Hariri Surrender: Defeated Hariri Declares Support to General Aoun’s Nomination to Presidency. Thanks to Nasrallah

Comment:

Once upon a time Hariri, while, leaving Beirut airport, said he will return to Beirut via Damascus Airport. Hariri nomination paved the way for of General Michel Aoun to the presidency, but this nomination is not the end of the presidency story. Victorious Nasrallah is commited to support  General Michel Aoun, but not committed to support what what has Hariri and Aoun agreed upon. In other words, Hariri shall be nominated as Prime Minister, but shall never be able to form a Cabinet without Nasrallah allies  such as Nabih Berri, Frangiye, and others. 

October 20, 2016

«كن عوني.. فأكون سعدك»!

استسلام مكابر

وجوم يخيّم على بيت الوسط: هكذا «تجرّع» الشيخ ترشيح الجنرال

بري: مشكلتي مع الحريري لا مع عون

بري بالنسبة لحزب الله «خط أحمر»

واشنطن والرياض: عقوبات على «حزب الله»

العونيون: ما كنا لنصل لولا حزب الله

فارس سعيد: الحريري وجعجع استسلما لحزب الله

طرابلس تنقلب على الحريري وخياره الرئاسي

Lebanon: Hariri Declares Support to General Aoun’s Nomination to Presidency

Former Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, announced on Thursday from the Central House his support to the nomination of General Michel Aoun to the presidency, saying “we agreed with Aoun that Lebanon is a nation for all its sons and a country with an Arab identity.”

“We reached an agreement to revitalize this cycle of the state, job opportunities, and basic services and to fully dissociate the Lebanese state from the Lebanese crisis,” Hariri said during his address at the Central House in the presence of political figures from the Future bloc.

“Lebanon was facing a historic moment that forces us to address all matters with full honesty and truthfulness,” Hariri underscored.

“Two years and a half ago, the mandate of President Michel Sleiman took an end, and Lebanon entered a vacuum; we have been warning of these risks,” Hariri added.

“We did not spare any effort to elect a President. We first nominated Lebanese Forces leader, Samir Geagea, yet this attempt was doomed to failure. Then, we decided to name consensual names but it also failed,” he said.

Source: NNA

Lebanon: Aoun Visits Berri, Hariri

The meetings held between House Speaker Nabih Berri and Change and Reform bloc Head, MP Michel Aoun, ended.

In the wake of the meeting, Aoun said “It is important to inform Speaker Berri of the progress in the presidential dossier. (…) The atmosphere was positive and we respect his opinion,” he said.

Later, media reports mentioned that Speaker Berri commented on his meeting with Aoun by saying, ” we listened to each other and our difference does not spoil our friendly relation.”

Aoun Visits Hariri

MP Michel Aoun, said upon leaving the “Center House” where he met with Future Movement leader Saad Hariri, “There is no double, triple or quadripartite agreement. There is a rather an accord on ways to manage the country’s affairs.”

“We visited [former] Prime Minister Saad Hariri to thank him for supporting our candidature to the presidency. We have both pledged to get the job done and bring Lebanon out of the crisis. (…) With dialogue, no party loses, and Lebanon eventually wins,” Aoun said.

“We wanted to discuss the pact, since it is not a Christian matter, but an agreement between all the Muslim and Christian components to adhere to conviviality, on the basis of equality. It is therefore not in a bilateral pact,” Aoun said.

“Trying to eliminate or control a certain sect tampers with the message of Lebanon which we are tasked to preserve, and this is what we agreed on,” he went on.

“We affirm that those who are opposing today are basing their judgment on old beliefs. (…) Lebanon is the jewel of the world. Can you believe that, with all what is going on in the world, we still have our independence,” Aoun said.

Source: NNA

Related Videos

Related articles

• Sheikh Qassem to Al-Manar Website: Hezbollah Supports Dialogue on Lebanon’s Presidency
• انتصار دولي إقليمي وخسائر محلية لا يستقيمان
• كلمات تأمل الوقوع تحت أعين قارئة شكوى للرئيس بري والسيد نصرالله منهما
• الحريري يلتحق بحزب الله: عون مرشحي
• هل «ضحّى» الحريري بنواب المستقبل؟
• نصف الطريق لدولة جديدة
• تبني ترشيح عون رسمياً… والتحوّل في ميزان القوى الإقليمي الدولي والمحلي

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Major Media Build a Universe for Hillary

Posted on October 19, 2016

by Richard Edmondson

[ Ed. note – The parallel universe that the media have built around Hillary Clinton is starting to show a few cracks. Two videos released over the past two days–scrutinizing a Democratic Party operative by the name of Scott Foval–have gone viral. The first one, uploaded October 17, has gotten 4.7 million views as of this evening, while the second, posted on the 18th, is already up to 2.1 million. The group which produced them, Project Veritas, is vowing to release similar videos at the rate of one per day from now up until the election.

Be that as it may, the mainstream media continue with their one-sided coverage of the presidential race. If the 2016 campaign has become the most absurd in the history of America, it is largely because the media have made it that way. It is the media, more so than the candidates, that have turned it into a circus, and I can’t help wondering how much credibility–already low to begin with–will be left them after this election is over. Why are the media doing it? Why are they in effect jettisoning what’s left of their credibility? Do they simply hate Trump that much? Or is there some other reason? In the following article Jon Rappoport delves into the media relationship with Hillary Clinton, and some of the points he makes give pause to wonder: just how much power do the Clintons really have? ]

by Jon Rappoport

October 13, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

The other day I wandered over to the New York Times to see what their front page looked like.

My, my. It was another universe.

Nothing about the pounding Hillary took in the second debate. Nothing about the latest email leaks showing extreme collusion between Hillary’s camp and the mainstream press. Nothing about Bill’s rape accusers taking front and center. Nothing about Hillary threatening those accusers. Nothing about Hillary’s role in creating ISIS. Nothing about election pollsters contributing to the Clinton Foundation. Nothing about outrage among FBI agents and DOJ attorneys after failure to prosecute Hillary in the email server crime—thus allowing her to continue her run for the Presidency. Nothing about her failing health. Nothing about polls (that show a Hillary lead) slanted by oversampling Democrats. Nothing about Hillary hiding out once again and avoiding press and public.

Instead, in this alternate NY Times universe, Trump’s campaign was falling apart. He was singlehandedly destroying the Republican Party and endangering upcoming Senate and House races. Hillary’s poll numbers were in good shape and her campaign was moving in the direction of an expected victory. And to top it off, one of the Times’ potato-head columnists burped out an op-ed about Trump’s “sad, lonely world.”

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

After I recovered, my first thought was: The Times is running cover for a vote-rig on election night: “As expected, Hillary Clinton cruised to an easy victory, sweeping nearly 30 states…”

I’m sure the headlines are already composed and the lead paragraphs are already written.

After that, I began thinking about major media companies, reporters, and pollster outfits contributing to the Clinton Foundation. What’s actually going on here? Cooking the news for Hillary is one thing; but why take the risk of actually delivering money to the Clintons?

You would only do something so egregious if you believed Hillary and Bill had accumulated a tremendous amount of power; if you were overtly signaling your loyalty to the King and Queen.

A few facts do, indeed, suggest such royal power.

Hillary has managed to position herself as the face and heart and soul of the Democratic Party. That is no small feat.

Hillary was able to maneuver an attack against Libya that eviscerated the whole country and sent it down into horrific chaos—and she was able to avoid any official blame for it.

Her Foundation has run a multi-billion-dollar, global, money-laundering machine for 20 years, during which time big donors have been accorded special economic and political favors—including the mind-bending permission to sell 20% of US uranium to Russia. The Foundation is, in essence, a new arm of the federal government. No federal agency has investigated it. The players and donors involved in the Foundation have such international clout, exposure of the game would set off a scandal making Watergate look like a pimple on the face of a cockroach living in another galaxy.

And here, perhaps, we have the core of the situation. The Clintons have always known that cash makes the winners and losers. And so they have become grand facilitators. Greasers of wheels. You want to get things done, law or no law? Go to the fixers and their Foundation. You want governments to give you contracts and concessions? Mining rights? Pharmaceutical sales? Disaster-aid monopoly? Pay to play through the Foundation. There is a slick pipeline for fast action. And it operates under the cover of a charity. Everybody’s doing it. Don’t worry, it’ll never be prosecuted. It’s too big and too dirty to fail. Oil billionaires are on board. National governments and presidents are on board. Mega-corporations are on board. Other charities are hooked in.

Just one example: Through the Foundation, friends of Bill Clinton cashed in on US government contracts (the pie to be cut up was $10 billion) to “help Haiti” in the wake of the 2010 earthquake. Human-aid experience? Know-how? Irrelevant. The whole scam looked like it was legit, coming through the US State Department, headed by Hillary, but it was really a Foundation operation. Who was helped? Mostly, the friends of Bill. Who was left out in the cold? The Haitians.

Major media outfits are basically saying to Hillary and Bill: “Look, too much information about the Foundation is leaking. We have to cover it. But we’ll never directly link you to it, Hillary. Your Presidential campaign is safe. We promise. Remember our little donation to the Foundation? Take that as a sign of our good faith.”

By now, the mainstream press could have blasted Hillary to smithereens re the Foundation’s crimes. Her campaign would be in smoking ruins. Her familiar pleas of “I didn’t know” would be falling on deaf ears all across the America. But it hasn’t happened.

The press is betting they can hold things together for her through Election Day. And they want to, because they still believe she and Bill are where the power is. It’s too late not to believe it. Bury all doubt, full steam ahead, pretend her campaign is on track, keep slamming Trump, and hope and pray.

Behind all this is the knowledge, fully grasped, that the Globalist agenda is at stake. Remaking the world as one economic and political order, under one elite management system—this is Hillary’s mantra. This is her mandate. This is her goal. Nothing can be allowed to derail the mission.

Now we are talking about the power behind, and far above, the Clinton throne. Major media are the propaganda arm of Globalism. That’s engraved in granite.

---

---

If Jeb Bush had been running against Hillary, as envisioned, then the press could have played a lot harder against Hillary, because Jeb is her Globalist cousin, and it would have made no difference who won.

But suddenly, the cowboy strolled into the saloon with his mouth on Go. Trump showed up.

With Jeb huddling in a corner, in a puddle of tears, sucking his thumb, Hillary and Bill didn’t have to worry about the press going after them. She was the only Globalist on the ticket. She would therefore catch a major break.

All would be well, and it was, until Trump’s numbers and supporters took off like 4th of July rockets.

Now the media have resolved to stay the course the rest of the way, even if it means Hillary’s aides will be dragging her fading carcass across the threshold of the Oval Office and propping her in the chair behind the Queen Victoria Resolute Desk, after the swearing-in ceremony on January 20, 2017.

To this end, they continue to build a universe for her. Synthetic, hermetically sealed.

Its typical fake name is: We Find No Smoking Gun.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails atNoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Obama’s confession: Post-Gaddafi Libya is a mess, but it doesn’t stop him wanting the same for Syria

Source

Claiming a lack of planning for the aftermath of the Libya revolution, US President Barack Obama has called it the “the biggest mistake” during his Presidency

World Bulletin / News Desk

Should the West have intervened in Libya to overthrow the “Kafkaesque” regime of strongman Moamer Kadhafi?

Surveying the chaos in the north African country five years on, with rival authorities and factions vying for power, many now concede a disastrous lack of planning.

US leader Barack Obama has cited the Libya intervention as the worst mistake of his presidency, telling Fox News that he regretted having failed “to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya”.

In Britain, a scathing parliamentary report last month found former prime minister David Cameron “ultimately responsible for the failure to develop a coherent Libya strategy”. 

Nicolas Sarkozy, who is angling to win back the French presidency next year, has defended France’s role in Kadhafi’s ouster, while admitting that after the country held elections in 2012 “we let Libya drop”.

A European diplomat who was in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi in 2011 said “there was no doubt” that Libya’s second city would have suffered a bloodbath without the intervention.

“There was a real revolution. People did not want to live a minute more under Kadhafi’s Kafkaesque regime,” he said.

Today, the UN-backed unity government is struggling to assert its authority nationwide since arriving in Tripoli in March, with a rival parliament in the east refusing to cede power to it.

In the aftermath of Kadhafi’s overthrow, the dictator’s arsenals were looted, fighters fanned out through neighbouring Niger, Mali and Tunisia, and ISIL gained a foothold on Europe’s doorstep.

A major operation is still under way to oust IS fighters from Sirte, Kadhafi’s hometown, which the rebels seized in June last year, with fears that they will regroup elsewhere in the country.

 Broad support 

In March 2011 the West, led by Britain and France and backed by NATO, enjoyed broad support for the intervention to support the revolution.

After taking up arms in February on the heels of the uprising in Libya’s northwestern neighbour Tunisia, the rebels faced a vicious backlash from Kadhafi.

The entourage of the strongman who had been in power for 42 years promised “rivers of blood”, especially in Benghazi, the birthplace of the revolt.

A UN Security Council resolution with Arab backing — Russia abstained — authorised the use of “all necessary means” to protect civilians and enforce a ceasefire and no-fly zone against Kadhafi’s forces.

It opened the way to Western and Arab air strikes, leading eight months later to the overthrow and death of Kadhafi, who was lynched after his convoy was hit by a NATO air strike.

By then, the conflict had claimed more than 30,000 lives, according to the former rebel National Transitional Council (NTC).

 No follow-up 

The NTC transferred power to an elected national assembly in August 2012, the first peaceful transition in Libya’s modern history, but rival forces have failed to coalesce into a single authority.

Regional powers jockeying for influence have also added to the instability.

Five years on, Chadian President Idriss Deby is just one of the regional leaders to accuse the West of failing to follow up on the overthrow of Kadhafi.

“You forgot about after-sales service,” he has often said.

A European diplomat said: “In retrospect, we… should not have washed our hands of it collectively. There was a sort of guilty detachment.”

But he said the new leadership “made it clear that they didn’t want foreign forces, including UN peacekeepers” in the country.

Libya expert Mattia Toaldo recalls that the Libyans repeatedly turned down Western offers of help, “saying they could manage on their own”.

Mahmoud Jibril, who was part of the rebel NTC, remembers the early post-Kadhafi days differently, telling AFP: “We warned them we needed them to rebuild our institutions after Kadhafi’s death, but everyone told us ‘our mission is accomplished’.”

 What about Syria? 

 Many point to the devastating war in Syria as a counter-example.

“War is claiming hundreds of thousands of lives in that country,” Toaldo said. “In Libya it is ‘only’ tens of thousands. And a political process is under way, however difficult it is.”

The repercussions are also felt in relations with Russia, with President VladimirPutin defending Moscow’s role in Syria where it backs strongman Bashar al-Assad.

“Some of the responsibility for what is happening… lies especially with our Western partners, above all the US and its allies,” Putin told French television.

“Remember how everyone rushed to support the Arab Spring? Where is that optimism now?” he asked. “Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organisations were destroyed as states?”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Nasser Kandil: معركة الموصل: بلاد ما بين النهرين في الاستراتيجية الأميركية

معركة الموصل: بلاد ما بين النهرين في الاستراتيجية الأميركية

خارطة تاريخية

ناصر قنديل

– تمتلك واشنطن نظرة مختلفة عن موسكو للتفاهمات حول سورية، فيما ترى موسكو أنّ التعاون في الحرب على الإرهاب وما يتضمّنه من إغراء لواشنطن بخلاص سريع من داعش يشمل حافزاً لتسريع التفاهمات، تنظر واشنطن لحاجتها السريعة لإبهار عسكري في الحرب على داعش قبيل الانتخابات الرئاسية، تمنح المعركة الانتخابية التي يخوضها الحزب الديمقراطي جرعة دفع شعبية وشحنة معنوية للناخبين، لم تتغيّر الاستراتيجية الأميركية بالاعتماد على الاحتواء المزدوج للجماعات الإرهابية، سواء جبهة النصرة أو تنظيم داعش، وهذا يترجم أميركياً بالنظر لمقايضة الوجود العسكري للنصرة، عبر التعاون في استهدافها وعزلها، وتقديم الغطاء بتوجيه ضربات لها، باحتلال مقاعد موازية لحجم معركة النصرة في المعادلة السياسية الجديدة لسورية، يقوم بإشغال هذه المقاعد جماعات سورية مرتبطة بالسياسة الأميركية، وتبدأ بالحصول على وضع خاص لشرق حلب خارج نطاق سيطرة الجيش السوري، من ضمن النظرة الأميركية لمفهوم التسوية، لكن الأخطر هو ما تحتفظ به واشنطن من نظرتها للحرب على داعش، حرب لا تزال واشنطن تراها طويلة، بل تريدها طويلة، لمقايضة وجود داعش في الجغرافيا السورية والعراقية بامتيازات أمنية وعسكرية أميركية، عبرت عنها الرسالة الدموية التي ترتبت على الغارة الأميركية على مواقع الجيش السوري في دير الزور.

– واشنطن لا تملك بدائل للتفاهمات، رغم كل التهويل، لكنها لن تمنح التسهيل إلا بالأثمان التي تحقق مصالحها، وهي تدرك الكلفة المترتبة على المضي بالحرب ضد النصرة وداعش بدونها، وعلى خلط الأوراق الذي يرتّبه ذلك بين الحرب على الإرهاب والحرب التي تتحدّث عنها هي وحلفاؤها بين الدولة السورية والمعارضة، وعلى خلط أوراق موازٍ للاستثمار على إثارة الملف الإنساني وما يرتبه من ضغوط على موسكو ودمشق وحلفائهما، والنظرة الأميركية التي تسلم نظرياً بوحدة سورية والعراق الجغرافية، تنظر نحو الجغرافيتين العراقية والسورية كمناطق نفوذ أمنية وعسكرية وسياسية، متعددة، تتوزعها مراكز دولية وإقليمية. لكن في قلب هذه النظرة تحتل المنطقة التي سلمتها واشنطن لتنظيم داعش، وتخوض نظرياً حرب استردادها، وتسعى لجعلها منطقة عمليات أميركية حصرية، في الأراضي السورية والعراقية. فهذه المنطقة هي محط النظر الأميركي استراتيجياً ولسنوات مقبلة، والنظر إلى خارطة انتشار داعش، والعودة بالذاكرة لظروف هذا الانتشار، وظروف وطبيعة المعارك ضد داعش، ستتيح التعرف إلى حجم الاهتمام الأميركي ونوعية النظرة الأميركية، طالما أن واشنطن هي مَن أعطى وواشنطن هي مَن يأخذ.

– تمتد المنطقة العابرة للحدود السورية العراقية تحت سيطرة داعش، بين نهري دجلة والفرات، وتحتل ما عرف تاريخياً ببلاد ما بين النهرين العليا، التي تصل إلى أبواب العاصمة العراقية بغداد، حيث تضيق المسافة الفاصلة بين نهري الفرات ودجلة، وتنفرج بعد تجاوز النهرين بغداد لتتشكّل بلاد ما بين النهرين السفلى.

وقد كانت هذه المنطقة التي عُرفت باسم ميزوبوتاميا الموئل التاريخي لحضارات لعبت دوراً حضارياً في بلاد الشرق، فمنها حضارة بابل وسومر وأكاد وأشور وكلدان وفيها نصف نفط سورية وربع نفط العراق، ومساحات زراعية هائلة مروية تشكل خزانات الغذاء تسورها الصحاري الشاسعة والجبال الشاهقة، وتقع على حدود واحدة مع تركيا، وتنتشر المدن فيها على ضفاف الأنهر وليس بينها، فمدينة الطبقة ومدينة الرقة ومدينة دير الزور على مجرى الفرات، كما مدينة تكريت ومدينة الموصل على مجرى دجلة، ومدينة الرمادي على مجرى الفرات العراقي، وتحتاج واشنطن أن تدخل الجيوش العراقية والسورية إلى المدن وأن تستردها ضمن التنسيق مع العمليات الأميركية، شرط أن يبقى ما بين النهرين، منطقة نفوذ أميركية، وهي منطقة تسهل إدارتها. فمساحتها التي تقارب مئة وخمسة وعشرين ألف كليومتر مربع لا يسكنها أكثر من مليون نسمة إذا احتسبت المدن الواقعة على مجاري الأنهر خارجها، وليس من باب الصدفة أن تركيا تنظم تحرّكها خارج ما بين النهرين، فتتحرك غرب الفرات في سورية من بوابة جرابلس، وشرق دجلة في العراق من بوابة بعشيقة، وعين «إسرائيل» وأمنها كانا دائماً على هذه المنطقة، لرمزيتها التاريخية، ورمزية نموذج بطلها نبوخذ نصر في حربه مع العبرانيين، وتذكّر الصهاينة المعاصرين لمعركة هرمجدون يعبّر عن هذا التوق التاريخي لسلخ هذه المنطقة عن الجغرافيتين السورية والعراقية. وقد حملت مرحلة الغزو الأميركي للعراق الكثير من الأدبيات والأحلام التاريخية بهرمجدون جديدة يثأر الصهاينة فيها لهزيمة أجدادهم ويُهزم فيها نبوخذ نصر جديد.

– من ضمن النظرة الأميركية لإدارة الاحتواء المزدوج، للعلاقة بداعش والنصرة، يحضر الاحتواء المزدوج لمفهوم الأمن «الإسرائيلي»، فلا يكون الإفراج عن الاستقرار الأمني لسورية والعراق والمناطق الحيوية من جغرافيتهما المشتركة، وفقاً للمنظور الأميركي إلا ربطاً بخريطة أمنية عسكرية تضمن فيها واشنطن أمن «إسرائيل»، وما بين النهرين هي الممر الإلزامي لكل تواصل بري بين المقاومة في لبنان وإيران، وبين إيران وسورية حكماً. وهي ممر إلزامي اقتصادياً لأنابيب النفط والغاز بين إيران والعراق نحو البحر المتوسط، واستطراداً هي ممر نهائي لأي ترتيب صيني إيراني للوصول التجاري نحو المتوسط، فالقيمة الاستراتيجية لهذه المنطقة تجعل منها بديلاً مقبولاً بعد الفشل الأميركي بالحصول على سورية كاملة، أو الحصول على العراق كاملاً، ليس بالضرورة عبر الاحتلال، بل عبر مقايضة الحرب المقبلة والجدية على داعش، بهدف الاقتلاع والاجتثاث، بترتيبات أميركية نفطية وأمنية،وربما بمفاوضات تتخطى سورية والعراق وأمنهما نحو الاعتبارات الدولية والإقليمية، تجاه ملف أمن «إسرائيل» ومشاريع السلام من جهة، وملف التعاون الروسي الصيني الإيراني والعبور إلى المتوسط بعد الانسحاب الأميركي من أفغانستان.

– معركة الموصل كمعركة تكريت كمعركة الرمادي، وربما كمعركة الرقة ودير الزور، طالما هي معارك تحرير مدن، فهي معارك على مجاري النهرين، وليست على الجغرافيا الواقعة بينهما، معارك لا تزعج واشنطن إذا خيضت بشروطها، طالما بقيت بلاد ما بين النهرين، مساحة شاسعة بعدد سكان ضئيل، يتحرّك فيها تنظيم داعش، كحال وزرستان الأفغانية والباكستانية، وتتحرّك في أجوائها الطائرات الأميركية بدون طيار.

– الجواب كان ويبقى بتعاون عسكري استراتيجي بين الجيشين السوري والعراقي من ضمن منظومة تعاون مع روسيا وإيران والمقاومة.

Related Articles

• The Real Purpose Behind the “Liberation” of Mosul?
• When Mosul Falls, Daesh Will Flee to the Safety of Syria. But What Then?
• » إشكالية لبنان وسورية والسعودية
• الأسد: النصر آتٍ وسنلتقي في حلب قريباً
• الجبير: مستعدون لوقف إطلاق النار في اليمن
• إشكالية لبنان وسورية والسعودية
• هل تستعيدُ مصر دورها؟
• ورقة دي ميستورا التي لم ولن تبصر النور
• عصر الجاهلية العربي الجديد!
• موسكو تحيي إعلان «المعابر»: هدنة أحادية الجانب في حلب
• اجتماعا لندن ولوزان: تخفيف الاحتقان من دون خيارات بديلة
• ما بعد «دابق»: أنقرة تناور بين «خطّين أحمرين»

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Zionism is Racism

Source

By Ludwig Watzal | American Herald Tribune | October 18, 2016

Hardly any knowledgeable person doubts that Zionist ideology is the purest form of racism. Zionism is Jewish disguised racism as a raison d’etat. Israel comes right after the U. S., as far as racism is concerned. That is why the U. S. donates to this racist regime $ 3.8 bn per year in order to keep this occupation regime going. Should anybody doubt the racism of the Israeli leadership, read the following article. [1]

Racism among the Israeli leadership is legendary. It started out with the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, saying: “Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment … Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.” Or David Ben-Gurion when he advised his General Staff; “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” But the dehumanization of the Arab population started already shortly after the Zionist colonizers arrived in the Land of Palestine.

The former terrorist and later Israel’s Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech before the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, termed the Palestinians as “beasts walking on two legs”. Or for the infamous Golda Meir “There is no such thing as a Palestinian.” One could go on and on with the racist statements of the Israel political establishment, not to speak of the violent racism of the colonial settlers in the Palestinian Occupied Territories that make the life of the Palestinians a living hell.

I guess that any intelligent Israeli knows who the real perpetrators are. The former Attorney General, Michael Ben-Yair, wrote in the daily Haaretz : “The Intifada is the Palestinian’s people’s war of national liberation. (…) We enthusiastically chose to become a colonialist society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the Occupied Territories, engaging in theft and finding justification for all these activities (…) We established an apartheid regime.” [2]

How come that all this seems to be unknown to the U. S. political establishment and their fawning media class? Can it be that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was right saying during an Israeli cabinet meeting; “Don’t worry, we control the United States.” Sharon’s dictum seems close to the truth when watching the behavior of the U. S. political class towards Israel. Most of the members of both houses of Congress are more concerned with Israel than with the well-being of their own constituency.

Just take Netanyahu’s appearances before Congress. In 2011, Netanyahu made President Obama look like a fool when he repudiated Obama’s views on the Middle Eastern conflict. The deputies had nothing better to do than jump up 29 times and frenetically cheer to Netanyahu’s chutzpah. They behaved slightly better when Netanyahu tried to torpedo Obama’s Iran deal before the Congress. This appearance happened without the consent of the Obama administration. The Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer, and the speaker of the House, John Boehner, wrapped up this political deal behind the back of the Obama administration. American self-esteem would have required to declare the Israeli ambassador persona non grata and banish him.

All these events are still overshadowed by Hillary Clinton’s servility towards Netanyahu. Clinton has not only threatened Iran with total “obliteration” if the country should dare to attack Israel but has also promised to Media mogul and mega-donor Haim Saban to go after the BDS movement after her election to the U. S. presidency. WikiLeaks published an email in which Clinton wrote that a “Potemkin peace process is better than nothing.” Such a Potemkin peace process has been followed by the U. S. in the last 36 years. This email showed further how influential Israel’s ambassador Dermer is and how Clinton and her staff are in the pocket of the Israelis. [3] It shows who calls all the shots in U. S. politics.

Apart from her Israel loyalty, Hillary Clinton, and her Ziocon supporters are threatening Russia with a nuclear attack if President Vladimir Putin does not dance to Washington’s pipe. The U. S. media does not report on this Clinton threat as they do not report on Clinton’s lying to Congress or her dubious email traffic that was a severe violation of U. S. national security for which she should have been indicted. They also did not report on Clinton’s using the “N-Word” for an African American. Instead of debunking Clinton and her lies and racism, the media keeps on demonizing Donald Trump for his misogynic rhetoric and former behavior. Rather of electing Hillary Clinton to the White House, the American people should put her in jail.

The election of Hillary Clinton will not only be a disaster for the Palestinian people but also to the world as a whole.

End Notes

[1] http://mondoweiss.net/2016/10/campaign-college-palestinians/

[2] http://www.haaretz.com/the-war-s-seventh-day-1.51513

[3] http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-envoy-told-clinton-camp-obama-tone-deaf-to-threat-from-iran/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=344f02f608-2016_10_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-344f02f608-54543629

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

A Realist’s View of the US Presidential Contest

Turkey and US Consolidate Terror Assets from Iraq to Syria

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 18.10.2016 | 

Turkey and US Consolidate Terror Assets from Iraq to Syria

This week Western news media were full of reports on the “epic” battle for Mosul where US-backed forces are supposedly set to defeat the Islamic State terror group besieging the northern Iraqi city.

There is little doubt that the Iraqi army aided by Iranian Shia militia and Kurdish Peshmerga are intent on routing the militants from Iraq’s second city, which has been under a reign of terror since June 2104.

But the intentions of other protagonists are decidedly more dubious. The US is providing air strikes supposedly to aid the ground forces penetrating Mosul, as are NATO members France and Turkey. Turkish air strikes on the city have reportedly begun despite objections from the Iraqi government, which is urging Ankara to stay out of the battle.

The Iraqi authorities have a long-running dispute with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government since Turkish military invaded northern Iraq last year, claiming that it had a deal with Baghdad to train Arab militias to fight the Islamic State (IS, also known as Daesh). Baghdad insists it gave no such permission and has time and again reiterated demands for Turkish troops to withdraw from its territory, but to no avail.

Far from withdrawing, Erdogan is pointedly ignoring the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi, asserting that his troops will march on Mosul. The launch of air strikes by Turkey serves to emphasize Erdogan’s determination to shape the battle for the city.

With typical bluster, Erdogan dismissed the Iraqi premier as nothing more than an “administrator of a Shia army”, and added: “If we say we want to be both at the table and in the field, there is a reason.”

As Hurriyet newspaper reported, Erdogan’s ambitions are more about gaining military and administrative control over Mosul in conjunction with the Syrian city of Raqqa, rather than liaising with the Iraqi government to eliminate IS.

Erdogan also stridently called on the US to side with Turkey in its ambitions rather than with Iraq. Addressing Washington, he said: “Do you have a NATO partnership with Iraq? No. Then you can’t put us in a position of preference against Iraq.”

Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed concerns that jihadi extremists could flee from Mosul into neighboring Syria, presenting a greater challenge to the Syrian-Russian campaign to defeat terror groups there. Lavrov said that Russia would exercise military force to stop this from happening.

Intriguingly, Lavrov added: “The city [Mosul] is surrounded, but not completely. I do not know why. Possibly, they’ve just failed. It is to be hoped they just failed, and not were reluctant to do so.”

It is notable that in previous US-Turkish assaults on IS-held towns there have been unconfirmed reports of large numbers of the jihadists being covertly afforded safe passage out of harm’s way. This has been suspected of happening in US-backed offensives on Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, and in the northern Syrian town of Manbij.

As the offensive on Mosul gets underway, there are similar suspicions that the US, Turkey and Saudi military objective is not about crushing the IS hold-outs, but rather evacuating these mercenaries from the city.

Said Mamuzini of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in Iraq believes that up to 7,000 militants belonging to the IS will be given safe passage out of Mosul to reconsolidate with other jihadist mercenaries already in Syria.

This of course negates Washington and Ankara’s official claims of fighting against IS. But it is fully consistent with the critical assessment that the US and its allies have all along been covertly sponsoring various terror groups to wage a war for regime change in Syria. The latter being a strategic ally for Russia and Iran in the pivotal Middle Eastern region.

Across Syria and Iraq there are three main strongholds remaining for al Qaeda-associated terror groups, whether they go by the name of IS, Jabhat al Nusra, Ahrar al Shams, Jaysh al Fatah or some other nom de guerre. These terror bases are Aleppo city in Syria, Mosul in Iraq and positioned roughly halfway between those two sites is Raqqa located in central Syria.

It seems significant that as Syrian and Russian forces bear down on the militants besieging the eastern quarter of Aleppo that Washington and its allies have escalated a media campaign decrying “war crimes” in order to halt that offensive. This has been accompanied by vociferous efforts from the US, Britain and France to implement no-fly zones around Aleppo. This all strongly suggests that the Western powers are trying to extricate their proxy insurgents from the Aleppo crucible.

More than coincidently, it seems, while the drama of Aleppo has been underway, the Turkish and US military launched a major campaign in August to effectively annex large swathes of northern Syria, due east from Aleppo and stretching nearly 100 kms back to the city of Jarablus on the Euphrates, proximate to the Turk border.

Indeed, Turkish forces occupying Jarablus have begun erecting the national flag of Turkey on public buildings, much to the consternation of the Syrian government which has denounced it as a violation of its sovereign territory.

All the while, Turkey and the US have claimed that the northern Syrian operations are aimed at “cleansing” the area from IS terrorists. But more troubling are reports that the militants whom Turkey in particular has been mentoring during these operations are indistinguishable from IS in terms of brutish ideology towards any local people deemed to be “infidels”.

In the Turk-led capture this week of the northern Syrian border city of Dabiq, the Western media portrayed this as a “liberation” from IS terrorists. But it was evident from France 24 news footage that the new gun-toting militants were shouting out Islamist slogans. Syrian sources say that the residents are fearful of having to live under yet another reign of terror as before.

There are also reports of Turkish military forces this week firing artillery at the Syrian villages of Sourkeh in Efrin district and Deir Ballout, causing civilians, women and children to flee, and prompting Syrian sources to comment that Turkey is actually mounting a campaign of “ethnic cleansing”.

This is important context to underscore the wider implications of the battle at Mosul. It could be a case of all jihadist safe corridors leading to Raqqa.

Turkey and the US have been mulling military plans for several weeks now to extend their northern Syrian security curtain down to Raqqa. This concurs with what Erdogan was boasting about this week when he indicated that the US-backed offensive on Mosul should be integrated with broader plans to militarily take Raqqa.

If the jihadist mercenaries can be shunted safely into Raqqa from either Aleppo or Mosul, they would then be able to consolidate there under the safety of a Turkish and US de facto no-fly zone if the latter NATO forces do actually proceed with plans to take Raqqa, as Erdogan bragged about.

Moreover, because of the US-Turk annexed territory straddling the Syrian borders, the jihadists sheltered in Raqqa would once again be plugged into a Turk lifeline as never before, and therefore be able to live to fight another day.

Russia needs to make sure Aleppo falls with no terrorist breakout; and, as Lavrov hinted, Moscow must make sure too that there is no influx of jihadists from Mosul into Syria. Russia should also demand that Turkey and the US do not take any steps towards a military takeover of Raqqa, as Erdogan is calling for.

That battle, in the future, to clear illegally armed insurgents from their final bastion in Raqqa should be the prerogative of the Syrian army and its trusted allies.

FINIAN CUNNINGHAM

Former editor and writer for major news media organizations. He has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages

---

• Russian Card Played for Clinton to Ace Trump
• West is Gunning for Russian Media Ban
• Washington Hits Back at Putin’s Humiliation
• J’Accuse – French Condemnations of Russia in Syria Beyond Cynical
• US Outcry over Syria... Tears Followed By NATO Bombs
• Hysteria at UN Betrays Western Terror Sponsors

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!