U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu indicated in a meeting with reporters Saturday that they were exploring the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Syria. I managed to reach Secretary Clinton by phone shortly afterward.
BW: Secretary Clinton, the U.S. is a pioneer in this sort of project. You pretty much eradicated the mosquito in the Panama Canal Zone more than a century ago. How difficult do you think it is going to be to eradicate the flies in Syria?
HC: I’m not sure how to answer that. It’s not really about eradicating flies. We have more important things in mind.
BW: So what eradication do you intend?
HC: We want to do it right. The plan would be to stop everything from flying.
BW: My goodness! Even the birds and the bees and the butterflies? It sounds very ambitious.
HC: We’re talking about humans and cargo here, Barb. The idea is to prevent aircraft from flying. It’s for the protection of the Syrian population.
BW: So how would you accomplish this?
HC: By sending in military aircraft, drones and missiles to strike, bomb and strafe the population and installations.
BW: Is that what you call a no-fly zone and protection of the Syrian population?
HC: You don’t understand, Barb. You have to fly aircraft in order to prevent the flying of aircraft, and you have to strike, bomb and strafe Syrians in order to protect them.
BW: You’re right. I guess I don’t understand. How do the Syrians feel about this?
HC: They love it, Barb. They want us to strike and bomb and strafe them.
BW: And you know this…how?
HC: They’ve said so themselves, and especially the Syrians from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the U.S. Of course, the U.S. would never send its own aircraft and combat troops or equipment for this purpose. We provide only nonlethal aid such as maps with suggestions of where best to kill people.
BW: Then where is the equipment made?
HC: Oh, it’s made in the U.S., of course, but we sell or give it to others and then instruct them to give it to Syrians from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Israel and the U.S. to be used to protect other Syrians. You can protect a lot more Syrians with a half-tonne bomb than with an automatic rifle, but we let others provide that kind of aid under our guidance so that our hands are clean – speaking of which, I should have stopped by the washroom.
BW: I guess this is a lot different than eradicating mosquitos.
HC: Yes, but eradication is eradication, and as you say, we’ve always been good at it.
WordPress is scalable web cms system that can be used by one author or many in a multi-user site. To get the best out of WordPress it is good to know how some of its core features work.
Every WordPress post has the option of including a featured image. Bottom right below Tags press “Featured Image” . If a featured image is added it is displayed along with snippets of posts, the featured image is the icon for the article.
How to add a “Featured Image” to a WordPress Post in 5 easy Steps
- Select the Image and check size using a Image editing application.
- Set Featured Image
- Featured Image must be uploaded to deliberation to work. NB you can also use an image already in the Gallery or the Media Library
- Fill in Alt Text(recommended keywords) and Caption(optional)
- Select Use as featured image
Types of image to use = Only use jpgs or PNGs at 72dpi. No BMPS.
Fill in the Alt Text and Caption on the image.
The caption describes the photo the alt text is good for the search engines, use 1-2 keywords from your article.
If your image is too big or too small use an image editing application to increase or decrease the size and export it for web as a jpg or png file. If you dont have a image editing application you can use the fab photobucket website to resize images.If you are short of images we recommend you try the photobucket website . But remember to download and upload an image to make it a featured image in a post.
In 1668 A.D., the Bawdy House Riots turned the streets of London into a battleground between the impoverished working class and the royalist bourgeoisie: 30 years earlier; an extremist Jew financed insurgency fronted by Oliver Cromwell, had paved the way for usurers / moneylenders / bankers to take over the city and set up their base of operations in the Square Mile. Cromwell repaid his Talmudist benefactors by overturning the ban on Jewish immigration (Britain’s 3,000 Jews were expelled en-masse in 1289 A.D. for crimes against humanity) and set into motion a terrible series of events that’d turn England into one of the most violent, troubled and despised nations on Earth.
Not that extremist Jewry particularly liked Cromwell or any other Shabbat Goy for that matter, for they didn’t object to the return of the royalists or the grisly revenge they exacted on Cromwell’s corpse in 1661; because for the usurer / moneylender / banker; business is business. And as smarmy usurer Nathan Rothschild so eloquently summarized in 1790:
Let me issue and control a nation’s money, and I care not who writes the laws”.
The destructive policies these usurers imposed upon their return, were designed to exacerbate inequity, widen the gap between rich and poor whilst slowly sinking the country into a socio-economic quagmire defined by the vicious cycle of borrowing, debt and war. Needless to say, they succeeded.
At the time of the riots, England was, as usual, bogged down in a series of wars, riddled with corruption, heavily in debt to moneylenders and attempting to dismember the proletariat at any given opportunity.
Workers forced to endure inhuman conditions with no hope of improvement, had finally had enough, and on Shrove Tuesday, March 23rd 1668; apprentices, slaves, artists and plebeians of every stripe took to the streets and attacked the whore-houses of London: Brothels, frequented by the rich and thus immune to the manmade virus of poverty, were an offensive symbol of sexual-economic decadence and moral decay. The crowd chanted revolutionary slogans calling for reform and demanded the elimination of the Red Coats (i.e. British troops) as Bawdy houses from Poplar to Holborn were set ablaze in a week of widespread unrest.
We have been servants, but we will be masters now!” 1
they threatened, demanding that the monarchy give them “liberty of conscience” 1 or else. Samuel Pepys account of statements made by the opposition, proves that they had the courage of their convictions to try and bring about a real change in England:
…how these idle fellows have had the confidence to say that they did ill in contenting themselves in pulling down the little bawdy-houses, and did not go and pull down the great bawdy-house at Whitehall”.
Alas, it wasn’t meant to be: for members of the opposition were taken captive and revolutionary leaders were tortured to death or put before show trials and executed: And so their courageous cri de coeur was silenced by the treacherous cutthroats of the British regime, the paramours of parasitism, the whores of usury.
343 years later, the streets of London again played host to a battle between the embittered masses and the arrogant defenders of inequity. Now much has been written about the riots and the reasons behind them, about disenfranchised youth and social justice and what not, and for the most part; its all been woefully predicable, fiercely sectarian stuff: with pro-Israeli, far right wing pundits fawning over the police and liberal commentators attempting to defend the indefensible because of some misplaced desire to be seen as one of the people. The uprising, though motivated in part by a catalogue of injustices that have been mounting up for over a decade, was a relatively straightforward response to a heinous and cowardly crime:
August 4th 2011: The institutionally racist Metropolitan Police kill 29-year-old Black man Mark Duggan; shot dead in broad daylight on Ferry Lane, Tottenham.
The officers involved clearly expected to get away with it, since the Met didn’t even bother informing Mr. Duggan’s family, refused to release any statements pertaining to his case and, if pressed, could always rely on their underlings in both the highbrow and tabloid media to portray the victim as a wrong’un: an Afro-Caribbean undesirable, an unemployed troublemaker who invited death and probably deserved it.
They are portraying Mark as a gangster. Mark is not a gangster. He’s not known to any gangsters or any gangs. He’s not like that.”
~ Semone Wilson, Mark Duggan’s fiancée
Now I’m reliably informed that according to the Anglo-American-Israeli crime gang, any Afro-Caribbean male aged between 14-40 is potentially a gang member. So if all else fails, the police can always fall back on this vitriolic canard to placate those who’ll accept any old lie, provided it falls somewhere in line with their own unspoken prejudices.
That said, the police officers involved in Mark Duggan’s assassination have every reason to presume they’ll escape justice, after all, the tumultuous tenure of controversial police commissioner and alleged Freemason / Cabbalist cult member; Sir Ian Blair (Commander of the British Empire) gave succour to Israeli sympathisers within the police force: The Anglo-Israeli assassination of 7/7 eyewitness Jean Charles De Menezes remains unpunished, no police officer has been bought to trial over the 18 year long cover-up of the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry (linked to Israel by the British far right’s intimate links with pro-Israeli elements), no officer involved in the Forrest Gate home invasion and attempted murder of 23-year-old Mohammed Abdul Kahar has been bought to justice. PC Simon Harwood, who was on trial for killing bystander Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests, walked out of court Scott free and smug, welcomed back into the force with open arms and free to resume his duties ASAP. No criminal charges were bought against officers who assaulted wheelchair bound activist Jodie Macintyre and left 21-year-old Alfie Meadows, fighting for his life at the Student demonstrations in October 2010. And its’ safe to assume that no charges will ever be bought against any of these evil overseers, for the laws aren’t made for them, and the state can’t very well be expected to put away its own henchmen. After all, thugs and mercenaries have been the vanguard of every criminal regime from time immemorial; bent cops will face justice within the system the day a knife cuts off its own handle.
The people who gathered outside Tottenham police station demanding answers about Mark Duggan’s murder, may well have known that their pleas would fall on deaf ears, nonetheless, they came in their hundreds. The righteous indignation of the community focused on those who consider themselves above the very laws they claim to enforce. The police responded to civilized calls to explain this outrage, by beating up a young Black girl. So sickening, brazen and brutal was the attack, that it eventually provoked a riot.
And it wasn’t just one particular type of person who got involved, but malcontents from every echelon of society whose conscience was stirred to action by this crime, ran out to retaliate. Take the case of 18 year old Chelsea Ives for example; here was a girl fully integrated into the system, a good student, a talented athlete by all accounts and part of the pre-hype pomp and circumstance surrounding the 2012 Olympics, endorsed by pro-Israeli mayor Boris Johnson and pushed to the front as a representative for the games: A decent enough gig for a teenager, I suppose. And yet, in her heart of hearts, she knew it was all a pack of lies, a monstrous charade, an insult to her intelligence, deep down she knew they’d hired a stooge for a spectacle and that the system for which she had been made an ambassador, was corrupt to its rotten core. This frustration manifested itself with young Chelsea hurling a bollard into the windscreen of a police car. Granted, not the most eloquent, or indeed effective, expression of anger you could hope for, but nonetheless, a clear statement of disgust in the face of aggression and malice from the police.
Chelsea, despite having no previous convictions, was sent down for two years in Wood Green Young Offender’s Institute, now compare her misdemeanours with the list of crimes perpetrated by the police; and tell me again that we live in a country that respects the rule of law.
The civilized world was, at that time of the initial retaliation, in complete and unwavering solidarity with the opposition and united in their fury against the so-called law. But opportunistic criminals soon took advantage of the situation and hi-jacked proceedings for their own ends. Breathing a sigh of relief, the MSM’s focus immediately shifted from the murder of Mark Duggan to scenes of hooded rioters ransacking shops and taking over parts of the country. Every effort was made to promote the violence, and bury the reasons behind it.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
Many, perhaps the majority, of protestors who ventured out in the opening salvos of the uprising were there to uphold justice and the rule of law. They were there fighting against the tyranny of the Anglo-American-Israeli crime gang, and unlike Occupy London, the protestors would not meekly abide by the barricades and batons hired to protect Rothschild’s henchmen in the city, these men, women and youths put their lives on the line to demonstrate the sincerity of their beliefs, others, however, were just after a new pair of trainers or an iphone. For we cannot elevate the legitimacy of active opposition by appeasing the debased sentiments of looters and traitors who’d sooner rob their fellow man than stand with him against tyranny. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: the undisciplined rabble, the looters and the muggers were a gift to the police, if I were a corrupt copper, I’d find the ringleader of the looters and shake his or her hand, in fact, there’s evidence to suggest that’s more or less what the police did; for they’re accused of dispatching masked officers into the fray as agent provocateurs to tilt the PR war in their favour. The criminal minority of rioters helped transform what should’ve been a story about a police homicide into a narrative about yobs running wild, some suspected EDL vermin even used the cover of chaos to commit a racially motivated murder in Birmingham; and they too, unsurprisingly, were let off the hook as lesser crimes were punished to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Jonathan Swift once wrote a memorable essay on the law, and I feel like we’re seeing his theories in practice today: “Laws are like cobwebs…”, he said, “…which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through.”
For like a dead trout, society rots from the head down: A criminal regime that holds political prisoners at home whilst engaged in mass murder and armed robbery overseas, has lost all moral authority to chastise its wayward offspring for vandalizing a high street supermarket or robbing a newsagent. The veneer of respectability, the illusion of procedure is exposed and tarnished in an instant, as “…the unacceptable and regrettable”2 Teresa May frantically blames all and sundry whilst hoping against hope that none will pick up on the fact that the criminality on the streets, is a direct reflection of her own foul conduct in office. The policies of the Anglo-American-Israeli crime gang are an abomination to all but the parasites who imposed them upon us at gunpoint, and today, that monumental failure returns to haunt them like sin did the portrait of Dorian Gray; a festering diorama of filth, a mess of their own making.
The similarities between conditions for the proletariat in 1668 and 2011 ought to be obvious since the same stale regime who were empowered under Cromwell and William of Orange, retain power under whomsoever Rothschild selects to front this shambolic con, the ignorant call democracy. In the 17th century, London had “…became overcrowded with an overworked, underpaid host of raucous apprentices many of whom were Puritan zealots. These apprentices, intermittently employed and often miserably poor, encouraged sporadic rioting, the opening of prison doors, the razing of brothels, and general civic unrest” (Seidel, ‘The Restoration Mob: Drones and Dregs’ p. 432-437).
Today, “The number of new UK graduates working in jobs like cleaning or bar work has almost doubled to 10,000 in five years, according to government statistics. The figures, from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, also showed more than 20,000 were still out of work six months after leaving university” (Judith Burns, BBC, 28.6.12 ).
In 1668, “…apprenticeship was detached from the decaying guild system and its attendant privileges and finally rendered virtually indistinguishable from servitude”. Today, the silent scandal of unpaid internships, described as ‘exploitative, counter-productive and illegal’ by careers journalist Clair Whitmell, makes a mockery of labour laws and humiliates the jobseeker to jump through hoops in the hope of securing some meagre rebate or elusive offer of employment. I’ve seen good, strong willed people break down over not being considered for an interview after many weeks of work, never having once been told that there wasn’t a job to offer, and that the only real ‘experience’ they’ve gained is the experience of being fleeced, used and manipulated by those who’ve got the upper hand.
The troubling case of Cait Reilly further crystallizes the malevolence of the class war in Rothschild’s Britain. Reily, a 23 year old geology graduate from Birmingham, lost her bid to overturn a DWP ruling that forced her to stack shelves for free at a ‘Poundland’ store, I repeat: 23 year graduate Cait Reily, who was already on an unpaid internship whilst looking for work, was forced into manual labour by the job centre and this regime, only to be informed by the highest court in the land that she has no right to challenge their orders. Having listened to Miss Reily, she seems a tad unworldly and dare I say naïve in thinking the government would listen to reason. When it looks like it, sounds like it and feels like it, it is that which we know it to be: Slavery. Indentured servitude, enslavement; the only things missing are the shackles and cattle brands, but I’m sure they’ll return soon enough. And apparently there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s right, such is the extent of the rot in this country, that the shameless, degenerate MPs who siphon off their expenses, vote in favour of perpetrating depraved acts of international terrorism and plunder the nation to within an inch of its economic life; can then turn around and lecture us on the law and ethics.
And yet there are those who’ll say, that’s all true and shocking in its own right, but the Chavs who ran amok in 2011 are essentially unemployable, lazy, dirty, aggressive curs unable to perform any action beyond armed robbery and signing on for their JSA. I agree, that may well be true in some cases; and these incurable yobs ought to be reunited with their architects, like a redirected stream of sewage; poured back into the establishments that meticulously engineered the conditions under which this menace thrives. For no one is born an ill mannered nuisance, a mugger or a thief, they learn from example and the most wretched and influential examples of criminality are to be found in Westminster, in the boardrooms of pro-Israeli think tanks, the financial institutions, the police and judiciary. Now I say this to all criminal, Rothschild controlled regimes in the West: If there’s nothing left in the coffers, just admit it, just say we’ve looted it all, we’re unable to rob any more from Iraq or Libya to sustain this island. Give it up and concede that your extremist Jew policies have infected the welfare state like an untreated outbreak of Gonorrhoea, that the NHS is now the equivalent of an unequipped rest room in some Stalinist gulag, and that you’ve transformed the DWP into the IDF. Admit it, and be done with the pretence.
The police, it seems, aren’t content with war or peace; for the culture in which they’re bred promotes endless complaint and unprovoked prejudice. A culture that encourages stupidity, rewards thuggery, facilitates corruption and conceals incompetence. For the police are a body of the state and the state is a servant of the usurer, thus to expect the employees to overrule both their employer and his boss, is delusional at best. The police as an institution is finished in my view; it’s no longer an infected limb but merely an infection on what’s now an unrecognisable remnant of charred flesh and withered bone.
And you may well say: ‘but Kashif, you’ve just demonised half the population and denigrated every public body in the country, surely it can’t be that bad’. It is. And of course I’ve made exceptions for the honourable few who still try and do what they can to alleviate our collective burden, but I hope none of you are naïve enough to believe that a handful of honest cops, a couple of moral bankers and one or two decent MPS can rectify a system built within the sewers of exploitation and usury.
There was a time, not that long ago, where it was generally accepted that if you were in trouble with the police the likelihood is that you may well have done something wrong and that it would sort itself out accordingly; e.g. being caught playing truant you’d come up with some excuse and get away with a talking to, mutually respectful, firm but fair, no harm, no foul; end of. Nowadays, you’re unlikely to get a word in edgewise and run the risk of being tazerd, ritually sodomized and petitioned by The Hague, because the dumb copper who took you in wasn’t meeting his arrest targets that month. For there is no middle ground here, no choices or compromises to be made: By appeasing them, we nourish against ourselves the parasitic spore of Cabbalist sedition: where chaos & ineptitude masquerades as law & order.
Robert Peel once said,
The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”
So when we see the Israelification of the police force go unchallenged, it falls upon us to wrangle this hooded cobra of corruption and forcibly drain every last drop of venom from its fangs. We, the private citizens, who ask for no more other than to be left alone in a land that respects the rule of law, have been forced, by their greed and villainy, to run down, tackle and contain the swine ourselves. For an institution that’s rotten from within, that serves foreign agents on occupied shores and learns its antediluvian habits in the dank basement of the Freemason’s lodge is not fit to serve anyone, much less protect a society, that were it worth protecting, would never have stood for the appointment of such dregs to begin with.
And now a moment’s silence for this crippled, cankered country; molested at will by the extremist Jew, the moneylender, the usurious cur, the grime ridden chav, the tabloid stooge and the moronic media enthral to Antipodean Cabbalists and psychopathic, inbred pederasts.
Release everyone, free every man, woman and youth convicted of civil unrest, empty the cells of political prisoners and those made to suffer as Eustache Dauger once did in the Bastille. For until the murderous, criminal regime that’s run this country into the ground for three centuries is quarantined, put before a public trial and bought to justice; no prison walls can withstand the heat of hypocrisy that stifles the world outside. No sentence that crushes the petty criminal but exalts his master is worth the paper its written on and no rioters can be ashamed of their crimes, when shameless criminals are empowered to judge them.
The British regime portrays the opposition as looters, rioters and drug dealers: Does Britain have this many drug dealers? If this is the case, they should be tried and UN should build walls surrounding the country. British officials should stop meddling in other people’s affairs and worry about their own: Stop interfering in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. Time is up for few capitalist families with different titles to loot other nations and governments and making them slaves. Instead of giving up their wealth to control their deficit, the burden has been put on the masses. There are pressures in crisis and it’s evident that people would protest in such a situation”.
~ Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 2011
1. Harris, Tim. (p.90, London Crowds in the Reign of Charles II: Propaganda and Politics from the Restoration Until the Exclusion Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.) Bawdy House Riot quotes citied in Katherine Romack’s ‘Striking The Posture of a Whore’, Genders, issue 50, 2009.
2. Judge Cotter, QC. (Judge Cotter convicted Home Secretary Teresa May of contempt of court in the case of The State vs. Aziz Lamari, 20.6.12)
Economic sanctions, psychological warfare, media propaganda, threats and assassinations; what other sort of evidence one may need to believe that the United States, Israel and their European allies have already started their much liked war against Iran and that this unjustifiable war is taking its toll on the innocent, ordinary Iranian citizens?
They say that they have a problem with Iran’s nuclear program; that Iran’s nuclear activities aren’t transparent; that they fear Iran may one day develop nuclear weapons; that Iran may some day drop atomic bombs on Israel and that Iran poses a threat to global peace and security.
But this is not really the case. Perhaps the American journalist and radio host, Mark Glenn, has described the truth in the most comprehensible and sound way: “if Iran had no nuclear program, these countries would make the claim that Iran is financing international terrorism through the export and sale of Pistachio nuts. What is at issue here is that Iran refuses to be a slave to the 2-headed beast of Israeli, western financial and political interests.”
Washington’s animosity toward Tehran is nothing new or unprecedented, nor is it related to Iran’s nuclear program. Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 dethroned the U.S.-backed monarch Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the U.S. politicians began to carry a chip on their shoulder and started disposing of Iran with hostility and enmity.
With the victory of Iran’s popular revolution led by the charismatic leader Imam Khomeini who strongly opposed the American imperialism and militarism, the sanctions against Iran began to take effect. Under President Carter, the U.S. imposed a set of sanctions on Iran’s oil sector and then blocked USD 12 billion of Iranian government’s assets in Washington. After the deadly 1983 Beirut barracks bombing in which 241 American marines were killed, the U.S. government renewed its sanctions, this time with the order of Ronald Reagan. Reagan administration declared Iran a sponsor of international terrorism and called on the World Bank to stop giving loans to Iran. The deadly attack on the U.S. peacekeeping forces in Beirut for which the White House blamed Iran turned out to be an Israeli false flag operation, as revealed by the former Mossad executive Victor Ostrovsky in a famous 1990 book titled ” By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer.”
The Clinton administration toughened the sanctions and in 1996, the Israel-dominated Congress unanimously passed the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) which penalized the foreign companies and firms which invested in Iran’s oil sector. On September 30, 2006 the act was renamed to Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) as it was no longer applied to Libya. George W. Bush administration was similarly antagonistic toward Iran and his administration adopted several rounds of sanctions against Iran’s oil, gas, insurance, agriculture and aviation industries. He also signed into law the Iran Freedom and Support Act on September 30, 2006 which allocated USD 10 million to anti-Iranian terrorist groups.
Barack Obama who came to power with the flaunting and pompous promise of change was no better than his predecessors. Instead of taking up détente and reconciliation with Iran so as to find a sustainable solution to end the nuclear standoff, he assumed an aggressive position, intensified the sanctions, banned transactions with the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and even created hurdles for Iran to receive the payments for its oil exports.
Existing sanctions on Iran’s oil industry had been expanded “by making sanctionable the purchase or acquisition of Iranian petrochemical products”, Obama said in a statement.
Measures would be taken against firms that have dealings with the National Iranian Oil Company and the Naftiran Inter-trade Company or that help Iran buy U.S. dollars or precious metals, he added.
But the sanctions are not the only means the U.S., Israel and the EU have resorted to in order to bring Iran to its knees and undermine its position as a regional superpower.
The Obama administration has vehemently pursued a policy of running covert ops in Iran through training, funding and assisting terrorists of anti-Iranian cults such as MKO and Jundallah with the objective of spreading fear and terror in the country, sabotaging its security and also impeding its nuclear program.
Since 2010, five scientists associated with Iran’s nuclear program were assassinated, and the footsteps of CIA, Mossad and MKO can be traced in all the four killings.
On August 5, Iran’s television aired confessions of several people involved in the killing of the country’s nuclear scientists. The people who were introduced in a documentary titled “Terror Club” confessed that they received several weeks of military training as well as financial assistance from Israel to carry out their terrorist operations in Iran.
On May 15, 2012, Majid Jamali Fashi, a Mossad spy and terrorist who pleaded guilty and confessed to the killing of Dr. Masoud Alimohammadi, Iran’s quantum field theorist and elementary-particle physicist was executed after describing in details all the stages of his involvement with Mossad, traveling to Israel through a neighboring country and carrying out his malicious operation. According to the Israeli paper Haaretz, Western intelligence confirmed that the detailed confession of Majid Jamali Fashi was genuine.
Damaging Iran’s nuclear program through spreading sophisticated computer worms and malwares such as Stuxnet was another plot by the United States and Israel aimed at deliver a blow to Iran. In the late September, it was reported that Ralph Langer, a renowned expert on industrial systems security had admitted that the Stuxnet worm was coded to sabotage computers operating on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear facilities.
All of these acts of aggression and belligerence are taking place while an intensive media operation against Iran is on track and the mainstream media, affiliated with AIPAC and other hawkish, pro-Israeli think tanks in the United States are mischievously portraying a biased, black and disappointing image of Iran to their people with the aim of laying the groundwork for a possible military invasion of Iran.
The war against Iran, however, seems to be already on the go. A soaring media operation, frequent war threats uttered by insane hawks in Tel Aviv and Washington, assassinations and acts of sabotage all testify that Iran is the target of an all-out war which just has not had a military representation. What can be said for sure is that Iran will not throw the towel in the face of the hostilities and has done a great job withstanding the lethal pressures. This is what makes Iran a promising model for the nations which want to learn how to stand on their own feet.
Longtime journalist Alexander Cockburn passed away on July 21st, an enormous loss. Cockburn was a brilliant, witty, and courageous opponent of falsehoods and injustice. He stood on the side of the oppressed, the weak, and the victimized – even those victims that many writers and human rights defenders chose to ignore.
With his scathing intellect, engaging talent, far ranging knowledge, and quick humor, the Oxford-educated Cockburn could have become a celebrated, wealthy journalist – the kind whose lucrative articles are consistently published in top journals, whose best-selling books are reviewed widely throughout the media, and whose commentary is in demand by the top television and radio news programs.
Instead, he used his extraordinary abilities to skewer dishonesty, expose cruelty and hypocrisy, and spread facts that many wished to remain hidden.
Others have written remembrances that discuss the diverse topics he addressed; I will limit myself to just one.
Although he was not known as an activist on Israel-Palestine, I believe that history will show Alexander Cockburn to have been one of the most important figures in the quest for justice in Palestine.
While most others on the left were largely ignoring, obscuring, or misrepresenting the facts on this issue, Cockburn was exposing them.
In fact, he lost his first major position in the U.S., as a writer for the Village Voice, because of his articles discussing Israel-Palestine and Israel’s ruthless invasion of Lebanon. His pieces earned the enmity of both Zionists and those who claimed they weren’t, but who had what former Voice writer James Wolcott describes as a “gravitational pull to Israel.”
When Cockburn received a $10,000 research grant from the Massachusetts-based Institute for Arab Studies to investigate Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, Israel partisans saw this as a way to get rid of him. (He had been recommended for the grant by Columbia professor Edward Said.)
An article published by the Boston Phoenix after Cockburn’s death, “How the Boston Phoenix Got Alexander Cockburn Fired from the Village Voice,” gives some of the details.
The Phoenix, which was then published by Israel partisan Stephen Mindich (and now by his son), reported on the grant in an article written by Alan Lupo, a writer with a record of consistent pro-Israel bias in his articles. The piece was headlined “Alexander Cockburn’s $10,000 Arab connection” and subtitled “A question of propriety.” For his story Lupo phoned Village Voice Editor David Schneiderman, who eventually suspended Cockburn because of an alleged “conflict of interest.”
Other pro-Israel journalists gleefully took up the refrain, suggesting that Cockburn had acted improperly in accepting money from “the Arabs.” Recent obituaries mentioned the incident and continued this spin.
The validity of this charge, however, is significantly diminished by the fact that receiving a grant from an American foundation is normal, acceptable, and standard practice, as evidenced by the multitude of books in which author acknowledgements thank the various foundations that have funded their research.
As James Wolcott recently pointed out in his Vanity Fair blog: “Much handwringing to-do was made at the time of the incident about the need for journalistic transparency and accountability and such but let’s be honest — if it had been a Jewish-American organization or Israel front forking off the relative piddling sum of $10 thou, there hardly would have been this gummy uproar.”
Wolcott went on to note,
Imagine how many Beltway pundits, commentators, consultants and the like are on the take today via speaking fees, serving on panels, free fact-finding trips to the Mideast, etc. Alex’s sin was in aligning with the wrong team.”
The articles in 1984 and since that focused on Cockburn’s alleged “impropriety” failed to mention the fact that, according to prominent pro-Israel journalist Michael Kinsley, numerous journalists have gone to Israel on trips financed by the Israeli government – a far sketchier proposition. *
Governmental funding of journalism, in fact, is considered so problematic that a number of Israel Lobby organizations such as Act for Israel and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy have now stepped in to finance such journalistic junkets to Israel, removing the need for the Israeli government to be directly involved.
The fact that many journalists go on these Lobby-financed junkets also went unmentioned in the articles that brought up Cockburn’s allegedly improper grant and supposed conflict of interest. Also unmentioned was the fact that many journalists reporting on Israel-Palestine have close family – and sometimes personal – ties to the Israel military.
And there is still more to the story – which also is not referenced in recent obituaries. According to a 1992 article by former AIPAC insider Gregory Slabodkin, “AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] was the source of the original Phoenix story.” AIPAC is a leading institution in the Israel Lobby.
In his article, “The Secret Section in Israel’s U.S. Lobby That Stifles American Debate” published by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Slabodkin described how AIPAC secretly monitors individuals critical of Israel and feeds negative information about them to the media.
Slabodkin, who used to work for the section within AIPAC responsible for this surreptitious activity, reported that Lupo “said AIPAC had told him the Institute for Arab Studies was ‘linked to a $100 million campaign to sway U.S. policy against Israel.’” In reality, Slabodkin reported, “the Institute had U.S. tax-exempt status and listed individual contributors within the United States until it closed down in 1983 due to a lack of funds.”
Slabodkin discussed AIPAC’S promulgation of anti-Arab bigotry as a tactic to protect Israel: “AIPAC attempted to discredit critics of Israel not by refuting their arguments, but by trying to tie them to Arab money. Making an Arab connection can damage the victim’s reputation, the pro-Israel lobby believes, so long as it can encourage a mindset in the United States that anything Arab-related is tainted.”
While Voice Editor Schneiderman at first defended Cockburn, he eventually went along with the charges, suspending him for what he claimed was a conflict of interest, and Cockburn left.
Schneiderman, who had originally been hired to edit the Voice by Rupert Murdoch, went into increasingly lucrative directions, eventually making tens of millions of dollars by turning the Village Voice and its offspring into advertising money machines, largely through classified ads, some of which eventually got the paper sued for the grotesque sex trafficking they enabled. He is currently employed at a PR firm advising global corporations on corporate communications, crises, antitrust and other regulatory matters, labor relations, and environmental issues.
Cockburn, on the other hand, continued to skewer the powerful, mendacious, hypocritical, and cruel. His biting and occasionally very funny essays were published in periodicals from the Nation to the Wall Street Journal, both of which employed him as a columnist, and collected in his book Corruptions of Empire and others.
A scan of these reveals that in the 1980s he was already exposing the neocons and their appaling agenda. In “The Gospel According to Ali Agca,” originally published in the Nation in 1985, he described the CBS documentary “Terrorism: War in the Shadows,” and reported the implied challenge by alleged “terrorism expert” Robert Kupperman** not to let TV images of “charred babies” and our guilt over Vietnam interfere with our commitment to fighting “terrorists.”
Most important, in 1996 Cockburn and co-editor Jeffrey St. Clair took over CounterPunch, a small newsletter that had been started two years earlier. In subsequent years they created an extraordinarily non-doctrinaire muckraking publication where independent writers could cover a wide variety of topics fully, accurately, and without being constrained by positions decreed by political orthodoxy.
CounterPunch has covered Israel-Palestine with a thoroughness and honesty that few if any other non-specialty publications have approached. Moreover, it has been uniquely open to pieces by writers from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives.
I am personally indebted to CounterPunch, which was the first general interest publication to publish my pieces on the topic. Without CounterPunch, I think it is quite likely that my articles on Israel-Palestine would never have made it into the small, fairly closed world of highly regarded progressive general interest publications.
While most other media were covering Israel-Palestine very little, if at all – and were frequently obscuring such central issues as the Palestinian right of return, the systemic discrimination within Israel itself, the power of the Israel Lobby in the U.S., and Israel partisans’ direct connections to the invasion of Iraq – CounterPunch contributors were exposing all in meticulous, principled detail.
When former Zionists worked on a campaign to blackball some writers, including two Israeli anti-Zionist authors, for allegedly going too far in their subject matter, CounterPunch refused to bow to the attempted party line and continued to publish their thought provoking, often highly informative pieces.
The importance of what Cockburn and co-editor St. Clair have achieved in CounterPunch cannot be overstated. Without CounterPunch, it is quite likely that essential information on Israel-Palestine would have remained largely hidden from progressive American readers. CounterPunch not only published critical facts itself; by carrying thoroughly cited articles on information that had previously been buried, it also pushed other American publications and individuals into discussing Palestine with greater depth, frequency, and honesty.
The censorship on Israel-Palestine has been far more serious and profound than most people realize. It has pervaded both the left and the right and has long worked to minimize informed discussion on the subject and prevent effective work for justice and peace.
CounterPunch ripped open the curtain.
* Kinsley’s revelation about this came in his essay “Cockburn the Barbarian: Lessons in journalistic ethics from a veteran of an infamous Israeli junket,” Washington Monthly, April 1984. Online at http://www.unz.org/Pub/WashingtonMonthly-1984apr-00035
** Robert Kupperman was in on the ground floor of building the war against certain types of terror. He created the Cabinet Committee to Combat Terrorism under President Richard Nixon. This was in response to Palestinian fighters who had taken eleven Israeli athletes hostage to use in an exchange to free Palestinian men and women held (and tortured) in Israeli prisons. When Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir refused to consider such an exchange, a bungled rescue attempt resulted in the hostages being killed. The next day Israel launched air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, killing between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians.”
When the UN Security Council tried to pass a resolution condemning these raids, the U.S. vetoed it, only the second time that the U.S. had vetoed a Security Council resolution in its history. This was the beginning of a long string of vetoes perpetrated to shield Israel from international condemnation of various massacres and other human rights abuses, creating extreme hostility toward the U.S. and escalating Americans’ risk from retaliatory “terror.” For more information see “The U.S. Cast the First of 29 Security Council Vetoes to Shield Israel” by Donald Neff, Washington Report on Middlel East Affairs Sept-Oct, 1993, p. 82. Also in Fifty Years of Israel, by Donald Neff, published by the American Educational Trust. Online at http://www.wrmea.org/archives/150-washington-report-archives-1988-1993/september-october-1993/7306-the-us-cast-the-first-of-29-security-council-vetoes-to-shield-israel.html
Alison Weir is president of the Council for the National Interest and executive director of If Americans Knew. While CounterPunch published many of her articles, she did not know Cockburn personally. For information on American journalists’ ties to the Israeli military see her article “US Media and Israeli Military: All in the Family” at http://ifamericansknew.org/media/bronner2.html
If Americans Knew: 9208 NE Highway 99, Suite 107-207, Vancouver, WA 98665
Phone: (202) 631-4060
A UN report warns Israel it may be in violation of international law after it cordoned off nearly a fifth of the West Bank for army training. Israeli forces are demolishing Palestinian homes and driving people off their land, saying they might spy on military drills.
On the heels of the announcement that Israeli Knesset Member Aryeh Eldad had introduced a bill to exclude Muslims from the al-Aqsa Mosque on certain days, I caught up with him as he was testing the latrines of the new Jewish Museum of Tolerance, being built on top of the historic and ancient Muslim cemetery of Mamilla in Jerusalem.
BW: How are ya, Aryeh? Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
AE: You’re looking sharp today, Barb. Sorry, I couldn’t resist, either.
BW: I’m glad I found you. I want to ask you about the bill that you’ve submitted in the Knesset to give Jews exclusive access to the al-Aqsa Mosque on certain days of the week. What is the motivation behind that?
AE: We believe in sharing, Barb, so this is a bill to promote sharing of the al-Aqsa Synagogue. Muslims will be allowed to use it on certain days.
BW: What days do you have in mind?
AE: The third Monday of each month. We were hoping to make it a Friday, but as you know, Shabbat begins at sundown on Friday for us, and we need several days to prepare after the Muslims leave.
BW: Why do you need so much preparation time?
AE: We have to burn everything inside and then wash the place down, of course. We can’t have any traces of Muslims when we enter.
BW: How can you call this sharing, Aryeh? This is the holiest Islamic site in Palestine. How is your proposal equitable?
AE: Of course it’s equitable, Barb – separate but equitable. We Israelis take this kind of sharing seriously. We share the land with so-called Palestinians, who live separately in almost 10% of the land where they used to live. Isn’t that sharing? We also share the work: they get to work for us, building the wall and settlements, and in factories that pollute too much and pay too little to be built in Jewish areas. Building a Museum of Tolerance on top of a revered Muslim cemetery is yet another example of sharing. It seems only fair that we should share al-Aqsa Synagogue in equal measure.
BW: You keep saying equal, how equal is the sharing if they are almost half the population and you are taking almost everything?
AE: We recognize this problem, and we’re trying very hard to be an American-style democracy – i.e. to reduce the indigenous population to almost nothing. We’ve already confined most of them to reservations and we’ve prematurely given some of them citizenship even though we still have a long way to go before they are an insignificant proportion of the population.
BW: If you have taken away their homes, land, income, freedom and human rights how do you think they will react when you take away the most sacred place in Palestine for Muslims? Even the Christians are likely to object.
AE: We expect them to object. No matter how much we share their homes, lands and places of worship, they react like terrorists. It’s totally unreasonable, but we nevertheless feel obligated to share.
BW: How do you explain that?
AE: It’s the cultural difference, obviously.