Upcoming Events

  • No upcoming events available



Global IMC Network



Peace/Anti-war activity

Congressional Junkets to Israel

 Congressional Junkets to Israel - by Stephen Lendman


Eighty-one House members, one fifth of the chamber, will visit Israel during the traditional summer recess, instead of addressing festering local issues at home during the nation's gravest economic crisis too serious to ignore.


Arriving first were 26 Democrats together, including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (MD). Another 55 Republicans will follow in two groups, including 47 freshmen. 


Heading each are House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (VA) and House Whip Kevin McCarthy (CA). Spouses are also going at an estimated cost of $8,000, including business-class flights, first-class hotels, meals, transportation, side trips, guides and incidentals.


Red carpet treatment is assured along with considerable pro-Israeli messaging, especially for new incoming freshmen. They'll meet with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Shimon Peres, as well as PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in Ramallah. Legitimate Hamas leaders are excluded.


Their entire week is choreographed and full, from early morning to late evening, including breakfast and dinner speakers, as well as meetings with other government officials.


For security reasons, their schedule isn't known, but while there, they'll get walking tours of Jerusalem's Old City, the Western Wall (Wailing Wall or Kotel), as well as visits to Masada, the Dead Sea, Holocaust memorial, Golan, Lebanese border, and Tel Aviv, with moments to relax by the Mediterranean. 


Most of all, they'll get intensive pro-Israeli messaging to assure one-sided support, reinforced by party leaders back home. At the same time, out of sight and mind will be:


-- daily Israeli state terror;


-- its planes bombing Gaza;


-- extreme unaddressed needs of over 1.6 million besieged people;


-- fishermen interdicted and, at times, shot at sea;


-- Israeli snipers murdering farmers in their fields;


-- regular security force incursions into Palestinian communities;


-- almost daily arrests, detentions, and horrific treatment in Israeli prisons;


-- children beaten and arrested;


-- peaceful protests attacked viciously;


-- bulldozed homes and dispossessed residents;


-- Israel's Separation Wall, stealing about 12% of Palestinian land when completed; and


-- severe repression, poverty, and misery of millions of Palestinians whose only offense is not being Jewish.


Whether or not they know or care, If Americans Knew Executive Director Alison Weir said not every congressional member is enthused about going. One congressional wife, in fact, who's been there before, said she and her husband never before experienced such pressure.


Another representative's staff member said those invited had no choice. If they don't go, AIPAC will target them for removal, and most likely succeed. "The staffer said that the Israel Lobby is far too powerful to ignore and that American voters have no knowledge of what's going on" because major media reports won't say.


The Jerusalem Post covered this story. So did Lebanon's Daily Star, other foreign media, Commentary magazine, and the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, explaining the elaborately planned "dog and pony show" messaging. 


In contrast, it was practically ignored by America's corporate media, including The New York Times. The Washington Post discussed it on page 13, omitting important details.


It's typical of how America's media diss their regulars, excluding everything they most need to know.


At issue is why congressional members are in Israel or heading there shortly, on expense-paid week-long junkets, funded by an AIPAC affiliate - the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF).


Created in 1990, its web site says it "provides grant monies to educate opinion leaders about the US-Israel relationship, to expand public awareness about issues affecting the Middle East and to encourage participation in public affairs, especially by students on college campuses where anti-Israeli propaganda is rampant."


In fact, nowhere in the world is pro-Israeli propaganda more scandalously intense than in America, especially from distorted one-sided major media reports, leaving Palestinian issues entirely excluded. 


Mondoweiss co-editor Philip Weiss said pro-Israeli "liberal foundations" fund organizations like AIPAC and its AIEF spinoff. For example, the Kimmel Center gave AIEF $3.5 million in recent years, according to its Form 990 filings.


Weiss said his research "shows that AIEF is getting tons of money from the same people who fund good liberal institutions," including universities, the arts, and issue-oriented groups like the Center for Reproductive Rights and ACLU.


AIEF also gets generous contributions from right-wing organizations. "And that's the point," says Weiss. "When you" examine who's paying for one-fifth of the House to visit Israel, it's coming from rich and powerful pro-Israeli foundations, "know(ing) which side their bread is buttered on," wanting Congress in tow supporting them.


At a time when millions of Americans are in dire need, Weir noted how angry they might be to learn that Congress gives tiny Israel "over $8 million per day of American tax money" during the nation's greatest ever economic Depression when all available resources should stay at home helping them and ending it.


It's why America's media are silent, betraying their loyalists instead of serving them, especially on war and peace, corporatism, lawlessness, domestic repression, and all issues affecting Israel.


It's why everyone needs alternative sources to stay informed and join the fight for justice. It's the only way possible to get it.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 


Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.



Destabilizing Syria

 Destabilizing Syria - by Stephen Lendman


What began in January escalated to an uprising in March. Ever since, it's been violent, disruptive and widespread, killing hundreds, and injuring many more. 


The stakes are high. The entire region is affected. It's very similar to what began in Libya, pitting imperial powers against ruling governments for destabilization and control. 


In Libya, it's by war for regime change, colonization and plunder. In Syria, it's to establish another client state, no matter who heads it. More on that below.


On August 3, Joshua Landis' Syria Comment site (joshualandis.com) headlined, "The Armed Gangs Controversy," saying:


Some analysts say "Syrian soldiers are killing fellow soldiers (for disobeying orders), not opposition elements." In fact, nothing proves it. "Most evidence supports government statements that armed opposition elements (are) shooting security personnel."


In April in Banyas, the controversy first surfaced when nine soldiers were killed outside the city. Western media reports about fellow soldiers shooting them were false. Col. Uday Ahmad, brother-in-law of one of the dead, there at the time, said:


"(T)wo military trucks were ambushed as they crossed a highway bridge by well armed men," hiding on the ground and on rooftops. "They raked the two trucks with automatic fire, killing nine. The incident had nothing to do with soldiers refusing orders."


Other shooting reports were similar, involving armed militants, non-Syrian insurgents, responsible for much killing, Western media falsely blaming Syria's military and police. At the same time, most opposition forces are nonviolent, caught between hostile sides.


In Hama, for example, independent video footage contradicts major media reports. It shows opposition elements throwing bodies of soldiers into the Asi River, north of the city.


In fact, a CNN Arwa Damon/Nada Husseini August 2 report (a notable major media exception, perhaps airing only on CNN International) said:


"One prominent anti-government activist (unnamed for reasons of safety) told CNN the state TV account was correct. The bodies are those of Syrian secret police killed by Syrian fighters from Iraq who have joined the anti-government fight," based on information gotten "from an extensive network of informants."


Violent insurgents aren't part of the protest movement. They're destabilizing interventionist forces from outside, responsible for lots of killing. 


Of course, violence begets more of it. Opposition elements incite it. Government forces respond, and nonviolent civilians are caught in the crossfire. 


Landis believes the regime is resilient and will keep fighting, its military having "many advantage(s) over the fragmented opposition." It's "unlikely" to collapse or "fade away." Fighting will continue until one side or the other prevails. Had the Assad government "been willing to hand over power peacefully or establish some sort of constitutional convention, it would have done so already."


The longer fighting continues, the worse off Syrians will be. Many already face economic hardships, exacerbated by months of conflict, disrupting their lives, besides the human toll. 


Landis thinks "(t)he potential for (continued) violence and lawlessness is large. Most worrying is the lack of leadership among opposition forces." More on that below.


Syrian authorities believe they're in control as long as Damascus and Aleppo, its two main cities, are mostly quiet.


Business elites in both cities are pro-regime, fearing much to lose if it's ousted. Sami Moubayed, Damascus-based Forward Magazine editor-in-chief in an August 2 Gulf News article, said:


"(B)oth cities can make or break any political movement - but rarely have they been part of anything that threatens stability and their commercial interests." 


At the same time, the "silence of both cities....won't last for too long" for three reasons:


(1) "Unemployment:" If it rises too high, expect trouble. Many young people already are jobless. If many others join them for a protracted period, they'll be impoverished and angry.


(2) "Lack of community leaders:" Previous ones "pacif(ied)" angry Damascus residents. No one with similar influence is present in either city because "Baathists (haven't let) independent leaders....emerge."


(3) "Demographics:" Both cities are "melting pots," containing elements likely to demonstrate if things break down, because they don't take orders from business leaders.


On August 5, Landis headlined, "Should the US Hasten Assad's Downfall Despite Syria's Absence of Opposition Leaders?" saying:


Opposition forces are leaderless. As a result, "many US policy makers (are) scared. They don't want" the regime ousted until "some structure or leadership (can) take its place."


A power vacuum could produce chaos, an "Iraq (or Afghanistan) redux." Syrian businessmen won't support political change without a safe alternative. They're "not suicidal. They fear having their property expropriated twice in 50 years." Moreover, they've been "inextricably linked" to the regime for decades.


By "fast forward(ing)" change, Washington might "creat(e) a Frankenstein....caus(ing) more destruction and death, not less."


According to Syrian human rights activist/former judge/outspoken Assad regime critic, Haytham al-Maleh:


"If we want to own Syria after the revolution, we must win this struggle on our own," not by foreign intervention, especially imperial powers with their own agenda.


Destabilization and Possible Military Intervention


On the Progressive Radio News Hour, Mahdi Nazemroaya said outside elements are destabilizing Syria, much like how the Libyan uprising began. Where it leads bears close watching.


On Russia Today (RT.com), Michel Chossudovsky covered similar ground and more.


"This is not a peaceful protest movement," he said. "The model of insurrection (in Hama) is very similar to what happened in Daraa at the outset of these so-called protest movements."


Hama is a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold. "This essentially is a confrontation between the government and Muslim Brotherhood." It doesn't reflect Syrian public opinion, "committed to a secular Muslim society."


In fact, "Assad has very strong popular support," as demonstrated by large pro-government rallies. Against them are Islamists "supported by outside forces. We know that's the case," including insurgents from Iraq, Turkey and Jordan.


Major media reports falsify what's happening, presenting one-sided biased accounts. AFP fabricated news about Hama, claiming 500,000 anti-government protesters turned out. "In fact, it wasn't 500,000. It was 10,000." 


Moreover, when mass pro-Assad (or pro-Gaddafi) rallies occur, they're either downplayed or ignored.


In addition, major media reports suppress information about "armed gunmen shooting at police." Even the Israeli press confirmed it, while US and other Western accounts conceal what's going on - "a NATO/US military alliance committing crimes (against) humanity," targeting Syrian civilians as in Libya.


If Western forces intervene militarily, "then we are in for an extended war that goes from the Mediterranean to the Chinese border." As a result, a general war may result with potentially "devastating consequences."


On August 5, RIA Novosti headlined, "NATO plans campaign in Syria, tightens noose around Iran - Rogozin," saying:


"NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the (Assad regime) with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead for an attack on Iran, Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said."


By condemning ongoing violence in Syria, the Security Council suggested military intervention may follow. "It could be a logical conclusion of (Western) military and propaganda operations....against North Africa," Rogozin told Izvestia Friday, saying targeted regimes have opposing views to Western ones.


He also said imperial intervention in Syria and Yemen may precede attacking Iran. 


"The noose around Iran is tightening," he believes. "Military planning against Iran is underway. And we are certainly concerned about an escalation of a large-scale war in this huge region."


In fact, military plans for wars take months to prepare. America has longstanding ones, updated as needed, against a number of targeted nations, including Iran. It also has extensive naval and other forces in the region.


Plans are one thing, however, waging wars another. Many sit on shelves unimplemented, gathering dust. For years, reports circulated about potential imminent attacks on Iran, some accompanied by powerful US naval forces deployed to the region. Nonetheless, nothing happened.


Iran is militarily strong, able to retaliate forcefully against Israel and American forces in Iraq. As a result, attacking it could prove catastrophic, not least because how disruptive it would be to regional oil supplies and prices. 


Blocking the Hormuz Straits alone would prevent around 15 - 17 millions of barrels from passing through daily on average. Attacking Western Gulf oil production, processing and transportation facilities would make things much worse, besides risking the possibility of general war. 


Some analysts, in fact, believe doing so could become WW III if Russia and China intervene to protect their own interests.


For over three decades, US/Iranian relations have been strained, but no wars resulted. Perhaps it's because once something major begins, the potential consequences may be too great to risk.


In other words, the risk/reward ratio may show odds too precarious even for go-for-broke imperial powers to chance. What's ahead this time? In the fullness of time, we'll know, with an important wild card to keep in mind.


With America's economy cratering ahead of its 2012 presidential and congressional elections, a major false flag attack, like 9/11, may be used to incite fear, divert attention from economic woes, and enlist public support for more war besides others now ongoing.


It's the oldest trick in the book, successful virtually every time tried, the Obama administration's ace in the hole perhaps to be played strategically for assured reelection, it hopes. 


As a result, anything ahead is possible to solidify power, even risked global war with potentially catastrophic consequences. Trends analyst Gerald Celente calls Washington politicians "inepts and incompetents." 


With these types in charge, future possibilities are frightening, especially since the business of America is war and grand theft. 


As a result, be wary, worried, and ready to react decisively - to the streets, if necessary, to fight the beast or be devoured by it. No other choice is possible.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 


Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.



NATO's Libya War Unraveling

 NATO's Libya War Unraveling - by Stephen Lendman


On August 1, Ramadan began. Nonetheless, fighting continues. The good news is Libyans are winning. The bad news is NATO knows it but keeps bombing, averaging 52 daily strike sorties in the past week alone.


On August 2, London Telegraph writer Damien McElroy headlined, "Libya: Gaddafi regime rallies after rebel turmoil," saying:


Gaddafi's son Saif "used a meeting with Libyans displaced by fighting to declare the regime had blunted the five month bombing campaign," saying:


"No one should think that after all the sacrifices we have made, and the martyrdom of our sons, brothers and friends, we will stop fighting. Forget it," whether NATO stays or leaves.


On August 2, London Guardian writer Simon Jenkins headlined, "Nightly Britain bombs Tripoli. Bar death, what do we achieve?" saying:


"Britain's half-war against Libya is careering onward from reckless gesture to full-scale fiasco....(E)very sensibly pessimistic forecast has turned out true and every jingoistic boast false."


"There remains no sign that the terror bombing of civilian areas is contributing to military victory any more effectively than when Bomber Harris (infamous for fire-bombing Dresdan in 1945 and other sites) advocated it."


"Now each night (British and other) pilot(s) fl(y) over Tripoli and drops bombs on it, achieving nothing but death and destruction. (Yet Libya represents) no threat to Britain or its people. (Daily bombings are) a mistake. But who will say so? (Moreover), Parliament fiddles while Libya burns."


In a UK establishment newspaper, Jenkins' article is scathing, unlike American major media journalists cheerleading Obama's wars, falsifying reports on them, ignoring daily crimes, suppressing bad news, and keeping their readers, viewers and listeners misinformed.


Including about how Washington completely misjudged Libyans' commitment to resist, fight back, and support Gaddafi. After months of failure, daily bombings now suggest more futility than stay-the-course commitment, let alone acknowledgment of major crimes of war and against humanity. The very notion is suppressed from official statements and media reports, concealing ugly truths on the ground.


On August 2, regular Progressive Radio News Hour contributor Mahdi Nazemroaya headlined his Global Research.ca article, "BREAKING NEWS: Libyan Transitional Council (NTC) Rebels in Total Disarray," saying:


Bombings continue unabated against "Tripoli and other major cities." Despite losses on the ground and a futile air campaign, "(t)ens of thousands of fliers (were) dropped," asking Libya's military to surrender when they're winning.


Growing opposition to NTC rebels is building. Gaddafi enjoys overwhelming support. In rebel stronghold Benghazi, "the tide has changed dramatically...."


Assassinated rebel commander Younis' Obeide tribe took up "arms against the Transitional Council." Unconfirmed reports say TNC chairman Mustafa Abdul Jalil "fled to Egypt," seeking military junta protection.


Anti-TNC "revolts have broken out....in cities under their control. Benghazi, Darnah, and Tobruk have all witnessed a social uprising of the local population against NATO and" armed TNC gangs. 


Members of Libya's largest Warfallah tribe "joined the (anti-TNC) revolt....Some of them took up arms and others demonstrated demanding an end to the illegitimate" TNC rule.


On August 3, The Tripoli Post headlined, "Slain General Younis's Tribe Vows to Get Justice," saying:


The Obeide tribe "vowed to get justice themselves for his suspicious killing last week if rebel leaders in Benghazi fail to investigate thoroughly the circumstances leading to his death....The general's killing raised fears of deep divisions in the rebel camp, something the tribal ultimatum so strongly underlines."


At the same time, NATO attacked civilians in Benghazi. "(A)bout 160 Warfallah clansmen were killed at a peaceful indoor gathering." Exact numbers aren't known. Their bodies "are believed to have been buried in unmarked mass graves," an attempt to suppress one of many NATO war crimes.


Nazemroaya also reported "visual confirmation of Qatari armored vehicles (and troops) inside Benghazi" and Misrata, aiding rebels fighting Libyans "trying to liberate the cit(ies)...."


According to Voltaire Network's (voltairenet.org) Thierry Meyssan, UK think tank Chatham House analyst Alexis Crow sees NATO's campaign "sinking into total confusion." As a result, their only alternative is "an escape that (allows) them to hold their heads high" or perhaps retain them in the face of a humiliating defeat.


"Aware of the looming political and military disaster," Washington wants a negotiated exit, what America's media won't report, pretending all is well, saying rebels are advancing, and NATO will prevail as planned.


In fact, the Washington/London/Paris axis totally miscalculated, failing to understand how committed Libyans are to defend their sovereignty. Moreover, after commander Younis' assassination, TNC leadership and rebels are in disarray. Most acknowledged Younis as their leader, coalescing under his authority. Since his death, many assumed their own autonomy, vying with the TNC and other gangs for control.


The chaotic situation suggests a possible end to NATO bombing sooner than planned. Perhaps increasing internal conflict within rebel ranks as well. The potential for a mass anti-NATO/TNC uprising exists, though America's media won't report it or any other important truths, prostituting themselves for power.


On August 2, Hugo Chavez denounced NATO's imperial war and the illegitimate TNC "pantomime." Speaking from Merida, he said his government:


"rejects the national transition council installed in Libya, approved of by (some) European countries and by other governments, because it violates the basics of international law. We categorically reject this pantomime (and) the hypocritical show by these (countries) that have recognized a group of terrorists, who recognize them in the form of a transition council and give them legitimacy by doing so."


He concluded saying, "Long live Gaddafi who will overcome. We're with you and with all of Libya."


On August 1, Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro met with Gaddafi envoy Abdul Hafid Al Zleitni, telling him Venezuela gives "unconditional support to the legitimate cause of the Libyan people and their leader, Muammar Al Gaddafi, the only legally constituted authority and recognized by the international community."


Maduro also said imperial forces "are applying a similar model of harassment and aggression in Syria," referring to events before March 19 Libyan bombings began. He specifically accused "aggressor countries" of destabilizing Damascus by "financing and arming paramilitary groups in order to (prevent President Assad's) dialogue (with) the whole nation" from succeeding.


He added that Venezuela was one of the first countries to "warn about (Western) plans....to divide and intervene in Libya," to colonize it and "appropriate its abundant natural resources....the same scheme" they've applied across the region.


So far in Libya they've failed but won't admit it. How much longer can the charade go on? Already it's been much too long.


A Final Comment


In his new film, "The War You Don't See," available to view online at johnpilger.com, Pilger said:


"At the height of (WW I's) carnage, (UK) Prime Minister David Lloyd George had a private chat with....Guardian editor CP Scott. 'If the people really knew the truth,' said the Prime Minister, the war would be stopped tomorrow.' But, of course, they don't know and can't know" then or about all other wars. 


If ordinary people knew why they were fought, they'd end because they're all based on lies, regurgitated by major media scoundrels, sacrificing their honor, integrity, and legitimate journalism in the process.


Unseen wars are illegal, cowardly and grotesque, mostly harming civilians, innocent men and women, boys and girls, the elderly, disabled and infirm in harm's way, getting slaughtered, their bodies disfigured and dismembered to let imperial monsters and war profiteers benefit. 


They're about wealth, resources, power and dominance. Never for liberating humanitarian reasons - the Big Lie to enlist popular support for what never could be gotten otherwise. It sold Americans on Afghanistan, Iraq and initially on Libya, Pilger asking:


"What is the role of the media in rapacious wars, (and) how are the crimes of war reported and justified? Those whose job it is to keep the record straight ought to be the voice of the people, not power," but they're not.


As a result, governments control public perceptions by embedding journalists, releasing official lies, and manipulating media reporting. 


"The War You Don't See" is about women who've lost husbands, mothers who've lost sons, children who've lost fathers, mass deaths, injuries, suffering, and destruction on a massive scale, never shown or discussed, let alone why wars are fought. Who gains and loses? Who pays the biggest price either way? 


It's about truth and human suffering only imperial powers and war profiteers support. Independent photojournalist Guy Smallman provided a snapshot from Afghanistan, saying:


"At one end of the cemetery, there was one enormous mass grave that was around 30 meters across. And in that grave were the remains of 55 people, and they had to be buried there together because they were quite literally blown to pieces, and it was impossible to tell who was who, so they had to bury them together in one long trench."


NATO claims civilians are never targeted, lying about casualty counts and the grotesque ways people are killed, sanitizing atrocities to conceal war crimes. 


In his many films and prolific writing, Pilger (like other independent journalists) reports truths, what's never seen, discussed or tolerated in major media managed news, corrupted in service to power. 


What better reason to walk away and tune them out, choosing credible sources only for real news and analysis.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 


Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.



Libya: What America's Media Won't Report

 Libya: What America's Media Won't Report - by Stephen Lendman


America's media staunchly back all US imperial wars, regurgitating officials lies as truths. Moreover, they never explain their illegality or daily crimes of war and against humanity against civilians, as well as non-military related infrastructure and other sites. 


Nor do they report how NATO bombing prevents targeted nations (including Libya) from providing essential public services, including enough food, medical care, electricity, fuel, and clean water.


Nonetheless, America's led Libya war may have backfired. In Tripoli, Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Nazemroaya told Progressive Radio News Hour listeners that NATO bombing united Libyans behind Gaddafi to save their country.


Instead, American and Western media falsify reports, claiming: 


-- non-existent rebel gains;


-- Tripoli may fall;


-- the country may collapse; 


-- Gaddafi has little support when, in fact, mass rallies turn out in Tripoli and elsewhere for him;


-- few civilians have been killed or injured when, in fact, around 1,200 or more have been killed, many thousands more injured;


-- NATO only attacks military targets when, in fact, civilian ones are deliberately struck; and


-- Tripoli is a ghost town, when, in fact, life goes on relatively normally in spite of daily bombings.


In other words, falsified reports suppress reality on the ground, including that NATO miscalculated. As a result, it's losing because Libyans are united against lawless, naked aggression, refusing to let their country become another imperial trophy.


Knowing Libya's been there before, they want none of it. Moreover, they understand Washington's Middle East/North Africa agenda to colonize the entire region, militarize and balkanize it, control its resources, steal its wealth, and exploit its people ruthlessly. It's why all US wars are fought, never for humanitarian reasons.


It's the same dirty game Washington and its coalition allies repeat against all nations less than totally under their control, especially resource-rich ones. As a result, Libya was targeted for takeover, a plan that may, in fact, have backfired.


A previous article discussed NATO's latest setback, accessed through the following link:




It explained the illegitimate National Transitional Council's (NTC) disarray, evident by the assassination of its military commander, Gen. Abdul Fatah Younis. After rebel leaders admitted it (despite initially claiming his war death), The New York Times had to acknowledge what it first tried to suppress or play down, what it always does unless caught red-handed.


On July 30, London Independent writer Kim Sengupta headlined, "Rebel feud puts UK's Libya policy in jeopardy," saying:


Its credibility was in tatters after Younis' assassination, revealing "a bloody internal feud." Evidence now shows he and two aides were savagely murdered, shot at close range, perhaps tortured, and their bodies mutilated and burned, signifying how rebel Al Qaeda elements operate.


Legitimate Independent Reporting


Reporting from Tripoli, independent journalist Lizzie Phelan emailed me information to pass on to Progressive Radio Hour listeners, including that two days after Britain recognized the illegitimate TNC as Libya's government, its military commander was assassinated.


Afterward, NTC leaders reportedly fled Benghazi in the wake of a popular uprising against them. In contrast,  there's "complete security (in Tripoli) with families enjoying days at the beach and getting ready for Ramadan (beginning August 1)."


On July 28, Gaddafi told hundreds of thousands of Tripoli residents that a battle was occurring in Benghazi. Its people are challenging TNC occupation, and when Younis' death was announced at 2:00AM, "huge celebrations (erupted) across Tripoli with fireworks and celebratory gunfire until the early hours."


On July 31, Phelan reported "breaking news" that Libya's Al Fatah revolution (Gaddafi's 1969 bloodless coup, ousting King Idris from power, establishing the Libyan Arab Republic) regained power in Benghazi.


She confirmed that Libya's largest Warfalla tribe was marching to the rebel capital, as well as Libyan armed forces already there, adding:


Gaddafi's "green flag is (again) flying in military barracks in Benghazi. Massive celebrations will take place in Tripoli tonight."


Though a hopeful sign, don't expect Washington and its NATO partners to back off gracefully. It took nearly a decade to balkanize and colonize Yugoslavia. Years more destabilization and conflict may try doing the same to Libya, whether or not it succeeds.


Aftermath of Rebel Commander's Death


On July 30, AP reported that Younis' son, Ashraf, broke down at his father's funeral, "crying and screaming as they lowered the body into the ground - in a startling and risky display in a city (Benghazi) that was the first to shed Gaddafi's rule nearly six months ago - pleaded hysterically for the return of the Libyan leader to bring stability," saying:


"We want Muammar to come back! We want the green flag back!" referring to Libya's national banner under him.


Notably on July 29, London Guardian writer Richard Seymour headlined, "Gaddafi is stronger than ever in Libya," saying:


NATO's war "has not gone well." Efforts are under way to end it. No sign of a palace coup against Gaddafi exists. In fact, "(if his) regime is not more in control of Libya than before, then this completely undermines the simplistic view put about by the supporters of war - and unfortunately by (rebel elements) - that the situation was simply one of a hated tyrant hanging on through mercenary violence."


From the start, of course, it was part of the Big Lie to justify war to remove him. It's now known "that rebellious sectors started to go back to Gaddafi within weeks of the revolt taking off, meaning" his support was stronger than reported, and now much more so.


Moreover, despite over 30 nations recognizing the illegitimate TNC, "this is pure cynicism." In addition, Amnesty International and other independent sources disproved claims about Gaddafi committing mass killings and atrocities. "This completely demolishes the last leg of the moral case for war."


"In fact, if there was any idea that the US could offer an alternative model of development for the populations of the Middle East, it now lies in ruins. It is more than unfortunate that Libya had to be reduced to ruins for this to become apparent."


Although stopping short of calling for an immediate bombing halt, compare Seymour's report to the latest July 30 New York Times one. In unabashed anti-Gaddafi mode, writer David Kirkpatrick headlined, "NATO Strikes at Libyan State TV," saying:


On Saturday, NATO "disabled three Libyan state television transmission dishes in Tripoli with airstrikes overnight, as the alliance took steps to remove the main instrument of (Gaddafi) propaganda from the airwaves."


Of course, The New York Times, as "the newspaper of record," functions as the equivalent of an official US state propaganda service, reporting daily misinformation managed news, not vital truths readers need to know.


For example, it didn't address Amnesty International's April 23, 2009 report headlined, "No Justice for the Victims of NATO Bombings," saying:


"Ten years on, no one has been held to account for the NATO attack on the Serbian state radio and television (RTS) building that left 16 civilians dead." The Belgrade strike left 16 others injured. 


"The bombing of the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television was a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime," Sian Jones,  AI's Balkans expert said.


NATO told AI it bombed RTS "because of its propaganda function, in order to undermine the morale of the population and the armed forces." AI dismissed the claim as false justification of a war crime.


The same holds for bombing Libya Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation (LJBC), airing television and radio news, cultural and other reports, including satellite TV in Arabic, English and French throughout the Middle East and Europe. 


It's Libya's equivalent of Britain's government-funded and controlled BBC, charging residents a monthly fee on their television receivers, whether or not they watch it.


NATO tried but failed to silence Libya's LJBC to assure  only its own message got out, saying:


"Our intervention was necessary as TV was being used as an integral component of the regime apparatus designed to systematically oppress and threaten civilians and to incite attacks against them. Qaddafi's increasing practice of inflammatory broadcasts illustrates his regime's policy to instill hatred amongst Libyans, to mobilize its supporters against civilians and to trigger bloodshed." 


In fact, it was NATO's latest ball-faced lie. Nonetheless, Kirkpatrick dutifully regurgitated it, the way disgraced former Times writer Judith Miller did, functioning as a Pentagon press agent in the run-up to the Iraq war.


A Final Comment


Though ground-based satellites were disabled, LJBC kept broadcasting, issuing a statement that three employees were killed, another 15 wounded. LJBC official Khalid Bazelya said:


"We are not a military target. We are not commanders in the army and we do not pose a threat to civilians. We are performing our job as journalists representing what we wholeheartedly believe is the reality of NATO aggression and the violence in Libya."


In fact, when Gaddafi's speeches and comments from other state officials are aired, or guests express pro-regime support, it's no different than what appears on US TV. 


Every channel (including so-called public television news and opinion shows) is littered with Democrat and Republican representatives, as well as full coverage for presidents' speeches and many other public appearances. 


It's very much the same in other Western countries where, in fact, voices opposing imperial and corporate policies are virtually entirely shut out. 


There and in America, real information on what people most need to know (including why Washington attacked Libya) is available only through alternative print and broadcast sources, mostly online.


Make them a regular habit, and what a previous article urged, saying imagine freedom from all managed and junk food news. Tune out and make it happen.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 


Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.



Daily NATO War Crimes in Libya

 Daily NATO War Crimes in Libya - by Stephen Lendman


Among them is waging war on truth, Western managed news calling lawless imperial wars liberating ones. No wonder John Pilger says journalism is the first casualty of war, adding:


"Not only that: it has become a weapon of war, a virulent censorship (and deception) that goes unrecognised in the United States, Britain and other democracies; censorship by omission, whose power is such that, in war, it can mean the difference between life and death for people in faraway countries...."


In their book, "Guardians of Power," David Edwards and David Cromwell explained why today's media are in crisis and a free and open society at risk. It's because press prostitutes substitute fiction for fact. News is carefully filtered, dissent marginalized, and supporting wealth and power substitutes for full and accurate reporting. 


It's a cancer, corrupting everything from corporate-run print and broadcast sources, as well as operations like BBC and what passes for America's hopelessly compromised public radio and TV. They put out daily managed and junk food news plus infotainment, treating consumers like mushrooms - well-watered and in the dark.


During wars, in fact, they cheerlead them, reporting agitprop and misinformation no respectable journalist would touch. 


On the Progressive Radio News Hour, Middle East/Central Asia analyst Mahdi Nazemroaya, in Tripoli, said some journalists also perform fifth column duties, collecting intelligence and locating targets to supply NATO bombing coordinates, notably civilian targets called military ones. 


In a July 28 email, he said tell listeners that "NATO is trying to negotiate with the government in Tripoli." More on that below. He added that they're also "planning a new stage of the war against the Libyan people through (predatory) NGOs and fake humanitarian missions." A likely UN Blue Helmet occupying force also, paramilitaries masquerading as peacekeepers Gaddafi controlled areas won't tolerate.


NATO, in fact, calls civilian targets legitimate ones, including one or more hospitals, a clinic, factories, warehouses, agricultural sites, schools, a university, one or more mosques, non-military related infrastructure, a food storage facility, and others.


Notably on July 23, a Brega water pipe factory was struck, killing six guards. It produces pipes for Libya's Great Man-Made River system (GMMR), an ocean-sized aquifer beneath its sands, making the desert bloom for productive agriculture, and supplying water to Libya's people. 


The previous day, a water supply pipeline was destroyed. It will take months to restore. The factory produced vital pipes to do it, a clear war crime like daily others. Moreover, the entire GMMR is threatened by a shortage of spare parts and chemicals. As a result, it's struggling to keep reservoirs at a level able to provide a sustainable supply. Without it, a humanitarian disaster looms, very likely what NATO plans as in past wars.


On July 27, AFP said that:


"NATO warned that its warplanes will bomb civilian facilities if (Gaddafi's) forces use them to launch attacks." At the same time, a spokesman said great care is taken to minimize civilian casualties.


NATO lied. Daily, it's attacking non-military related sites to destroy Libya's ability to function in areas loyal to Gaddafi. Earlier, in fact, a spokesman claimed there was "no evidence" civilian targets were hit or noncombatants killed, except one time a major incident was too obvious to hide. Reluctantly it admitted a "mistake," covering up a willful planned attack, knowing civilians were affected.


Libya (satellite) TV calls itself "a voice for free Libya....struggling to liberate Libya from the grip of the Gaddafi regime...." In fact, it's a pro-NATO propaganda service, reporting misinformation on air and online.


On July 25, it headlined, "No evidence to support Gaddafi's allegations that civilian targets were hit," when, it fact, they're struck daily.


Nonetheless, it claimed only military sites are bombed, saying Tripoli-based journalists aren't taken to affected areas, "suggesting NATO's gunners are hitting military targets, at least in the capital."


In fact, corporate and independent journalists are regularly taken to many sites struck. Independent accounts confirm civilian casualties and non-military facilities bombed. Pro-NATO scoundrels report managed news, complicit in daily war crimes.


On July 28, Libya TV claimed "captured Gaddafi soldiers say army morale is low," when, in fact, most Libyans support Gaddafi. Millions are armed. Gaddafi gave them weapons. They could easily oust him if they wish. Instead, they rally supportively, what Western media and Libya TV won't report. 


Moreover, captured soldiers say what they're told, likely threatened with death or torture if they refuse, especially in rebel paramilitary hands, under NATO orders to terrorize areas they control.


As a result, civilian casualties mount, up to 1,200 or more killed and thousands wounded in pro-Gaddafi areas, many seriously as war rages. In addition, unknown numbers of combatant casualties on both sides aren't known, nor is the civilian toll in rebel held areas. 


Nonetheless, daily sorties and strikes continue. Since mid-July alone through July 27, they include:


July 14: 132 sorties and 48 strikes


July 15: 115 sorties and 46 strikes


July 16: 110 sorties and 45 strikes


July 17: 122 sorties and 46 strikes


July 18: 129 sorties and 44 strikes


July 19: 113 sorties and 40 strikes


July 20: 122 sorties and 53 strikes


July 21: 124 sorties and 45 strikes


July 22: 128 sorties and 46 strikes


July 23: 125 sorties and 56 strikes


July 24: 163 sorties and 43 strikes


July 25: 111 sorties and 54 strikes


July 26: 134 sorties and 46 strikes


July 27: 133 sorties and 54 strikes


Daily patterns are consistent. However, information on numbers and types of bombs, as well as other munitions aren't given. Instead, misinformation claims a humanitarian mission protects civilians - by terrorizing, killing, and injuring them, solely for imperial aims. It's why all US-led wars are fought, never for liberating reasons.


The entire campaign is based on lies. It's standard war time procedure, to enlist popular support for campaigns people otherwise would reject. 


In fact, no humanitarian crisis existed until NATO arrived. Moreover, in paramilitary controlled areas, Amnesty International confirmed only 110 pro and anti-Gaddafi supporter deaths combined, most likely more of the former than latter as rebel cutthroats rampaged through areas they occupy. Currently, the numbers of dead and injured civilians are many times that amount, largely from NATO attacks.


NATO, in fact, is code language for the Pentagon, paying the largest share of its operating and military budgets. Except for Germany and Britain, other members pay small shares, most, in fact, miniscule amounts.


Since NATO began bombing on March 19, daily attacks inflicted lawless collective punishment against millions in Gaddafi supported areas. Affected is their ability to obtain food, medicines, fuel and other basic supplies, exposing another lie about humanitarian intervention.


On July 25, OCHA's fact-finding team said Tripoli contained "pockets of vulnerability where people need urgent humanitarian assistance." Medical supplies are running low. The last major delivery was in January, and concerns are increasing about the "unsustainable food supply chain for the public distribution systems, especially as Ramadan approaches (on or around August 1 to about August 29) and the conflict persists."


Moreover, "Libyan oil experts warned that fuel stocks could run out in two weeks." Public transportation costs have tripled. Food prices have also soared. Tripoli residents experience electricity cuts, and clean water supplies are endangered.


Before conflict erupted, Libyans had the region's highest standard of living and highest life expectancy in Africa because Gaddafi's oil wealth provided healthcare, education, housing assistance and other social benefits. Imperial war, of course, changed things. Libyans now hang on to survive.


Seeking an End Game


On July 26, UPI headlined, "NATO seeks urgent exit strategy in Libya," knowing this phase of the war is lost. Nonetheless, future strategies and campaigns will follow.


For now, however, "NATO is seeking an urgent exit strategy (to end) fighting and decide the future of (Gaddifi), even if that means letting him stay in the country though out of power, it emerged Tuesday after British and French foreign ministers met in London."


In tribal Libya, Gaddafi's power, in fact, is far less than reported, social anthropologist Ranier Fsadni saying:


"Gaddafi's feeling for tribal Libya is certainly one factor that explains how he has managed to rule the country for so many years. (However), (t)here is no tribal office giving a single man a monopoly of institutional power at the apex....Several factors account for his longevity in power," including sharing Libya's oil wealth. 


UPI said diplomacy is driven by a failed military campaign. As a result, "(i)ntense mediation efforts are underway at different levels at the United Nations and Europe, in African, European and Middle Eastern capitals and Russia."


Neither side is commenting, but some observers think operations may wind down in weeks, based on an unannounced face-saving solution, despite continued destabilization and future conflict planned. It's similar to Balkan and Iraq war strategies, a combination of tactics until Washington prevailed. 


Libya faces the same end game, though years could pass before it arrives. As a result, Libyans can expect continued hardships. When imperial America shows up, that strategy persists until it prevails, no matter the pain and suffering inflicted.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 


Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.



Israeli/Washington Peace Process Rejectionism

 Israeli/Washington Peace Process Rejectionism - by Stephen Lendman


Pretending to restart Israeli/Palestinian peace talks, Quartet representatives met in Washington on July 11. Attending were Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and former UK Prime Minister/reinvented war criminal/current Middle East envoy Tony Blair.


Ahead of talks, Clinton and Ashton expressed determination to overcome previously unresolved issues.


On July 12, an unidentified senior US official called the meeting an "excellent and serious discussion on the next steps. (Representatives) expressed support for (Obama's) May Middle East speech and called to start preparatory phases of talks without any preconditions."


However, "(t)here are still gaps, and they need to be closed before the Quartet can go forward with public statements." 


In fact, chasms define still unresolved issues. More on that below. 


On July 12, Haaretz writer Barak Ravid headlined, "Israel and Palestinian sources to Haaretz: US peace efforts have failed," saying:


Intensive US strong-arming failed. America "was unable to find a formula that (all) parties could accept." Manipulative Washington demands were unacceptable. Netanyahu blamed Palestinians for the impasse.


Last January's Palestine Papers revealed that Obama rejected unacceptable Bush era two state solution "Road Map" terms, effectively accepting settlements as Israeli territory. Or did he?


On September 23, 2009, he told the UN General Assembly he supported "(t)wo states living side by side in peace and security - a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people."


However, on October 21, 2009, Obama's Special Middle East Envoy George Mitchell said:


"The US believes that through good faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that achieves both the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state encompassing all the territory occupied in 1967 or its equivalent in value, and the Israeli goal of secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meets Israeli security requirements."


He meant an independent Palestine would include 6,258 square km, the equivalent of Gaza and the West Bank. However, he suggested land swaps as part of the deal, replacing a two state solution with an ethnically pure Jewish state (excluding Israeli Arabs) and an unacceptable rump Palestine.


In November 2007, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said:


"Israel (is) the state of the Jewish people - and I would like to emphasize the meaning of 'its people' is the Jewish people - with Jerusalem the united and undivided capital of Israel and of the Jewish people for 3,007 years."


In other words, Israeli Arabs aren't wanted. Either leave or be expelled. Only Jews may be citizens. UN Resolution 194 granting Palestinian refugees the right of return is rejected.


In September 2009, Israeli Foreign Minister/Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman endorsed ethnic cleansing, saying:


"A final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has to be based on a program of exchange of territory and populations."


On July 17, the Jerusalem Media & Communication Centre headlined, "Report: US sought Quartet approval for Bush-era settlement assurances." However, EU and Russia representatives rejected the scheme, saying:


"Senior European diplomats said that the failure of the Quartet meeting pushed the Palestinians even more toward turning to the UN" for independent sovereign state recognition and full status de jure recognition.


American intransigence is responsible, proposing "one-sided wording for an announcement that favored Israel and which had no chance of being accepted by the Palestinians."


Senior European sources said:


"The Israelis pressured the US very heavily and the American wording was too blatant and unbalanced."


It called for land swaps, settlements annexed by Israel, and disapproval of Palestinian General Assembly efforts for full status de jure recognition in September. Ashton and Lavrov rejected US language stating:


"Permanent peace means two states for two people (not a two state solution): Israel as a Jewish state and a homeland for the Jewish people and the state of Palestine as homeland for the Palestinian people and each state enjoys self determination and mutual recognition and peace."


Washington rejected General Assembly sovereign state recognition, saying it must be resolved through Israeli/Palestinian negotiations, "tak(ing) into consideration the changes that occurred in the past 44 years, including the new demographic facts on the ground and the needs of both sides."


In other words, settlements (exceeding 40% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem) belong to Israel. Unstated but also perhaps expelling Israeli Arabs to make Israel ethnically pure, and demanding Palestinians recognize it as a Jewish state. In return, Palestinians get virtually nothing, except nominal recognition on land unfit for statehood. 


That's how America and Israel negotiate. It's why peace negotiations were stillborn from inception, a worthless exercise because both countries reject it. As a result, how can Palestinians negotiate without a willing partner.


In fact, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (1983 - 1984 and 1986 - 1992) admitted it, saying he wanted talks to drag on for years so Israel could expropriate Palestinian land to expand settlements, a policy still in place. Moreover, Prime Minister Netanyahu once called the peace process "a waste of time," laying down take it or leave it demands like Yitzhak Rabin's Oslo Accords.


Since the mid-1970s, talks proved more pretense than peace, especially since 2006 with Palestine's legitimate government excluded from negotiations, spuriously called a terrorist organization and held hostage under siege. 


That's where things now stand, why Palestinians must get de jure General Assembly recognition, then seek international condemnation of Israel's illegal occupation of a sovereign state, demanding it end.


A Final Comment


Sailing for Gaza, Israeli naval vessels surrounded Freedom Flotilla II boat Dignite al Karama in international waters. 


Blocking the small yacht were "three battle ships and seven commando boats of different sizes (with) at least 150 soldiers", according to Haaretz journalist Amira Hass on board. 


Carrying 13 activists, including herself, and three crew members, it pressed on. Israel threatened to attack.


Around mid-morning on July 19, Israeli Radio (Reshet Bet) said naval forces controlled the boat with no clashes, and that it would be towed to the Israeli port of Ashdod.


The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth said IDF chief Benny Gantz ordered naval forces to take over the vessel, "after the activists refused to alter the route of the ship to Ashdod." Prior to intercepting it, it was heading toward "an area that is under a maritime siege."


Activists were told to choose between (interrogations and) deportation or imprisonment. Earlier, Flotilla spokesperson Thomas Sommer-Houdeville said the boat carried a message of peace, hope and solidarity with besieged Gazans.


Hass said its "participants regard themselves as representatives of the entire (blocked Flotilla), and are determined to exhaust all possibilities (to) reach (Gaza), or at least carry out the symbolic act of protesting the blockade." 


They understand the risks but took them anyway, challenging Israeli viciousness unarmed in peace.


Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon accused passengers of "a provocative act." Haaretz said Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Secretary Ehud Barak congratulated naval forces for successfully intercepting the boat. 


Elite Shayetet 13 commandos boarded it, Hamas spokesman Ismail Rudwan calling it "piracy, a war crime and a violation of the principles of human rights."


Israel's lawlessness, in fact, gave humanitarian activists another victory. By winning battles, Israel lost the war, exposing itself as a rogue terror state, shooting itself in the foot with each criminal act.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 


Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.




חוק החרם | מדינת הזאב אלקינים | קיריל הדר

התור בלשכת התעסוקה מעולם לא היה ארוך יותר. התלונות במשרדיו התעסוקתיים השונים אותם יצר המשטר הישראלי, מעולם לא היו כה רבות. ג', שם בדוי, מספר כי מאז עליית ממשלת נתניהו, המצור על עזה, ופרשת משט המרמרה – סחר הייצוא שהוא קיים באדיקות, מסתכם באפס.

ג', מספר כי כל ספקיות המזון המערב אירופאיות מטילות חרם על המזון אותו הוא מבקש לייצא מחוץ לגבולות ישראל. הן טוענות כי המזון המגוון, המשקאות התוססים, גדלים ומתפתחים באזור בלתי חוקי: אדמת פלסטין הכבושה.

ג', אדם בעל משפחה מרובת ילדים, מפעיל במקביל לעיסוקיו כיצרן ויצואן מזון וכאב משפחה, גם מאחז בלתי חוקית באחת ההתנחלויות המוכרות בישראל. זאת אומרת, בלתי חוקית במישור הבינלאומי. זה שכל אומות העולם כפופות לו ולחוקיו.

ולפרשת חוק החרם, שהוגש ע"י ח"כ זאב אלקין. כשאני רואה ושומע את טענות השמאל הבורגני סביב "חוק החרם", והחוסר באינטליגנציה אותו מפגינים אנשים אלו, הן במתן תשובות לעצם קיומו של חוק זה אשר מוגש בחסות ממשלת ישראל ונתניהו עצמו, והן ביצירת תשובה אמיתית למצב העגום – לא נותר אלא להסכים על מה שכבר הוסכם בעבר: השמאל הבורגני הוא הבעיה האמיתית של השמאל הישראלי.

וזו אותה התנהלות המאפיינת את השמאל הבורגני, בכל הרבדים הפוליטיים שרק קיימים. אם זה במישור מדיני, חברתי, ואפילו כלכלי – מה שהיה אמור להיות זירת הבית של השמאל הישראלי. אך היכן שהבורות נמצאת – גם הבורגנות שם, בעיקר כשאתה "שמאלני" כמובן.

מדינת ישראל במשבר. הרצון לקיום חוק אשר יאסור קריאות חרם על מדינת ישראל: אינו בא בכדי. קיימת מאחוריו בעיה אמיתית ממנה סובלים היצואנים הישראליים, המוחרמים בכל רחבי תבל, בדיוק בגלל קריאות החרם המושמעות ע"י גורמים רבים, בתוכם גם ע"י יהודים.

החרם על מדינת ישראל כה גדול ומשמעותי, עד כדי כך שלמעלה משלושים אחוז מיצואני המזון פשטו רגל והפכו להיות סוג של עלוקות על מוסדות הביטוח לאומי, לשכת התעסוקה, ומשרדים נוספים אשר נאלצו להחל בפעילות מיידית בעקבות בידודה של מדינת ישראל וכליאת אזרחיה בנושא הייצוא.

אז הם רוצים לחוקק חוק. ומה אז, החרם ייפסק או יתעצם? הספקיות הבינלאומיות יגידו עכשיו "הבה נבטל החרם, כי עכשיו ישראל אמרה שאסור להחרים"? כמה מזל שהחוק הישראלי לא קביל בעולם כולו. כמה מזל שהחרם לא רק שיימשך, אלא יתעצם עוד יותר בגין התנהלותה הפשיסטי של מדינת ישראל החוזרת על אותה טעות שבגינה החרם נולד מלכתחילה.

כבר עכשיו אפשר לראות באתרי החדשות הבינלאומיים, להבדיל מהתקשורת המגויסת הישראלית, קריאות מחודשות הזוכות לפתוח את כל שערי העיתונים החשובים תחת הקריאה: להחרים יצואנים מישראל.

אבל כאן יש טיפשים משני צדדי המתרס: הימין הדתי הנבער, והשמאל הציוני. אלו ואלו הנלחמים בינם לבין עצמם בתחרות מי יותר טיפש, מי יותר הזוי. בעוד המחנה השלישי, אשר רובו נמצא בעיקר באקדמיות ובאוניברסיטאות: ממשיך להוביל קו מחשבה אחר, המשתווה עם דעת הקהל הבינלאומית ואף חושף את פשעי הציונות הפנים ישראלית.

אבל מי יודע, אולי יחוקקו חוק, בתמיכת רה"מ כמובן, הטוען שאסור להציג עובדות ונתונים בינלאומיים, וחובה להציג אך ורק נתונים סטטיסטיים כחול לבן. בטענה שיש להיות מדינת מבודדת ואומללה עוד יותר. הלאה מדינת הזאב אלקינים!


  • הכותב הינו יו"ר ארגון סלון דבורה

להלן כתובת אתר הארגון:


חוק החרם | מדינת הזאב אלקינים | קיריל הדר

התור בלשכת התעסוקה מעולם לא היה ארוך יותר. התלונות במשרדיו התעסוקתיים השונים אותם יצר המשטר הישראלי, מעולם לא היו כה רבות. ג', שם בדוי, מספר כי מאז עליית ממשלת נתניהו, המצור על עזה, ופרשת משט המרמרה – סחר הייצוא שהוא קיים באדיקות, מסתכם באפס. ג', מספר כי כל ספקיות המזון המערב אירופאיות מטילות חרם על המזון אותו הוא מבקש לייצא מחוץ לגבולות ישראל. הן טוענות כי המזון המגוון, המשקאות התוססים, גדלים ומתפתחים באזור בלתי חוקי: אדמת פלסטין הכבושה. ג', אדם בעל משפחה מרובת ילדים, מפעיל במקביל לעיסוקיו כיצרן ויצואן מזון וכאב משפחה, גם מאחז בלתי חוקית באחת ההתנחלויות המוכרות בישראל. זאת אומרת, בלתי חוקית במישור הבינלאומי. זה שכל אומות העולם כפופות לו ולחוקיו. ולפרשת חוק החרם, שהוגש ע"י ח"כ זאב אלקין.

הנרטיב הציוני | ניסן ג'רבי

כשהדמיון כובש את המציאות, אין פלא שהכול הפוך ומנותק מקו המחשבה התקין, ובמיוחד קו המחשבה הבינלאומי והיחס כלפי המשטר הישראלי. ימין שנהפך ל"שמאל" וימין קיצוני הנהפך ל"מרכז". חשוב לפשט ולחשוף את נרטיב השקר הציוני-ישראלי.

כאשר המשטר הישראלי מתעקש לבקש מהקהילה הבינלאומית הכרה במדינת ישראל כמדינה יהודית – כדאי להבין שמאחורי הבקשה, הנראית למראית עין מהלך זוטר ושולי כביכול, מסתתרת מפלצת קולוניאליסטית מהסוג הגרוע ביותר, מפלצת רעיונית וממנה סובל המזרח התיכון החל משנת 1948 באופן רשמי, והחל מסוף המאה ה-19 באופן בלתי רשמי אך עדיין נפשע לאין שיעור.

NATO Using Nuclear Weapons in Libya

 NATO Using Nuclear Weapons in Libya - by Stephen Lendman


As part of a Libya international observer team, Middle East analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya headlined his July 5 Global Research.ca article, "NATO War Crimes: Depleted Uranium Found in Libya by Scientists," saying:


Sites targeted include "civilians and civilian infrastructure." Scientists from the Surveying and Collecting Specimens and Laboratory Measuring Group confirmed "radioactive isotopes (radioisotopes) at bombed sites" from field surveys conducted. Scientific analysis was conducted at the Nuclear Energy Institution of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.


It showed that "several sites contain even higher than expected doses of uranium," including holes from NATO missiles and ordnance fragments. In interviews, Nazemroaya also said cluster bombs and other weapons are used freely in civilian neighborhoods targeting non-military sites.


Washington and NATO allies are using illegal "dirty bombs."


In late March, the Stop the War Coalition said dozens of US, UK, and French launched bombs and missiles against Libya in the first 24 hours all had DU warheads. They continue to be used daily despite Pentagon and other governments' denials. 


On April 14, Foreign Policy in Focus columnist Conn Hallinan told Press TV that:


"The fact that the US is denying the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions is just nonsense." When used against tanks, "enormous fireballs" are visible, a unique DU signature. As a result, "long-term consequences (for Libyans) are going to be severe." More on that and DU munitions below.


On April 19, investigative journalist/author Dave Lindorff also told Press TV that strong evidence points to DU use, saying: 


"The way some of these (armored) vehicles and tanks have been hit look like it's pretty strong evidence that it is depleted uranium. It's the kind of explosive burn that you get from that particular ammunition. And certainly the US has been flying A-10s, which generally use (DU) shells in their armaments."


On June 6, historian/researcher Dr. Randy Short repeated the same charge, telling Press TV viewers that NATO targeted Tripoli residential areas with DU weapons, cluster bombs, and other illegal substances. Back from Tripoli, he said:


"I've been to one particular area....in which Seif al-Islam Gaddafi's house is located, and in that community which was residential, I saw the damage to civilian homes."


He added that high numbers of civilian deaths and injuries emboldened Libyans to resist Western imperialism.


On April 18, former Pentagon Depleted Uranium Project director Dr. Doug Rokke told Russia Today that DU struck areas can't be decontaminated, saying it has a half-lfe of 4.5 billion years. As a result, it's called "the silent killer that will never stop killing."


He also said he "was watching ABC News (on April 15) and, lo and behold, there was a DU impact. It burned and burned and burned."


During the 1991 Gulf War, Rokke was ordered to lie about its use and effects. It damaged his health, and most of his crew died from exposure. Nonetheless, "DU is so good against all types of targets that (the Pentagon) will never give it up."


America is one of the few non-signatories to the UN Human Rights Sub-Commission's DU ban. For over two decades, it's contaminated vast areas in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Serbia/Kosovo, Libya and other nations struck. Moreover, the Pentagon regularly uses other illegal terror weapons, including experimental ones tested in real time.


Former Lawrence Livermore Lab chemical physicist calls DU "the perfect weapon for killing lots of people," adding that "depleted uranium missiles (and other weapons) fit the description of a dirty bomb in every way."


On March 31, the UK Uranium Weapons Network and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament issued a joint news release headlined, "Fears grow over possible depleted uranium use in Libya," saying:


Inhaling highly toxic/radioactive DU "is thought to be linked to the sharp increases in cancer rates and birth defects reported in affected areas," as well as numerous other diseases.


Nonetheless, on March 28, Admiral William Gortney said, "We have employed A-10s and AC-130s over the weekend." A-10 gunships use DU munitions against tanks, armored vehicles, and other targets, including residential neighborhood ones. 


They fire 3,900 armor-piercing high explosive rounds per minute, spreading vast DU contamination. According to Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's general secretary Kate Hudson:


"Depleted uranium weapons are weapons of indiscriminate effect," causing cancer, birth defects and other diseases. "Using them in built up areas in effect targets civilians. This runs counter to everything the coalition has claimed about protecting (them. It represents) an appalling step backwards. It is completely unacceptable - indeed illegal," because of their long-term harm to human health.


Why America's Military Uses DU Munitions


DU's density enables it easily to penetrate targets and destroy them. They're solid missiles, bombs, shells and bullets, weighing up to 5,000 pounds in a single "bunker buster" bomb. 


Using solid DU projectiles or warheads, they're used in all US war theaters, including indiscriminately against civilian targets. They're de facto nuclear bombs, what major media reports won't explain and Pentagon officials deny. 


First developed by the Navy in 1968, Israel tested them under US supervision during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Later they were sold to 29 or more countries but never used until the 1991 Gulf War when America broke an international prohibition. Thereafter, thousands of tons contaminated air, water and soil in target zones and well beyond.


Although no international convention or treaty bans them, they're de facto and de jure illegal under the 1907 Hague Convention, prohibiting "poison or poisoned weapons" use. Also, under the 1925 Geneva Protocol, as well as later Geneva and other conventions, specifically banning chemical, biological, and other poisoned weapons.


In all forms, DU is radioactive and chemically toxic, thus conforming to Hague's poisonous weapons definition. Using them is thus a war crime.


Moreover, their use also meets the U.S. federal code definition of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) in 2 of 3 categories:


[The US CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 40, SECTION 2302 defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction as follows:  


"The term 'weapon of mass destruction' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, (B) a disease organism, or (C) radiation or radioactivity." 


Because America is a Hague and Geneva signatory, its own code is thus violated. Moreover, under other binding international laws, using weapons that cause post-battle environmental and human harm are illegal and prohibited.


Their greatest damage happens after use because they penetrate targets deeply, aerosolize into a fine spray, then spread permanent contamination over wide areas. Their microscopic and submicroscopic particles remain suspended or get swept into the air from tainted soil. Winds then carry them worldwide as radioactive components of atmospheric dust, settling indiscriminately far from strike zones.


As a result, countless millions have been irreparably harmed or killed, combatants and civilians. In fact, radiation poisoning causes virtually every imaginable illness from severe headaches, muscle pain, general fatigue, depression, and permanent disability to major birth defects, infections, cardiovascular disease, many types of cancer, and later deaths.


Libyans now face the same fate as Iraqis, Afghans, Serbians, Kosovars, and other victims of US aggression. It's of no consequence for US political and Pentagon planners, spreading death, destruction, and human misery globally, not liberation and better lives because of American good will it never had and doesn't now.


Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. 


Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.



Random Image



Syndicate content Features

Syndicate content Newswire