Friday, 19 June 2009

Feeling The Hate in Jerusalem-The Censored Video!

link






The night before President Obama spoke in Cairo, Max Blumenthal and Joseph Dana took a video camera to downtown Jerusalem and asked kids on the street – mainly Americans in Jerusalem over the summer – how they felt about Obama. The answers they heard: mainly hardcore racism enhanced by expletives, homophobia, Islamophobia, Arab hatred, and a lot of ignorance.

Blumenthal posted a video to YouTube called “Feeling the Hate in Jerusalem on Eve of Obama’s Cairo Address”. Then, without explanation, YouTube took down the video and has stonewalled all attempts to find out what happened.


Censored by YouTube

Censorship? Yes.

This video is important. We know this kind of hatred and extremism is a real phenomenon in our Jewish communities. It needs to be unearthed and looked at with the same seriousness we want to see in any community confronting its own extremists.

This hatred is a symptom of the false framing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an unending war against Jewish people. Instead of seeing the troubles in Israel/Palestine as a conflict over land to which two peoples lay claim, as a struggle against 40+ years of occupation, and as a question of people’s right to self-determination, the young Jews in this video believe and are being taught that Jews should either have absolute power or else they become absolute victims. Videos like this show how working for a just peace in the Middle East requires us to address bigotry and hate within our own communities. People who’ve seen the video agree that it’s important. The video went viral after being released on June 5th. Hundreds of thousands of people have watched it, it’s been covered by Ha’aretz, National Public Radio, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, and it’s struck a strong resonance among viewers. Too many of us hear hatred like this among our families, friends and extended communities, where people believe that supporting Israel means hating Arabs and Muslims and – now – hating President Obama, too.

So please:

tell YouTube to put this video back up. If you want to see the video (caution: it’s highly offensive), Max Blumenthal has reposted it to Vimeo, and

it’s also on our petition site.

And use this as a teaching tool in your own communities to confront hatred and bigotry.

Jewish Voice for Peace.


June 20, 2009 Posted by Elias

Netanyahu's Peace of the Cowardly


Netanyahu's Peace of the Cowardly

Joharah Baker – miftah.org
June 16, 2009

There is always room for hope, not in Netanyahu's offer, but in our own strength..

For some reason, everyone wanted to hear what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had to say in his policy speech given on June 14. After the right-winger finished and the analysis began to flow, a few things became certain, first and foremost that nothing in this cursed conflict has really changed, at least for the better.

Many political pundits are saying that Netanyahu catered his speech to accommodate new worldly US President Barack Obama and his policies, which he outlined on June 4 in Cairo. Hence, came the two words Netanyahu hates most – Palestinian state. It was not however, a declaration of conceding to the idea that Palestinians deserved a sovereign and independent country. No, Netanyahu almost choked the words out, like a person who is made to swallow poison. The Israeli premier did say those words, but almost in the same breath he ticked off his conditions for this to happen – one, the Palestinians would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a homeland for the Jewish people, and two, any state that may come into being would have to be completely demilitarized. This was, believe it or not, after Netanyahu called on the Palestinians to "begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions." Israel he said, "is committed to international agreements, and expects all sides to fulfill their obligations." Really?

What a farce. Netanyahu would have done better by not saying anything at all. At least that way, he would have stuck to his so-called principles. Instead, his speech amounted to nothing, a big, fat "zero" in the words of Palestinian presidential advisor Yasser Abed Rabbo. He did not back down on so-called natural growth in settlements, saying the settlers, whom he forgot to mention were living on Palestinian land illegally, must lead normal lives. Jerusalem, of course, would remain the eternal capital of Israel, refugees would never be allowed to return home and apparently there would be no return to the 1967 borders. What's worse, Netanyahu built his entire speech on the premise that all past and present hindrances to achieving peace were the fault of the Palestinians. We (and the Arabs) rejected the partition plan, we resorted to "terror", we would not accept Israel's extended hand in peace. In short, according to the premier, "The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been and remains - the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish people to its own state in its historical homeland."

Well, at least we know. It is all our fault. "The closer we get to a peace agreement with them, the more they [the Palestinians] are distancing themselves from peace. They raise new demands. They are not showing us that they want to end the conflict," Netanyahu maintained.

Nothing has changed. Since Netanyahu apparently made his speech to quiet the rumblings in Washington over his intransigence on both the settlement issue and his lack of endorsement of a Palestinian state, we have only to look at the White House response to see that it is business as usual. That is, Netanyahu seems to have placated America, at least for the time being. In a written statement following the Israeli Prime Minister's speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration viewed Netanyahu's conditional endorsement of a limited Palestinian state as an "important step forward."

Gibbs went on to read, "The president is committed to two states, a Jewish state of Israel and an independent Palestine, in the historic homeland of both peoples. He believes this solution can and must ensure both Israel's security and the fulfillment of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for a viable state, and he welcomes Prime Minister Netanyahu's endorsement of that goal."

Netanyahu really didn't endorse that goal at all. There was nothing in his speech that suggested he supported a "viable" Palestinian state nor did he mention anything about "Palestinians' legitimate aspirations."

Obviously, this shows that Netanyahu is smarter than he sometimes comes across to be. Everyone has been eyeing what shift in dimension Israeli-American relations may take after the two leaders came into office. While they got off to a bumpy start, Netanyahu was not about to jeopardize his country's strong relationship with the US, even if this meant sugar-coating his words just a bit. In the end, he is a politician.

It seemed to have worked as well. Everyone realizes nothing positive is going to come of Netanyahu's term in office, especially in regards to a push towards Palestinian statehood. But, with this policy speech in which he made himself utter the unutterable words "Palestinian state", he has pushed the pacifier back into America's mouth, at least for now. Let's be honest. This has been Israeli-American policy for years, regardless of who ran their respective governments. The US has been calling for a peaceful resolution based on the two-state solution for years and Israel's governments have verbally endorsed that solution all the same. On the ground though, we are no closer to the realization of a Palestinian state than we were under former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who openly "supported" the two-state solution. The difference today however, is represented in the leaders of the two countries, differences that may just serve as catalysts for some real change.

First there is Netanyahu, who unlike his predecessors does not mince his words. This policy speech was the farthest he has ever gone in terms of Palestinian statehood, which proves how hard line he really is. We have a man who is not embarrassed to say he doesn't support an independent Palestinian state or that Jerusalem is non-negotiable. His politically-incorrect bluntness could just be the thing that will urge America to take a harder stance with its ally, especially when the euphoria of his latest speech wears off in Washington.

Hence, the second major difference, US President Barack Obama. In sharp contrast to George W Bush, with his limited vocabulary, cowboy mentality of "with us or against us", Obama is educated, eloquent and worldly and seems honestly to want change. He is not looking to exclude anyone, including Iran and Hamas and he made it clear that a two-state solution is the only way to resolve this conflict.

Whether or not Obama will have the power or time to actually realize this goal, it is hard to say. There are huge obstacles in the way, such as Israel's adamancy not to change the status quo, Palestinian internal division and the pull of the Jewish lobby within the United States.

Still, there is always room for hope, not in anything Netanyahu has to offer, but in our own strength to utilize these new players to our advantage. Obama may be able to set these wheels in motion, if he continues to have the political will to do so. It remains for us to bring it home.

- Joharah Baker is a writer for the Media and Information Program at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mip@miftah.org. (Published in MIFTAH – www.miftah.org).

Arab World Sees Settlement Row as Test of Obama's Credibility: Report

Link

19/06/2009 “The clash on the settlements between the Obama-Clinton administration and the Netanyahu-Lieberman (and Barak) government is not some petty haggling over expanding a kindergarten in Ofra or adding a balcony in Ma'aleh Adumim. It's an argument on the legal status of the West Bank settlements and East Jerusalem's Jewish neighborhoods and the sovereignty issue in the territories,” Haaretz reported on Friday.

According to the daily, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's public statement dismissing previous understandings with Israel on building in "settlement blocs" was not only intended to put her counterpart Avidgdor Lieberman in his place. Clinton knows that such an "understanding" means a revolution in American policy. A power that maintains that settlements are illegal and refuses to move its embassy to occupied Jerusalem cannot recognize any of them.

Indeed, Dan Kurtzer, who served as U.S. ambassador in Israel during the Bush administration, confirmed in the Washington Post this week that all the stories about "understandings" with the United States on expanding settlements are groundless.

Kurtzer writes that Dov Weisglass, prime minister Ariel Sharon's adviser, asked for permission to build within the settlements' built-up areas. But this was never implemented. Kurtzer says Bush's letter to Sharon about recognizing Israeli population centers in the occupied West Bank referred only to the final-status agreement, and even then with the Palestinians' consent.

“Since 1967, the United States has made do largely with quiet protests against the settlements. Israel interpreted this as tacit agreement. Ehud Barak persuaded Bill Clinton not to make a big deal about the settlements. We're about to sign an agreement to annex some of them and the rest will be given to the Palestinians, he said. Clinton swallowed the bait, peace moved further away and the settlements continued to grow. Benjamin Netanyahu's readiness to blurt out "the two-state solution" won't budge Barack Obama from his position on the settlements”, Haaretz said.

“The high-profile controversy has become a test of Obama's credibility and endurance in the eyes of the world, especially the Arab and Muslim world.”

“Jewish peace organizations and Israeli peace activists are making sure Netanyahu's representatives and the Jewish lobby don't feed Obama tales about "natural growth" and worthless commitments by Netanyahu,” the report added.

“1. Natural growth. When Sharon's government adopted the road map in 2003, Israel undertook to stop all construction in the settlements "including for natural growth" and to dismantle all outposts put up after March 2001. Since then the number of West Bank settlers has risen by 95,000 for a total of 300,000. It's hard to convince the Americans that Israel must plan its housing policy, not to mention fixed borders, according to the whims of adults who want to live close to mom and dad.

2. Netanyahu's commitment. He promised that "we have no intention of building new settlements or expropriating land to expand them." At least 100 new settlements, dubbed outposts, were built since Netanyahu's cabinet decided not to build new settlements in 1996. Since the '80s Israel has expropriated almost 1 million dunams, constituting 16 percent of the West Bank. In the past year Israel expropriated new land at least four times - some 275 dunams - Peace Now says.”

Abbas's security informed him: they will not release any Hamas detainees


Link

[ 19/06/2009 - 04:37 PM ]

RAMALLAH, (PIC)-- Sources close to Abbas's office in Ramallah said on Friday that his security agencies sent Abbas a clear letter informing him that they will not be releasing any Hamas detainees because of any talks with Hamas.

The sources added that the security agencies said in their letter that it was them who paid the full price of Hamas's "coup", and that Fatah had left the security men on their own to face Hamas fighters in the Strip and that was the reason for the dramatic defeat of the security forces. Thus, the letter adds, the security agencies will defend their own security and will prevent a similar "coup" taking place in the West Bank.

The sources confirmed that those security agencies refused to release 20 Hamas detainees as a goodwill gesture from Fatah at the reconciliation talks that took place on Thursday.
Keith Dayton, who, along with other western security advisers, make the decisions without referring to the government's joint security council.
The various Palestinian security agencies come under the command of a joint security council headed by former President of the PA Mahmoud Abbas, but fundamental changes have been made to the structure of those forces under the command of US general

Have a Nice Day Said the Tribunal to the Radical Respondent


Link

A little recap and update regarding the latest moves in the macabre Cheka-Zionist dance now onstage at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its “independent” hammer euphemistically named the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.


As regular watchers will already know I have been attempting to get both the Commission and the Tribunal to pay heed to their slack-assed rules and regulations as per evidence and the tampering with documents which the Complainants Harry Abrams and Anita Bromberg of the secret Illuminati/Masonic society known as B’nai Brith Canada submitted to the Commission back in July of 2007. In those docs I was accused of being a Jew-hater and a hater of the “citizens” of that little hell-hole located in former Palestinian territory conveniently ripped off in 1948 by the World Zionist Organization (aka Rothschild Inc.) via its “International” organization the United Nations.

This is the same “spiritual homeland” which the Zionist terrorists gave the false and misleading title of “ISRAEL” in order to hoodwink the Christian people of the world into falling for their hogwash assertion (promulgated by the Talmudic Pharisaic rabbis) that the Ashkenazi Jews, who bear about as much genetic resemblance to the original Judahite tribes of former Biblical Palestine as a pair of Calvin Klein “genes” do to a woven arab kafkan, are God’s chosen people and the destined saviours and rulers of the world.

Anyhow, upon reading the files which the Commission disclosed to me back in February of 2009 I picked up on the fact that the controversial document known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion was not contained in the plethora of puerile products which Dan aka Daniel Poulin, Commission counsel, had sent to me.

Now the whole intent of “Disclosure,” as the legal world will tell you, is to pass on to your opponent (somewhat akin to sending all of your military strategies to your enemy camp) all documentation supporting whatever argument or charge you’ve brought forth prior to any confrontation on the battlefield commencing. In this case it’s supposedly designed to streamline the process so that when the Show Trial actually occurs the Respondent doesn’t suddenly slip a whetted blade out of his pants pocket, slice the noose from off his neck and escape the clutches of Cheka champions of “Human Rights.”

I also noticed in Mr. Poulin’s disclosure that suddenly the original complaint had different words inserted into it than what were in the original document. Originally the “Complaint” read:

“The premise of this complaint is a contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada and his internet publication known as Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.”

Now, by the time it had wended its way through the subterranean labyrinth of the Cheka’s underground, Orwellian News Speak department and emerged out the other side into Mr. Poulin’s “Disclusure,” it had somehow miraculously and conveniently shape-shifted into “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and non-white[sic]!!??”

Whaaaaaaaat? I said to myself when first reading it. So where’s all the “citizens of Israel” already? Oi veh! How did they suddenly disappear off the Complainants’ roadmap for retaliation and repression? Who have they got working down in their dungeons of deception? Elie Weisel? I knew then that something shady was up.

I can only assume at this point that after having laid the complaint against me on the hateful, revengeful and vexatious grounds which are the “hallmarks” of the infamous section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and then reading some of my later comments online regarding this point; one which expose the whole fallacy and absurdity of attempting to charge someone in Canada with “hate” crimes for their criticisms of a FOREIGN country and its FOREIGN citizens (or part of them anyway), that the Complainants and their B’nai Brith lawyer, Marvin Kurz, decided it might be better all around to just get rid of those FOREIGN agents of Palestinian brutality and genocide. I also think that especially after the ghastly and graphic example of Israel’s satanicly savage attack upon the citizens and infrastructure of Gaza just prior to and after Christmas, 08/09 that they realized suddenly that keeping the “citizens of Israel” in their complaint might not be such a good PR move as they first figured, the machinations and writings of former Zionist SC head honch Irwin Cotler’s notwithstanding.

Sinister Scenarios

So how to get rid of it? Hmmmmm. Well, we can imagine Kurz saying to his bud Dan in the commissar’s basement, why not just drop it and replace it with “and non-whites”? That oughta fool them, eh? What the hell it’s suppose to mean is irrelevant because both you and I know that our Zionist controlled media isn’t going to give this wacko neo-Nazi shit-disturbing, truth-telling Topham any coverage anyway so we’ll just get rid of any incriminating evidence that could possibly jeopardize our chances of a big conviction and a big bucks, maximum fine. Whatcha think Dan my man?

Dan, being a good and dedicated and highly paid commissar lackey and an unwitting sycophant of Jewish lobbyists such as B’nai Brith and the CJC who control the Harper government and his own tenure, likely considered this option for a few brief moments and then responded to Kurz, “Yes, I tink dat just might work. ‘E’ll spot it for sure but so what. Besides us, ‘eem and da Tribunal, oou we already know wee’ll rubber stamp whatever we do, it wee’ll make our chances of a quick, silent and bloodless lynching virtually 100% assured. So for sure, let’s do dat Marvin. I’ll type eet up right away. What was dat again? “non-white?”

“Yes,” Marvin replies, all the while thinking to himself, “Hopefully he’ll remember it and get the spelling correct.”


A Change in Dramatis Personae

Now it must be remembered of course that all of this assumed subterfuge took place well before Douglas Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League applied to the Tribunal for intervenor status. That move on Christie’s part, I imagine, suddenly changed the whole picture for these foreign and domestic servants of censorship. Christie coming into the case with all his know-how and eye for detail!

“Yikes Marvin,” I can see Dan excitedly exclaiming, “dis is NOT a good ting! You’d bet ter argue your hass off against Christie’s intervening in dis one or for sure e’ll also pick up on our little scam of making the “citizens of Israel” vanish into ‘tin air and you know ‘e CAN get the attention of our Zionist media wedder we like ‘eet or not.” So off went Marv to script his long-winded arguments, replete with Freudian backup, in a vain attempt to cut Christie off at the pass and prevent the possible public exposure of all of these sly little moves to relocate the stage-prop goal posts prior to the commencement of the Tribunal hearing.

And of course now we have a new act as well applying for intervenor status on behalf of RadicalPress.com and freedom of expression, much, I would imagine, to the chagrin of all the commissars involved. Mr. Paul Fromm, representative of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) has also filed a notice of motion with the Tribunal for Interested Party status adding only further to the plot. Whether Dan and Marv conspire to suppress CAFÉ or not waits to be seen at this point. That will likely be the next act in this melodrama of madness and intrigue.

The Commissars Respond

In three separate letters from the Commission and the Tribunal dated June 10, 16 and 17 both the organizations, in response to my final motions to the Tribunal to have these blatant acts of sabotage on the part of the Complainants and the Commission rectified well in advance of the proposed hearing now scheduled for Victoria, B.C., had the following to say:

On June 10th Mr. Poulin wrote with respect to the changing of the complaint wording:

“The Commission will only make the following submissions. The Motion is groundless and vexatious. Consequently it should be dismissed.”

On June 16th Mr. Poulin wrote with regard to my motion to include the Protocols document:

“This is the submissions[sic] of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in response to Mr. Topham’s Motion.

The Respondent in this case, Mr. Topham, seeks an Order compelling the Complainants to provide him with a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mr. Topham is clearly in possession of a copy of the Protocols and thus requesting a copy from these particular complainants clearly constitute[sic] an abuse of process. Consequently, the motion should be dismissed.”

Prior to this Marv had also piped up with his 2¢ worth and wrote to the Tribunal on June 11th:

“Please accept this email as a summary response to your request for an urgent response to Mr. Topham’s motions, particularly regarding disclosure from my clients.

First of all it appears that Mr. Topham is engaged in [sic] campaign of vexatious motions, including motions to change orders already made in regard to other vexatious motions that he has brought.

Second, his request that the complainants produce to him a document that he possesses and has posted on his own web site cannot be seen as anything but frivolous. He need only check his own website or click onto his own link to obtain the document in question. Mr. Abrams did not produce a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Commission. Onstead [sic] he referred to Mr. Topham’s link to the document as well as Mr. Topham’s own “introduction” to the Protocols. We appear to be in alternative realities when Mr,. Topham demands that we produce his document from his website in order to provide him with disclosure.”


Intermission

Possibly here we should take a little intermission or a popcorn break and I’ll explain to the audience why I am being so adamant (others will say obstinate, some would even say “vexatious”) about the Complainants and the Commission providing this document. First off it was the NUMBER ONE cause for concern, according to Harry Abrams’ own original statement to the Commission, for having filed a section 13 complaint against me and RadicalPress.com. Second, being so, it was the primary piece of evidence that the Commission’s “Hate Crimes Investigator” Ms. Sandy Kozak should have studied in detail during her investigation leading up to the Commission’s decision to lend credence to Abrams’ vexatious claims against myself and therefore passing the complaint over to the Tribunal for a hearing.

Bearing all this in mind it now becomes evident that when I subpoena Ms. Kozak to appear at the hearing for questioning regarding her reasons for having concluded that I’m a hater of Jews she will conveniently state, “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”? What Protocols? I didn’t get any Protocols. There’s no Protocols document in the Commission files. Just ask Dan, he’ll tell you.” And so the most valuable document in explaining the inner workings of political Zionism and the modus operandi of its secret societies like B’nai Brith Canada will not have to be addressed by the Commission’s principal investigator, Ms. Sandy Kozak (reportedly once a cop booted out of the force for unethical behaviour), the individual who decided this complaint warranted a Tribunal hearing and all which that entails for me and the taxpaying public.


To Conclude

So, intermission being over, let’s get back to it and go through the motions (so to speak) and read the final one from the Tribunal regarding these two highly contentious issues:

On June 17th I received the following statement from Guy Gregoire, Director, Registry Operations, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal:

“This is further to the respondent’s motions of June 9 and June 10, 2009 seeking further disclosure and reconsideration of the Tribunal’s June 2, 2009 direction. Tribunal Member Karen A. Jensen has directed as follows:

The respondent’s motion dated June 10, 2009 for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s June 2, 2009 direction is denied. The respondent’s motion dated June 9, 2009 seeking further disclosure of documents form the complainants is essentially a request to reconsider instuctions [sic] that were given by the Tribunal regarding disclosure on June 2, 2009 and is therefore also denied.”

HAVE A NICE DAY!


http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1039

Canadian Jewish Congress Organized Nazis Party "Creating Anti-Semitism Since 1965"

Posted @ 16:28

Iran's Election and US - Iranian Relations

link




by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, June 18, 2009

"....Also disturbing are more moderate, supposedly even-handed, and progressive US voices....On June 13, Stephen Zunes asked....Juan Cole admitted....

The Nation magazine has had a shameful record since inception.... Now it's at it again in a June 13 Robert Dreyfuss article headlined.....

A lack of journalistic and analytical integrity on the left and right continues to hype fraud without a shred of supportive evidence, so something sinister may be visible on Iranian streets. If true, the Obama administration likely is behind it or at least in support, so Iranians need remember their history....

Iranian Street Protests and Their Ominous Possibilities

Leading up to and after the Iranian election, The New York Times played its customary role as lead media gatekeeper/instigator doing what it does best - sanitizing news, filtering out uncomfortable truths, and presenting distorted opinions for the powerful interests it represents.....

What's going on? Are anti-Ahmadinejad protests spontaneous or are covert instigators inciting them?....

Writing in the New Yorker's June 29, 2008 issue, Seymour Hersh said "Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership."....."


# posted by Tony : 6:46 AM


Flashback

[Read is mine]
Tony is doing it (Anal-ysing)

(Addressing an international conference in support of the Palestinians in Tehran, the Leader was referring to "those who entertained hopes of a peaceful coexistence with the Zionist". )
[COMMENT: Does this apply to your "ally", the Rabbit of Syria, Seyyed Khamenei? How about your own "pragmatic" co-existence with the Great Satan, the protector and enabler of the Zionist state, next door in Iraq? You don't seem to mind the Great Satan next door, as part of a "pragmatic" calculation, to get rid of Saddam and to bring to power sectarian Shiites in Iraq.]
# posted by Tony : 2:44 AM

Green Anal-ysist … with envy

June 19, 2009
IranVote

While this may be true today, who knows what tomorrow will bring? I suspect many of their rotten leaders are silently rooting for Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.
[I know what tomorow will bring, blood shall defeat the sword, and the Magic shall turn against the Magician. It is the blood of Hezbullah's youths that liberated Lebanon, and gave life to resistance option, and its the blood of Hamas youths that stopped Isreal.]

Arab Apathy

"What is taking place in Iran today (regardless of which side you support or if the opposition is truly reformist or not) only reaffirms how the Arab people (youth in particular) are the most impotent and spineless people in the middle east."

Tony Sayegh Homepage 06.12.09 - 9:25 am #


42 years ago, after occipation of Gaza in 1967, while (Arab youth in particular) were taking the streets to say NO, to Join Palestinian resistance, the 20 years old Green coward Bitch, left Gaza, his birth place, and never returned. After 42 years, he emerged as a "Palestinian Pundit", to tell Hamas what to do and what not to do.

When asked: What Hamas can do, The Hamas Basher preyed:



Hamas "....need to align itself with progressive forces in Egypt and make toppling the Pharaoh a top priority......".


So, Hamas should not only align itself with the impotent and spineless progressive forces in Egypt, Hamas should do their work.
My ass, Hamas is best Daughter of Moslem Brotherhood, who draged Muslem Brotherhood to alight with Iran and Hezbollah.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2008, the Bitch demanded; Hamas Should Keep Up the Pressure.

Let it be guerrilla war of the wall. Every time the Pharaoh plugs a few openings, many more are blasted away. Hopefully pressure on the Pharaoh can be intensified from the Egyptian street while this war of the wall goes on.Stay tuned, this is far from over.
# posted by Tony : 4:09 AM
Comments (11)
# posted by Tony : 4:09 AM

I replied:

“Let it be guerrilla war of the wall. Every time the Pharaoh plugs a few openings, many more are blasted away.”
Can’t you see that Hamas did that exactly the past few days, and it is time to turn it into a guerrilla political war in Cairo and Riyadh?
And, why you are so sure that Hamas can’t and won’t turn it again a guerrilla war on the wall.
My friend, it the hunger and the siege, more than Hamas, that escalated public anger, and it, Pharaoh’s tactical move that de-escalated public anger and mobilization.

I shall not be surprised to read you claiming claim again that Hamas, like Arafat is using peoples uprising to get to the negotiation table.
Hopefully pressure on the Pharaoh can be intensified from the Egyptian street while this war of the wall goes on.”
The Iranian street changed the regime, not for Palestine, but for itself when the revolution was ripe.
Let us think why would the Egyptian street move for Gaza and failed to move for itself, against Pharaoh. Pharaoh may tolerate and get the credit in the first move, but shall lose everything in the other move. The Egyptian street has enough reasons, local reasons, to act like the Iranian street did.
The Question is: IS THE SUNNI EGYPTIAN STREET RIPE AND READY TO SPEAK OUT: HUMILATION NEVER?? AND PAY THE BLOODY PRICE??
I appreciate the pressure put by the Egyptian street that forced Pharaoh to bow few days to vent that pressure, but I would say, that rejecting Pharaoh’s invitation, and continuing the guerrilla war on the wall, which shall lead to a guerrilla war on the guards of the wall, may turn the Egyptian street against Hamas.
Uproated Palestinian Homepage 01.29.08 - 3:57 pm #
Time proved I was right, we have seen how Pharaoh used Hezbollah's cell to turn the street against Nasralla.
Yes Mubrak Believes Time is Right for Arab-Israeli Peace!
So did Saadat believed 3 decades ago.

Sayyed Nasrallah Hold Lengthy Meeting With Jumblatt

Link

19/06/2009 Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah received Thursday night the head of the Democratic Gathering MOP Walid Jumblatt. The two leaders held a lengthy meeting during which they made an in-depth review of the past stage and discussed the coming stage in Lebanon and the region. Sayyed Nasrallah and Jumblatt stressed the necessity to work together to enable Lebanon and its people to face the great challenges lying ahead. They also praised the efforts exerted by Youth and Sports Minister Talal Areslan during the May 7, 2008 incidents. Sayyed Nasrallah and Jumblatt also agreed to continue communicating and deliberating during the next phase.


Comment

Don't Expect the Bitch to say a word on that. He will not drop his last fig leaf.

Nasralla meeting the same Jumblat, the warlord, the liar who betrayed resistance after 2005 elections.

Yes he, Nasralla, did it, after 13 months of Dialogue, and after losing 2009 elections. This is politics, the politics that cracked March 14 movement, and forced Clinton and Bidin to come to Beirut to tighten the M14 Screws, with Saudi petrodollar.

Don't be surprised if you see Jumblat quitting M14.


Prey Prey Prey:
Beg....Beg....Beg....

Let me explain it to you Mr. politburo chief: Iran has clout and is a regional power, so Obama has to deal with it. Also, Iran (under the right conditions) has been beneficial to the Empire, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, so Obama is trying to put the [Domesticated] ayatollahs to good use. Syria has some influence (especially in Lebanon) and Obama is trying to divide and conquer, by moving Syria away from Iran.

But Hamas, Mr. politburo chief, regardless of how much "moderation" it shows, and how much begging it does, has no clout, and is safely caged in the Gaza concentration camp while Dayton destroys any presence it has left in the West Bank.
By removing Iran and Syria from the equation, Hamas will be cut off and the plan is to destroy it or at least domesticate it, just as Arafat was domesticated and finally destroyed.

You got that now, Mr. politburo chief?

# posted by Tony : 11:01 PM



A U-TURN:

"I predicted that the "peace" charade will resume very soon, in spite of Netanyahu's racist positions, along the lines handed down to Mubarak from his masters in Washington. " LOL, somebody would say: Bravo

This is one of the indications. Next, the "Arab" League will modify its "peace" plan to accommodate Israel's demands and to start full normalization with "the Jewish state."

"Arab" League troops will be sent into Gaza to crush (DOMESTICATED) Hamas and prepare for declaring Israel as the national Jewish homeland for all Jews, from the river to the sea (and beyond).

The Arabs will be congratulating themselves and thanking Obama for this rare opportunity for "peace" and will be getting ready to fight the real enemy: Iran!

# posted by Tony : 2:26 AM

Nahr al-Bared's future remains unclear as army holds on to neighborhoods

Nahr al-Bared's future remains unclear as army holds on to neighborhoods
Ray Smith, Electronic Lebanon, 19 June 2009



A map of Nahr al-Bared refugee camp with the different areas marked.
The three-month-long war between the Lebanese army and Fatah al-Islam militants in the Palestinian refugee camp of Nahr al-Bared in northern Lebanon ended on 2 September 2007. While the Lebanese army has allowed displaced residents to return to some parts of the camp, the fate of other parts of the camp still under the army's control remains unclear.

Nahr al-Bared camp consists of an "old" and a "new" camp. The original or "old" refugee camp was established in 1949 on a piece of land 16 kilometers north of the Lebanese city of Tripoli. In 1950, the UN agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) started to provide its services to the camp's residents. Over the years, population density in Nahr al- Bared rose drastically while refugees who could afford it, left the boundaries of the official camp and settled in its immediate vicinity. This area is now referred to as the "new camp" or the "adjacent area" and belongs to the Lebanese municipalities of Muhammara and Bhannine. While the residents of the new camp benefit from UNRWA's education, health, relief and social services, the agency has no mandate for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure and houses in this area.

Since the fighting in the camp ended nearly two years ago, most of the so-called "old camp" has been bulldozed and reconstruction is set to begin within the next month. Along the perimeter of the old camp however the ruins of more than 200 houses are still standing. They're under the sole control of the Lebanese army, which still prevents residents from returning.



Area B' of Nahr al-Bared.
In October 2007, approximately one month after the Lebanese army declared victory, the first wave of refugees was allowed back into parts of the new camp. In the following months, the army gradually withdrew from the new camp and returned the houses and ruins to their former residents. However, the handover wasn't complete. At least 250 houses in the new camp, adjacent to the old camp, remain sealed off by barbed wire, controlled by the Lebanese army and inaccessible to its residents. These areas are now referred to as the "Prime Areas," known among the refugees under the Arabized term primaat. They consist of A'-, B'-, C'- and E'-Prime.

Adnan, who declined to give his family name, works in a small shop in the Corniche neighborhood, adjacent to area E'. He has been waiting for the handover of the area by the army. "They tell you, 'Next week, next month.' But nothing happens. They say, 'We first have to remove the bombs and the rubble, then we let people in.' These are empty words. Nobody is honest. They constantly lie to us," Adnan complained.

Temporary housing serves as the makeshift office of the Nahr al-Bared Reconstruction Commission for Civil Action and Studies (NBRC), a grassroots committee heavily involved in the planning of the reconstruction of the old camp. Abu Ali Mawed, an active member of the NBRC, owns one of the 120 buildings in area E and has been waiting for its handover for 21 months. "The army once more says they'll open the primaat, but first [the army] will need to [clear] them [of] unexploded ordnance devices and rubble. Where have the parties responsible for this work been in the past two years? Let us be honest: This area could be de-mined and cleared within just under a month!"

Ismael Sheikh Hassan, a volunteer architect and planner with the NBRC, said, "The main reason for the delays is the army. They haven't taken the decision at command level to allow people to return until last month."

Since the end of May, things have seemed to finally move forward. On 19 May, an UNRWA contractor started clearing rubble in area B' and de- mining teams took up their work. UNRWA wrote in its weekly update on 3 June that its contractor had finished clearing rubble in areas B' and C'. In a meeting among the Lebanese army, Nahr al-Bared's Popular Committee, Palestinian parties and UNRWA on 2 June, the army announced its intention to allow the return of the residents of these two areas within two or three days. As of 7 June however the promise hadn't been delivered.

Sheikh Hassan explained that the suspension was mainly due to delays in de-mining procedures and those related to miscommunication among the various structures of the Lebanese army. He expected them to open areas B' and C' in a few days. There are 40 houses in B' and 60 buildings in C' to be handed over. On 11 June, UNRWA announced that they were told by the Lebanese army that the handover of B' and C' would take place mid-month.

The army's procedures have raised doubts. Abu Ali Mawed, the reconstruction commission member, asked, "How could they allow people last year to return to their burnt, looted and destroyed homes to save some of their belongings, if there were still vast amounts of unexploded ordnance lying around? They should have de-mined the area before letting people in. In the primaat, many houses aren't completely destroyed, which facilitates de-mining. I suppose that the unexploded ordinance have already been cleared and de-mining is only used as an excuse for further delaying the handover."

According to UNRWA, the army and the Popular Committee will be responsible for announcing and coordinating the schedules and logistics of families returning to the Prime Areas.



Destroyed houses in area E'.
Nidal Abdelal of the Palestinian political faction, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine shook his head: "So far, neither the Popular Committee nor UNRWA understand why the army doesn't hand the primaat over so people can return. The Lebanese army sets dates [but doesn't deliver]; this has happened four or fives times. And until today, minor problems in the details constantly prevent them from handing over the primaat."

Abdelal points out that the persistent delays of the handover dates cause skepticism and worries among the refugees. "They even call UNRWA and the Popular Committee liars," he says. "They tell people a date, then they postpone it. Then they set another date and again postpone it. In the end, the army controls the primaat and is responsible for their handover. They should eventually hand the areas over to UNRWA and the Popular Committee and let people return."

Another camp resident, Abu Ali Mawed, compared the situation of displaced residents of Nahr al-Bared to that of southern Lebanese displaced during the summer war of 2006: "Israel dropped about one million cluster bombs in the south, but people could immediately return to their homes [once] the war was over. Why have we for two years not been allowed to return to our houses? ... We asked these questions to the government, army representatives and politicians many times, but never got clear answers. They kept giving us lame excuses that were far from convincing."

Besides the upcoming handover of areas B' and C', further questions need to be answered. For example: What will happen to the houses in the primaat once they're accessible? These houses were assessed and will be stabilized and rehabilitated. If this isn't possible and their owners agree, they'll be torn down. An anonymous source with UNRWA believes that only a few homeowners will agree to the total destruction of their homes because other landlords have experienced that the Lebanese government doesn't sign building permits for Palestinians to build in the new camp.

Currently unscheduled is the handover of areas A' and E'. Sheikh Hassan of the NBRC says there's speculation "that those areas will be opening in the upcoming months. However, there are no guarantees on this. E' will definitely be opened first. A' will be opened last." Access to E' seems to depend on the rubble removal and de-mining process in the adjacent two sectors of the old camp, because they're still heavily contaminated with unexploded ordnance. According to Nidal Ayyub of UNRWA, the Lebanese army so far has "no plan to open [area] A'."

However, the Lebanese army did have plans for the construction of an army base in Nahr al-Bared. On 16 January, the Lebanese cabinet decided to establish a naval base in the camp as well. Both plans concern mainly areas A' and E' and the coastal strip along the old camp. Just months ago, fierce protest to these plans was voiced by the camp's residents and the government has reportedly dropped its plans. However, only when the Lebanese army finally makes clear its intentions for the handover of the remaining parts of the camp will residents' worries be dispelled -- or their fears for the future of Nahr al-Bared confirmed.

All images by Ray Smith.

Ray Smith is an activist with the anarchist video collective a-films.

The Electoral Fraud Hoax



by Prof. James Petras

Global Research, June 18, 2009

“Change for the poor means food and jobs, not a relaxed dress code or mixed recreation... Politics in Iran is a lot more about class war than religion.”
Financial Times Editorial, June 15 2009

Introduction

There is hardly any election, in which the White House has a significant stake, where the electoral defeat of the pro-US candidate is not denounced as illegitimate by the entire political and mass media elite. In the most recent period, the White House and its camp followers cried foul following the free (and monitored) elections in Venezuela and Gaza, while joyously fabricating an ‘electoral success’ in Lebanon despite the fact that the Hezbollah-led coalition received over 53% of the vote.

The recently concluded, June 12, 2009 elections in Iran are a classic case: The incumbent nationalist-populist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (MA) received 63.3% of the vote (or 24.5 million votes), while the leading Western-backed liberal opposition candidate Hossein Mousavi (HM) received 34.2% or (3.2 million votes).

Iran’s presidential election drew a record turnout of more than 80% of the electorate, including an unprecedented overseas vote of 234,812, in which HM won 111,792 to MA’s 78,300. The opposition led by HM did not accept their defeat and organized a series of mass demonstrations that turned violent, resulting in the burning and destruction of automobiles, banks, public building and armed confrontations with the police and other authorities. Almost the entire spectrum of Western opinion makers, including all the major electronic and print media, the major liberal, radical, libertarian and conservative web-sites, echoed the opposition’s claim of rampant election fraud. Neo-conservatives, libertarian conservatives and Trotskyites joined the Zionists in hailing the opposition protestors as the advance guard of a democratic revolution. Democrats and Republicans condemned the incumbent regime, refused to recognize the result of the vote and praised the demonstrators’ efforts to overturn the electoral outcome. The New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, the Israeli Foreign Office and the entire leadership of the Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations called for harsher sanctions against Iran and announced Obama’s proposed dialogue with Iran as ‘dead in the water’.

The Electoral Fraud Hoax

Western leaders rejected the results because they ‘knew’ that their reformist candidate could not lose…For months they published daily interviews, editorials and reports from the field ‘detailing’ the failures of Ahmadinejad’s administration; they cited the support from clerics, former officials, merchants in the bazaar and above all women and young urbanites fluent in English, to prove that Mousavi was headed for a landslide victory. A victory for Mousavi was described as a victory for the ‘voices of moderation’, at least the White House’s version of that vacuous cliché. Prominent liberal academics deduced the vote count was fraudulent because the opposition candidate, Mousavi, lost in his own ethnic enclave among the Azeris. Other academics claimed that the ‘youth vote’ – based on their interviews with upper and middle-class university students from the neighborhoods of Northern Tehran were overwhelmingly for the ‘reformist’ candidate.

What is astonishing about the West’s universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised. As long as the Western media believed their own propaganda of an immanent victory for their candidate, the electoral process was described as highly competitive, with heated public debates and unprecedented levels of public activity and unhindered by public proselytizing. The belief in a free and open election was so strong that the Western leaders and mass media believed that their favored candidate would win.

The Western media relied on its reporters covering the mass demonstrations of opposition supporters, ignoring and downplaying the huge turnout for Ahmadinejad. Worse still, the Western media ignored the class composition of the competing demonstrations – the fact that the incumbent candidate was drawing his support from the far more numerous poor working class, peasant, artisan and public employee sectors while the bulk of the opposition demonstrators was drawn from the upper and middle class students, business and professional class.

Moreover, most Western opinion leaders and reporters based in Tehran extrapolated their projections from their observations in the capital – few venture into the provinces, small and medium size cities and villages where Ahmadinejad has his mass base of support. Moreover the opposition’s supporters were an activist minority of students easily mobilized for street activities, while Ahmadinejad’s support drew on the majority of working youth and household women workers who would express their views at the ballot box and had little time or inclination to engage in street politics.

A number of newspaper pundits, including Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, claim as evidence of electoral fraud the fact that Ahmadinejad won 63% of the vote in an Azeri-speaking province against his opponent, Mousavi, an ethnic Azeri. The simplistic assumption is that ethnic identity or belonging to a linguistic group is the only possible explanation of voting behavior rather than other social or class interests.

A closer look at the voting pattern in the East-Azerbaijan region of Iran reveals that Mousavi won only in the city of Shabestar among the upper and the middle classes (and only by a small margin), whereas he was soundly defeated in the larger rural areas, where the re-distributive policies of the Ahmadinejad government had helped the ethnic Azeris write off debt, obtain cheap credits and easy loans for the farmers. Mousavi did win in the West-Azerbaijan region, using his ethnic ties to win over the urban voters. In the highly populated Tehran province, Mousavi beat Ahmadinejad in the urban centers of Tehran and Shemiranat by gaining the vote of the middle and upper class districts, whereas he lost badly in the adjoining working class suburbs, small towns and rural areas.

The careless and distorted emphasis on ‘ethnic voting’ cited by writers from the Financial Times and New York Times to justify calling Ahmadinejad ‘s victory a ‘stolen vote’ is matched by the media’s willful and deliberate refusal to acknowledge a rigorous nationwide public opinion poll conducted by two US experts just three weeks before the vote, which showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin – even larger than his electoral victory on June 12. This poll revealed that among ethnic Azeris, Ahmadinejad was favored by a 2 to 1 margin over Mousavi, demonstrating how class interests represented by one candidate can overcome the ethnic identity of the other candidate (Washington Post June 15, 2009). The poll also demonstrated how class issues, within age groups, were more influential in shaping political preferences than ‘generational life style’. According to this poll, over two-thirds of Iranian youth were too poor to have access to a computer and the 18-24 year olds “comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all groups” (Washington Porst June 15, 2009).

The only group, which consistently favored Mousavi, was the university students and graduates, business owners and the upper middle class. The ‘youth vote’, which the Western media praised as ‘pro-reformist’, was a clear minority of less than 30% but came from a highly privileged, vocal and largely English speaking group with a monopoly on the Western media. Their overwhelming presence in the Western news reports created what has been referred to as the ‘North Tehran Syndrome’, for the comfortable upper class enclave from which many of these students come. While they may be articulate, well dressed and fluent in English, they were soundly out-voted in the secrecy of the ballot box.

In general, Ahmadinejad did very well in the oil and chemical producing provinces. This may have be a reflection of the oil workers’ opposition to the ‘reformist’ program, which included proposals to ‘privatize’ public enterprises. Likewise, the incumbent did very well along the border provinces because of his emphasis on strengthening national security from US and Israeli threats in light of an escalation of US-sponsored cross-border terrorist attacks from Pakistan and Israeli-backed incursions from Iraqi Kurdistan, which have killed scores of Iranian citizens. Sponsorship and massive funding of the groups behind these attacks is an official policy of the US from the Bush Administration, which has not been repudiated by President Obama; in fact it has escalated in the lead-up to the elections.

What Western commentators and their Iranian protégés have ignored is the powerful impact which the devastating US wars and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan had on Iranian public opinion: Ahmadinejad’s strong position on defense matters contrasted with the pro-Western and weak defense posture of many of the campaign propagandists of the opposition.

The great majority of voters for the incumbent probably felt that national security interests, the integrity of the country and the social welfare system, with all of its faults and excesses, could be better defended and improved with Ahmadinejad than with upper-class technocrats supported by Western-oriented privileged youth who prize individual life styles over community values and solidarity.

The demography of voting reveals a real class polarization pitting high income, free market oriented, capitalist individualists against working class, low income, community based supporters of a ‘moral economy’ in which usury and profiteering are limited by religious precepts. The open attacks by opposition economists of the government welfare spending, easy credit and heavy subsidies of basic food staples did little to ingratiate them with the majority of Iranians benefiting from those programs. The state was seen as the protector and benefactor of the poor workers against the ‘market’, which represented wealth, power, privilege and corruption. The Opposition’s attack on the regime’s ‘intransigent’ foreign policy and positions ‘alienating’ the West only resonated with the liberal university students and import-export business groups. To many Iranians, the regime’s military buildup was seen as having prevented a US or Israeli attack.

The scale of the opposition’s electoral deficit should tell us is how out of touch it is with its own people’s vital concerns. It should remind them that by moving closer to Western opinion, they removed themselves from the everyday interests of security, housing, jobs and subsidized food prices that make life tolerable for those living below the middle class and outside the privileged gates of Tehran University.

Amhadinejad’s electoral success, seen in historical comparative perspective should not be a surprise. In similar electoral contests between nationalist-populists against pro-Western liberals, the populists have won. Past examples include Peron in Argentina and, most recently, Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and even Lula da Silva in Brazil, all of whom have demonstrated an ability to secure close to or even greater than 60% of the vote in free elections. The voting majorities in these countries prefer social welfare over unrestrained markets, national security over alignments with military empires.

The consequences of the electoral victory of Ahmadinejad are open to debate. The US may conclude that continuing to back a vocal, but badly defeated, minority has few prospects for securing concessions on nuclear enrichment and an abandonment of Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas. A realistic approach would be to open a wide-ranging discussion with Iran, and acknowledging, as Senator Kerry recently pointed out, that enriching uranium is not an existential threat to anyone. This approach would sharply differ from the approach of American Zionists, embedded in the Obama regime, who follow Israel’s lead of pushing for a preemptive war with Iran and use the specious argument that no negotiations are possible with an ‘illegitimate’ government in Tehran which ‘stole an election’.

Recent events suggest that political leaders in Europe, and even some in Washington, do not accept the Zionist-mass media line of ‘stolen elections’. The White House has not suspended its offer of negotiations with the newly re-elected government but has focused rather on the repression of the opposition protesters (and not the vote count). Likewise, the 27 nation European Union expressed ‘serious concern about violence’ and called for the “aspirations of the Iranian people to be achieved through peaceful means and that freedom of expression be respected” (Financial Times June 16, 2009 p.4). Except for Sarkozy of France, no EU leader has questioned the outcome of the voting.

The wild card in the aftermath of the elections is the Israeli response: Netanyahu has signaled to his American Zionist followers that they should use the hoax of ‘electoral fraud’ to exert maximum pressure on the Obama regime to end all plans to meet with the newly re-elected Ahmadinejad regime.

Paradoxically, US commentators (left, right and center) who bought into the electoral fraud hoax are inadvertently providing Netanyahu and his American followers with the arguments and fabrications: Where they see religious wars, we see class wars; where they see electoral fraud, we see imperial destabilization.

James Petras is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by James Petras

On the attempted coup in Iran


Petras on the attempted coup in Iran

Petras:

"What is astonishing about the West's universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised."
It is curious that Mousavi won't accept anything less than another destabilizing election, a good time for a real coup. More from Petras:

"Recent events suggest that political leaders in Europe, and even some in Washington, do not accept the Zionist-mass media line of ‘stolen elections’. The White House has not suspended its offer of negotiations with the newly re-elected government but has focused rather on the repression of the opposition protesters (and not the vote count). Likewise, the 27 nation European Union expressed ‘serious concern about violence’ and called for the “aspirations of the Iranian people to be achieved through peaceful means and that freedom of expression be respected” (Financial Times June 16, 2009 p.4). Except for Sarkozy of France, no EU leader has questioned the outcome of the voting.

The wild card in the aftermath of the elections is the Israeli response: Netanyahu has signaled to his American Zionist followers that they should use the hoax of ‘electoral fraud’ to exert maximum pressure on the Obama regime to end all plans to meet with the newly re-elected Ahmadinejad regime.

Paradoxically, US commentators (left, right and center) who bought into the electoral fraud hoax are inadvertently providing Netanyahu and his American followers with the arguments and fabrications: Where they see religious wars, we see class wars; where they see electoral fraud, we see imperial destabilization."
This conspiracy isn't going to destroy Iran, but it is going to weaken it. The only good that has come out of this is that we have lengthened the list of American commentators who are working for the bad guys, i. e., Zionists and those deadenders in the dying American Empire who work for Zionists. It is interesting that the first thing the elected President of Iran did after his overwhelming win was attend the conference in Russia which put the nails in the Jewish-built coffin of the American Empire. Sometimes revenge is a dish best served hot.

More Iran links

I keep meaning to blog about something else - there are some conspiracies in Canada, of all places! - but the intelligence assets continue to lie, albeit with a touch less confidence, wondering how they will ever regain their credibility. The heartening thing is that people are so hip to conspiracies now that the liars have made themselves something of a joke. The links:

  1. I have been justifiably attacking Mondoweiss, but Weiss redeems himself a little bit - he's subsequently descended back into the Zionist ooze (and Tikun Olam sinks ever deeper) - by posting some truth. The internal conspiracy is all Rafsanjani, with the various opponents carefully crafted so that each would pare a little support from Ahmadinejad. The Iranian people saw through the trick.
  2. Twitter has proven itself as a wonderful intelligence agency tool - anonymous, immediate, with an air of veracity, and the ability to make what appear to be mutually confirming reports. All lies. It is Twitter that fed, and continues to feed, the raw material for the American intelligence assets. The Jerusalem Post has now been caught by Charting Stocks of trying to scrub the evidence of the Israeli origin of many of the tweets.
  3. From the Angry Arab News Service:

    "A colleague and friend sent me this (she/he does not want to be identified): 'Mousavi was (along with a couple of other major "reformists") were hotheaded rightwing Islamists back in the 1980s, and Mousavi in particular was responsible for purging universities of lefties, Jews, and Bahaiis. the other two people most associated with this same move from being university purgers to radical reformists are Abdulkarim Sorush and MohsenKadviar. The former is a philosopher and the latter a cleric, both of whom have very sophisticated arguments (the former based on Gadamer's hermeneutics; the latter based on his extensive training and certification as a faqih) about separating the mosque from the state. All three were involved with the early purges and now face the same fate...the other thing is that although Ahmadinejad has very populist rhetoric he is actually a neoliberal bastard economically, so....'"

    I have to note that it is odd that this 'neoliberal bastard' is roundly criticized by the right for causing inflation by handing out too much oil money to the poor.
  4. "The Iranian Election and a Hysterical Media" (found here). Of course, leftish writers work from a template which always ends with the conclusion that the only solution to this intractable problem is socialism.

More links on Iran

The dust is starting to settle. The CIA/Mossad coup failed, which isn't to say its planners will be disappointed, as they really only wanted to weaken Iran, and lessen any possibility of a rapprochement between Iran and the United States (and it appears that some of the 'rooms' in the mansion of the CIA - JJA reference - didn't go along with this plan). Just think what a better world it would be if the United States treated Iran as it now treats Israel, and treated Israel as it now treats Iran. Some links:

  1. The failure of the Rafsanjani/Mousavi scheming. Having Mousavi lead the 'reformers' would be like the American left staging a revolution to get universal healthcare - looks like a revolution is what it might take! - and picking as their leader . . . George Bush. Completely insane, and obvious to Iranians.
  2. How the Jews will spin it. Luckily for almost everybody, it is no longer fashionable to be a Jew in Washington (or anywhere else, for that matter).
  3. What do you do if you are a liberal living in a predominantly conservative country? No I'm not talking about a resident of New York City living in the United States in 2008. Iranian liberals have, to our way of looking at the world, some very legitimate grievances concerning who they can vote for, freedom of speech, religious freedom, freedom from being beat up by fanatical religious authorities, etc. How do you make progress in these matters when most of society seems perfectly happy with the status quo? Whatever the answer, what they are doing - hitching their wagon to crooks and Zionist intelligence assets - isn't the way to go. While I'm sure many of the protesters are quite sincere, I can't help but be reminded of the similar protesters against Hugo Chavez, marching against things like progressive taxation and the end of feudal land-holdings. The real reformer was Ahmadinejad, but in the upside-down world of American/Zionist analysis, bad guys are good, and good guys are bad.


Outstanding detective work by Charting Stocks on how the Jews are using Twitter to destabilize Iran. Couple that with agents provocateurs within Iran, intelligence assets in the United States playing up the story, and a candidate who ran not to win, but with the sole intention of breaking up the country after the election, and you have the Zionist recipe for destabilizaion, or worse.

When you think about it, the fascination of certain parties with Iranian election corruption is rather funny. The same people did nothing in the face of two recent cases of much worse election fraud in American presidential elections. Even if the Iranians were committing fraud like crazy, Ahmadinejad would have received something like 58% rather than 63%, still by any measure a landslide. On top of all that, the real power still rests in the clerics who determine who can run and make all the big decisions. There is no possible explanation for this sudden interest in Iranian elections other than conspiracy. Remember that Americans have never recovered from the embarrassment of the hostages and the Islamic Revolution in Iran. This is their revenge.

Overturning the Islamic Revolution

Iranians were killed when the mob attacked, and tried to burn down, the headquarters of the Basij volunteer militia, which works for the Revolutionary Guards. This was insane. It is also clear proof of the work of agents provocateurs within the protests, who are trying to cause 'regime change'. Any guess as to who might be employing these agents provocateurs?

Remember Wurmser's Zionist Plan for the Middle East? The War For The Jews against Iraq was supposed to introduce a moderate Shi'ite regime in Iraq, which would in turn moderate the regime in Iran. In fact, the business interests which have been so friendly to the Zionists (e. g., Ghorbanifar and the weapons dealers who aided in Iran-Contra), the group represented by Mousavi, is supposed to take over, and the 1979 revolution completely reversed. Since the regime in place in Iraq isn't moderate, and is too friendly with the 'radicals' in Iran, World Jewry and its American host appears to have cooked up a plan to attempt 'regime change' the old fashioned way, through a phony revolution created by anarchy caused by rabble rousing and agents provocateurs. Even if the attempt fails, the Jews will have weakened Iran. It is time for all Iranians to come together in the spirit of 1979. Don't let the Jews win!

Iran election wrap

It seems the neocons were too smart for their own good, pissed off the Obama administration with their scheming, and paid the price of losing Dennis Ross (Ross was probably headed out the door anyway, but the timing of his departure is telling). It was always completely preposterous that the Obama guy in charge of negotiating with Iran was the co-founder - along with Richard Holbrooke, whose job it is to wreck Pakistan - of an institute dedicated to nuking Iran.

From the most dependable newspaper in the world, the Telegraph (my emphasis in red):

"Mr Mousavi's cancellation of the protest came as sporadic disturbances continued around the Iranian capital, and reports circulated of leaked interior ministry statistics showing him as the clear victor in last Friday's polls.

The statistics, circulated on Iranian blogs and websites, claimed Mr Mousavi had won 19.1 million votes while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won only 5.7 million.

The two other candidates, reformist Mehdi Karoubi and hardliner Mohsen Rezai, won 13.4 million and 3.7 million respectively. The authenticity of the leaked figures could not be confirmed."
Try to remember that this is the Telegraph, not the Onion (a far more reliable news source).

Meanwhile, back in the real world, pollsters explain how the final results are quite credible. Mousavi, a politician who had been out of power for twenty years, entered the race at almost the last moment. The poll showed he didn't even come close to Ahmadinejad amongst his own ethnic group. Ahmadinejad is considered to be personally completely non-corrupt, while a major supporter of Mousavi, Hashemi Rafsanjani, is infamous in Iran for his corruption. Mousavi is also good pals with Manucher Ghorbanifar! Remember the meeting in Rome with Ledeen in which they cooked up the trickery which led to the disastrous American attack on Iraq? Remember the Niger documents? The connections to corruption and to the neocons make Mousavi's recent actions quite understandable. He never thought he was going to win. He was in the election from the get go as part of a neocon/Zionist plot to destabilize Iran and make the election 'illegitimate', thus making it easier for the Jews to claim that the United States 'had no negotiating partner'.

For more on the plausibility of the result, and why, see here and here and here (although Fisk reminds me more and more of Thomas Friedman, and that is not a good thing) and here (". . . Ahmadinejad’s 62.6 percent of the vote in this year’s election is essentially the same as the 61.69 percent he received in the final count of the 2005 presidential election....).

There was no mass murder by government forces, Mousavi wasn't killed or put under house arrest, the phones weren't shut down, the cell phones weren't shut down, Twitter wasn't shut down (although it is being heavily manipulated by the neocon forces; it's amusing how we heard about Twitter being shut down over . . . Twitter), the internet wasn't shut down (although all information systems were slowed by the massive propaganda battle being fought by the neocons), the protests, some very violent, are being allowed to continue. All the Zionist rumors were, as usual, bullshit. The police and military did brutalize peaceful protesters . . . oh, sorry that was at Netanyahu's speech.

The bullshit will continue, as World Jewry feels that destabilizing Iran is 'good for the Jews'. And so it goes.