Friday, September 30, 2011
Says Israel Did 911
CNN Proves They Didn't
Thursday, September 29, 2011
A Vigorous President Chavez Disproves Media Rumors About His Health, Plays Ball
by Eva Golinger
Unfounded rumors claiming the Venezuelan President was hospitalized and experiencing severe health problems were discounted by the head of state during an exercise session in the presence of reporters Thursday.
International media began spreading rumors and outright lies about the Venezuelan President’s health from the time he first underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor from his pelvic region in June this year. After Chavez completed his fourth and final chemotherapy session last week and resumed his path to full recovery, media began disseminating wild propaganda claiming the treatment “hadn’t worked” and Chavez’s health was deteriorating. Despite numerous live telephone interventions given by the President on television this past week, the rumors wouldn’t cease. So, he put them to rest by publicly playing a game of catch with some of his staff.
Chavez: Media involved in morbid, sick campaign
Tensions built Wednesday evening as the Miami-based publication, El Nuevo Herald, published a front page story claiming President Hugo Chavez had been hospitalized for kidney failure and was rapidly deteriorating. The report was based on anonymous sources and quotes from alleged individuals close to the Venezuelan government and “witnesses” to the hospitalization.
Behind the Herald’s campaign has been former US Ambassador Roger Noreiga, a self-proclaimed “anti-communist” who served in both Bush administrations and was schooled in Latin American policy by the likes of John Negroponte and Otto Reich, part of the US team responsible for conducting dirty wars in Central America in the 1980s. Noriega also provided extensive support for the April 2002 coup d’etat against President Chavez, when he was US Ambassador to the Organization of American States.
Noriega has falsely claimed for months that President Chavez’s health is failing and that he has less than a 50% chance of survival.
But each allegation has been disproven by Chavez himself, who has consistently informed on the positive progress of his health after a “baseball-sized” cancerous tumor was removed from his body in June. Since then, he has undergone 4 successful sessions of chemotherapy and says the cancer is “gone” fom his body. “I had cancer, but now I do not”.
On Thursday, Chavez affirmed he had the best proof that his recovery is advancing fine. "I'm here; this is my answer", he told reporters at the presidential palace, raising his arms and gesturing at his body. "I am my own answer".
Libya and China
NATO’s War on Libya is Directed against China: AFRICOM and the Threat to China’s National Energy Security
By F. William Engdahl
The Washington-led decision by NATO to bomb Gaddafi’s Libya into submission over recent months, at an estimated cost to US taxpayers of at least $1 billion, has little if anything to do with what the Obama Administration claims was a mission to “protect innocent civilians.” In reality it is part of a larger strategic assault by NATO and by the Pentagon in particular to entirely control China’s economic achilles heel, namely China’s strategic dependence on large volumes of imported crude oil and gas. Today China is the world’s second largest importer of oil after the United States and the gap is rapidly closing.
If we take a careful look at a map of Africa and also look at the African organization of the new Pentagon Africa Command—AFRICOM—the pattern that emerges is a careful strategy of controlling one of China’s most strategically important oil and raw materials sources.
NATO’s Libya campaign was and is all about oil. But not about simply controlling Libyan high-grade crude because the USA is nervous about reliable foreign supplies. It rather is about controlling China’s free access to long-term oil imports from Africa and from the Middle East. In other words, it is about controlling China itself.
Libya geographically is bounded to its north by the Mediterranean directly across from Italy, where Italian ENI oil company has been the largest foreign operator in Libya for years. To its west it is bounded by Tunisia and by Algeria. To its south it is bounded by Chad. To its east it is bounded by both Sudan (today Sudan and Southern Sudan) and by Egypt. That should tell something about the strategic importance of Libya from the standpoint of the Pentagon’s AFRICOM long-term strategy for controlling Africa and its resources and which country is able to get those resources.
Gaddafi’s Libya had maintained strict national state control over the rich reserves of high quality “light, sweet” Libyan crude oil. As of 2006 data Libya had the largest proven oil reserves in Africa, some 35%, larger even than Nigeria. Oil consessions had been extended to Chinese state oil companies as well as Russian and others in recent years. Not surprisingly a spokesman from the so-called opposition claiming victory over Gaddafi, Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at Libyan rebel oil firm AGOCO, told Reuters, “We don’t have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.” China and Russia and Brazil either opposed UN sanctions on Libya or pressed for a negotiated settlement of the internal conflict and an end to NATO bombing.
As I have detailed elsewhere,1 Gaddafi, an old adherent of Arab socialism on the line of Egypt’s Gamal Nasser, used the oil revenues to improve the lot of his people. Health care was free as was education. Each Libyan family was given a state grant of $50000 towards buying a new house and all bank loans were according to Islamic anti-usury laws, interest free. The state was also free of debt. Only by bribery and massive infiltration into the tribal opposition areas of the eastern part of the country could the CIA, MI6 and other NATO intelligence operatives, at an estimated cost of $1 billion, and massive NATO bombing of civilians, destabilize the strong ties between Gaddafi and his people.
Why then did NATO and the Pentagon lead such a mad and destructive assault on a peaceful sovereign country? Clear is that one of the prime reasons was to complete the encirclement of China’s oil and vital raw material sources across northern Africa.
Pentagon alarm over China
Step-by-step in the past several years Washington had begun to create the perception that China, which was the “dear friend and ally of America” less than a decade ago, was becoming the greatest threat to world peace because of China’s enormous economic expansion. The painting of China as a new “enemy” has been complex as Washington is dependent on China to buy the lion’s share of the US Government debt in the form of Treasury paper.
In August the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress on China’s military status. 2 This year the report sent alarm bells ringing across China for a strident new tone. The report stated among other things, “Over the past decade, China’s military has benefited from robust investment in modern hardware and technology. Many modern systems have reached maturity and others will become operational in the next few years,” the Pentagon said in the report. It added that “there remains uncertainty about how China will use its growing capabilities… China’s rise as a major international actor is likely to stand out as a defining feature of the strategic landscape of the early 21st century.”
In a matter of perhaps two to five years, depending on how the rest of the world reacts or plays their cards, the Peoples’ Republic of China will emerge in the controlled Western media painted as the new “Hitler Germany.” If that seems hard to believe today, just reflect on how that was done with former Washington allies such as Egypt’s Mubarak or even Saddam Hussein. In June this year, former US Secretary of the Navy and now US Senator from Virginia, James Webb, startled many in Beijing when he told press that China was fast approaching what he called a “Munich moment,” when Washington must decide how to maintain a strategic balance, a reference to the 1938 crisis over Czechoslovakia when Chamberlain opted for appeasement with Hitler over Czechoslovakia. Webb added, “If you look at the last 10 years, the strategic winner has been China.”
The same massively effective propaganda machine of the Pentagon, led by CNN, BBC, the New York Times or London Guardian will get the subtle command from Washington to “paint China and its leaders black.” China is becoming far too strong and far too independent for many in Washington and in Wall Street. To control that, above all China’s oil import dependency has been identified as her Achilles Heel. Libya is a move to strike directly at that vulnerable Achilles heel.
China moves into Africa
The involvement of Chinese energy and raw materials companies across Africa had become a major cause of alarm in Washington where an attitude of malign neglect had dominated Washington Africa policy since the Cold War era. As its future energy needs became obvious several years ago China began a major African economic diplomacy which reached a crescendo in 2006 when Beijing literally rolled out the red carpet to heads of more than forty African states and discussed a broad range of economic issues. None were more important for Beijing than securing future African oil resources for China’s robust industrialization.
China moved into countries which had been virtually abandoned by former European colonial powers like France or Britain or Portugal.
Chad is a case in point. The poorest and most geographically isolated African countries, Chad was courted by Beijing which resumed diplomatic ties in 2006.
In October 2007 China’s state oil giant CNPC signed a contract to build a refinery jointly with Chad’s government. Two years later they began construction of an oil pipeline to carry oil from a new Chinese field in the south some 300 kilometers to the refinery. Western-supported NGO’s predictably began howling about environmental impacts of the Chinese oil pipeline. The same NGOs were curiously silent when Chevron struck oil in 2003 in Chad. In July 2011 the two countries, Chad and China celebrated opening of the joint venture oil refinery near Chad’s capital of Ndjamena. Chad’s Chinese oil activities are strikingly close to another major Chinese oil project in what then was Sudan’s Darfur region bordering Chad.
Sudan had been a growing source of oil flows to China since cooperation began in the late 1990s after Chevron abandoned its stake there. By 1998 CNPC was building a 1500 km long oil pipeline from southern Sudan oilfields to Port Sudan on the Red Sea as well as building a major oil refinery near Khartoum. Sudan was the first large overseas oilfield project operated by China. By the beginning of 2011 Sudan oil, most all from the conflict-torn south, provided some 10% of China’s oil imports from taking more than 60% of Sudan’s daily oil production of 490,000 barrels. Sudan had become a point of vital Chinese national energy security.
According to geological estimates, the subsurface running from Darfur in what was southern Sudan through Chad into Cameroon is one giagantic oil field in extent perhaps equivalent to a new Saudi Arabia. Controlling southern Sudan as well as Chad and Cameroon is vital to the Pentagon strategy of “strategic denial” to China of their future oil flows. So long as a stable and robust Ghaddafi regime remained in power in Tripoli that control remained a major problem. The simultaneous splitting off of the Republic of South Sudan from Khartoum and the toppling of Ghaddafi in favor of weak rebel bands beholden to Pentagon support was for the Pentagon Full Spectrum Dominance of strategic priority.
The key force behind the recent wave of Western military attacks against Libya or more covert regime changes such as those in Tunisia, Egypt and the fateful referendum in southern Sudan which has now made that oil-rich region “independent” has been AFRICOM, the special US military command established by the Bush Administration in 2008 explicitly to counter the growing Chinese influence over Africa’s vast oil and mineral wealth.
In late 2007, Dr. J. Peter Pham, a Washington insider who advises the US State and Defense Departments, stated openly that among the aims of the new AFRICOM, is the objective of “protecting access to hydrocarbons and other strategic resources which Africa has in abundance … a task which includesensuring against the vulnerability of those natural riches and ensuring that no other interested third parties, such as China, India, Japan, or Russia, obtain monopolies or preferential treatment.”
In testimony before the US Congress supporting creation of AFRICOM in 2007, Pham, who is associated with the neo-conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, stated:
“This natural wealth makes Africa an inviting target for the attentions of the People’s Republic of China, whose dynamic economy…has an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it…China is currently importing approximately 2.6 million barrels of crude per day, about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 of those barrels—roughly a third of its imports—come from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville). Is it any wonder, then, that…perhaps no other foreign region rivals Africa as the object of Beijing’s sustained strategic interest in recent years…
Intentionally or not, many analysts expect that Africa—especially the states along its oil-rich western coastline—will increasingly becoming a theatre for strategic competition between the United States and its only real near-peer competitor on the global stage, China, as both countries seek to expand their influence and secure access to resources.”
It is useful to briefly recall the sequence of Washington-sponsored “Twitter” revolutions in the ongoing so-called Arab Spring. The first was Tunisia, an apparently insignificant land on north Africa’s Mediterranean. However Tunisia is on the western border of Libya. The second domino to fall in the process was Mubarak’s Egypt. That created major instability across the Middle East into north Africa as Mubarak for all his flaws had fiercely resisted Washington Middle East pollicy. Israel also lost a secure ally when Mubarak fell.
Then in July 2011 Southern Sudan declared itself the independent Republic of South Sudan, breaking away from Sudan after years of US-backed insurgency against Khartoum rule. The new Republic takes with it the bulk of Sudan’s known oil riches, something clearly not causing joy in Beijing. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, led the US delegation to the independence celebrations, calling it “a testament to the Southern Sudanese people.” She added, in terms of making the secssion happen, “the US has been as active as anyone.” US President Obama openly supported seccession of the south. The breakaway was a project guided and financed from Washington since the Bush Administration decided to make it a priority in 2004.
Now Sudan has suddenly lost its main source of hard currency oil revenue. The secession of the south, where three-quarters of Sudan’s 490 000 barrels a day of oil is produced, has aggravated economic difficulties in Khartoum cutting some 37% off its total revenues. Sudan’s only oil refineries and the only export route run north from oilfields to Port Sudan on the Red Sea in northern Sudan. South Sudan is now being encouraged by Washington to build a new export pipeline independent of Khartoum via Kenya. Kenya is one of the areas of strongest US military influence in Africa.
The aim of the US-led regime change in Libya as well as the entire Greater Middle East Project which lies behind the Arab Spring is to secure absolute control over the world’s largest known oil fields to control future policies in especially countries like China. As then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is reported to have said during the 1970′s when he was arguably more powerful than the President of the United States, “If you control the oil you control entire nations or groups of nations.”
For the future national energy security of China the ultimate answer lies in finding secure domestic energy reserves. Fortunately there are revolutionary new methods to detect and map presence of oil and gas where even the best current geology says oil is not to be found. Perhaps therein lies a way out of the oil trap that has been laid for China. In my newest book, The Energy Wars I detail such new methods for those interested.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
by: Jonathan Benson
Representing one of the most agriculturally bio-diverse nations in the world, India has become a primary target for biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Cargill to spread their genetically-modified (GM) crops into new markets. However, a recent France 24 report explains that the Indian government has decided to take an offensive approach against this attempted agricultural takeover by suing Monsanto for "biopiracy," accusing the company of stealing India's indigenous plants in order to re-engineer them into patented varieties.
Brinjal, also known in Western nations as eggplant, is a native Indian crop for which there are roughly 2,500 different unique varieties. Millions of Indian farmers grow brinjal, which is used in a variety of Indian food dishes, and the country grows more than a quarter of the world's overall supply of the vegetable.
And in an attempt to capitalize on this popular crop, Monsanto has repeatedly tried to commercially market its own GM variety of brinjal called Bt brinjal. But massive public outcry against planned commercial approval of Monsanto's "frankencrop" variety in 2010 led to the government banning it for an indefinite period of time.
But Monsanto is still stealing native crops, including brinjal, and quietly working on GM varieties of them in test fields, which is a clear violation of India's Biological Diversity Act (BDA). So at the prompting of various farmers and activists in India, the Indian government, representing the first time in history a nation that has taken such action, has decided to sue Monsanto.
"This can send a different message to the big companies for violating the laws of the nation," said K.S. Sugara, Member Secretary of the Karnataka Biodiversity Board, to France 24 concerning the lawsuit. "It is not acceptable ... that the farmers in our communities are robbed of the advantage they should get from the indigenous varieties."
Farmers and active members of the public in India have been some of the world's most outspoken opponents of Monsanto's attempted GM takeover of agriculture. Besides successfully overturning the attempted approval of Bt brinjal, these freedom fighters have also successfully destroyed several attempted Monsanto GM test fields.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033714_biopiracy_Monsanto.html#ixzz1ZHb0ucR5
shows the coffins of five civilians and security officers killed during recent
fighting being carried from the Homs Military Hospital. (AFP/SANA)DAMASCUS (AFP) -- Syria denounced international intervention and accused the West of trying to unleash "total chaos", as rights activists said troops shot dead four soldiers who had tried to desert.
China meanwhile expressed its concern at the wider implications of the violence in Syria, even as the United States pressed Beijing, a veto-wielding member of the Security Council, to back stronger UN action against Damascus.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said the West wanted chaos that will lead to the break-up of the country. Anti-regime protests were also a "pretext for foreign interventions", he said at the UN General Assembly in New York.
Foreign governments were trying to undermine co-existence between Syria's different religious groups, he added.
"How can we otherwise explain media provocations, financing and arming religious extremism?" he said.
"What purpose could this serve other than total chaos that would dismember Syria -- and consequently adversely affect its neighbors?"
Rejecting the accusations, Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle called for UN Security Council action.
"The courageous men and women in Syria deserve a clear signal of our solidarity," Westerwelle told the UN assembly, condemning the "brutal force" used by President Bashar al-Assad's forces.
Damascus does not accept the existence of popular opposition to the authorities, instead blaming "armed gangs" and "terrorists" for trying to sow chaos.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported the death of the soldiers.
"Four soldiers in Maar Shamsa in (northwestern) Idlib were shot dead while trying to flee the Wadi Deif military camp," it said. The group also reported gunfire, arrests and killings.
In New York, China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi expressed Beijing's concern over the dragging crisis.
The international community, he said, should "handle the Syrian issue in a prudent way so as to prevent further turbulence in Syria and its repercussions on regional peace".
And in a call to opposition demonstrators as well as Assad's forces, Yang said "we hope that parties in Syria will exercise restraint, avoid any form of violence or more bloodshed and conflict, and act quickly to ease tension."
China has joined Russia in leading opposition to UN sanctions against the Assad government in Syria, where the United Nations says that more than 2,700 people have been killed since March.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged China to back strong UN action on Syria when she met Yang just before his speech, a senior US official said.
The Britain-based Observatory reported soaring tensions in central Homs province, a hub of protests against the Assad regime.
"The army has deployed in the villages of the Qusseir region (south of Homs), where two unidentified bodies were found in the Assi river."
"There are also mutilated bodies at the National Hospital" in Qusseir, where 12 people were killed and 15 were reported missing in military operations on Saturday, it said.
North of Homs, "many security checkpoints have been set up on the roads leading to Rastan, where heavy machine-gun fire was heard this morning."
In northwestern Idlib province, near the Turkish border, security forces stormed villages, setting up roadblocks and arresting 17 people.
The Observatory also said that in the rebel city of Hama, "a civilian died and three others were wounded by gunfire on Sunday night on the Mhardeh-Hilfaya road."
In the southern city of Dael, in Daraa province, where the first protests ignited in mid-March, there was intense gunfire overnight after the city council building was set on fire, which residents blamed on pro-regime militias.
The state-run SANA news agency reported the seizure of "arms and ammunition" in a house in the Daraa village of Nassib near the Jordanian border, and the discovery of a carload of "Israeli arms and explosives charges in Homs."
SANA also reported the funeral of four soldiers and security officers, as well as that of a doctor who had been killed in Homs.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
What do you get when a wannabe imperialist invents a war to get out of trouble at home, straying into deep waters that he neither controls nor understands, getting embroiled in an internecine tribal conflict that spins out of control? The answer to this question is the place where the UK's David Cameron finds himself now: a 2-bn. pound nightmare.
Not so many months ago, we had David Cameron and William Hague declaring that the Libya Question was "not about removing Gaddafi" and that all it would take would be an immediate ceasefire from the Libyan Armed Forces. Not so many months ago we had David Cameron and William Hague declaring that the war would cost in the region of 200 million pounds, that there would be no NATO boots on the ground and that NATO would not arm the "rebels".
What they did not tell us was that the French and Americans had been planning this imperialist little adventure for years, what they did not tell us was that the rebel flags had been ordered well in advance from a British company, what they did not tell us was that the entire operation was indeed to remove Colonel Gaddafi, not because he posed any threat to his "rebels" (after all, what do you do when tens of thousands of marauding thugs armed with machine guns take to the streets, decapitating Negroes, chanting racist slogans, promising to ethnically cleanse Libya of Negroes, torching government buildings, raping and killing women and children and destroying public and private property?). They knew that the decision "to go in" had been taken long before the rebels strafed their own position to blame Colonel Gaddafi, they knew that their own media had been spreading lies about the Libyan Air Force bombing civilians - the one bombing civilians is NATO.
We saw the British reaction - draconian measures - when a few hundred bored schoolkids ran amok in August. One wonders whether Cameron would simply have given up and walked away from Number Ten Downing Street if they had been armed, or if someone had done to his youth what he did to Libya's.
What they did not tell us was that this entire charade is about removing Colonel Gaddafi from power because his humanitarian and developmental projects in Africa and his plan to launch a gold-based currency, the Gold Dinar, would be too costly for selfish western interests. What Cameron and Hague did not tell you is that their forces are to spend seven times more of the British tax-payers' money than they originally admitted - nearly two billion, or two thousand million or 2,000,000,000 pounds... on what?
I will tell you. They have strafed the Libyan water supply (war crime) to "break the back of the population", they have targeted the electricity grid (war crime), they have targeted private homes (war crime), they have taken out civilian structures with military equipment (war crime), they have murdered children (war crime, and they did not even apologise), they have targeted civilians (war crime). They then held a conference in Paris to divide up Libya's assets.
What they have also not told you is that the Libyan Armed Forces are largely intact. What they have not told you is that parts of Tripoli still fly the Green Flag (symbol of the Jamahiriya, the democratic government which Muammar al-Qathafi advises), what they do not tell you is that there are still green Marches in Benghazi, what they do not tell you is that Mahmoud Jibril dare not enter Tripoli. They do not tell you where Jalil (the number 2) came from, they do not tell you the background of the TNC, they do not tell you the tribes have voted for Gaddafi.
They do not tell you that the crack desert fighters, the Tuareg, who decide who crosses the desert and who does not, have sided with Muammar Gaddafi against the TNC, they do not tell you that the Loyalists in Libya include the hearts and minds of the Libyan population whether or not they are taking up arms against the terrorists. The NATO special forces and this scourge have frightened many into cowering in their homes - but this does not spell support, even tacitly.
They do not tell you they indeed have NATO boots on the ground (breach of UNSC resolution), they have indeed armed the "rebels" (breach of UNSC resolution) and they have indeed employed mercenaries - hundreds of thousands of them (breach of UNSC resolution).
They have not told you that NATO and its terrorists have suffered defeat after defeat in recent weeks, are unable to enter Bani Walid, are unable to enter Sirte and the only tactic that remains open is by carpet-bombing any areas of resistance, including homes, hospitals and schools, to bomb the terrorists in. Is that noble?
It is a war crime, it is an act of terrorism and David Cameron and William Hague, along with their French friend Sarkozy and that American in the White House, are using YOUR hard-earned money to perpetrate this outrage, which is sure to cost the UK thousands of jobs as retaliatory measures kick in across Africa.
Sorry Mr. Templeton, we do not have any money for your mother's cancer treatment, I am afraid she will have to die; sorry Mr. Johnson, there is no more funding for your son's leukaemia treatment, we do have palliative care, do you know what that is?
And as for your now hospital wing, new school, new clinic, a raspberry in your faces as Cameron and Hague stick the middle finger up to their own people. Yet the British population accepts it all with their heads bowed, like a sickening herd of sheep.
The Wandering Who
Gilad Atzmon talks about his latest book “The Wandering Who?”
Gilad Atzmon somehow manages to express his thoughts, ignoring any recognised taboos or restrictions. His style is innovative, fresh, and consistently well informed. We have read with great interest his latest book “The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity” (*). It is a very moving account that should be read by many.
Silvia Cattori: “The Wandering who?” — What stands behind this provocative title?
Gilad Atzmon: “The Wandering Who?” attempts to search for a deeper understanding of Jewish culture and Jewish identity politics. It is there to tackle some issues most of us prefer to avoid. Three years ago Israeli historian Shlomo Sand published his ground breaking work on Jewish history, thus dismantling the phantasmal Jewish historical narrative.
In my book, I attempt to take Sand’s quest one step further and elaborate on the problematic Jewish attitude towards history, the past , and temporality in general. Five years ago American academics Mearsheimer and Walt published an invaluable study on the Israeli Lobby in the United States . I again try to pick up their research where they left off. I try to explain why lobbying is inherent to Jewish politics and culture.
Two decades ago, Israel Shahak published his crucially important study of the Talmud, and in my work, I want to extend his study, and grasp the deeply racist and anti-gentile attitude that is intrinsic to any form of Jewish secular identity politics, be it Zionism, Jewish socialism and even Jewish anti Zionism. In “The Wandering Who?” I try to shake every common perception of Jewish identity politics.
Silvia Cattori: “The Wandering Who?” is a very impressive testimony. It can not be ignored, including by your opponents. I think it can safely be said that no one before you has explained so frankly some of the thorniest aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Your analysis is important for anyone seeking to understand what certain groups want to hide, and why. It should lead people that are deliberately kept in the dark and in a state of confusion, to see things more clearly. This includes, of course, the so-called ‘progressive’ circles.
Gilad Atzmon: Thanks so much for your support and compliments.
Silvia Cattori: However, you are stepping into a minefield. One may also wonder whether you are exposing your thoughts and perspectives because, as an ex-Israeli, you feel shame.
Gilad Atzmon: That is a good point. I suppose that at a certain point in the past, it is true to say that I started to feel shame and guilt. However I realised many years ago that guilt only becomes a meaningful sensation once it is transformed into responsibility. Unlike some of the Jewish anti Zionists who cheerfully and righteously declare ‘not in my name’, I know very well that every Israeli crime is indeed committed in my name, in spite of the fact that I have not lived there for many years. I am very troubled by it.
Silvia Cattori: Does this mean that the writing of “The Wandering Who?” was a way for you to settle your personal score with the "tribe"?
Gilad Atzmon: To be more precise, it isn’t actually “the tribe” which I criticise but the racially oriented sense of ‘tribalism’ which stands at the core of every form of Jewish identity politics.
Silvia Cattori: Would you say that this great overhaul was spurred by your desire to alert mankind to what you consider to be the real danger, i.e. the Jewish ideology?
Gilad Atzmon: I am indeed primarily concerned with the ideology. I also argue that it isn’t just the Palestinians that are implicated. I am very alarmed by Jewish relentless lobbying and its destabilising power globally. The fact that the AJC (American Jewish Committee) advocates war against Iran is very worrying. But I am also monitoring the Jewish Left activism and I am very troubled by my findings.
Silvia Cattori: Is the book an attempt to explain to your readers why it is so difficult to fight the Israeli policy?
Gilad Atzmon: Fighting Israel for what it is — i.e. the Jewish State — simply means an open conflict with the strongest lobbying power on the land. On the one hand we are encountered by heavily funded Zionist institutions; but, on the other hand, we are chased by the so-called Jewish ‘progressive’ network that is primarily engaged in gate keeping the discourse. And, unlike the Zionists, who operate in the open, the Jewish anti Zionists work towards the same goals, but operate in clandestine settings.
Silvia Cattori: You state that “Jewish power” should be put at the centre of the problem – and that, at the same time, the discourse of certain “anti Zionists”, that you regard as misleading, should be challenged. When you write : “Zionism is not a colonial movement with an interest in Palestine, as some scholars suggest. Zionism is actually a global movement that is fuelled by unique tribal solidarity of third category members…”, you call into question those who characterize Israel as mere ‘settler colonialism’. This is indeed a crucial point. What are your arguments for claiming that it is not simply a colonialist model?
Gilad Atzmon: Indeed, I am disturbed by the lack of intellectual integrity and coherence within our discourse and beyond. It took me some time to grasp that years of Jewish (intellectual) hegemony within the Palestinian solidarity discourse has led to an absurd situation in which criticism of the Jewish state — is shaped primarily by Jewish sensitivities.
Try, for instance, to imagine a situation in which our criticism of capitalism would be shaped in a deliberately over cautious manner — just to make sure that the rich are not offended. Likewise, try to imagine another equally absurd situation, in which our criticism of Nazi ideology would have take into consideration the delicate sensitivities of biological determinists and anti-Semites. It seems equally absurd that we are in such a situation where we have to tread carefully in what we say about Palestinian rights – so as not to offend Jewish people.
And, yes, I say it openly: Zionism is not a colonial movement, and has never been one. Colonialism establishes a clear relationship between a mother-state and a settler-state — yet Zionism has never had a mother state. It is true that Israel exhibits some colonial symptoms, but this is where it starts and ends. Zionism is driven by spirit of Jewish supremacy and a phantasmal notion of ‘homecoming’.
The misleading colonial paradigm was introduced by a few ‘progressive’ thinkers just to make sure that Marx is not left out of the discourse. At least intellectually, what we see here is no more than amusing.
However, it is important to mention here, that the only noticeable colonial aspect within the Zionist reality is the relationships between the Israeli State and the settlements: the exchange there makes it clear who is the ‘mother’ and who is the ‘settler’.
Silvia Cattori: I would like to understand why advocates of Palestinian rights still refrain from labelling Israel for what it really is? Why do you think they are so reluctant to address the issue of Jewish power and its disastrous political impact?
Gilad Atzmon: I think that when it comes to Israel and ‘Jewish power’ every humanist, including myself, has a conflict to handle. I would formulate it as such: ‘how can I tell the truth about Israel, the Lobby, and Zionism and still maintain my position as a humanist’. It took me very many years to learn to differentiate between the wheat and chaff. I learned to distinguish between Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the ideology). This differentiation is not free of problems, because, as we know, most Jews themselves do not know where they stand on those three. Most Jews do not know where Judaism ends and Jewishness starts.
Likewise, most Jewish anti Zionists fail to admit that they actually operate in Jewish exclusive political cells. We are dealing with a very peculiar political identity indeed. It is racially oriented and deeply racist. It is supremacist, yet it is saturated with victimhood. This identity conveys a universal image – yet in truth, it is driven by tribal interests.
In my writing however, I restrict myself to issues to do with Jewish ideology (Jewishness). I try to grasp that unique sense of chosen-ness and observe how it comes into play within politics, culture and practice. It is obvious that, for the time being, there are no intellectual tools to restrict criticism of ideology. And this really means that my detractors are pretty much left in a hopeless situation— they do not posses the intellectual means to silence me or my criticism, so instead, they revert to smear campaigns: they label me an ‘anti Semite’, a ‘Neo Nazi’, a ‘racist’, and so on. Tragically enough for them, no one out side of the Jewish political circuit takes any of these empty accusations at all seriously anymore.
Also, I would like to mention that the notion of ‘Jewish Power’ could be confusing and misleading: it needs elaboration. When I discuss Jewish Power, I am strictly referring to the ability of Jewish interest groups to mount political pressure. And it is very important to realise here, and I must emphasise that Jewish power is not at all a conspiracy. It is explored — in the open —through organisations that are set to mount pressure and serve Jewish interests. Such groups are AIPAC, AJC, CFI, LFI, and so on. Zionists are open about, and proud of their lobbying powers. They brag about it — they enjoy seeing the American joint house sitting and standing submissively for PM Netanyahu.
Silvia Cattori: It is easy to grasp and I agree with you when you assert that Israel and Zionism represent a unique project in history  and that the relation between Israel and the Jewish lobby is also unique. But when you and others suggest that it is ‘Jewish power’ which needs to be confronted, the ‘Jewish left’, Jewish intelligentsia, Jewish organizations for peace, etc., go out of their way to stop you. Does it mean that these groups also form part of what you call ‘Jewish power’?
Gilad Atzmon: Absolutely, or at least they are part of the problem. In my book I make it very clear that there is a complete ideological continuum between Zionism and the so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionism or Jewish left in general.
I differentiate between ‘Jewish anti Zionism’ which is in most cases driven by Jewish tribalism and would care primarily for the Jews, and ‘anti Zionists who happen to be Jewish’. The latter is a totally innocent category. Needless to say that many of my supporters happen to belong to the latter group.
Jewish anti Zionism is there to deliver an image of pluralism within the Jewish Diaspora discourse. For some reason you will see twenty Jewish anti Zionists destroying a Jewish philharmonic concert — but you won’t see those same activists coming to support a Palestinian concert a week later. In short, their anti Zionism is not much more than a Jewish internal affair.
Silvia Cattori: The issue of lobbying also appears absent from the book “Gaza in Crisis” by Chomsky and Pappe . Is it a surprise for you?
Gilad Atzmon: Not really — as we know Chomsky was very critical of Mearsheimer’s and Walt’s study of the Israeli Lobby. I am not familiar with Pappe’s views on the matter. As far as I am aware, he refrains from commenting on the Lobby. I guess that we cannot expect everyone to comment on everything all the time.
Silvia Cattori: Given its influence and its ability to steer the positions of the Palestinian solidarity movement, this ‘Jewish left’ must represent a big headache for someone like you.
Gilad Atzmon: I wouldn’t say that it is a big headache — it is mildly noisy in the background. It is like having a fly in the room. It is a nuisance but it is not going to kill you. However, there are two ways to deal with it — to squash it with an old Guardian paper, or, to open the window and lead it out. I prefer the second option. It is certainly far more humanist.
It is becoming clear that those elements within the Left that are dominated by Jewish ideology have clearly made themselves into irrelevant factors in this conflict or the discourse.
The Left that failed to grasp the anti imperialist impact of Islam is obviously completely detached from current world affairs. It is not a secret that the Jewish left opposed Hamas, and still does. It is not a secret that the Western Left is confused about Islam. However, there is a big difference between Anglo American Left that is struggling with an identity crisis and others forms of struggles for social justice. I, for instance, am very interested in the Spanish and Latin American attitude towards Palestine and Islam.
Silvia Cattori: When you mention ‘Jewish power’ you touch a sensitive nerve. Aren’t you concerned with the fact that it may bring to mind the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” issue? Are you not playing with fire here?
Gilad Atzmon: To start with, it is obviously clear that I am surfing near to the wind. However, considering the volatile state of our world, someone needs to do it, and it happens to be me. Actually, over the years I have written extensively about the “Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion”, and I have repeatedly argued that questions to do with the authenticity of the Protocols are, in fact, completely irrelevant: the grim reality depicted by AIPAC, or Haim Saban, who speaks openly about transforming American politics via ‘lobbying, donations and media control’ is entirely self evidential. And what about Lord Levy being the number one British Labour Party’s fundraiser, at the time this country launched an illegal war against an Arab State?
It is totally clear then, that there is no conspiracy here and there has never been one: Jewish lobbies are operating — in the open — promoting what they believe to be Jewish interests. The explanation to it all is very simple - Zionists and Israelis realised many years ago that it is much cheaper to buy a Western politician than buying a tank.
Silvia Cattori: A chapter of your book is dedicated to the overwhelming power of the Holocaust, can you discuss it further?
Gilad Atzmon: There is no doubt in my mind that the maintenance of the Holocaust is there to sustain the primacy of Jewish suffering at the centre of every possible political discussion. With this heavy cloud over our head, we are not going to be able to respond properly (ethically) to the crimes committed by Israel in the name of the Jewish people. Hence, I do believe that the Holocaust must be stripped of its religious status or primacy in general. It must be discussed openly and treated as a historical chapter. I believe that this will happen soon and I am very proud to be amongst those who lead the discourse in that direction.
And once again, my principle detractors on that front are not the Zionists, but actually the so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists. This week we are holding a conference in Freiburg Germany in which we plan to elaborate on Freedom of Speech in the context of Germany, Israel and Palestine. As one would expect, Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists have been leading the futile battle to dismantle the conference — they mounted pressure on the panellists and the organisers.
Silvia Cattori: Can you give us their names?
Gilad Atzmon: Among our detractors are the American ‘anti’ Zionist Jeff Halper ( who dwells in occupied Palestine but also opposes house demolition ), Sarah Kershnar and Mich Levy of the Jewish Anti Zionist Network, (who are just desperate to stop me), Naomi Idrissi Wimborne (who openly exploits the BDS campaign mounting pressure on Palestinian scholars, attempting to dismantle freedom of speech), the (hardly active) Israeli journalist Shraga Elam , the overwhelmingly active and infamous Tony Greenstein, and others.
And they all operated exactly as one would expect Zionists to behave: they smeared, defamed, labelled, they mounted pressure, but they were totally ignored. Interestingly enough, Zionist operators actually performed with much more dignity, and launched a counter conference in Freiburg on the same day. Interestingly enough, one of the founders of the ISM told me a while back that he much prefers to combat an Israeli soldier in a roadblock rather than fight our so called Jewish ‘anti’ Zionists detractors. I couldn’t agree more.
It is a big shame: these people could have been such a great contribution to the discourse instead of becoming just a cliché of tribal activism. Needless to say; we actually openly invited all our detractors to come to our conference, and to present their opposition to freedom of speech; but as you may imagine, they failed to react positively.
Silvia Cattori: Zionism is often presented, even within the left, as a good thing — besides some Zionists, like Uri Avnery, are regarded by progressives as a positive reference. But you argue that Zionism, portrayed initially as a secular project, was not all that nice.
Gilad Atzmon: Early Zionism was not at all a monolithic movement: it had more than one face and voice. We are all aware of the dispute between Left Zionism and the Revisionists, but there are a few other variants to Zionism that have disappeared over the years. However, it is hard to interpret Israeli action within a Zionist template because Israel is not driven by Zionism any more – if Zionism was created to solve the Jewish Question, Israel has introduced new sets of questions to do with Jewish identity, tribalism, supremacy, and so on.
Increasingly, in my writing I differentiate between Israel and Zionism. Zionism hardly means a thing anymore to Israelis. Zionism is largely reduced to a Jewish Diaspora discourse. Zionism is there to differentiate between the vast majority of world Jews and half a dozen secular Jews who identify themselves as ‘anti’ Zionists.
You mentioned Uri Avnery, I realise that some people in this movement are critical of Avnery whom they regard as a Zionist. Actually, I have a lot of respect for the man — I think that he is an incredible and prolific writer. We must appreciate where he lives and what he tries to achieve. I obviously do not agree with Avnery on certain issues but I do not have any doubt that Avnery would engage in an open debate with me and others, and that is a quality I really miss within our discourse.
Silvia Cattori: The Israeli left and most of the dissenting Jewish voices clearly support the “right of Israel to exist”. What about you?
Gilad Atzmon: I am not in any such position to determine who has, and who does not have the right to exist. But I am qualified to argue that one’s existence shouldn’t be celebrated at the expense of the other. I find it hard to deal with Israeli Left, but make no mistake; there are some elements within Israeli dissidence that are courageous beyond words. These people are taking a real personal risk supporting justice. I have a lot of respect for their actions.
Silvia Cattori: When reading “The Wandering Who?” one wonders if it is not just a bit Judeo-centric of you to be paying so much attention to Jewish identity?
Gilad Atzmon: I agree; I have spent a lot of my time dealing with these issues — in my early 30’s, I started to realise that I was deeply involved in a crime of huge scale. I left Israel because I wanted to believe that this would be enough to liberate me, and to emancipate Palestinians of my presence.
But then I soon learned about the Zionist Lobby and global Zionist operations. And then it didn’t take long before I started to grasp the deceitful nature of some elements within the Jewish left network. I have never been involved in any political activity. I have never been a party member; but this issue to do with Jewish politics intrigued me both intellectually and ethically. I started to read about it. I started to monitor their activity; and at a certain stage, I started to write about it. Within a very short time I bought myself a few enemies who actually provided me with a deeper understanding of the Jewish political discourse. And here we are: I produced “The Wandering Who?” These are my thoughts about Jewish Identity Politics.
Silvia Cattori: By carefully reading your thoughts, one may wonder whether you avoid discussing Jewish religion just to "protect" religion in general.
Gilad Atzmon: Indeed, that is a very subtle observation. I am not a leftist and I am far from being an atheist. I am a musician, and I guess that this fact alone makes me into a religious, or at least a spiritual person. When I play, I really do not know where the notes come from. For me beauty is divine, and thus, I have a lot of respect for believers and spiritual people.
I have a lot of admiration for Muslims. But I also think that the only coherent and genuine Jewish anti-Zionists are actually the Torah Jews. I understand their argument. And as everyone can see, they do not try to steer this movement; they instead do what ever they can to support the Palestinians. And they are remarkably humble and modest. I like them a lot.
Silvia Cattori: But, in your opinion, is not Judaism just as tribal as Jewish political identity?
Gilad Atzmon: Judaism is indeed a tribal, national, and racially oriented religion. And yet, Judaism has it means to contain it all. Tragically enough, something went horribly wrong in the process of Jewish secularisation and the rise of Jewish political discourse.
Jews may have managed to drop their God, but they have maintained goy-hating and racist ideologies at the heart of their newly emerging secular political identity. This explains why some Talmudic goy-hating elements have been transformed within the Zionist discourse into genocidal practices.
Silvia Cattori: How, do you think, does nationalism come into play in other religions, such as Islam or Christianity — is it different from Jewish nationalism?
Gilad Atzmon: As opposed to Judaism that is tribally oriented, Islam and Christianity are universal precepts. The latter attempted to provide an answer to humanity as a whole, rather than maintain a single tribe at the expense of others.
Silvia Cattori: It was very enjoyable to read you saying: "Already then I somehow yearned to become a Goy or at least to be surrounded by Goyim." What do you mean by that?
Gilad Atzmon: It is rather simple; to become an ex-Jew is to stop being chosen. It is not an easy task I still have to practice on a daily basis.
Silvia Cattori: When visiting Israel, one wonders, how these bunches of foreign settlers manage to feel at home there, on stolen land. Is it simply because they are Jewish ? How do you feel about that?
Gilad Atzmon: I was born there. I loved it there. I had a very happy childhood and a successful career as a young adult. It indeed took me many years to understand that something was wrong. I felt something in the first Lebanon War (1981). In Lebanon I started to wonder where all these refuges came from. Then in the first Intifada (1987) I gathered that some people out there were extremely unhappy. In the early 1990’s I was working with a lot of Palestinians from Gaza. I then realised that my existence in the region was entangled with an unbearable crime. In 1994 I left Israel for good. And since 1996 I have not visited the place. But you have to understand that Israelis do not see the Palestinians or their plight. Chosen-ness is a form of blindness. Israel can only see themselves. And this may well mean that we do not have the remedy for the conflict.
Silvia Cattori: What is fascinating about you is that you seem almost pleased to have been ostracized and accused of being an anti-Semite. Do not you fear the next campaign to discredit "The Wandering Who?"
Gilad Atzmon: I believe that as things stand, those who bring up the anti Semite label do very little except expose their deep affiliation with Zionism and Judeo centrism.
The campaign against my book has begun already. But I also receive a lot of support. I accept that this is my karma. By now I know that as long as I am opposed, it only means that I am doing the right thing. I guess that the more opposition I receive, the more people can read into my argument.
As you probably noticed, in the old days, anti Semites were those who didn’t like Jews, Nowadays, anti Semites are those whom the Jews hate. Some Jews out there really do not appreciate my efforts. But the good news is that no one takes notice of the anti Semite accusation any more. It has been over used.
Silvia Cattori: You wrote that Israel’s days are numbered. How exactly can you evaluate that?
Gilad Atzmon: Regardless of the Palestinian struggle, Israel cannot hold it together anymore. It is a morbid society driven by relentless greed. It is on the verge of imploding. If anything, the Jewish state has amplified the Jewish Question rather than eliminate it. And I believe that time is ripe to admit that there may not be a collective answer to the question. I guess that by the time Israelis learn to love their neighbours, peace may prevail — however, when this happens they may as well stop regarding themselves as Chosen. They will be ordinary people.
Silvia Cattori: Thank you Gilad Atzmon. Talking with you is really a treat.
Gilad Atzmon: Thanks so much for your attention and dedication. It is always a great pleasure to talk to you too.
(*) Gilad Atzmon’s New Book: “The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics”. Zero Books 2011.
Jewish identity is tied up with some of the most difficult and contentious issues of today. The purpose in this book is to open many of these issues up for discussion. Since Israel defines itself openly as the ‘Jewish State’, we should ask what the notions of ’Judaism’, ‘Jewishness’, ‘Jewish culture’ and ‘Jewish ideology’ stand for. Gilad examines the tribal aspects embedded in Jewish secular discourse, both Zionist and anti Zionist; the ‘holocaust religion’; the meaning of ‘history’ and ‘time’ within the Jewish political discourse; the anti-Gentile ideologies entangled within different forms of secular Jewish political discourse and even within the Jewish left. He questions what it is that leads Diaspora Jews to identify themselves with Israel and affiliate with its politics. The devastating state of our world affairs raises an immediate demand for a conceptual shift in our intellectual and philosophical attitude towards politics, identity politics and history.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Dear the friends of Palestine in Malmo and Sweden
As we gather today to express the solidarity for the membership of Palestine in the UN, my thoughts go to our grandparents and parents who went in the long road of pain and suffering more than 7 decades to defend their right to live in peace and freedom in their home country. My thoughts go to my people in Palestine who are subjected to all sorts of atrocities, from the daily humiliating check points, to the daily terror raids, and to the confistication of Palestine land to build settlements and to the Palestinian prisoners of conscience arrested because they oppose the occupation.
My people have been exposed to one of the most in justice in modern history. Much Palestinian blood and tears were shed on the land of Palestine during these years. And the Zionists are not a classic occupation; they seek all the time to destroy us physically, culturally and morally by the support of the western world.
They thought in 1948 that they will bury the name of Palestine forever, but time has shown that despite displacement, occupation and terror the will of Palestinians was not broken. For that reason let me say today in the loudest voice, the voice of the Palestinian victims is louder now more than any time before.
Dear Friends of Palestine
The American administration threatens us to use the veto to deprive my country to be a member in the UN. We see the American veto a veto mixed with the blood and tears of millions of my innocent people who harm nobody. The American veto is used to legitimate occupation, land grab and Zionist atrocities, and big shame on this veto.
Therefore we tell the USA to stop claiming supporting freedom of the Arab spring because we know they are HYPOCRITICAL. .The USA has a long history in supporting the oppressive regimes around the world, and in Palestine we are occupied by American vetoes and American money and American arms.
Let me address Sweden and Europe. We want Sweden to restore its leading role in supporting the question of freedom and human rights, and we want Sweden to take courageous step as the one done by Olaf Palma who received Arafat against the Zionist and American will in 1983. Palestine is the moral test of the west and not voting for Palestine would mean the fallen of the European morality.
The Montevideo convention in 1933 sets out the definition of the statehood by three major points, a permanent population, and defined territory and a government and Palestine fulfils all these conditions.
While the UN accepted Israel as a member in the UN on two conditions, which Israel never respected; the first is to accept the partition plan for Palestine, the second to allow the Palestinian refugees to return home. As Israel has not honored either of these resolutions, it cannot be a full member of the UN.
The question is crystals clear, there is occupant and occupied and the time on playing on words is over. We negotiated them 20 years while they are stealing our land, and while they do all sorts of crimes against our people, and all this demonstrate beyond doubt that peace is the last Israeli interest. Therefore the Palestine question must go back to the UN because it started there and we do not accept anything less than the international law.
It is a historical days for us Palestinians who suffered 63 years of occupation and exile but did not give up the Palestinian dream.
It is a historical day for Palestine the spiritual capital of the world which was deprived by Zionists to resume its role as the centre of the culture of tolerance on earth.
Thank you all
God Bless Palestine. God bless humanity
Malmo, Sweden.19 September
* A Palestinian-Norwegian historian in the Middle East, who has written extensively on social and political issues in the region. - email@example.com
Mugabe UN Speech
Your Excellency, Mr Nassir Abdulaziz AI-Nasser, President of the 66th Session of the United Nations General Assembly,
Your Excellencies, Heads of State and Government,
Your Excellency, Mr Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the United Nations,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Comrades and Friends
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as President of the 66th Sessionof the General Assembly. My delegation is confident that under your able leadership, the GeneralAssembly will successfully address the pressing issues on the agenda of the current Session. I also wishto pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr Joseph Deiss, for successfully steering the proceedings of this August house during the 65th Session.
I wish to congratulate the Secretary General, Mr Ban Ki-moon, on his re-election for a second term. TheSecretary General, we remain hopeful, will strive to shepherd the United Nations in an open, transparentand inclusive multilateral approach.
Such an approach, I believe, would renew and revive the hopes andexpectations of developing countries in the efficacy of the world body. Zimbabwe reposes her hopes in aUnited Nations that recognises the equality of sovereign states as enshrined in the founding Charter.
I want to express my heartfelt congratulations to the Republic of South Sudan on its attainment of independence and its subsequent admission as the 193rd member of the United Nations family. As we all congratulate this new nation, Zimbabwe calls upon the international community to render all the necessary support to its government and people in tackling the numerous development challenges that lie ahead. Zimbabwe stands ready to make its modest contribution to that end.
The theme, “The role of mediation in the settlement of disputes,” is most apt. But, how do we, the U.N. members, measure in relation to it in our activities here at the United Nations and out there in the real world?
It is my principled view that we must be duty and honour bound to operationalise the principles upon which the Charter of the United Nations is based. We must not be guilty of manipulating the Charter to serve our particular or sectional designs and ambitions. The Charter is our set of commandments that must be strictly obeyed by each and every member if international and regional peace is to be maintained.
We cannot honestly say this is the position today in regard to NATO states versus Libya. Whatever political disturbances might have first occurred in Bengazi, the process of mediation and peaceful negotiations was never given full play.
It was deliberately and blatantly excluded from shedding positive influence over developments. There was quick resort to invoking Chapter VII of the Charter with gross deliberate misinterpretation of the scope of the mandate originally given NATO to oversee and protect civilians.
Bilateral hatreds and quarrels or ulterior motives must not be allowed to creep into considerations of matters pertaining to threats to international peace and security, or to the principle of the Responsibility to Protect.
We are yet to be convinced that the involvement of the mighty powers in Libya’s affairs has not hindered the advent of the process of peace, democracy and prosperity in that sister African country.
Our African Union would never have presumed to impose a leadership on the fraternal people of Libya as NATO countries have illegally sought to do. At the very least, the African Union would have wished to join those principled members of this august body who preferred an immediate ceasefire and peaceful dialogue in Libya.
The African Union was and remains fully seized with this crisis and will spare no energies in fully complementing the U.N. so that peace returns to Libya and its tormented people. We wish that process God’s speed.
The newly minted principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) should not be twisted to provide cover for its pre-meditated abuse in violating the sacred international principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of states because to do so amounts to an act of aggression and destabilisation of a sovereign state. Moreover, to selectively and arbitrarily apply that principle merely serves to undermine its general acceptability.
Indeed, more than other states, all the five permanent members of the Security Council bear a huge responsibility in this regard for ensuring that their historical privilege is used more to protect the U.N. Charter than to breach it as is happening currently in Libya through the blatant illegal, brutal and callous NATO’s murderous bombings.
After over twenty thousand NATO bombing sorties that targeted Libyan towns, including Tripoli, there is now unbelievable and most disgraceful scramble by some NATO countries for Libyan oil, indicating thereby that the real motive for their aggression against Libya was to control and own its abundant fuel resources. What a shame!
Yesterday, it was Iraq and Bush and Blair were the liars and aggressors as they made unfounded allegations of possessions of weapons of mass destruction. This time it is the NATO countries the liars and aggressors as they make similarly unfounded allegations of destruction of civilian lives by Gaddafi.
When we in Zimbabwe sought to redress the ills of colonialism and racism, by fully acquiring our natural resources, mainly our land and minerals, we were and still are subjected to unparalleled vilification and pernicious economic sanctions, the false reasons alleged being violations of the rule of law, human rights, and democracy.
My people have condemned these illegal sanctions and recently over two million signatures of protesters have demonstrated their antipathy to them. We thank SADC and the African Union for supporting us and demanding the immediate removal of the illegal sanctions.
We in Africa are also duly concerned about the activities of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which seems to exist only for alleged offenders of the developing world, the majority of them Africans. The leaders of the powerful Western States guilty of international crime, like Bush and Blair, are routinely given the blind eye. Such selective justice has eroded the credibility of the ICC on the African continent.
My country continues to work with others for a revitalised General Assembly. However, our ambitions extend to the need to reform the Security Council as well. Africa’s call for at least two permanent seats for its members on the Security Council has been constant for decades. Africa cannot remain as the only region without permanent membership in the Security Council.
The current global economic crisis and its attendant financial crisis compounds the plight of us, the most vulnerable, the developing countries. The present international economic and financial architecture has to be reformed and made to respond timeously to the real needs of all our peoples. The situation challenges the ability of our developing world to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
As we celebrate the l0th anniversary of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (DDPA) against racism, xenophobia and other related social ills, let us all recommit ourselves to fight and defeat these evils.
My country fully supports the right of the gallant people of Palestine to statehood and membership of this U.N. Organisation. The U.N. must become credible by welcoming into its bosom all those whose right to attain sovereign independence and freedom from occupation and colonialism is legitimate. Similarly, the tormented people of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic must not be forgotten. We call for immediate progress in the engagements for a solution to their long-running saga.
The Conference of the Parties (CoPI) later this year is a pivotal occasion from which we should emerge with agreed measures to address matters of climate change and how to mitigate threats to the very existence of small-island states in particular, and to the coastal regions of many heavily-populated nations. Zimbabwe will be fully engaged in those negotiations.
Let me reiterate my country’s full belief in the aspirations enshrined in the Charter of the U.N. We must all resist any abuse to which it may be exposed through the unwelcome behaviour of a few. My country celebrates the UN-Women entity as it addresses the position of more than half of humankind in all our countries.
The African Union must not be undermined, rather, it should be allowed to complement the UN’s efforts for peace and security on the continent. Zimbabwe is a peaceful member of the AU, SADC, COMESA, NAM and many other international economic and trade organisations and thus desires to continue to play its part in creating a peaceful environment in the world. The United Nations can count on the unqualified support of Zimbabwe as required, even if only in our modest way.
May I wish the 66th United Nations General Assembly every success, Mr. President.
I thank you.
These Are Facts To Be Dealt With
Deal With Them
Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes
Check Them Out
Here is a full transcript of the above video fully linked for reference.
Everything you ever wanted to know about the 9/11 conspiracy theory in under 5 minutes.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.
The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimony extracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.
The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.
The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.
This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).
Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Dr Ang Swee Chai grew up supporting Israel. Arabs, she was told, were terrorists. But in 1982, on the television she saw the relentless bombing of Beirut by Israeli planes. Shocked, her view of Israel began to change. It was then that she heard of an international appeal for an orthopaedic surgeon to treat war victims in Beirut. The petit woman - she was just under 1.5 meters - resigned her job in London, bade her husband farewell and set out on a journey to civil war Beirut, there she was to eye-witness the Sabra-Shatila massacres*.
With her husband Francis Khoo, and some friends, Dr Ang Swee Chai helped to form the British charity, Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), following the 1982 Sabra-Shatila massacres. In 1987, PLO chairman Yasser Arafat awarded Dr Ang Swee Chai the "Star of Palestine" the highest award for service to the Palestinian people.
Dr. Ang is interviewed here on Lebanese Alhiwar TV.
Message for Libya
Aisha Gaddafi’s Message Delivered on Al-Rai TV
Kindly translated for Libya 360° by I.A. Libya.
“Here is my own translation of the very touching and emotional speech which sister Aisha Gaddafi gave 4 hours ago on El-Rai Televsion. I would say the translation is about 90-95% accurate.” – I.A. Libya
To the great people of Libya,
I salute you.
I will not tell you that victory is approaching, but that we live victorious every day for the last 8 months and we are lining up a victory which has never been witnessed in history.
40 countries, with their attacks using planes, missiles and technologies by air and sea and utilizing their agents on the ground. And the Libyan people are still resilient and fighting. I commend these heroes and I congratulate all of the Libyan people, along with your Great Leader, whom I bring relief to you and inform you is currently well. He is well Thank God, and is also faithful to God and remains in high spirits. He bears a weapon and is fighting on the battlefield with his sons, side by side with the Libyan fighters. This is Muammar Gaddafi, putting himself forward to become a fighter and a martyr with his sons.
Compare this sight with that of Qatar with the Prince who presents and puts forward a crown prince who cried like a girl because they were granted the World Cup 12 years from now.
This gives you (the Libyans) the right to be proud of your leader!
Shame and disgrace to the Arab leaders who were swayed and participated in the slaughter of The Libyan People. And it is unfortunate that Arab nations witnessed this slaughter for 8 months and have not flinched nor stood up and risen against it.
But I call on the lions of Tripoli, the lions of Tarhouna, the eagles of Wershifanna, and the lions of Assabia and Mashaseeya and Arshaydat and Ajaylat and Awayell to the Lions of the Ancient city of Sabha to the lions of Sirte, Abusleem and El-Hadhba (All tribes within Libya) and all of the heroes of Tripoli, the resilient. And to all Libyan fighters from the West to the South.
I call on you and I call on you, I call on you, I call on you! (Quoted in a way that a female muslim heroine once was depicted saying it in ancient Islamic battles) Link up! Persevere! Be Patient! Protest! God the holy the merciful said, “If there are 100 perseverient/patient, they will defeat 200 and if there are 1000, they will defeat 2000 and God is with the perseverient/patient.” – Quote from the Quran.
To the silent, I will say to them. What do you have to say about the humiliation that is the new regime, what sort of regime is this? These are familiar faces, which you know very well:
Starting with ABUSHENNA (Mustafa Abdul Jalil) that gave his loyalty and obedience to my Father and betrayed him. Mahmoud Jibril who gave his loyalty and obedience to my brother Saif El-Islam and betrayed him. Shalgam was loyal for 40 years and Betrayed. Trekki the idiot was loyal and obedient for 40 years and betrayed. Ghogha was the captain of the lawyers and loyal and betrayed. Bilhadj who gave an oath and a guarantee and broke it. Others, among others exist. All of these people betrayed and broke their oaths which they gave before, who says they will not break oaths and promises to you?
And to the NATO rebels, if you have any common sense or logic to use …. NATO, who when they wanted to invade Afghanistan and in Iraq, they landed boots on the ground, because they could not find any traitors who were willing to take up arms against their fellow countrymen. Sadly, they found such people within Libya who would take up arms against the chests of their fellow Libyan brothers. This is why I will say there is no god but God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God. Believe in God (Allah), Believe in God (Allah). God (Allah) is all I need. He is the best guardian.
Finally, I would like to quote my brother, who when I asked him to be careful and look after himself on the frontline with his brothers …. I will never forget his words:
“I WILL MAKE A TRAIL WITH OUR BODIES SO THAT THE PEOPLE OF LIBYA CAN WALK ON THEM TO VICTORY.”
To the heroes of Libya, do not disappoint our martyrs. Avenge them, avenge them, avenge them!
“Victory cometh, only an hour’s patience.”
Peace be upon you and the Mercy of Allah and His Blessings.
Libya and War Crimes
Corporate media complicit in covering for rebel war crimes
by Tony Cartalucci
Despite desperate attempts by Wall Street and London to proclaim their intervention in Libya a success, even going as far as sending their political proxies Nicolas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron of the United Kingdom for a quick photo opportunity at the rebel held airport in contested Tripoli, vast swaths of the nation are still fiercely resisting NATO and their proxy rebel forces. This includes entire cities still standing in defiance against rebel attempts to "starve them out" and dozens of daily NATO airstrikes (NATO report for September 22) aimed at breaking the population's will to fight on.
Weeks ago, the rebel forces, led by US State Department and UK Home Office listed terrorists from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a subsidiary of Al Qaeda, boldly announced plans to starve out cities resisting their unelected, foreign backed seizure of the North African nation. The London Telegraph reported in an article aptly titled, "Libya crisis: Rebel leaders hoping to starve Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte into submission," that under the cover of heavy NATO bombing rebel leaders hoped "to starve Col Gaddafi's home town of Sirte into submission, laying siege to his last remaining stronghold in an attempt to avoid mass bloodshed, according to the man spearheading efforts for a peaceful takeover."
Fox News would relay an AP report on September 2, 2011, that rebel commanders declared, "we want to save our fighters and not lose a single one in battles with Qaddafi's forces. In the end, we will get Sirte, even if we have to cut water and electricity and let NATO pound it with airstrikes." AP cited Mohammed al-Rajali, a spokesman for the rebel leadership in the eastern city of Benghazi. Ironically, the article was titled, "UN Warns Libya is Short of Water, Fuel, Medicine," a crisis admittedly being caused by the premeditated denial for entire cities of critical supplies for their civilian populations, enabled by NATO bombing and under the cover of UN recognition of the terrorist rebels - a move that has soundly resigned the UN's legitimacy and stated purpose to the scrapheap of history.
This is also a verifiable war crime. As reported earlier, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the denial of humanitarian assistance is a crime under international law. The Red Cross adds that "a massacre is not necessarily committed only with knives." While many will attempt to portray the premeditated creation of a humanitarian disaster as "more humane" than taking the Libya's cities by force - rebels have in fact already tried force, for now over a month, and have been soundly repelled.
Now, after weeks of attempting to encircle and starve into submission cities rejecting NATO-backed, UN sanctioned rebel control of Libya, including the southern city of Bani Walid, the "National Transitional Council" is claiming the resulting humanitarian disaster is of Libyan leader Qaddafi's own creation. CNN, in a bout of selective amnesia after reporting earlier that "anti-Gadhafi forces on the outskirts of Sirte and Bani Walid have cut off supplies into the cities and amassed weaponry for heavy battle," has now reported in another article titled, "NTC claims humanitarian disaster in Gadhafi stronghold," that "that Gadhafi forces are robbing food stores, leaving civilian residents to starve." This is just the latest in a long litany of conflicting stories and verified lies spread by the now notoriously deceptive rebels, their equally duplicitous "international" backers, and shamelessly relayed without hesitation by the complicit and clearly compromised mainstream media.
A real crime against humanity is being committed in Libya, perpetrated by NATO on behalf of Wall Street and London. As reported earlier, NATO's entire support network and public partners consist of Fortune 500 corporations via the Atlantic Council, which claims to be a preeminent, non partisan institution devoted to promoting transatlantic cooperation and international security. Its sponsors include many of the big oil interests poised to reap a whirlwind of profits over NATO-backed regime change in Libya, namely BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell. It also includes defense contractors already enriched by the protracted bloodshed in Northern Africa including Raytheon, BAE, SAAB Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.
Additional support comes from the world's largest banks and equity firms, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Barclays Capital, the Blackstone Group, Citigroup, and Credit Suisse Bank, who are set to benefit not from the liberation of the Libyan people, but the "liberation" of Libya's markets. There is also a tremendous amount of foundation support for the Atlantic Council and thus NATO, each with a nefarious back-story worthy of their own thorough examination, including the Carnegie Corporation of New York , the Ford Foundation, and billionaire bankster George Soros' Open Society Institute.
But perhaps most alarming is NATO's support via the Atlantic Council by "reputable" news and media agency sponsors, including Thomson Reuters, News Desk Media, Bloomberg (which includes BusinessWeek), and Google. This explains the almost schizophrenic reporting emerging from Libya spinning and obfuscating the truth in a consistently pro-NATO light and goes a long way to explain why rebels are allowed by the "international community" to purposefully starve civilian populations, break Libya's resistance with NATO airstrikes, and somehow manage to place the blame on the civilian populations by merely labeling them as "pro-Qaddafi" and that such atrocities are self-imposed.
Logically, one should conclude, if they are indeed repulsed by what is transpiring in Libya at the hands of Wall Street and London, that the corporations, banks, and institutions involved should be exposed, boycotted, and promptly replaced.