoples under imperial attack and the offensive methods of imperial powers bent on conquest. It is the height of cant and hypocrisy to engage in moral equivalences between the violence and repression of imperial countries bent on conquest with that of Third World countries under military and terrorist attack."

On the present occasion, Chomsky has done worse than this. Far from drawing moral equivalences, he has simply airbrushed out of the picture the crimes of NATO's Libyan allies, whilst amplifying and distorting the defensive measures taken by Libya's government in dealing with an armed and US-backed rebellion.

I remind Chomsky of his comment some years back that Libya was used as a punch bag by US politicians to deflect public attention away from domestic problems. "Yes, it was. But that doesn't mean that it was a nice place."

It's a lot less nice now.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Arab Ministers Discuss Syria Sanctions in Cairo

Local Editor

Arab Finance ministers gathered in Cairo on Saturday to discuss possible sanctions on Syria.

The finance ministers were to thrash out a package -- expected to include the suspension of flights and freezing of government assets -- which will then be put to foreign ministers on Sunday.

For his part, Syrian Economy Minister warned that the damage of the sanctions would be to all sides.
"If that is to happen, it will be very unfortunate because the damage will be to all sides," Mohammed Nidal al-Shaar told Agence France Press.

But "we don't expect all Arab countries to yield or participate in sanctions," he added.
"In fact, we are almost certain that some Arab countries will not participate."

The Arab League had set a Friday deadline for the regime to agree to the details of the observers' mission, part of a reform deal that Damascus had previously said it accepted.
However, the ultimatum for Damascus to accept observers or face sanctions passed on Friday without a response from Syria.

On the other hand, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said he would join Sunday's meeting to “harmonies” his government's own measures with those of the Arab League, saying that Ankara's former ally had missed its "last chance" by failing to heed the Arab ultimatum.

Davutoglu said the Damascus regime's refusal to allow in observers could only mean it had something to conceal.
"Syria was expected to say yes to the observers... unless there is a reality it hides about the situation in Syrian cities," Davutoglu said after the deadline's expiry.

"As it said no, it increased... the concerns on the humanitarian situation," he said, in the wake of UN estimates that the crackdown has cost more than 3,500 lives since March.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

EXCELLENT Dissection of Richard Silverstein's 'Trojan drone sent to Hezbollah' story


From 'b' at MoonOfAlabama;
"... notice that the two incidents that Richard's source puts together here have happened at least 10 days if not longer apart. Would Hizbullah really take a somehow obtained Israeli drone into an ammo-depot in south Lebanon with UNIFIL patrols in the area and leave it there for ten plus days? Would it not rather immediately truck it into the much more secure Bekaa valley or into Syria for further evaluation in a specialized weapon lab?

Richard continues the story with pure speculation:
The Daily Star headline is about a "huge blast" but the story itself only says "an explosion" and "the blast". There is nothing like "huge" in the story. From that and his source Richard somehow comes to an allegedly given "size of the explosion" that indicates to him that "a good deal of [Hizbullah's] weapons cache in the south" has been destroyed.
Where did he get that from? And does he really believe that Hizbullah would keep Zelzal missiles, which have a range of up to 400 kilometers, just a few miles from the Israeli border? For what? To attack Port Said in Egypt? Zelzal's could reach Tel Aviv even from Lebanon's norther border. Hizbullah keeping them in the south would be lunacy.

(THE FOLLOWING IS REAL GOOD WORK BY 'b') There is this video from the Israeli website uploaded on November 23 which quotes Richard's story and shows pictures from a quite big smoke column coming up behind of what looks like a telecommunication building. But the video put to the story does not show the relevant explosion. The video material is simply stolen from this video which was uploaded to youtube on November 2nd by MENA and is supposed to show an explosion that happened in Beirut on April 8 2007.

So where did Mr. Silverstein and his source get that "huge explosion" that alleged destroyed a weapon cache from? From hot air?
Yesterday the Daily Star brought a follow up story of the issue:
“However, the army did not find any remnants and the explosion did not cause any visible damage. Probably, what happened was a result of a mine or cluster bomb possibly dropped by Israel [in 2006] exploding.”
The Daily Star sent a reporter into the area and here is what he found:
Most residents testified that they hadn’t heard an explosion but a local man, Hajj Ali Fakih, said he had heard a “huge” blast come from a patch of woodland known locally as Al-Jabal al-Kabir, or Big Mountain.
Hezbollah operatives carrying high-tech communications equipment spread throughout the village and accosted The Daily Star, asking why its reporter was making inquiries related to the blast.
The army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon sent patrols to Siddiqin, although the peacekeeping organization said that it had received no official word on the explosion.
“Following today’s media reports, we were in close contact with the Lebanese Army and until now we have not information to confirm that there was an explosion,” UNIFIL deputy spokesperson Andrea Tenenti told The Daily Star.
“We have 350 patrols a day and this is part of our area of operations so we do have troops there on the ground. We have no investigation at the moment.”
Nothing there we know of says UNIFIL, the Lebanese Army said someone heard an explosion, Hizbullah and most residents in the area said nothing relevant happened. Some explosion happened says an anonymous "security source" to the Daily Star and one lone man from the village.
A complicate Israeli intelligence plot destroyed an arms cache by purposefully letting a drone intentionally fall into Hizbullah's hands which then, at least ten days later, somehow ended up in said arms cache and gets exploded by IDF intelligence destroying the Hizbullah arms cache so that "a good deal of its weapons cache in the south has been destroyed" says Richard Silverstein based on his secret source.
Ah - no Richard. I don't buy that. And I am quite sure that most other thinking people will not buy that either.

(BTW - could the "secret source" the Daily Star has here be the same one that is talking to Richard?)

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

I am back from Bradford

DateSaturday, November 26, 2011 at 3:39AM AuthorGilad Atzmon
4:20 am spite of weeks of Jewish extensive and relentless lobbying against me, my message. my book and my music, despite of a campaign that started with Jewish 'anti' Zionists and ended with a ludicrous demand by the Board of Deputy of British Jews to pull out my concert, Raise Your Banner Music Festival didn't surrender. They stood firmly for truth, justice and freedom of speech.
I guess that the message is clear, the Zionist lobby is falling apart!!!
The gig was a massive success. the room was sold out. We played for almost 3 hours for the most enthusiastic and supportive audience.

Also, In Bradford last night, there was not a single sign of protest against our concert. I guess that Sayan Nick Lowles who was very active falsifying documents in the name of Hope not Hate, probably realised towards the end of the week that the game was over for him. He is now exposed for what he is- an avid advocate of the Zionist crime.
I am off to bed now.

The Wandering Who-A Study of Zionist and AZZ tactics - available on or

The wandering who- Gilad Atzmon
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Syria Accuses Foreign Parties in 6 Syrian Pilots Assassination

Local Editor
Syrian Army command announced that six elite pilots and four others, one technical officer and three technical sub-officers of a military airbase, were killed in an attack as they were passing Palmyra-Homs axis on Thursday afternoon.
The army accused, in a statement quoted by SANA, foreign powers of supporting acts of terror within Syria. "An armed terrorist gang murdered six pilots, an officer and three junior officers working for the military airbase," the army said.
The statement added that this escalation exposes the real face of the plot which targets the structure of the Syrian Armed Forces with all its types and confirms foreign parties' involvement in supporting these terrorist operations with the aim of undermining the qualitative combat capabilities of the Armed Forces.
The ambush "took place on the Palmyra-Homs road yesterday afternoon."

The attack was claimed on Thursday by the rebel Free Syrian Army who said seven military pilots were killed in an ambush on a bus.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Truth not lies about Gilad Atzmon

DateThursday, November 24, 2011 at 11:52PM AuthorGilad Atzmon

Acording to Bradford activists, the following wil be distributed ahead of my Bradford concert

Once again, the unholy alliance of Zionists and Islamophobes which has been trying to stop Gilad Atzmon playing his saxophone in Bradfordhas shot itself in the foot. Not content with misquoting and misrepresenting Atzmon’s analysis of his own Jewish identity, it has now stooped to similar tactics, aimed at a senior Anglican clergyman at the city’s Cathedral.

On November 22, Nick Lowles’ misnamed “Hope Not Hate” website – which would better be called Lies Not Truth – proclaimed: “Dean of Bradford calls for Atzmon’s invite to be withdrawn.” This was a lie.

Immediately Lowles’ claim was drawn to the Dean’s attention, he denied it. He said that he had become aware of the controversial nature, not only of Gilad Atzmon, but also “of the statements made about him”. The Dean has confirmed that he had asked those who had contacted him to provide proper evidence of anti-Semitism by Mr Atzmon, but he says: “I received very little, some of which I could identify as being mis-reporting out of context of the kind to which Mr Atzmon [has] drawn attention.”
And a malpractice to which David Ison has now been subjected.

This sorry affair highlights the need for a critical examination of the role in the anti-fascist movement of Hope Not Hate, the magazine Searchlight, and the “Harry’s Place” blog which hosts Hope not Hate and Searchlight announcements, and which gained the Islamic Human Rights Commission’s Annual Islamophobia Award in 2006.

Searchlight’s links with the British secret services have been known since 1986, when the investigative journalist, Robin Ramsay, reported that “Searchlight is run, if not by, then certainly with the co-operation of, MI5″, (Lobster, No 11, April 1986, p12). The following year, Jewish Chronicle said that Searchlight had “a wide range of contacts (including people in the secret services)”, (Jewish Chronicle 23/10/1987).

Hope Not Hate played a very divisive role inBradfordwhen the English Defence League hooligans threatened to march through the city. Local citizens planned a simultaneous multi-cultural event in the city centre under the rubric of “We Are Bradford” and when plans for this were agreed with the police, a few Hope Not Hate supporters split off and encouraged Bradford City Council to organise a disruptive event well out of the city centre.

As it happened, “We Are Bradford” was supported by several thousand people from all over the country, while the split-off attracted a few hundred.

Hope Not Hate participated for a short while in an anti-fascist alliance with the Unite Against Fascism organisation, but walked out of the alliance in June 2005 because, as Searchlight‘s then editor, Steve Silver put it, ” . . .there was only ever so long that we could participate in an organisation which had leading figures conduct a whispering campaign about Searchlight being ‘Zionists’.”

“Whispering campaign”? Who’s whispering? Let’s shout it loud:
It is quite clear that, when the unity of the anti-fascist movement is put at risk for a campaign of “hasbara” (the official Israeli Government name in Hebrew for its international propaganda justifying the occupation of Palestinian lands), something rather than action against anti-Semitism is working to divide and rule us.
An essential element in Hasbara is the planting of Sayanim (sing. Sayan; Hebrew: helpers, assistants) or agents of Mossad, (HaMossad leModi’in uleTafkidim Meyuchadim – Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations), in the anti-fascist movement.
According to Wikipedia (, “Mossad is responsible for intelligence collection and covert operations which are suspected to include targeted killings and paramilitary activities beyond Israel’s borders”.

Great company Hope Not Hate and Searchlight are keeping! 

Here is the full wording of the statement from the Dean of Bradford, the Very Reverend David Ison, denying that he has called for the Raise Your Banners “Radical Jazz” concert featuring Gilad Atzmon to be cancelled:
Raise Your Banners booked the Cathedral for a concert some months ago, but did not notify us of any controversial issues to do with any of the performers. I have become aware of the controversial nature of Gilad Atzmon and the statements made about him, since being contacted by the Council for Christians and Jews a few weeks ago. The concert was recently withdrawn from the Cathedral owing to slow ticket sales, but had the venue not changed I would have considered not allowing it to take place as, although I have had no clear evidence of anti-semitism or racism, the perception of this around Gilad Atzmon would have made it an inappropriate concert to hold in a religious building.

The headline on the Hope not Hate blog of 22 November, which says that I have called for the concert to be cancelled does not relate my words to their context. I wrote in response to a particular comment on Nick Lowles’ blog of 19 November which called for a lobby of the Cathedral and the Bishop to get them to withdraw the invitation to Gilad Atzmon.

The statement clarifies that we did not make the invitation, reiterates that the concert is not happening on church premises, and raises concerns but does not make allegations about what Mr Atzmon has said; nor does it make a call for the invitation to Mr Atzmon to be withdrawn. I simply say that I am passing on the concerns I had received to Kala Sangam. I do not in the statement tell Kala Sangam what to do with those concerns. I accept that Raise Your Banners and Kala Sangam are making their own judgements about this issue.

Our concern is to be clear that Bradford Cathedral is committed to working for truth, peace and justice for Palestinians and Israelis, of whatever faith.
The Wandering Who-A Study of Zionist and AZZ tactics - available on or Article
The wandering who- Gilad Atzmon

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Mona Eltahawy Recounts the True Story of Egypt Revolution

November 26, 2011
“When Mona Eltahawy sneaked into the street where the fierce scuffles broke out between the pro-democracy protesters and the police forces little did she know that she was taking a leap into the true story of the battle of Egypt revolution.”

Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

“She is an award-winning columnist and an international public speaker on Arab and Muslim issues and she is now based in New York.” … With those words Mona Eltahawy introduces herself to the reader of her elegant website. But though she went on and briefed the readers, in the bio block, on her professional history and some of the important highlights in her career, nothing really expressed who she really is like the notice line at the header of her blog that says “Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian from the inside and outside” For me Mona Eltahawy is more than just a renowned reporter, or a public speaker, she is an Egyptian, who despite growing up in one of Egypt’s most repressive eras where political dictatorship and religious obscurantism have stifled modernity and freedom of expression, emerged as one of the prominent examples of the progressive, outspoken and liberal woman in Egypt’s contemporary history. She is a feminist, and though she has been living in the United States since the year 2000, she never severed her emotional bonds with the land of her birth. In almost all of her lectures, articles and media interviews she always shed the light on the wind of change sweeping the Arab world and how this would impact the freedoms and human rights especially for the Egyptian woman. With Egyptians pouring in thousands again into Tahrir square to protest against all of the hidden forces that are trying to co-opt and hijack the Egyptian revolution Mona Eltahawy simply couldn’t see herself any place else. Appearing Thursday night on Egyptian satellite channel- ON TV- Mona Eltahawy with both her arms in plaster cast told the most appalling story of her abduction by the security forces near Tahrir square the day before. As the mainstream media was covering the violent clashes between the Tahrir protesters and the Egyptian police forces that have been raging since Saturday the reporter inside Mona decided to get a closer look.

Ambushed, molested and arrested

Mona Eltahawy in the hospital treated for her broken arms after she got beaten and molested by the police soldiers.
Under the thick fog of tear gas and the indiscriminate rounds of rubber bullets that turned one of the main streets- Mohamed Mahmoud st.- leading to Tahrir square into a battle field, Mona got trapped in an ambush as the protesters suddenly retreated to find herself surrounded by police soldiers. That much of the story of the police/protesters clashes we knew from the media, but what we don’t know is what exactly happened to the 1200 plus protesters the police had captured during the clashes and mainly in that street leading to the infamous building of Egypt’s ministry of interior. … The arrest of Mona Eltahawy helped us find out. Actually this was not only the missing part out of the Tahrir story but it also turned out to be the hidden story of one of the reasons why this whole revolution erupted in the first place. On the TV interview Mona sorrowfully but unshakably recounted the story of her abduction, beating and sexual molestation by the police soldiers
“Besides beating me so monstrously my left arm and right hand were broken; the dogs of (central security forces) subjected me to the worst sexual assault ever. Five or six surrounded me, groped and prodded my breasts, grabbed my genital area and I lost count how many hands tried to get into my trousers.” Mona said.
Mona had been abducted from that street by the most savage security forces, moved to the ministry of interior where she was under the constant danger of being sexually harassed and then she was transferred to the military intelligence headquarters where she was detained for like five hours. During those long hours Mona was locked in a room, absolutely deprived of any human right of being read her rights or knowing why she was arrested and not even allowed to make a phone call to let her friends know where she was.

Fiction vs. reality

The protesters in Tahrir square came under barrages of tear gas and rubber bullets fired by the police forces.
Now most of us have watched scenes like these in the movies, but this was no fiction. This was real. This kind of unbelievable tyranny and oppression is what the Egyptians have been enduring for ages. Many are wondering why Egyptians have been carrying on since the ouster of Mubarak, almost 9 months now, with no security on the streets, and why the police forces are not back to business as usual. But those people are not aware of the fact that Mubarak’s regime, as well as the regime of his predecessor was simply a police regime.
Hence, choosing January 25 – the national police day in Egypt- as the launch day for the revolution was no coincidence.
And when the head of a police regime goes down you don’t get to see the police as often as you used to or as friendly and protective as you might expect. And this also explains the brutality of the police in their latest crackdown on protesters whom they view as the main reason for the demise of their long-time mighty regime.
In that extremely painful experience, Mona has lived moments of fear, humiliation, pain and vulnerability.
But those are the very same feelings most Egyptians are experiencing in their daily life and they don’t even have to get arrested to feel degraded or vulnerable; all they have to do is to queue up in a long line that could drag out for hours just to buy a loaf of bread or sign the endless papers to apply for an ID card or a driving license or wait their turn to get examined in a hospital which has no beds or medication for them. And you could get arrested anytime anywhere in Egypt and practically for a crime you probably never heard of before. And before your folks knew about it you could be thrown in some filthy and overcrowded cell waiting to be tried before a military court where your appointed lawyer- if you were allowed one in the first place- could not examine evidences, call any witnesses or even appeal the verdict. Mona Eltahawy will have to live with the memory of those horrible hours for the rest of her life, but most Egyptians will have to indefinitely endure through this humiliation and vulnerability if they failed to save the Tahrir revolution they all hope would help fulfill their demands of freedom and social justice. When Mona Eltahawy sneaked into the street where the fierce scuffles broke out between the pro-democracy protesters and the police forces little did she know that she was taking a leap into the true story of the battle of Egypt revolution. When Mona was released from her detention, thanks to her American passport, she didn’t jump on the first flight back to the US, but she headed straight to Tahrir square where she joined the thousands of angry Egyptians and wholeheartedly shouted with them “ down with the regime”.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian


Who is paying for the Air-pockets ??

Nr. 1

A new committee is established in Damascus
its aim is to monitor and to control the human misbehaviour's
in the USA , Canada and in the UK it will be called :
Anglo-Saxons Human-Watch
Announcement Nr.2
A new committee is established here in Amsterdam
its aim is to monitor and control the Air pockets inside Swiss Cheese :
Regulating-Committee for the Swiss-cheese-Air-pockets .

Indeed ,
in London some very enthusiastic people have already established the infamous :

As for the committee planned in Damascus ,
it is still only a realistic and legal idea.

And the committee in Amsterdam ,
is just a joke , I made it up because me and my family
do not eat the Swiss-Air-pockets ,
we throw them away with the garbage

Sherlock Hommos

follow me on TWITTER@rajachemayel

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Thousands of Jordanians, Egyptians rally in support of Jerusalem

[ 26/11/2011 - 10:26 AM ]
AMMAN, (PIC)-- Tens of thousands of Jordanian citizens rallied on Friday in Suweima village in the Jordanian Valley, only 25 kilometers away from occupied Jerusalem, in support of the holy city.
Ibrahim Al-Keylani, delivering the Friday sermon at the village, said that the Jordanians were displaying solidarity with their Palestinian brothers.
He championed resistance as the only hope for the liberation of the holy Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem, warning that the holy city was the target of a systematic Judaization campaign at the hands of the Israeli occupiers.
Participants torched Israeli flags and replicas of the alleged Jewish temple, which the Jews were seeking to build in place of the Aqsa mosque.
In Cairo, around 5000 Egyptians held a similar rally at the Azhar mosque to declare solidarity with Jerusalem and the Aqsa mosque on the international day for solidarity with occupied Jerusalem.
A statement delivered on behalf of the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Dr. Ahmed Al-Tayyeb, said that Jerusalem was a red line and that Muslims would never allow anyone to harm it.
Tayyeb asked Muslims worldwide to mobilize efforts and to confront the Israeli Judaization of Jerusalem.
Khalil Al-Hayya, a political bureau member of Hamas, told the rally that Arabs and Muslims should stand united to liberate Jerusalem, adding that the Israelis were planning to destroy the Aqsa mosque.

Filling a 'huge Arab leadership vacuum', Qatar the US's 'regional enforcer'


Part II of this, in Al Akhbar/ English Edition;
"... So Qatar launched Al Jazeera in order to break through the media monopoly of the House of Saud (which was imposed after 1990 when Khalid Bin Sultan toured world capitals to buy all Arab media). Iraqi and Libyan money produced rival media outlets but funding ended by the early 1990s.Qatar also supported other media outlets (New TV and Al-Quds Al-`Arabi) in order to promote views that are opposed to Saudi Arabia. 
When Al Jazeera was first launched it had wide parameters of expression: and it was quite hospitable to views that are opposed to Saudi Arabia. It hosted Sa`d Faqih and Muhammad Al-Mas`ari who critiqued the royal family (the former is a constant irritant for the House of Saud).Al Jazeera focused on the Saudi matters and even went after regional allies of Saudi Arabia. To be fair, allies of Qatar were not spared either: the climate was rather free at first. But the recent rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Qatar was the product of a marriage of convenience. Qatar would no longer use Al Jazeera against Saudi Arabia (the Emir of Qatar told me that King Abdullah used to complain about my appearances on Al Jazeera), while Saudi Arabia would end its marginalization of Qatar in the region. The nature of the deal that has been building between the two countries is still a mystery but the GCC meeting that blessed the Saudi invasion of Bahrain was crucial.GCC countries were bent on fighting democratic change. All agreed that they would stand united against any protest movement that would target any member state.  
Qatar shifted its policies markedly from that point onwards and its coverage of the Arab world shifted as well.Qatar not only became a dominant force within the Arab League, but it also became dominant in the GCC. Its chief regional nemesis, Husni Mubarak, was overthrown, and another regional enemy, Jordan’s King Abdullah, was busy protecting his increasingly precarious throne. Furthermore, there is a huge vacuum in Arab leadership due to the succession crisis in Saudi Arabia and the aging of key Saudi princes.  
Qatar quickly filled the void and its policies became consistent with US policies, which prevented Saudi Arabia from opposing them. And Qatar almost suddenly abandoned its previous allies: Syria, Hezbollah and Iran. 
 Qatar became the regional enforcer on behalf of the US. It was a key actor in Libya providing NATO with token Arab cover, and it has undoubtedly served as a mediator between the various branches of the Muslim Brotherhood (and their clones) and the US.  
Ghannushi offers the t-shirt of his party to Qaradaw
And all of a sudden, Qatar’s most reliable cleric, tele-Islamist Yusuf al-Qaradawi, made the overthrow of the Syrian regime the most urgent matter from an Islamic point of view. (Qaradawi had in the past praised Bashar Assad but he never wavered in his loyalty to Gulf oil and gas).But the full story of the rift between Syria and Qatar has not been told: it is not clear how and why Qatar decided to break with Bashar, who has been a close ally of Qatar. It is possible that this was part of the secret Qatari-Saudi deal. It is possible that Qatar is answering to the US now (US-Qatari relations suffered a serious crisis during the Bush years. The Emir of Qatar told me that George Tenet delivered a tough message from the US president regarding Al Jazeera’s coverage and it implied a threat. And Dick Cheney abruptly ended a meeting with the Emir when the latter refused to discuss Al Jazeera’s coverage with him). But Qatar may be overplaying its hand. Its role far exceeds its size and its capabilities. To pose as a (selective) champion of democracy while preserving dynastic rule will pose a challenge sometime in the future. There are many rivals to Qatar, and Arab governments may feel increasingly uncomfortable in serving as US clients. Finally, the notion that the tide of the uprisings can’t hit the Gulf region has been disproven in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain...."
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

There are police states......and states with police

In America and in Canada
the Police was today unleashed
the "Occupy-Movements"
who are nothing but peaceful......!!!

What should the Syrian police do
against the armed-agitators ??
Shouldn't the Arab League also
suspend the USA , now ???

:-? thinkingRaja:( sad

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Meshaal to AFP: Hamas’s Focus Now Popular Resistance

Hamas is looking to focus its energies on popular resistance without giving up its right to wage armed struggle against Israel, the resistance movement's leader Khaled Meshaal told AFP in an interview.

"Every people has the right to fight against occupation in every way, with weapons or otherwise. But at the moment, we want to cooperate with the popular resistance," the group's Damascus-based leader said in the interview late on Thursday.

"We believe in armed resistance but popular resistance is a program which is common to all the factions," he said.
Meshaal's comments were made just hours after he held top-level talks with Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, who heads the rival Fatah movement, in a bid to cement a stalled reconciliation agreement between the two groups.

Speaking to reporters in Cairo, the two leaders approved a two-page document reiterating their commitment to the main elements of the original deal, which was signed in May, and hailed a new era of "partnership" between their two factions.

The document, a copy of which was seen by AFP, outlines an agreement on "the adoption of popular resistance" which is to be to be strengthened to oppose the seizure of land for Israeli settlement building and construction of the West Bank barrier.

Meshaal did not go into detail about the focus on popular resistance but said the Hamas leadership would ensure the agreement was translated into action. "I asked them to take practical and positive measures to flesh out this agreement," he told AFP.

"I have instructed the Hamas leadership (in Gaza and Damascus) to adopt a political line and one with the press that doesn't upset the conciliatory spirit, and that truly reflects the atmosphere of reconciliation "
The Hamas chief also brushed off threats by the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which has vowed to retaliate should Abbas's Palestinian Authority form a unity government with Hamas.
In case you missed it: The Abbas-Mishaal encounter: what is next? - The start of a ”real" Palestinian partnership

Hamas Official: Factions to Meet again in December

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Jordanian Opposition Divided Over Syria

"A dispute emerged between the Islamists and the leftists when the slogan for the sit-in was changed from “No to American Intervention in Arab Affairs” to A dispute emerged between the Islamists and the leftists when the slogan for the sit-in was changed from “No to American Intervention in Arab Affairs” to “Hands Off Syria.”"
A fool would expect changing the slogan to “Hands Off Syria.” because its their dirty hands
The Syria unrest started in Deraa.  

A Syrian living in Jordan stands in front of a Syrian flag made with coloured balloons during a demonstration against Syria's President Bashar Al-Assad, in front of the Syrian embassy in Amman 24 November 2011. (Photo: REUTERS - Majed Jaber)
Published Friday, November 25, 2011
Amman - Jordanian activists are becoming increasingly divided over the crisis in Syria between supporters and opponents of the regime in Damascus.

These differences came to a head when six nationalist and leftist opposition parties tried to organize a protest at the American embassy in Amman scheduled for next Saturday, to denounce foreign intervention in Syrian affairs.

A dispute emerged between the Islamists and the leftists when the slogan for the sit-in was changed from “No to American Intervention in Arab Affairs” to “Hands Off Syria.”

The Islamists took issue with the new slogan and pulled out of the coalition organizing the protest.

The Deputy General Secretary for the Islamic Action Front, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Nimr al-Assaf, expressed his disapproval of the change.

He said that the opposition coordination committee had agreed that the main slogan should be “No to American Interference in Arab Affairs.”

“singling out Syria in this way sends a message of support to a regime which is wiping out its own people, and we cannot be part of this.”

“We were surprised when the slogan was changed to ‘Hands Off Syria,’ which is a direct message supporting the criminal Syrian regime at the expense of its people. This prompted us to decline to participate in this activity,” he said.
Assaf emphasized that Islamic Action is categorically against foreign interference in Arab affairs in Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria, but “singling out Syria in this way sends a message of support to a regime which is wiping out its own people, and we cannot be part of this.”

“The Syrian regime is the only one that can stop foreign intervention in Syria, by stopping the rivers of blood over there, releasing the detainees, and granting the people their demands for dignity, freedom, and rights,” he said.

However, the Jordanian opposition parties said that the aim of the protest was to defend Arab Syria, reject American interference in its affairs, and denounce their attempts to target it.

The parties called on the public to participate in the protest to send a message to the American administration, through its embassy, from the Arab Jordanian people, who reject all forms of foreign conspiracy and interference in Syria’s affairs.

The parties asked those who are going to participate in the demonstration to abide by the slogans: “Rejection of Foreign Intervention” and “Hands Off Syria.”

The parties that called for this protest are the Arab Socialist Baath Party - Jordan, the Arab Progressive Baath Party, the National Movement for Direct Democracy, the Jordanian Democratic People’s Party, the Jordan Communist Party, and the Jordanian Democratic Popular Unity Party.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic Edition.
In case you missed it:
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian