Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.
Every day, a few hours before dawn, the British Jewish leadership unleashes its daily smear against the Labour Party and its leader. Although this relentless operation tells us little about Corbyn and the Labour Party it is very revealing of the Jewish leadership and the Israeli propaganda project.
Jewish Labour MP Luciana Berger declared yesterday that she feels “unwelcome” in her party after a video emerged of Jeremy Corbyn remarking that British Zionists have, “no sense of English irony.” In the clip, Mr Corbyn says, “British Zionists clearly have two problems. One is they don’t want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either.”
On Twitter, MP Berger responded: “The video released today of the leader of @UKLabour making inexcusable comments – defended by a party spokesman – makes me as a proud British Jew feel unwelcome in my own party. I’ve lived in Britain all my life and I don’t need any lessons in history/irony.”
Either knowingly or not, Mrs. Berger managed to validate ChaimWeizmann’s* essential observation: ‘there are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America.”** In Weizmann’s view, it doesn’t matter where Jews dwell, because wherever they are they remain primarily Jewish, and it is Jewishness that determines who they are: their politics, culture and national aspiration. If MP Berger knew something about irony she wouldn’t have fallen so easily into this trap. She would have noticed that while Corbyn is pointing at “Zionists” in a polite sarcastic manner, she takes offense as a “British Jew.”
But surely, this is a welcome development. It shows once again that the good old ‘dichotomy’ between Jews and Zionists may not hold water. Like Weizmann, in Berger’s eyes, so t seems, Jews and Zionists are somehow the same. You may hold it against me, but I tend to believe that both Berger and Weizmann have a point. It is pretty much impossible to determine where exactly Zionism ends and ‘the Jew’ starts. Impossible because such a demarcation line doesn’t exist. As we know, even the Jewish so-called ‘anti’ Zionists follow Weizmann’s mantra, they operate in racially exclusive Jewish political cells that are even more segregated than the Jewish state. Rather than acting as Palestinian supporters who happen to be of Jewish origin, members of JVP prefer to see themselves as Jewish voice for peace. And rather than being Labour Party members who happen to be of Jewish descent, members of the JVL adhere to Weizmann’s philosophy, they choose to operate within a Jews only political group.
The Jewish emancipation that began after the French Revolution promised to make Jews equal to their neighbours. With this, the emancipation had limited success. In France, America, Britain and other countries, Jewish political bodies act in defiance of the emancipation and its promise, they operate in the interests of the few and not the many. In Britain, the Jewish leadership is openly acting against a national party and its leader. It pushes its definition of racism that applies to just one people instead of fighting racism (universally) against any people. It promotes the interests of a foreign criminal state with an horrendous record of war crimes and human rights abuses.
Weizmann was a visionary character. Zionism, as he painted it, has, over time, won the minds and the hearts of the Jews. Luciana Berger confirmed this when she expressed her offense as a “British Jew” to a mild critique of ‘Zionists’ lack of irony’. The JVL website confirms Weizmann’s observation that they see themselves as Jews before anything else.
While many British Jews may be happy with their community leaders, some Jews might find these developments concerning, and for a good reason. Some Jews see themselves as British first. These Jews will never have a voice ‘as Jews’ because they grasp that it is this attitude that makes Jews into Weizmann’s Zionists. Their only option is to sneak out of the ghetto, alone. and in the wee small hours. They will have to depart from the tribe and the sooner the better.
BEIRUT, LEBANON (6:30 A.M.) – The Syrian Arab Army continued their trolling campaign in the Idlib Governorate, Friday, as their Tiger Forces released another spy video from behind enemy lines.
The official media wing for the Tiger Forces released footage from the jihadist stronghold of Sarmada this week, as one of their spies roamed around the town without being caught by Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham or the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
Sarmada is an imperative town that is located near the large Turkish city of Reyhanli in the Hatay Province.
As shown in the video below, the Tiger Forces spy roams around Sarmada undetected by the jihadist rebels who control this strategic town:
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed concern Thursday over reports that human rights activists in Saudi Arabia face the death penalty.
The two countries are locked in a diplomatic dispute over Canada’s criticism of the kingdom’s human rights record, but Trudeau said Canada continues to “engage diplomatically” with Saudi Arabia.
Human rights groups say Saudi prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for five human rights activists, including, for the first time, a woman.
The five stand accused of inciting mass protests in mainly Shiite areas of the kingdom’s oil-rich Eastern Province. Human rights groups say that the execution threat is a calculated bid to stifle dissent.
“I think it’s important to have positive relationships with countries around the world,” Trudeau told a press conference in British Columbia.
“At the same time, we have expressed our concern with the sentence handed down by Saudi Arabia, our concern for defending human rights and our shared values all around the world,” he added.
“Canada will continue to stand up strongly for human rights,” said Trudeau.
Two weeks ago Canada called for the immediate release of detained activists, including award-winning women’s rights campaigner Samar Badawi.
Saudi Arabia froze all new trade and investments, moved to pull out thousands of Saudi students from Canadian universities and pledged to stop all medical treatment programs in Canada. State airline Saudia also suspended flights to Toronto.
In the end the Saudis gave its students an extension until September 22, according to several universities.
صعود المقاومة.. من مرحلة تحرير لبنان على الرغم من انهيار النظام العربي العام، وإلى مشروع إقليمي يجابه الأميركيين والإسرائيليين وبعض العرب المستثمرين في الإرهاب.. يُشكل استجابة منطقية للتصدي لتوسّع التدخل العسكري الأميركي في عالم عربي مكشوف. الدليل موجود في الاحتلال الأميركي العسكري لأفغانستان والعراق واليمن وسورية وليبيا والسودان والصومال وغيرهم.. وسابقاً لبنان الذي احتله تحالف غربي بقيادة «المارينز» في ثمانينيات القرن الماضي.. وحرّرته المقاومة بطرد المحتلين، الغربيين والإسرائيليين لاحقاً.
فكيف يمكن مجابهة الأطراف المحليين وترك الرأس الأميركي لينتج أطرافاً عربية جديدة تتآمر على أهلها.. فكيف تتمظهر قوة المقاومة؟
أولاً في دحر الإرهاب من 80 من سورية ومنعه من تقسيم العراق والحيلولة دون استيلائه على اليمن والإمساك بقسم وازن من القرار السياسي في لبنان.
ولمنع الأميركيين من التفكير بحرب عسكرية إقليمية جديدة، أطلقت المقاومة رسائل شديدة اللهجة والصدقية تعكس مستواها القتالي والجماهيري. فيما ردت واشنطن برسائل مضحكة وردّت على ألسنة قائد القوات اللبنانية سمير جعجع ومستشار الرئيس الأميركي بولتون ومسؤول الدفاع الأميركي الجنرال روبرت كاريم، ورئيس الحكومة سعد الحريري.
ما هو ردّ المقاومة؟
البداية في إلحاق هزيمة بأكبر هجوم عسكري للتحالف العربي ـ الأميركي على الساحل الغربي لليمن.. تلاه هجومان على بارجة عسكرية سعودية وأخرى تغطية عند باب المندب.
استكمالاً، ووسط أعنف تهديدات أميركية، لإيران.. نفذت طهران أكبر مناورات برية ـ بحرية في منطقة مضيق هرمز وسط صمت أميركي ـ سعودي ـ إسرائيلي كامل.
بدوره عرض حزب الله صواريخ، أطلق نماذج منها على مدن محتلة في فلسطين في العام 2006، وهي رسالة صارخة تقول بلغة الإشارات، إنّ بحوزة المقاومة صواريخ أكثر دقة وذات تأثير أكبر وبأعداد هائلة. أما المقاتلة «الكوثر» الإيرانية التي كشفت عنها طهران فيكفي إقرار «الروس» بأنها طائرة نوعية ومقاتلة حديثة من إنتاج «إيراني كامل».. وهذا يدلّ على وجود أعداد منها لا تُحصى وتنتظر أي هجوم خارجي.
وهناك مَن يؤكد أنّ انتشار الطائرات المسيّرة من دون طيار في غزة واليمن وربما لبنان.. هو بمساندة إيرانية.. فكم لدى إيران منها؟
أما لجهة إقرار «إسرائيل» بقوة حزب الله، وبالتالي إيران فيعتبر تسليماً بعجزها عن شن حرب بمفردها على لبنان أو إيران أو سورية.. فقد تحتاج إلى إسناد أميركي ـ غربي ـ مباشر.. باعتبار أنّ أي إسناد سعودي أو اماراتي لا قيمة له إلا بالدعم المالي فقط، والذي تلتزم به أبو ظبي والرياض بشكل دائم ومن دون أي ضغوط عليهما.
لكن الترجمة السياسية لهذا التفوق تبدو واضحة في صور أخرى.. بدأت بزعم بولتون بأن روسيا وعدت الأميركيين بسحب الإيرانيين من سورية. معاوداً بعد يومين فقط التصحيح بأن موسكو قالت له بأن سحب الإيرانيين من سورية عملٌ ممكن.. وبدلاً من الاستمرار في إيقاع الفتنة بين روسيا وإيران في سورية، التزم البيت الأبيض صمت العاجزين محاولاً إحياء المفاوضات مع الرئيس الروسي بوتين.
إلا أنّ الضربة القاصمة سدّدها النائب نواف الموسوي القيادي في حزب الله الذي كشف «ببراءة» عن عرض سعودي للرئيس الأسد ببقائه رئيساً دائماً لسورية مع إعادة إعمارها بشكل كامل اقتصادياً وسياسياً من قبل المحور الأميركي ـ السعودي. وهذا مقابل قطع علاقات دمشق بمحور المقاومة انطلاقاً من قطع العلاقات مع طهران.
وهذا عرض خبيث، يريد تنفيذ أهداف الحصار الأميركي المضروب على إيران، وإنهاء المقاومات عند حزب الله والحشد الشعبي في العراق وأنصار الله اليمني، مضحياً بالمعارضات الوهمية التي يؤيدها على مستوى المنطقة.
وكعادته، كان الرئيس بشار الأسد وطنياً وامتداداً لعصر أبيه الرئيس المرحوم حافظ الأسد، فرفض العرض متمسكاً بحلف سورية الأبية مع حلف المقاومة. فالشام صاحبة الريادة في مقاومة المستعمرين وأذنابهم.
لقد قدمت الهند مشهداً صغيراً عن تأثرها بالحلف السوري، مع المقاومة، ورفضت مساعدات بمئة مليون دولار هبة من دولة الإمارات لمنطقة هندية، أصابتها سيول وفيضانات قتلت مئات الأفراد وشرّدت الملايين.
وجاء الرفض على خلفية التخوف الهندي من انتشار الفكر الإرهابي مع المساعدات الإماراتية على جاري العادة الخليجية بالربط بين نشر الوهابية والمساعدات، مع الإشارة إلى أنّ غالبية السكان في المناطق المتضررة مسلمون.
إنّ سورية التي تقاوم هجوماً استعمارياً دولياً وإرهاباً غير مسبوق في التاريخ، نجحت في تصنيع راجمة شديدة التطوّر للقذائف الصاروخية بإمكاناتها الداخلية الصرفة.. وبإقرار روسي وصمت غربي يتعجب كيف لهذه الدولة أنّ تستمر بعد معاناة سبع سنوات، في إنتاج الكهرباء والماء والأمن الداخلي ومقاتلة الإرهاب وأجور الموظفين والعناية بالقوى الأمنية ورعاية الانتظام العام وسحب النفايات.
أما الأميركيون المذهولون من نجاة الدولة السورية بقوة إمكاناتها، فأطلقوا على لسان حليفهم قائد القوات اللبنانية سمير جعجع نظريات أوهى من خيط العنكبوت وقوس قزح.. وذلك بزعمه و»بكل براءة» أنّ الأميركيين وحلفاءهم عازمون على سحب الإيرانيين من سورية و»لبنان»! مضيفاً بأن «الرئيس الأسد راحل معهم بكل تأكيد».. فلا يبقى إلا جعجع وريث الخط المتحالف مع الاستعمار الفرنسي والأميركي وصولاً إلى حلفه مع الإسرائيليين الذين احتلوا لبنان بالتعاون مع «قواته» من الثمانينيات وحتى العام 2000.
بدا جعجع في مقابلته التلفزيونية أداة إعلامية تحاول بث التفاؤل في مشروع مهزوم ومصاب بشكل كامل.. لذلك ظهر كمهرّج يعتمد على الأحلام في عالم التوازنات والواقعية، واضعاً كل آماله في عباءة الحلف الأميركي ـ السعودي ـ الإسرائيلي، أما «قواته» فهي للزوم بعض العمليات الداخلية فقط، ولا يريد إلا بضع وزارات تؤكد تموضعه في الساحة المسيحية وحصتها في القرار السياسي اللبناني.
لجهة رئيس الحكومة المكلف سعد الحريري فيشكل رسائل أميركية ـ سعودية لعرقلة أي حكومة جديدة في لبنان، تستند إلى نتائج الانتخابات الأخيرة. لذلك يعتمد «السعد» على أدائه ضد سورية بتفجير مسجد السلام في طرابلس لمنع التطبيع الكامل للعلاقات السياسية والاقتصادية معها، كما يستند على نتائج المحكمة الدولية لتقليص دور حزب الله في السياسة اللبنانية.
لذلك يقدّم الشيخ سعد كل ما تريده الرياض، والمطلوب فقط أنّ «ترضى» عنه ليستمر في دوريه المتكاملين، زعيماً للسّنة وبالتالي رئيساً دائماً للوزراء، وموافقة ولي العهد محمد بن سلمان على إعادة تنشيط الدور الاقتصادي لعائلة «السعد» في السعودية. وبذلك تدوم «النعم».. والجمع بين الدين.. والدنيا.
أما الإشارة الأميركية الجديدة لعرقلة انتصار المقاومة في الإقليم، فتجسّدت في زيارة قام بها مستشار الدفاع الأميركي الجنرال روبرت كاريم على رأس وفد إلى لبنان، مقدّماً عرضاً لتسليح الجيش اللبناني وحمايته مقابل نشر اليونيفيل عند حدود لبنان الشرقية مع سورية. وبذلك تصبح الحدود الجنوبية مع فلسطين المحتلة متساوية بالحالة العدائية مع حدود لبنان مع دمشق قلب العروبة. بالطبع فإن الرئيس العماد ميشال عون، لم يقبل. لكنه أطلق تعبيراً «التفافياً» وذكياً، بقوله إنّ مثل هذه الأمور تحتاج إلى حكومة هي غير موجودة حالياً، ويعلم رئيس البلاد، أنّ قرارات على مستوى توسعة مدى حركة اليونيفيل تحتاج إلى «إجماع وطني» يستحيل توفره أو إقراره.
فتبدو إجابات الرئيس استدراجاً لمعرقلي تشكيل الحكومة، للعودة عن العُقد التي يطلقونها بين الحين والآخر، لتعطيل تأليف حكومة جديدة.
هذا ما يكشف الفارق الكبير بين رسائل حازمة وصادقة نفّذت محتواها جبهة المقاومة في كل الميادين، مقابل رسائل من الحلف الأميركي، «تبيعُ» أحلافاً وهمية وزائفة ليست لها مرتكزات على الأرض.
وهكذا يواصل حلف الحريري ـ جعجع الاعتماد على اندلاع حروب أميركية كبرى في الإقليم من أجل كسب رضى السعودية وسعدها وجعجع!!
علماً أنّ واشنطن لم يسبق لها أنّ خاضت حروباً من أجل غيرها، عودوا إلى التاريخ حتى تتبينوا كم مرة باع الأميركيون أدواتهم الإقليمية برخص التراب؟
Spiritual Empowerment and Defense Readiness: Iran’s “Trump Card” Against US-Israeli Aggression
Do religion, spirituality, and ethics have any strategic significance?
Increasingly, since the time of Machievelli, the Western answer to that question has been “no.” According to the dominant view of Western elites, religious factors are usually a strategic liability rather than an asset. A spiritual soldier, according to this view, is less willing to fight. An ethical commander is less willing to make the hard decisions that lead to victory. And a religious society is likely to be scientifically and technologically backwards, and therefore unequipped with the latest weapons systems and strategies.
This dominant Machievellian view has been influenced by Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. Hobbes famously argued that humans have emerged from a state of nature, the war of all against all, by gradual conquests of ever-larger kingdoms, each of which is tyrannically ruled by a single sovereign. The sovereign tyrant crushes anyone who spreads disorder or challenges his authority, thereby pacifying his realm and facilitating commerce and technological innovation. All human progress, according to Hobbesians, is the product of tyranny. Therefore, tyranny is good! What’s more, by wars of aggression the tyrant enlarges the boundaries of his state, brings more peoples and lands into his realm, and thereby creates even more peace and prosperity. Therefore, wars of aggression are good![1]
The Machievellian-Hobbesian view, through a Nietzschean transmutation of values, takes what all non-psychopathic humans know is evil—tyranny and aggressive warfare—and redefines it as good. Simultaneously, it takes what all non-psychopathic humans know is good—resistance to tyranny and refusal to submit to, or perpetrate, aggression—and redefines it as evil.
Such a psychopathic philosophy of statecraft and war is clearly inimical to God-given human nature. By what process has our planet’s most technologically, economically, and politically powerful civilization adopted as its guiding principle a psychopathic philosophy that the 99% of humans who are not psychopaths—the vast majority of all populations, including those of psychopath-ruled countries—instinctively reject?
The triumph of psychopathy in Western statecraft is the product of the West’s post-Christian culture. Christianity, more than any other religion, rigorously preaches peace, as exemplified by the prophet Jesus’s (PBUH) injunction to “turn the other cheek,” his refusal to support anti-Roman militancy, and his insistence that “the meek will inherit the earth.” Unfortunately, even after the teachings of Jesus had spread, it became obvious that no then-existing human society could organize itself according to such principles and survive. Mainstream Christianity, largely authored by Paul and institutionalized by the Nicean Council, became the official religion of the warlike Roman Empire by emphasizing Jesus’s statement “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s” and telling people to let the psychopathic Caesars rule. This amounted to abdicating religion’s role as the foundation of human society, fostering a schizoid split between “good” religion and “evil” politics. (Why good people would and should allow their societies to be dominated by evil leaders was never adequately explained by Constantinian Christians.)
Western civilization was constructed around this schizoid split between religion, the realm of mere ideals, and a completely different and vastly uglier set of political and social realities. This framework fostered the emergence of Machievelli, who threw religion and its ideals out the window. As Christianity lost its hold over the West, materialist-atheist Machievellianism, barely tempered by wooly-headed and rationally-indefensible humanism, became the order of the day.
Today, psychopathic Machievellians rule the West. Their subjects, who are mainly either wooly-headed humanists or residual Christians, are not psychopaths. They feel an instinctive revulsion toward aggression and tyranny. So the Western rulers are forced to dupe their subjects by disguising aggression as defense, and disguising tyranny as “freedom” or “democracy.”
The history of US wars during the past five decades shows that psychopathic leaders can indeed dupe their subjects, at least for a certain period, into believing that an obvious war of aggression is actually defensive, and that they are fighting for “freedom” and “democracy” rather than tyranny. But such deceptions have an Achilles heel: They quickly wear off as the truth emerges and as the public tires of the unjust war.
The case of the US war on Vietnam exemplifies this process. During the period that US neocolonial aggression against Vietnam was relatively unknown to the public (the 1950s and early 1960s) it was possible to wage the war without encountering major problems with morale and public opinion. Then when it was necessary to escalate the war to the point that it could no longer be hidden from the public, US leaders orchestrated the Gulf of Tonkin deception to create the illusion that the US was under attack and that North Vietnam was the aggressor. This deception, grotesquely obvious as it was, worked for a few years, thanks to the compliant media. But gradually the truth about the US war on Vietnam—that it constituted immoral aggression in service to tyranny—leaked out to the public. Soon the American people in general, and US troops in particular, turned against the war, making it unsustainable over the long term.
The same process happened fifteen years ago with the US wars on Iraq and Afghanistan. Those wars, planned many years before they were launched, were pre-legitimized by the false flag operation of September 11th, 2001, whose purpose was to create the impression that the coming wars were defensive responses to an unprovoked attack on America. Once again, as in the case of Vietnam, the ruse worked for a few years. But as the truth about US aggression and tyranny leaked out, the public, and a substantial segment of the military, once again turned against the wars.[2]
The history of the US wars on Vietnam and Iraq underlines two critically important strategic facts. First, the US cannot hope to win a war with air power alone; victory requires a substantial and politically problematic commitment of troops on the ground. Second, any major commitment of US troops can only be made under the pretext that the US is engaging in defense rather than aggression; and even when extraordinary means are used to create this pretext (as in the case of 9/11) the legitimizing effect quickly wears off in the face of determined resistance by the targets of US aggression. The more time goes by, the more the public and elements of the military turn against the war.
US decision makers are, for the most part, aware of the above-described facts. They know that smaller wars, where they can quickly declare victory and go home (as in Grenada and the Iraq war of 1990) are much more likely to be successful than larger and more ambitious wars (Vietnam and the post-9/11 Iraq invasion and occupation). They dread committing major US ground forces to any large scale land war in Asia, knowing that the results are almost certain to be negative, and quite possibly catastrophic. After the Iraq debacle, the idea of a major US occupation of another large Middle Eastern country is, for all practical purposes, politically unthinkable.
The above considerations illustrate an important asymmetry between US and Iranian capabilities in any prospective future conflict. US leaders are in the unenviable position of having to wage all-out psychological warfare against their own population in order to brainwash their people and troops into accepting ongoing hostilities. (Such brainwashing campaigns have become more difficult in the internet era.) They are also faced with the problem that the longer hostilities persist, the more the public and an element of the military is likely to turn against the war effort.
Iran’s leaders face a very different “morale curve” with respect to prospective hostilities with the US. The Iranian people know that any US aggression against their country is in fact aggression; there is no conceivable way that US leaders could trick Iran’s people into believing that a US attack on Iran was somehow “defensive.” Clearly Iran’s leaders will direct a population that, in accordance with God-given (non-psychopathic) human nature, will rally to the defense of their nation. Additionally, the very strong element of religion in Iran will contribute to the spiritual strength of a population ready to make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary in warfare. And finally, the fact that Iran’s majority religion is Islam, which teaches that God not only authorizes but strongly encourages and rewards sacrificing in defensive warfare—a religious outlook institutionalized in the Islamic Republic—bodes well for Iran’s prospects in any war with the USA, and for its ability to deter such a war.
It is worth noting that the Machievellian-Hobbesian preference for a tyrannical and immoral sovereign is being tested by the presidency of Donald Trump. The immorality and tyrannical egotism of Trump have aroused fervent opposition to the man and his policies, both in the USA itself and around the world. It seems doubtful that an unpopular leader like Trump could successfully sustain any major, long-term military campaign against Iran, especially if it involved large numbers of “boots on the ground.” That Trump himself ran for president calling for a drawdown of the US presence in the Middle East, based on his recognition that the Iraq, Libya, and Syria wars have been disasters—a position that contrasted sharply with the more hawkish, interventionist posture of Hillary Clinton—makes it even unlikelier that he could betray and anger his supporters by launching an even more dangerous and difficult war on Iran. Not only would at least half of Trump’s supporters tend to oppose such a move, his extreme detractors, who are legion, would oppose it even more fervently. Any initial war fever, which Trump might hope would distract from his domestic problems, would quickly wear off.
Iran’s leadership, in marked contrast with America’s, is grounded in morals and ethics, not Machievellian-Hobbesian nihilism. Those morals and ethics derive from the religion of Islam, a 1400-year-old tradition that has proven to harmonize well with God-given human nature. Though the various segments of Iran’s population vary in their religious attitudes and behavior, the vast majority accept the basic morality and ethics that convince them, like all non-psychopathic humans, that aggression must be resisted. Thus Iran’s leadership finds itself in relative harmony with its population on the question of national self defense. That means that in any serious conflict with Trump’s USA, Iran will have staying power, while the US will wilt as the fire burns longer and hotter.
For a detailed exposition of this view, see Ian Morris, War! What Is It Good For?: Conflict and the Progress of Civilization from Primates to Robots (NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014). ↑
Did Canadians get to vote on whether or not to bring potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists to Canada? No. Will Canadians get a say in where these potentially dangerous men will be settled? Highly unlikely.
Ninety-eight members of the White Helmets, and a few hundred of their families, were evacuated by Israel and allies to Jordan late in evening of July 21. They will seemingly be shipped off to a few Western nations for resettlement: Canada, the UK, and Germany. So far, Canada has pledged to take 50 White Helmets and around 200 family members.
Wrongly dubbed the “Syrian Civil Defense” (the actual Syrian Civil Defense has existed since 1953), the White Helmets narrative is flawed in every conceivable manner.
Packaged as neutral, heroic, volunteer rescuers, who have “saved 115,000 lives”, according toWhite Helmets leader Raed Al Saleh, they are in reality a massively Western-funded organization with salaried volunteers, and have no documentation of those 115,000 saved. They contain numerous members who have participated in or supported criminal acts in Syria, includingtorture, assassinations, beheading, and kidnapping of civilians, as well as inciting Western military intervention in Syria.
James LeMesurier, a former member of the British military who founded the White Helmets, did so in countries neighbouring Syria: in Turkey and Jordan. They have since worked solely in terrorist-held areas of Syria, and according to Syrian civilians in eastern Ghouta, they worked directly with, or were themselves, extremists of Jaysh al-Islam or other extremist groups. Civilians in east Aleppo said that White Helmets worked with al-Qaeda in Syria (the Nusra Front).
The fact that White Helmets centres are frequently, if not always, found near or next to headquarters of al-Qaeda and other terrorist factions further supports the accusations that they collaborate with terrorists—even with ISIS, as noted by ISIS hostage John Cantlie. He described the White helmets as an “ISIS fire brigade“.
White Helmets have also been at the scene of executions; filmed standing over dead Syrian soldiers; cheering on and cleaning up after an execution in Daraa Governorate, and disposing ofthe bodies of assassinated Syrian soldiers (including decapitated bodies) in Daraa Governorate.
White Helmets members were present to welcome Saudi terrorist Abdullah al-Muhaysini, leader of al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) who the US government designated a terrorist for “acting for or on behalf of” al-Nusra, and helping to finance them.
Over sixty White Helmets members have clear ties to terrorist and extremist groups, as shown bytheir own social media accounts and videos. In many of their own photos they hold weapons. Some White Helmets members have called for the murders of Shia villagers in Idlib governorate, and were instrumental in the massacre and injury of over 300 villagers, including 116 children in April 2017.
Not exactly neutral and members of the Daraa batch of White Helmets could very possibly be among those soon to be en route to Western nations.
Not Russian propaganda: Canadian, American, British journalists first exposed the White Helmets
In September 2014, independent Canadian journalist Cory Morningstar wrote about the New York City PR firm, Purpose Inc, and its propaganda role regarding the White Helmets. In March andApril 2015, independent US journalist Rick Sterling, further scrutinized the White Helmets and related “humanitarian” groups serving to call for a no-fly-zone in Syria.
Since then, and for years now, concerned journalists and commentators have written or posed questions on the entity known as the White Helmets. In addition to the years-long investigations by Vanessa Beeley, commentators – from former British ambassador to Syria Peter Ford, award-winning US journalist Gareth Porter, award-winning journalist John Pilger, and even rock legendRoger Waters, have noted that the White Helmets are a dangerous and fraudulent group, or asPilger put it, a propaganda construct.
I have already outlined this chronology of investigations, refuting corporate media claims that voices critical of the White Helmets stem from Russian influence. Yet, slavish supporters of the White Helmets, continue to demonize anyone posing critical and needed questions on this group, generally labelling such people as “Russian bots”, “influenced by Russia”, or some variation of that, in an attempt to insist only people under the influence of Russia have been critical of the White Helmets.
In the case of the Atlantic Council’s Ben Nimmo, his tweet on the lack of or scant mention by RT or Sputnik in 2014, 2015, to mid 2016 of the White Helmets supports my argument: those are precisely the times when the above-mentioned independent journalists were investigating the group.
White Helmets next to terrorists’ headquarters
In Syria, I saw two different White Helmets centres in close proximity to terrorists’ headquarters: one in eastern Aleppo, and one in Saqba, eastern Ghouta. The Saqba centre was two hundred metres from a factory extremists used to manufacture mortars and missiles, quite possibly those used to bomb civilians in Damascus.
It contained a fire-truck stolen from the real Syrian Civil Defense, as well as ambulances and vehicles all torched when the White Helmets left Ghouta with terrorists of Jaysh al-Islam and Faylaq al-Rahman, among others. They were all safely transported to Idlib as per the deal with the Syrian government.
The other White Helmets centre I saw was in the Ansari district of Aleppo’s east. Formerly a school (and now returned to this status), this centre was a half minute’s walk to the headquarters of al-Qaeda in Syria, as well as the Abu Amara Brigades, and other extremists.
Vanessa Beeley, who had previously been to Ansari, wrote a detailed article additionally noting that just 200 metres from that same White Helmets centre was Al Mashad Square, where 12-year-old Palestinian youth, Abdullah Issa, was savagely tortured and then slowly beheaded.
In the Old City, next to Aleppo’s citadel last May, I spoke with an older man who had remained in Aleppo during the terrorists’ rule. He told me: “The Civil Defence is supposed to rescue people, but they used to steal women’s earrings from their dead bodies. If she was wearing gold, they’d cut her hand to steal it. They are thieves, not rescuers. We saw them murdering people, many times.”
In Douma and Kafr Batna, I spoke with civilians who told me they saw Jaysh al-Islam extremists wearing White Helmets uniforms, and White Helmets working with Jaysh al-Islam. Another eastern Ghouta resident, Marwan Qreisheh, said the early White Helmets members who came to Ghouta weren’t Syrian, didn’t speak Arabic, and used their money to attract “volunteers”.
He spoke of them staging rescue scenes: “They’d start filming and claiming that SAA hit this area, it was in front of our eyes, and we knew it was all staged, but we didn’t dare to stand against them because they would kill us, they would empty their gun in you immediately.”
Who killed the civilians in White Helmets Douma videos?
It was the White Helmets who released (WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC) videos and photosalleging a chemical attack in Douma in April 2018. Yet, no civilian among the many I met in Douma believed there had been a chemical attack and medical staff didn’t see patients exposed to a chemical agent. More recently, the OPCW ruled out the use of a nerve agent used in Douma, finding only traces of “chlorinated organic chemicals”.
So, who and what killed the women and children shown in the White Helmets-distributed video from Douma? Did the White Helmets take part in their murder, or merely film their bodies (somearranged) after the fact?
Corporate media has diligently avoided asking a single honest question of the propaganda group they laud, and has for years attacked those of us who do ask questions and take testimonies of Syrian civilians on this matter.
Canadian cover for White Helmets
Canada has been assisting the White Helmets for some years now, under the pretext of aiding humanitarians. While the full extent of Canadian financial support to the White Helmets has yet to be revealed, at least Can$7.5 million (US$5.7mn) was given to the group, helping with “the development and expansion of early warning air raid systems.”
Following the Israeli evacuation of White Helmets and their families from southern Syria, Global Affairs Canada released a statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, on the “courageous volunteers”, regurgitating the White Helmets “save the innocent and the wounded” unsubstantiated claim.
Unsubstantiated because, in spite of the fancy videos, neither the White Helmets nor its UK backers can provide a list of the supposed over 115,000 civilians rescued.
While the media has lauded Canada’s role in the evacuation of the White Helmets members, it’s worth noting the person, Robin Wettlaufer, behind this evacuation effort. Wettlaufer met withWhite Helmet leader Raed Saleh (once denied entry to the US due to his potential ties to extremists, according to Mark Toner) in late June, as the Syrian army was regaining territory in Daraa governorate.
In fact, she is the Special Representative to the Syrian Opposition, something noted in a December 2016 Global Affairs Canada video featuring Wettlaufer.
Given that Wettlaufer is thus Canada’s Representative to extremists in Syria, her key role in instigating the evacuation of the White Helmets is hardly surprising, let alone praise-worthy. But it should be worrying to Canadians. Did Canadians get to vote on whether or not to bring potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists to Canada? No. No vote in the Parliament, no public discussion. Will Canadians get a say in where these potentially dangerous men will be settled? No sign of that so far, and indeed highly unlikely.
Why did the Canadian government refuse the entry of 100 injured Palestinian children from Gaza in 2014, a truly humanitarian effort, and yet will fast-track the entry of potentially dangerous men with potential ties to terrorists?
As for the claims of danger to the White Helmets in southern Syria, their comrades in eastern Aleppo and in eastern Ghouta were safely transported out of those areas, along with their families and with extremists who refused to take amnesty, while Aleppo and eastern Ghouta had peace restored. The White Helmets are potential security threats to citizens in the Western nations planning on hosting them.
As citizens privy to all this information and all the questions on the White Helmets, we must demand our governments reverse this plan, or at least provide us with confirmation that the immigrants in question have been fully investigated and have not been involved in terrorist activities in Syria in any way.
RELATED LINKS:
SYRIA: AVAAZ, PURPOSE & THE ART OF SELLING HATE FOR EMPIRE, September 17, 2014, Cory Morningstar, Wrong Kind of Green
Seven Steps of Highly Effective Manipulators: White Helmets, Avaaz, Nicholas Kristof and Syria No Fly Zone, April 9, 2015, Rick Sterling, Dissident Voice
Humanitarians for War on Syria, March 31, 2015, Rick Sterling, Counter Punch
EXCLUSIVE: The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake ‘White Helmets’ as Terrorist-Linked Imposters, September 23, 2016, Vanessa Beeley, 21st Century Wire
The White Helmets Files, variety of articles including especially the investigations of Vanessa Beeley, 21st Century Wire
A Flawed UN Investigation on Syria, March 11, 2017, Gareth Porter, Consortium News
JOHN PILGER: “WHITE HELMETS ARE A COMPLETE PROPAGANDA CONSTRUCT IN SYRIA”, May 24, 2017, RT.com, (exact clip here)
How the Mainstream Media Whitewashed Al-Qaeda and the White Helmets in Syria, January 6, 2018, Eva Bartlett, Global Research
LAST MEN IN ALEPPO: Al Qaeda Presented as ‘White Helmets’ for the Annual Terrorist ‘Oscar’ Nomination, January 28, 2018, Vanessa Beeley, 21st Century Wire
Ex-Pink Floyd singer denounces White Helmets as propaganda tool during Barcelona concert (VIDEO), April 16, 2018, RT.com
Torture, starvation, executions: Eastern Ghouta civilians talk of life under terrorist rule, June 10, 2018, Eva Bartlett, RT.com
‘Propaganda organization’: White Helmets ‘engage in anti-Assad activities’ – author Sy Hersh to RT, June 30, 2018, RT.com
Whitewashing the White Helmets – Peter Ford, Former UK Ambassador to Syria Responds to UK Government Statement, July 23, 2018, 21st Century Wire
White Helmets coming ‘home’: West & Israel provide ‘exceptional’ rescue strategy for NATO’s ghosts, July 26, 2018, Vanessa Beeley, RT.com
Uprooted Palestinian 
