Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.
Last week all 100 members of the US Senate signed onto a letter criticizing the UN, and particularly the UN Human Rights Council, for seeking to “advance an anti-Israel agenda.” In the above video, Bernie Sanders, probably beloved by more liberals than any other member of the Senate, attempts to justify his decision to add his signature to the letter.
“The thrust of that letter is not to say that Israel does not have have human rights issues. It does,” he says in his defense.
One of course would not know this from reading the letter (the full text of which can be found here ). If Sanders and the other senators truly feel that Israel indeed has “human rights issues,” they evidently don’t regard these as serious enough to merit mentioning. Israel in the letter is portrayed as nothing more than a victim of persecution.
The first paragraph accuses UN agencies and member states of seeking to exploit the UN as “a vehicle for targeting Israel,” and goes on to assert that such actions have “at times reinforced the broader scourge of anti-Semitism.”
So let’s see…if you criticize Israel at the UN you are helping to advance “the broader scourge of anti-Semitism,” this despite the fact that Israel maintains an illegal occupation “that has no end in sight,” as the interviewer in the above video puts it.
The letter is addressed to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who actually gets cudos from the senators for axing a recent report on Israeli apartheid that had been compiled by the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. Guterres’ deletion of the report from the UN’s website was an act of censorship that prompted the resignation of Rima Khalaf, the ESCWA’s director, as I discussed in a previous post.
But adulation for Guterres notwithstanding, the senators, as mentioned above, particularly have it in for the UNHRC. They grouse that the body “even maintains a permanent item on its agenda–‘Agenda Item VII’–to assess Israel…” Heaven forbid!
Israel is an apartheid state (as the ESCWA report makes abundantly clear) whose policies toward the Palestinians probably even meet the legal definition of genocide, as I have pointed out a number of times previously. The UNHRC would be derelict if it did not have a separate agenda item to discuss such matters. Yet Sanders and the other 99 senators accuse the UNHRC of an “imbalanced focus on Israel.”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a big fan of the UN, which more often than not has been used as a tool to advance US foreign policy goals, and Guterres seems well on his way to following in his predecessor Ban Ki-moon’s footsteps in that regard. Occasionally, however, one or another member of the UN will work up the nerve to criticize Israel or oppose a US war. This is one of the UN’s redeeming qualities.
As for Sanders, he is speaking out of both sides of his mouth to such an extent in the above video that I almost feel embarrassed for him. Welllll…I–I–didn’t write the letter, I only signed onto it! Yes, yes I’m a lifetime proponent of nonviolent protests…uh…but no, I don’t support the BDS movement. Well then what is left for the Palestinians to do, Senator Sanders?—change the subject.
If there were a country somewhere in the world where Jews were forced into an apartheid ghetto surrounded by walls and checkpoints would Sanders, who is Jewish, be opposed to a boycott of that nation? The answer probably is yes–because instead of a boycott, the senator from Vermont would be too busy advocating a military invasion.
This is Jewish hypocrisy from the liberal end of the Zionist spectrum. Hardly any wonder, then, that Sanders, in the video’s closing segment, expresses opposition to a one-state solution–in which Palestinians and Israelis would enjoy equal rights and equal citizenship–because, as he puts it, “that would be the end of the state of Israel.”
In saying this, is Sanders not in effect admitting that Israel is an ethno-theocratic state rather than a democracy? It would seem so, but apparently Sanders has a fondness for ethno-theocratic states provided they are Jewish.
“And I support Israel’s right to exist,” he reminds us.
Given that the left in America so often tends to elevate such “luminaries” as Sanders as its leaders and role models, it is no wonder that the American left has been such a colossal failure.
April 30, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar – NEO) – A recent, unilateral, unjustified military strike on Syria by US cruise missiles, coupled with the deployment of a US naval fleet to the Korean Peninsula as well as terrorist attacks carried out by terrorist fronts worldwide associated with US-backed opposition groups signifies a worldwide push-back from Wall Street and Washington amid its crumbling “international order.”
Like all hegemons before it, Wall Street and Washington have found themselves expending more time and resources maintaining their current geopolitical order than on either further expansion or domestic development. What has developed is a vicious cycle of aggression, conflict, and retrenchment. Throughout the process, there is the expenditure of irreplaceable political capital.
For example, while US policymakers rightly noted their “international order” built by and for Wall Street and Washington would suffer immensely had their attempts to overthrow the Libyan government in 2011 been reversed, their “success” was equally damaging. Before an increasingly capable world of alternative systems, blocs and an emerging multipolar order, the destruction of Libya and its current status as a failed state along with the protracted nature of the US campaign to topple the government was more a sign of growing weakness than a warning of American strength.
Struggling in Syria
The subsequent conflict in Syria only reinforced suspicions of serious and growing American weakness. The conflict has dragged on for 6 years, and US attempts at regime change have been met by direct Russian military intervention along with a significant role played by another obstacle to US regional and global hegemony, Iran.
Such a scenario, 20-30 years ago, would have been unimaginable.
The recent missile strikes in Syria, then, were not a masterstroke of strategic strength and brilliance, but rather an act of desperation amid a crumbling policy within its crumbling “international order.”
Analysts and policymakers the world over should not, however, get the impression that a retreating America poses no threat. On the contrary, the US in its current state of wounded pride, retracting influence and waning power is more dangerous than ever.
As the window closes on any possibility of a US-maintained order in the Middle East, attempts to permanently damage whatever remains and whoever presides over it becomes more tempting than ever.
While the US poses as “fighting” terrorist organizations like the “Islamic State” and other Al Qaeda affiliates, it has all but openly armed, funded, trained and supported these groups, including with, now, direct military intervention. Indeed, the military targets the US hit recently with its cruise missiles were engaged on the front lines against both the Islamic State and US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization, the al-Nusrah Front.
Continued support for these terrorist groups either directly or through America’s regional allies (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others), along with the persistent threat of unilateral military action in direct defiance of the very international law Washington claims its own “international order” is built upon, may be a grievous threat for years to come.
Along the peripheries of this conflict include Egypt who has also just recently experienced terrorist attacks aimed at dividing the nation along sectarian lines and undermining Cairo’s ability to administer its own nation let alone participate in any meaningful way in any emerging alternative regional order.
Proxy War on the Korean Peninsula
North Korea poses little threat to the United States. Any first strike carried out by North Korea against either the US or South Korea would result in the immediate and absolute destruction of the isolated nation. Despite this reality, the United States has purposefully and disingenuously built it up into a national, even global security threat that conveniently requires an ever increasing military build-up both on the Korean Peninsula itself, as well as across the rest of East Asia.
However, the Korean Peninsula is just one of several fronts amid the actual target of US ambitions, China and the ruling political order in Beijing.
In addition to the Korean Peninsula, the US is concentrating sociopolitical, economic and even covert terrorist pressure as far west as Afghanistan, Pakistan and China’s Xinjiang province, all throughout Southeast Asia and even within Chinese territory, particularly in Hong Kong.
The elimination of North Korea as one of the remaining buffer zones between America’s presence in the Pacific and Beijing has been a stated US geopolitical objective for decades (including during the Korean War). With the target actually being Beijing itself, efforts to solve the “Korean problem” without recognizing and dismantling America’s unwarranted presence in the region will lead only to further conflict, not only in East Asia but all along China’s peripheries.
Not Trump’s Policy, Not Because of His Ego
American and European media sources have attempted to assign responsibility for America’s recent aggression both in Syria and its posturing upon the Korean Peninsula to US President Donald Trump’s own personal motivations and politics. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The precise agenda of regime change in Syria stretches back decades, and plans to launch cruise missiles into Syria once it became apparent swift Libyan-style regime change was not possible was articulated across the entirety of the US foreign policy establishment as early as 2013.
Tomahawk cruise missiles are likely to be launched at night against hundreds of Syrian targets, including some of President Bashar al-Assad’s elite military units, if the U.S. and allies launch a military strike in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.
Careless readers could easily mistaken the Bloomberg article from years ago for a current headline.
Likewise, US efforts to topple the government of North Korea stretch back for years. US-based think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), would publish a 2009, 60-page report titled, “Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea,” in which scenarios for the full-scale invasion, occupation and subjugation of North Korea were laid out.
Today, President Trump is merely the latest politician to rubber stamp the most recent iterations of these policies, laid out publicly and repeatedly for years by policy think tanks representing the collective interests and ambitions of some of the West’s largest corporations and financial institutions.
Conversations regarding the so-called “deep state” have revolved around talk of various bureaucracies and career administrators within the US government, however, more accurately, all of these, along with elected representatives, fall under a singular and truly gargantuan deep state, one emanating from Wall Street, not offices in Washington.
Thus, regardless of various popular narratives circulating across the Western press, US policy now is merely the continuation of a singular agenda pursuing global hegemony. As competing centers of power around the globe emerge and increasingly resist the United States, attempts to sweep these centers of power away increase in both number and desperation.
Genuinely responsible leadership in the United States or Europe would recognize the shifting balance of power and seek to maintain equity between nations. Instead, ruling circles of power in the West are attempting to unrealistically reassert hegemony at the risk of triggering catastrophic and destructive war. By doing so, they, at best, are only delaying the inevitable. And by doing so, they illustrate their inability to function as reasonable and constructive partners in the new, multipolar world order that is emerging, ensuring that they are the ones ultimately swept away.
Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
After hypocritically lambasting North Korea for test firing missiles, the US has conducted its second test of an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile in seven days. The latest ICBM test launch, of a Minuteman III missile, took off from Vandenberg Air Force Base at two minutes past midnight local time on Wednesday, May 3. This follows by seven days the last test, which took place on April 26.
ICBMS are capable of traveling thousands of miles and delivering a nuclear payload.
What is the world to make of the fact that the US not only is conducting such a tests but also makes a practice of uploading videos of them to YouTube? The US military has made an effort to portray these as routine missile tests, but does anyone believe that? Someone in Washington seems to be trying hard to send a message–but to whom?
Should we assume these tests are intended solely to scare the leader of North Korea? Or were they intended to intimidate Russia and China as well? You can go here to view a similar video of a Minuteman III test which took place on October 21, 2015–just three weeks after Russia sent troops into Syria. Is Russia supposed to assume, as it watches all these tests, that the US isn’t preparing for World War III? Is it supposed to take it on faith that the lunatics running the US government have no intention of launching a preemptive nuclear strike upon Russia?
A news report on the latest test, posted today at RT, mentions a “simulated” test firing said to have preceded the two most recent tests and that occurred on April 11. The report includes a quote from a US military official, one Lt. Col. Deane Konowicz, who commented at the time:
“The Simulated Electronic Launch of a Minuteman III ICBM is a signal to the American people, our allies, and our adversaries that our ICBM capability is safe, secure, lethal and ready,” he said.
The world has much to fear right now, but it isn’t from North Korea or Iran. Neither country’s leaders are insane. The same, however, cannot be said of the mentally diseased Zionists who have gained control of the US government and who now have their hands on America’s nuclear arsenal.
DAMASCUS, SYRIA (10:40 P.M.) – Uzbek jihadist group ‘Imam Al-Bukhari Battalion’ (IBB) announced appointment of new commander, a Tadjikistani citizen known as ‘Abu Yussouf’. This comes in a week after previous leader of the group, Akmal Jurabaev (known as ‘Sheikh Salaheddine’), was assassinated in Idlib province.
According to Uzbekistani opposition media, Ozodlik Radiosi (Uzbek branch of Radio Liberty), Abu Yussouf is appointed as an “acting” commander who will be responsible for the operations until the group decides on choosing a permanent leader.
“There is not so much information about this guy,” Istanbul-based Ozodlik correspondent said.
“It is known that he was commanding several operations against both Syrian government forces and several rebel groups in Idlib province. He won authority among militants as a military strategist. He also possesses religious knowledge,” the reporter concluded.
IBB is one of the three Uzbek jihadist groups present on the battlegrounds of Syria and Iraq. It was formerly an integral part of Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), large Central Asian jihadist organization that pledged allegiance to the so-called “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” (ISIS) in 2015 resulting in discord and splitting into several groups.
Leaders of IBB stayed loyal to Afghan islamist movement, Taliban, reasserting their allegiance in July 2016 when Taliban appointed a new leader.
Another splinter of IMU, Kataebat Al-Tawheed wu Al-Jihad, pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in 2014 and is currently aligned with Ha’yat Tahrir Al-Sham.
Finally, there is Khorasan jihadist group which has been a part of ISIS since 2015. It was a Khorasan member who had shot Sheikh Salaheddine on April 27.
ALSO READSaudi-backed Syrian militant group stands against Iran’s participation in peace talks
Overall, the estimated 2,000 militants of Uzbek descent are currently taking part in battles on Syrian and Iraqi soil.
The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (KDP) faces the most difficult political moments since its presence in the Syrian war and after it succeeded in reserving a seat of power as a major player, away from accepting, refusing, or objecting the policies which it pursued, but this party which is affected by the ideas and the tendencies of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party which fights in Turkey defending for the rights of the Kurds has taken into consideration the public mood of the Kurds of Syria by seeing Turkey as an enemy and a power of occupation, it has refused to get involved in a deal that ensures a role for it as a secondary player in the militias run by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. So as a result of that it bore its being alienated away from the negotiation formulas in Geneva without losing its place in the field, on the contrary it succeeded in proposing the solicitations of the major countries in Moscow and Washington in particular, towards being the right hand of the Americans in the Syrian war, it granted them security military and strategic privileges in the areas of its dominance.
If some of the Kurdish leaderships in Syria as the leaderships of the Iraqi Kurds have suggested that the Americans will support the emergence of an independent Kurdish entity, but after the passage of fourteen years of the US occupation of Iraq without the implementation of that promise, then this proves to those Syrians who bet on the US position for the emergence of a Kurdish entity what is awaiting them, but the other Kurdish leaderships which are the majority are certain after their experiences with the Americans that the promises of the formation of an independent or federal entity are not real due to the presence of internal, regional and international Syrian complicated equations, that do not allow the thinking of those options just after having the US words, which the days proved that they are changeable. These leaderships just consider the fruitful outcome of the relationship with Washington through the prevention of the Turkish exclusiveness of the Kurds of Syria and making them a goal of their war in Syria after their failure in achieving the original goal which is the dominance on Syria and after their recognition of the red lines drawn by the Russian role. Therefore the Turkish-Kurdish conflict based on how Washington will draw its red lines and whether the Kurds will be included in these lines?
The Kurds presented to Washington whatever it wants, they granted it the geography on which they control, along with popular legitimacy for their intervention that allows them to claim that they are not an occupying force, according to the official Syrian discourse which gave them the legal legitimacy. The Kurdish militias fought against the Syrian army under US demand through driving it away from Al Hasaka, but they got the anger of the Syrian factions which share with them and will share with them throughout the years the future of the common living, so they were obliged to meet the requirements of the expansion of the US military geography to expand their political geography by force by including areas that do not include Kurds to the range of what they called the self-management, and their war on terrorism which was against ISIS and Al Nusra in the areas of their presence and which they modified its course to conform with the US agenda, so it was restricted with ISIS, including the areas which they will enter as a foreign force and maybe an occupying force under the title of the war in Raqqa . The Kurdish leaders have accepted to give concessions demanded by the Americans about their relation with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in order to be closer from the Turks, but the Turks have surprised them with the Turkish war against them under the US observation.
Today the Kurds of Syria stand in front of two different examples in their dealing; the US example which does not protect them when it is the hour of confrontation as has happened in Manbej, and before it in Jarablos And as what is happening today, in exchange of giving everything, and the example of the Syrian country which they abused and harmed, but it forgave them as happened in Manbej and is happening today by opening the road of Qamilshli –Damascus, but with the expansion of the Turkish battles against the Kurds, they are forced to stand at the crossroads either to accept the transition into a mere US tool, where the international and the regional interests game decide their fate, or to anticipate towards a national role, its essence and pivot is to stick to the Syrian identity,y and to be protected under Syrian national discourse that stems from considering the Syrian country a homeland for all its sons, a reference for them and to consider the role of the Syrian army a ceiling for every security and military equation. Today no one asks the Democratic Union Party for a war on the Americans, but to be convinced of the danger of the transition into a US tool and to go step backward to say that there is no war on Raqqa without a full deterrence of the Turkish aggression.
– يواجه حزب الاتحاد الديمقراطي الكردي أصعب لحظات سياسية منذ حضوره في الحرب السورية، وبعدما نجح في حجز مقعد قوة حاضرة ولاعب رئيسي، بمعزل عن قبول أو رفض أو الاعتراض على السياسات التي انتهجها، لكن هذا الحزب المتأثر بأفكار وتوجّهات حزب العمال الكردستاني الذي يقاتل في تركيا دفاعاً عن حقوق الأكراد، التقط المزاج العام لأكراد سورية بالنظر لتركيا كعدو وقوة احتلال، ورفض الدخول في صفقة تضمن له دور اللاعب الثانوي في الميليشيات التي تديرها تركيا والسعودية، وتحمّل بسبب ذلك إقصاءه عن صيغ التفاوض في جنيف، من دون أن يخسر مكانه في الميدان وينجح باستدراج عروض الدول الكبرى، في موسكو وواشنطن خصوصاً، وصولاً للتحوّل إلى الذراع الرئيسية للأميركيين في الحرب السورية، ومنحهم امتيازات أمنية وعسكرية استراتيجية في مناطق سيطرته.
– إذا كان بعض قيادات أكراد سورية قد اشترى الوهم ذاته الذي اشترته قيادات أكراد العراق من الأميركيين بدعم نشوء كيان كردي مستقل، فإنّ مرور أربعة عشر عاماً على الاحتلال الأميركي للعراق دون تنفيذ هذا الوعد تقول لهؤلاء السوريين المراهنين على الموقف الأميركي لقيام كيان كردي ماذا ينتظرهم، لكن بعض القيادات الكردية الأخرى، وهي الأغلبية باتت على يقين، بعد تجاربها مع الأميركيين، بأنّ وعود قيام كيان مستقلّ أو فدرالية، لا يمكن صرفها في الواقع مع وجود معادلات سورية داخلية وإقليمية ودولية معقدة لا تتيح استسهال التفكير بهذه الخيارات بمجرد الحصول على كلام أميركي أثبتت الأيام أنه عرضة للتبدّل مراراً. وتكتفي هذه القيادات باعتبار العائد المجزي لهذه العلاقة مع واشنطن هو منع الاستفراد التركي بأكراد سورية، وجعلهم هدفاً لحربهم في سورية، بعد فشلهم في تحقيق الهدف الأصلي وهو السيطرة على سورية، وتسليمهم بخطوط حمراء يرسمها الدور الروسي، ليصير النزاع التركي الكردي قائماً على كيف سترسم واشنطن خطها الأحمر، وهل سيكون الأكراد من ضمنه؟
– قدّم الأكراد للأميركيين كلّ ما يريدونه، فمنحوهم الجغرافيا التي يسيطرون عليها، ومعها شرعية شعبية لتدخّلهم، وتتيح لهم الادّعاء بأنهم ليسوا قوة احتلال، وفقاً للخطاب السوري الرسمي الذي يرفع عنهم غطاء الشرعية القانونية، وقاتلت الميليشيات الكردية ضدّ الجيش السوري بطلب أميركي، لإبعاده عن منطقة الحسكة، واشترى الأكراد غضب شرائح سورية تتشارك معهم وستتشارك على مرّ الأزمنة المقبلة مستقبل عيش واحد، فاضطروا لتبلية مقتضيات توسع الجغرافيا العسكرية الأميركية أن يوسّعوا جغرافيتهم السياسية عنوة، بضمّ مناطق ليس فيها أكراد لنطاق ما أسموه بالإدارة الذاتية، وحربهم على الإرهاب التي كانت ضدّ داعش والنصرة في مناطق حضورهم عدّلوا وجهتها لتنسجم مع الأجندة الأميركية، فحصرت بداعش، وصارت تشمل كلّ الحرب على داعش بما في ذلك في المناطق التي سيدخلونها كقوة غريبة وربما قوة احتلال كتصدّرهم عنوان الحرب في الرقة. ووصل قادة الأكراد لقبول تنازلات طلبها الأميركيون عن علاقتهم بحزب العمال الكردستاني تقرّباً للأتراك فجاءهم الجواب بفتح الحرب التركية عليهم تحت العيون الأميركية.
– يقف الأكراد في سورية اليوم أمام نموذجين مختلفين في معاملتهم، النموذج الأميركي الذي لا يقدّم لهم الحماية عندما تدقّ ساعة المواجهة كما حدث في منبج وقبلها جرابلس ويحدث اليوم، مقابل أنهم أعطوه كلّ شيء، ونموذج الدولة السورية التي نكّلوا بها وأساؤوا إليها فتسامحهم، وتمدّ اليد إليهم، كما حدث في منبج ويحدث اليوم بفتح طريق القامشلي إلى دمشق. ومع توسّع المعارك التركية ضدّ الأكراد ينطرح عليهم الوقوف على مفصل طرق، قبول التحوّل مجرد أداة أميركية لتقرّر لعبة المصالح الدولية والإقليمية مصيرهم، أو التطلع لدور وطني جوهره ومحوره التمسك بالهوية السورية والاحتماء بخطاب وطني سوري، ينطلق من اعتبار الدولة السورية حضناً لجميع أبنائها، ومرجعاً لهم، واعتبار دور الجيش السوري سقفاً لكلّ معادلة أمنية وعسكرية، ولا أحد يطلب اليوم من حزب الاتحاد الديمقراطي حرباً هوائية على الأميركيين، بل الاقتناع بخطورة التحوّل أداة أميركية، والاكتفاء بالعودة خطوة إلى الوراء تقول: لا حرب في الرقة بلا ردع شامل للعدوان التركي.
May 02, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – If the public were to rely solely on the U.S. government and its respective mouthpieces for its source of news, one might assume Iran is to blame for the current crisis engulfing Yemen, the Arab world’s poorest country.
“At least 10,000 people have been killed and more than 3 million displaced in the war in Yemen, now in its third year. Millions of people are also struggling to feed themselves.
“‘We will have to overcome Iran’s efforts to destabilize yet another country and create another militia in their image of Lebanese Hezbollah, but the bottom line is we are on the right path for it,’ Mattis [Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis] told reporters in Riyadh after meeting senior Saudi officials.”
Note how the Reuters report explains the current humanitarian crisis but then transitions into a statement from the Trump administration that directly apportions the blame for that crisis to the Iranian government.
Is Iran to blame for the current crisis in Yemen?
In 2015, I wrote an article for Truthout in which I analyzed a number of Guardian articles that claimed, without question, that the Houthi rebels leading an insurrection in Yemen were “Iran-backed.” Most of the time, the claim was presented without any evidence, though the Guardian occasionally provided a hyperlink for the source. By clicking on the hyperlinks I found the Guardian was failing to provide evidence that Iran was backing rebels in Yemen. In one of the examples, the hyperlinked article was an article where a “source” had revealed that fighters who were trained in one of the Gulf States (which was not specified) — who numbered no more than ten altogether — had arrived in Yemen; hardly proof of anything.
In turn, Media Lens, an organization that analyzes media bias and propaganda, shared the article with the Guardian author in question, Ian Black, to illicit a response on Twitter. The Guardian author did respond (indirectly), by sharing an article from Reuters titled “Iranian support seen crucial for Yemen’s Houthis.”
Sounds promising, right? Here is a direct quote from the article:
“Exactly how much support Iran has given the Houthis, who share a Shi’ite ideology, has never been clear.”[emphasis added]
The article relies entirely on unnamed sources in order to promulgate a number of claims that even Reuters couldn’t verify. For example:
“He [an unnamed Iranian official] said about 100 Houthis had traveled to Iran this year for training at a Revolutionary Guards base near the city of Qom. It was not immediately possible to verify this claim.”[emphasis added].
If Iran, which has relatively low military spending — and is mired by crippling economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. — is truly capable of destabilizing Yemen, then surely the mainstream media would be able to provide concrete evidence of this Iranian-Houthi relationship. Claims that there is an Iranian arms supply to Yemen have been extensively debunked. A recent report that attempted to show that Iran had an arms supply route to Yemen concluded that some (emphasis on some) weapons that arrived in Yemen via Somalia were “probably supplied with the complicity of Iranian security forces.” Probably supplied…would this hold up in a court of law?
In addition to their lack of direct proof, these reports also fail to answer two important questions. First, how is it that Iran is able to ship weapons to Yemen in the face of a Saudi-imposed blockade, which has completely devastated the country?
And second, why is it that as late as January of this year, U.N. experts were unable to find any evidence of large-scale Iranian involvement? As noted by the U.N. experts who presented a report of their findings to the U.N. Security Council:
“The panel has not seen sufficient evidence to confirm any direct large-scale supply of arms from the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, although there are indicators that anti-tank guided weapons being supplied to the Houthi or Saleh forces are of Iranian manufacture.” [emphasis added]
If you are inclined to think that the origin of manufacture is proof of direct interference, perhaps you should read this report that outlines how the U.S. has armed both sides of the conflict.
Though the U.N. experts could not find ample evidence of Iranian interference, they did find mounting evidence of war crimes committed by Saudi Arabia (in fact, this was the sole purpose of the report.)
It is because of this complete lack of evidence of any tangible Iranian involvement in Yemen that even the Washington Post had no choice but to publish the following:
“Yet as [the author] argued in a recent article in the May 2016 issue of International Affairs, the Chatham House journal, Tehran’s support for the Houthis is limited, and its influence in Yemen is marginal. It is simply inaccurate to claim that the Houthis are Iranian proxies.”
But we should never let these facts get in the way of a good story. If you repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it. If you repeat the claim that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, people will believe it is justified to attack Iraq. If you repeat the claim that in 2011 Muammar Gaddafi was a genocidal maniac who ordered his forces to commit mass rape (the same people he offered free health care), people will believe it is justified to attack Libya. If you repeat the claim that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons in the major documented attacks in 2013 (even though U.N. investigators concluded he didn’t) and that he used them again in 2017 (even though very prominent intellectuals have concluded the U.S. intelligence does not support this conclusion), then people will believe it is justified to attack Syria.
If you repeat the claim over and over that the Houthi rebels are backed by Iran, people will believe it.
No one doubts that Iran has a stake in the Yemen conflict and has probably tried its best to send support in some way or another (whether political, symbolic, or by direct military assistance). But the fact remains that the mainstream media is unable to provide any shred of direct intelligence or conclusive evidence of any large scale involvement that has contributed to the destabilization of Yemen.
The other twisted aspect of this narrative worth highlighting is that if Iran was arming rebels in Yemen, it would be the most literal translation of the phrase “chickens coming home to roost,” as Saudi Arabia has spent vast sums of money arming fanatical jihadist rebels to topple Iran’s close ally in Syria. Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails show the Obama administration was well aware that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were directly sponsoring ISIS.
War Crimes, Genocide, and Mass Starvation
Yemen is home to al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the brand of al-Qaeda that Washington previously regarded as the deadliest. It is also home to ISIS because the terror group capitalized on the instability and managed to latch itself onto a decent foothold in the war-torn country. Yet Saudi Arabia is not targeting either of these two groups. Further, the Houthi rebels are actually sworn enemies of these two violent terror groups; if Washington were genuine in prosecuting its war against al-Qaeda, then the Houthis would technically be a natural ally.
So who are the Saudis bombing? Civilians, plain and simple.
On October 8, 2016, an aerial bombardment targeted a crowded funeral in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. According to the U.N., more than 140 Yemenis were killed and at least 525 others were injured. The aftermath of this attack was aptly dubbed a “lake of blood.”
According to Martha Mundy, professor emeritus at the London School of Economics, the Saudi coalition has been hitting agricultural land. Noting just 2.8 percent of Yemen’s land is cultivated, she has argued that “[t]o hit that small amount of agricultural land, you have to target it.”
Even before the war broke out, Yemen was already dependent on imports for 90 percent of its staple foodsand almost all of its fuel and medical supplies. When the coalition isn’t directly bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure, the rest of Yemen’s population is suffering due to the Saudi-imposed blockade, which has put half the population at risk of starvation. According to the U.N., over 462,000 children under the age of five are suffering from severe acute malnutrition. (Still believe the U.S.-led coalition, including Saudi Arabia, cares about human rights in Syria?)
The Obama administration, and in turn the recent Trump administration, are well aware that Saudi Arabia’s complete disregard for human rights and its incompetence have led to widespread civilian suffering. As the New York Times reported:
No Advertising – No Government Grants – This Is Independent Media
“The first problem was the ability of Saudi pilots, who were inexperienced in flying missions over Yemen and fearful of enemy ground fire. As a result, they flew at high altitudes to avoid the threat below. But flying high also reduced the accuracy of their bombing and increased civilian casualties, American officials said.
“American advisers suggested how the pilots could safely fly lower, among other tactics. But the airstrikes still landed on markets, homes, hospitals, factories and ports, and are responsible for the majority of the 3,000 civilian deaths during the yearlong war, according to the United Nations.”
In addition to supplying billions of dollars’ worth of arms to the Saudi kingdom, U.S. and U.K. personnel provide overwhelming assistance to the Saudi-led coalition to wreak this devastation on Yemen by sitting in the Saudi’s command and control center, for example.
As if this barbarism wasn’t cruel enough, the Saudi-led coalition purposely destroyed the cranes that Yemen used at its port of Hodeidah to uplift cargo, meaning any food and aid that actually makes it through the Saudi blockade never makes it to shore. FromTruthout:
“The climax of the blockade strategy was a series of airstrikes on August 17, 2015, that destroyed all of the cranes used to unload container ships at the main commercial port of Hodeidah, Yemen’s only port capable of receiving such ships. The strikes also destroyed an entire World Food Program warehouse, one of the berths, the port authority warehouse, the port control building and the customs building.”
Even at the time of this article’s publication, the Saudis are attempting to take over this key port in Yemenknowing full well the real suffering will be felt by the civilian population. Hodeidah port is “Yemen’s lifeline,” according to the director of the Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies.
The Houthi Movement
Despite all of this mainstream evidence that Saudi Arabia is unleashing the true horror and devastation in Yemen, somehow the Trump administration continues to blame Iran for this catastrophe. In reality, the Houthis are not extensively backed by Iran but are directly assisted on the ground by forces loyal to Yemen’s former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Saleh was ousted in 2012 but continues to retain the loyalty of much of the armed forces.
In this context, Yemeni armed forces marched towards its capital, Sana’a, in 2014 and forced the removal of then president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. In other words, an organic uprising displaced a leader that was widely viewed as a Saudi puppet. Saudi Arabia, with U.S. and U.K. assistance and with the backing of a number of Gulf States, has since insisted on Hadi’s reinstatement by force.
Hadi was already overthrown (by his people nonetheless). What gives Saudi Arabia the right to force this leader on a population that doesn’t want him anymore? Bear in mind, overthrowing one’s leader is something the Saudis claim should happen in Syria, despite the fact that Assad retained his post as Syria’s president with an overwhelming election victory in 2014.
What makes Yemen’s uprising bad and, conversely, what makes Syria’s uprising good? The fact that the Houthis are not al-Qaeda-aligned?
Not to mention that Assad has not been overthrown in almost six years of fighting, compared with Hadi, who was overthrown in a mere matter of months. This should tell one something about the difference between these conflicts. Even with the assistance of Saudi air power — completely empowered by the U.S. and the U.K. — Saudi Arabia is struggling to beat the Houthi movement.
As this conflict rages on at a catastrophic rate with millions upon millions of civilians suffering, it is almost impossible to take the Trump administration’s claims regarding human rights in Syria seriously. Legal experts have already warned the U.S. government that its complicity in these attacks can make them a co-belligerent in Saudi Arabia’s vast, extensive list of war crimes. This warning has not helped at all in deterring the Trump administration from continuing some of Barack Obama’s worst policies.
If the U.S. pulled its support for Saudi Arabia, Yemen’s suffering could stop tomorrow. Rather, the words of Britain’s foreign secretary Boris Johnson brilliantly capture the West’s lack of empathy towards Yemen’s civilian population. He stated that if the U.K. didn’t supply arms to Saudi Arabia, someone else would.
If that’s really how our respective governments feel about war crimes, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity, then they should stop pretending to care about human rights in Syria — because they don’t.
To the powers-that-be, Yemenis are nothing more than ants in a warped and barbaric geopolitical chess game that sees Saudi Arabia attempting to assert itself as a regional power.
In this context, the notion that the U.S. would consider supplying Saudi Arabia – a country so backward that women aren’t allowed to drive – with nuclear weapons is nothing short of suicidal.
Meanwhile, Yemen’s plight continues in complete silence. How can this be?
I’m proud of it
-
“Iran War: Trump Threatens More Intense Attacks as Advisors Push for
Humanitarian Crisis by Hitting Food and Water Stores; Oil Rises to Over
$100 a Barrel;...
Report on Beth Israel vigil 07-04-26
-
*1A Rights under combined attack from local government plus media*
Ann Arbor City Council is at it again. Right before the long 4th of July
weekend, they ...
Tehran As Imam Khamenei Leaves It
-
What the architect of modern Iran left behind will remain in the nation’s
political capital, accompanying generations of Iranians to come.
-
Hello all,
It is with great sadness that I share with you the passing of our beloved
sister, Mother, and Grandmother, the individual that you all knew ...
Best Horror Podcast
-
Best Horror Podcast Introduction: Horror podcasts […]
The post Best Horror Podcast appeared first on Copper Shock Horror Podcast.
Ikhras Endorses Muntadhar Al-Zaidi
-
“Oh parties of banditry and sectarianism and corruption, we have come and
our goal is to destroy you.” Ikhras formally endorses Muntadhar al-Zaidi,
Iraqi j...
Prince Charles: Foreign Jews behind bloodshed in ME
-
In May, 2017, British Crown Prince Charles declined an invitation from
Zionist entity’s president Reuven Rivlin‘s to attend the 100th anniversary
of the no...
Palestinian Women – One for All, All for One
-
Honouring All Palestinian Women by Honouring Three: Hanin Zoabi, Ahed
Tamimi, Samah Sabawi Vacy Vlazna “Palestinian women have always stood side
by side ...
US’s Saudi Oil Deal from Win-Win to Mega-Lose
-
By F. William Engdahl Who would’ve thought it would come to this? Certainly
not the Obama Administration, and their brilliant geo-political think-tank
neo-...
-
*Mordechai Vanunu wins human rights prize of Brazilian Press Association *
* http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/features/updates/7038-mordechai...
Abdul Aziz Rantissi:
"My ultimate wish, my God, is to attain martyrdom,"...God granted him his wish on April 17, 2004, at the hands of Israeli assassins.
Uprooted Palestinian 
