Archive for the ‘Opinion others’ Category
Who else ordered the burning of the NATO military base yesterday, if not Erdogan?
The Khazarian Mafia suffered a major blow in the Middle East as Turkey pivots to Russia and BRICS at large. This is the only conclusion that can be derived from the recent arson attack at the US Embassy in the country, after the failed CIA instigated military coup against the Erdogan government.
“A massive fire erupted near a NATO base in western Turkey. Authorities are investigating the fire as a possible act of anti-American sabotage.
The inferno started on Sunday evening in western Turkey. The fire blew through the grassy wooded area and is now perilously near NATO’s military base pushed forward by strong winds.”
The Yeni Safak newspaper printed a picture of a US military commander it claims led the attempt to overthrow the Erdogan government only hours before a massive blaze broke out near a NATO base.
Earlier, we have posted a very reliable intelligence report about Russia’s timely assistance to Erdogan’s government to the impending military coup that could have toppled his government. This is in reciprocity to the Turkish apology for the downed Russian jetfighter late last year.
We are not discounting the possibility that the Erdogan government could be playing both sides of the conflict, for its own survival post Daesh Islamic State link expose by Putin himself.
Objectively, Erdogan may not have ordered the shooting down of one Sukhoi Su-24 warplane late last year due to the unclear position of the US government, i.e. the White House is still supporting Kurdish militias who are working against the Turkish government, while the CIA is in bed with Daesh Islamic State that Erdogan was also playing with at the height of the ISIS oil smuggling in Syria and Iraq.
It’s only the CIA which has the full motivation to sabotage the situation in Syria by attacking Russian warplanes at the time, sacrificing their pawn Turkey in the process.
To put it simply, the US government is working both sides of the Middle East conflict, and in particular, even within its supposed ally, the Turkish government, i.e. by supporting the Kurds separatist movements against Turkey, and by the CIA training and funding of the Daesh terrorists just to weaken and keep Turkey under its thumb.
The problem is that, now the pawn is launching its own brand of geopolitical countermoves by talking to Russia, and pit the latter directly with the CFR controlled White House, Nazionists controlled CIA, disintegrating EU, and the war freaks in NATO.
Most notably, the speed at which Putin accepted Turkey’s official apology suggests a prearranged mediation talks between the two countries, and a possible sharing of critical intelligence exchanges pertaining to CIA operations in the region, and in the European theater.
By playing his cards right, Erdogan not only gainfully reasserted his government’s political grip at home, but have also undermined NATO’s clout in the entire Middle East region.
This doesn’t mean, however, that Erdogan is already off the hook, considering the massive division plaguing the country between the secularists and Islamic fundamentalists. The massive purge that is currently underway on the entire Turkish society is keeping everyone on the edge.
One thing is for sure though. Erdogan has a big chance of turning this thing around if he plays it right. But if he tries to overplay his Putin card this time around, he might lose it before he knows.
The bigger picture is the massive defeat of the Khazarian Mafia in all geopolitical and finance realms, and theaters of the hybrid WW3, i.e.
- Middle East for losing Turkey to Russia, and for the current Libyan government to severe its ties with France by shooting down the latter’s military helicopter killing three soldiers on board;
- South China Sea for the impending backdoor China-Philippine negotiations;
- EU for losing UK through Brexit.
Japan, meanwhile, is still walking on a tight rope especially with regards to the US military base in Okinawa. On the other hand, both sides of the Korean peninsula remain a hotspot where the KM could throw a monkey wrench in the region.
Aside from the fiat monetary scam and bloodsoaked petrodollar, another significant source of funds for the Nazionist Khazarian Mafia is the “healthcare” industry which registered a whopping $3.09 trillion in 2014, and is projected to soar to $3.57 trillion in 2017, in the US alone. We believe that this is just a conservative figure.
(Source / 25.07.2016)
Sadly, the murders of these two men – like the murder of countless other young black men and women at the hands of law enforcement – remain all too frequent in our society, and we state this time and time again.
Like-minded individuals protest and publish their grievances; racists and trolls attempt to subvert and contort the discourse when members of the movement confront the issues. We collectively experience the mind-numbing loss; we watch the graphic video footage; we tweet and speak our outrage; we mourn; and the cycle repeats itself.
The injustice of this cycle is compounded and perpetuated by the way media covers each murder. With the murders of Sterling and Castile, this has been exacerbated by the subsequent murder of five police officers in Dallas, Texas.
|The injustice of this cycle is compounded and perpetuated by the way media covers each murder|
In addition to the usual discrepancies in the way media portrays black victims versus white offenders, this event has presented the added dimension of painting those who stand firm to proclaim that Black Lives Matter, as somehow linked directly to an army veteran who deliberately shot and killed police officers.
Although those who decry police brutality and systemic racism have been increasingly depicted as violent, anti-white and divisive, the occurrence of an act of violence by a lone individual following the unconscionable murder of two young black men has served the agenda of those of seek to delegitimise and demonise a movement that has attempted to address structural and systemic racism through peaceful, strategic means.
Bearing this in mind as a Palestinian-American, it is necessary to recognise that Muslims, Arabs and non-black people of colour in the West often lay claim or co-opt the black struggle only as it serves to legitimise their own.
We must acknowledge that this occurs and call out anti-blackness within our respective communities, while also being careful to ensure that we do not elevate our own voices at the expense of the black voices who live the struggle. However, although I respect the uniqueness of every people’s struggle, and the varying histories that accompany such struggles, I cannot help but see the parallels, both in the situations the African-American community confronts in the US and that the Palestinians confront abroad, and the common rhetoric that is widely used to both demonise those struggling, while also serving to justify the violence of the aggressor against them.
|I cannot help but see the parallels in the situations the African-American community confronts in the US and that the Palestinians confront abroad
Rage. Hopelessness. Self-doubt. Worry. Often it seems that regardless of what you do, how you behave, how much you achieve, those who devalue your humanity will always deem you a potential threat.
The disparity between how you view yourself, versus how those in positions of authority view you can have crushing, and often lethal, effects on the both young and old.
In contextualising activism for Palestine, and the Black Lives Matter movement, we discern that such movements, whether fighting Israeli apartheid or systemic, post-Jim Crow racism, have always been repressed, attacked and maligned, although their common goal was and is to end racist colonial violence against these groups.
While both the black community and Palestinians abroad deal with similar issues in different contexts – the imprisonment of youth, targeting of young men, state-sponsored violence, lack of access to clean water, racial profiling – the tactics that have been used to portray these victims, to justify the bigotry and institutionalised injustices perpetrated against them, are strikingly similar.
Vilification of victims and selective sympathy
Whether it is a young black man shot dead by police, or a Palestinian teenager murdered by Israeli soldiers, the victims – rather than the murders – are out on trial by media following their deaths.
Whether it is an arrest record or mug shot, or the accusation of terrorism, every attempt is made at validating the murder, regardless of the victim’s age or innocence in the situation.
|Whether it is a young black man shot dead by police or a Palestinian teenager murdered by Israeli soldiers, the victims are out on trial by media following their deaths|
The victim must have been reaching for a weapon; he must have tried to stab a settler; he must have been inherently predisposed to violence, and therefore it became incumbent on the officer/solider/settler to take pre-emptive measures.
Victims are demonised and otherised, having to always prove their humanity, even in death. If you are not the “perfect victim”, then in the dominant discourse, you are no victim at all. Victims are transformed into collateral damage necessary to preserve the noxious status quo.
The outpouring of sympathy depending on the identity of the victims also highlights this disparity. With the killing of the police officers in Dallas, media coverage and discussion centred around praise of those who work in the line of duty – their valour, heroism and sacrifice.
However, discussion of what may have led to such a violent outcome, the creation of a pressurised environment where some feel they have no outlet but to lash out in rage and despair, was not delved into deeply in the dominant narrative.
The treatment of the legacy of the police officers who became victims of violence versus the treatment of victims like Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin and countless others remains vastly different.
Similarly, Palestinian victims of Israeli aggression receive far fewer outcries of sympathy and support, and even fewer headlines, than Israeli victims of violence. Although the number of Palestinians who have been killed by Israeli bombs and missiles, or those who have been shot dead at Israeli checkpoints, vastly outnumbers the amount of Israelis killed by missiles or stabbings, the disproportion in media coverage and sympathy from American audiences continues to exist.
Palestinians waiting at the Qalanidya military checkpoint
“It is time for the citizens of the world to effect the paradigm shift required to bring about a peaceful resolution to the world’s most infamous conflict.”
Twelve years ago today, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion at the request of the United Nations General Assembly on the legality of the wall Israel has constructed in the West Bank. The ICJ affirmed that all of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are “occupied Palestinian territory”, and that Israel’s wall, as well as its settlements, violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.July 9, 2016
The ICJ’s ruling helps to underscore the prejudicial nature of the discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Western mainstream media—and particularly in the US. The media never fail to elevate Israel’s policy aims to the same level of legitimacy as international law. For example, we can frequently read in the New York Times, the Washington Post, et al, that East Jerusalem or areas where Israeli settlements are located are “disputed” territory—thus placing equal weight to Israel’s position as the entire rest of the planet, which recognizes Israel’s settlements as illegal and East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory.
Needless to say, this is not balanced journalism, but extremely prejudicial to the rights of the Palestinians living under foreign military occupation. When the illegality of the settlements is alluded to by the mainstream media (all too infrequently), they typically obscure it by saying something like: “Most countries do not recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s settlements.” This leaves readers with the impression that the matter is controversial, that there is debate about it within the international community, that there are two legitimate points of view. It affords validity to Israel’s position when it has none. Translated from newspeak, what that means is thatevery single government on planet Earth other than Israel itself recognizes the settlements as a violation of international law.
The media bend over backwards to accommodate and attempt to legitimize Israel’s criminal policies. How can the media get away with such outrageously biased reporting? Furthermore, why is the US mainstream media so prejudiced against the rights of the Palestinians?
The answer is simple: the policy of the US government is one of unconditionally supporting Israel’s violations of international law and the human rights of the Palestinian people.
The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
While the US has long sought to characterize itself as an “honest broker” between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the truth is scarcely concealed beneath the thin veil of rhetoric. The US supports Israel’s violations of international law financially, militarily, and diplomatically.
Military aid to Israel tops $3 billion annually, which aid serves in part as a US taxpayer subsidy for the arms industry as Israel invests in US military technology and hardware. US-supplied arms are routinely used by Israel to commit war crimes, such as its deliberate targeting of schools and hospitals in Gaza under the Israel Defense Forces’ (IDF) “Dahiya Doctrine”—a reference to the leveling of the Dahiya district of Beirut during Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon and a policy designed to use intentionally disproportionate force in order to punish the civilian population. This policy was implemented during Israel’s military assaults on Gaza in 2008-09 (“Operation Cast Lead”), 2012 (“Operation Pillar of Defense”), and 2014 (“Operation Protective Edge”).
The world superpower also uses its weight to protect Israel from censure for its perpetual violations of international law, acting to prevent Israeli officials from being held accountable for their crimes. For example, in the aftermath of “Operation Cast Lead”, the US sought to bury the report of a UN fact-finding mission (the so-called “Goldstone Report”) that found both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes. The US’s goal was to ensure that the report’s recommendations were not implemented—particularly the recommendation to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court (ICC) absent credible investigations by the Israeli government and Hamas governing authority into allegations of war crimes, which never occurred (the IDF’s self-investigations, needless to say, were rightfully recognized by the international community as a whitewash).
For another example, in February 2011, the Obama administration—its own rhetorical opposition to Israel’s settlements notwithstanding—went so far as to veto an uncontroversial UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for its continued expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
The Mainstream Media’s Complicity
The mainstream media in the US serve the role of manufacturing consent for government policy, with the intelligentsia acting as high priests of the state religion, as dissident American intellectual Noam Chomsky has described it. As before the US’s illegal war on Iraq (among countless other examples), the media mindlessly parrot government propaganda. It is axiomatic among academics and journalists who have a voice in the mainstream that, while the US government might sometimes make “mistakes”, it only ever acts out of benevolent intent. Voices that don’t subscribe to this belief system are excluded from the discussion. “There is indeed something truly religious,” as Chomsky has observed, “in the fervor with which responsible American intellectuals have sought to deny plain fact and to secure their dogmas concerning American benevolence, the contemporary version of the ‘civilizing mission.’”
Far from serving the role of properly informing the public in order for Americans to be able to make objective judgments about world affairs, the media serve to indoctrinate Americans in narratives about the Palestine conflict that fundamentally obscure its true nature.
This extends to the media’s reporting on the conflict’s origins. There are a great many things that “everyone knows” about the conflict that in fact have no basis in reality. For example, it is a widely believed myth that the UN created Israel or otherwise conferred legal authority to the Zionist leadership for the unilateral declaration of the existence of their “Jewish state” on May 14, 1948. This claim is absolutely false. Moreover, the UN plan to partition Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states called for expropriating land belonging to Arabs in order to redistribute it to Jews. The representatives of member countries who drafted this plan recognized that this prejudiced the rights of the majority inhabitants, but the Arabs’ rights were simply of no consideration to policymakers still operating within a framework of racist colonialism, and so they premised their plan upon the explicitrejection of the right of the Arab majority to self-determination (notwithstanding how this violated the very UN Charter under whose authority they were ostensibly operating).
Needless to say, such minor details as this are never reported when the media fill the public in on the conflict’s origins.
Another thing that “everyone knows” about the conflict is that the combined Arab armies invaded “Israel” after the May 14, 1948 declaration of its existence, in an effort to wipe the nascent state off the map. As the New York Times and other major media report it, today’s refugee problem is an unfortunate legacy of Palestinians having to flee or being expelled by Israeli forces as a consequence of this Arab aggression in 1948. Another minor detail willfully omitted in reports by journalists like the Times’ Ethan Bronner is that by the time the neighboring Arab states managed to muster a military response, 300,000 Arabs had already been ethnically cleansed from their homes in Palestine.
By the time the armistice agreements were signed in 1949, over 700,000 Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed, never permitted to return to their homes despite the recognition under international law that refugees of war have a right to do. Although the Jewish community in 1948 owned less than 7 percent of the land in Palestine, by the time the war was ended, Israel had conquered territory beyond even that allotted to it under the never-implemented UN partition plan (never implemented because the UN Security Council recognized that the only way to do so would be by force, and that it had no authority to partition Palestine against the will of the majority of its inhabitants).
Then again in 1967, as the mainstream media tell it, Israel faced a genocidal threat from its neighboring Arab states, and so launched a preemptive attack against Egypt to defend itself and its citizens from extermination. Never mind that, as no less authoritative a source as former Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael B. Oren has documented, Israel’s own intelligence assessed that Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had no intention of attacking Israel—because he wasn’t insane. Israel had already invaded Egypt once before, in 1956, in collusion with Britain and France, and the CIA observed that Egyptian forces in 1967 had taken up defensivepositions in the Sinai Peninsula and informed President Lyndon B. Johnson that a war was brewing and that it would be started by Israel. Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, too, has acknowledged that this was a war of choice, and that the Egyptian troop presence in the Sinai didn’t prove that Nasser intended to attack Israel.
During that war, of course, Israel invaded and began its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank—an occupation that persists still today nearly five decades on. The ethnic cleansing also continues incrementally as Palestinians’ homes are demolished or life is otherwise made so miserable for them that they are forced to relocate in order for Jewish settlements to be built, “facts on the ground” designed to prejudice the outcome of negotiations under the US-led so-called “peace process”.
And while the media report on the “peace process” as though the US was truly an objective mediator, the truth, also scarcely concealed beneath the thin veil of rhetoric, is that it is the process by which the US and Israel block implementation of the two-state solution, in favor of which there is otherwise a consensus among the international community.
This consensus is based upon the requirement, emphasized in UN Security Council Resolution 242 (passed in the wake of the 1967 war), that Israel must withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines (also known as the 1967 lines or the “Green Line” for the color with which it was drawn on the map) in accordance with the principle of international law that the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible. It is also based on the internationally recognized right, reflected in UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (passed during the 1948 war), of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.
While the US professes to support a two-state solution, it is emphatically not the same as the two-state solution. The latter is premised upon international law and respect for the equal rights of the Palestinians, while the former is premised upon the use of violence to coerce the Palestinians into accepting Israel’s demands to surrender their rights, including by ceding even more of their land and renouncing their right of return.
What Hope for Peace?
There is a popular view that the Israel-Palestine conflict is inevitable, too complicated for a practical solution to ever be found, which leads to resignation that it will just persist forever. This view is mistaken. There is a solution, which is for international law to be applied. This is the outcome that Israel and the US have fought so aggressively to prevent under the “peace process”, which is premised upon the rejection of the applicability of such treaties as the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions and, instead, elevates Israel’s wants over Palestinians’ rights.
Hence the accommodative reporting in the mainstream media describing East Jerusalem as “disputed” territory, etc., ad nauseum.
So what can be done about this situation? How can the Palestinians ever hope to see justice done, and how can peace ever be realized?
The answer is simple. The citizens of the world simply need to stop waiting for the governments of the world to solve the problem. There needs to be wider recognition that the world’s governments, far from being part of the solution, are part of the problem. This includes the UN organization, which played no small role in helping to create the conflict in the first place, and which continues to play a duplicitous role—most specifically, the UN Secretariat under Ban Ki-moon’s leadership has been complicit in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians (e.g., calling for negotiations “without preconditions” in his role as Quartet partner, which is a euphemism that simply means the Palestinians must cease demanding that Israel cease its illegal settlement construction before rejoining talks under the guise of the US-led “peace process”—among numerous other gross abuses of the authority of his office).
Israel is able to act with such impunity because it has the backing of the world’s most powerful government. The US government, in turn, is able to persist in its complicity in the oppression of the Palestinian people because the media manufacture consent for its criminal policies. Most Americans simply have a perception of the conflict that has no bearing on reality. The mainstream discussion about the subject is fundamentally misrepresentative of the conflict’s true nature.
That needs to change. What is required is a paradigm shift. The public needs to stop buying into the perpetually told lies and propaganda. Americans, along with other citizens of the world, need to become properly informed. There are of course those who will cling to their worldview regardless of the facts, and those whose own prejudices will blind them to the truth. But those of us who are honest and actually care about the victims of the violence—on both sides, both Jew and Arab—have a responsibility to educate ourselves and take an active role in sharing knowledge with others.
We need to reach a critical mass of knowledgeable citizenry, a tipping point at which enough people are properly informed about the conflict’s true nature that it no longer remains feasible for the US government to continue its policy of trying to sustain the status quo of occupation and oppression. This applies to citizens of other countries, too, whose own governments—even those ostensibly supportive of Palestinians’ rights—are blinded to the reality that the “peace process” is designed to prevent a peaceful solution and which thus act complicity by advocating the continuance of this farce. This framework for negotiations needs to be replaced with a real peace process, one which doesn’t reject the applicability of international law and isn’t fundamentally prejudiced against the rights of those who are living under an oppressive occupation regime—in which the oppressed aren’t forced to “negotiate” with their occupiers over the extent to which they can retain their own land.
The world is moving in this direction, albeit not nearly quickly enough to be of any comfort for the victims. The European Union, for example, has revised its guidelines for trading with Israel to include the requirement that goods produced in illegally constructed Israeli settlements be labeled as such. The growing boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement can claim some success in this regard, but there is another important factor frequently overlooked that led to this development: the UN’s recognition in 2012 of Palestine as a non-member observer state.
With the UN’s recognition of Palestinian statehood comes access to international legal institutions such as the ICJ and ICC, to which the Palestinian Authority (PA) may now turn in order to seek legal remedy for Israel’s violations of international law.
So why hasn’t the PA already done so?
The Role of the Palestinian Authority
The answer to that question, too, is simple. The PA was established under the “peace process” to serve the aims of the US and Israeli governments. It is, simply stated, Israel’s collaborator regime in the occupied territories that serves to keep the Palestinians in line by repressing popular uprisings against the occupation regime.
This is not to say that the PA leadership under “President” Mahmoud Abbas—who remains in office illegitimately, his term having long ago expired—is entirely dedicated to serving Israel’s interests. But the US and Israel have their ways of forcing his compliance, such as Israel’s withholding of Palestinian tax dollars it collects on the PA’s behalf in the occupied territories, or the US’s threats to cut off aid to the PA if it steps out of line.
Of course, these are bluffs on the part of Israel and the US since they need the PA in order to sustain the status quo of occupation. Neither wants to risk causing the collapse of the PA—least of all the Israeli military establishment, which prefers to have a collaborator regime in place to do its dirty work for it. While Abbas has taken an important step by successfully submitting Palestine’s application for a status upgrade in the UN General Assembly, he has to date remained too cowardly to take the next step by pursuing legal claims against Israel in the international institutions now available to his government.
It is the risk that Palestine might eventually do so, no doubt, apart from the influence of the BDS movement, that has prompted the EU to revise its trade guidelines with Israel so as to take a modest step away from its complicity in the wholesale criminal violation of Palestinians’ rights.
A Global Intifada
This raises a conundrum for the Palestinians. The weight of the world’s governments, meaningless rhetoric to the contrary nothwithstanding, is against them. Absent recognition as a “state”, they had no recourse to legal mechanisms to compel Israel’s compliance with international law. Yet even with such recognition, they remain powerless given complicity of their own government in their oppression. So it comes to this: if the PA—which has been all too willing to lay Palestinians’ rights on the negotiating table in order to preserve the privileged status of its crony elites—will not act to support the rights of its own people, then the Palestinian people must act to rid themselves of its rule over them.
It is time for another popular uprising, an intifada grounded in the principle of non-violent resistance to occupation and oppression. Hamas and other armed groups must realize that, apart from being illegal and immoral, committing acts of terrorism or engaging in war crimes such as indiscriminate rocket fire into Israeli residential communities are a strategic mistake since such actions serve to hand Israel the very pretext it requires in order to preserve its occupation regime.
This is not to say that the Palestinians must renounce their right to legitimate armed resistance against foreign military occupation, which, too, is codified under international law; it is simply to recognize the futility of trying to gain freedom in this particular case through the barrel of a gun and to see that disallowing Israel even the slightest pretext for its own incomparably greater violence is the surest path to creating the conditions necessary for Israel’s policies to no longer remain politically feasible.
It is up to the rest of us to support the Palestinians in that struggle. We must all rise up in solidarity with the oppressed and become active participants in this Third Intifada. The governments of the world aren’t going to get the job done. It is up to the informed citizens of the world to effect the paradigm shift required to compel state leaderships to cease being part of the problem and to do what is right for the victims on both sides.
That will require a change in the nature of the media’s reporting on the conflict, which, although a daunting task, in this age of the internet and social media is foreseeable. It is up to each of us who cares about human rights to take an active role in the discussion, to educate ourselves and others about the true nature of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and to share that knowledge with others by whatever means available. Enough people need to be knowledgeable enough about the conflict—and the US government’s role in it—that it no longer remains permissible for the mainstream media to serve as the government’s very own Ministry of Propaganda.
That is to say, it is time for the world’s citizens to free themselves from the indoctrination of the state religion and recognize that the state itself—as an institution fundamentally grounded in the use or threat of violence to compel desired behaviors—is the enemy of Liberty and of Peace. Yet so long as these political institutions remain on this planet, they ought to hold themselves to their own obligations under the treaties that comprise the body of international law—and they ought to hold each other’s leaderships accountable when those laws are violated and especially when war crimes are committed. It is toward this end that our collective efforts ought to be focused.
Peace can be achieved. There is a path to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But we shouldn’t make the mistake of focusing so much on establishing respected borders between conflicting parties that we fail to realize what a peaceful, civilized world would look like: one without borders.
(Source / 09.07.2016)
In this Thursday, June 30, 2016 photo, family members, colleagues and friends of the victims of Tuesday blasts gather for a memorial ceremony at the Ataturk Airport in Istanbul. As millions of Muslims around the world celebrate the end of Ramadan, many are struggling to come to grips with what has been a particularly bloody month of attacks that killed more than 350 people and spread terror across continents
God is dead.
This is what Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in his Aphorism 125 of the “The Gay Science,” published in 1882. The consequences are a theology without God and believers without God.
All this applies to Western philosophy — at least this is what I thought when I was young. And the work by Karl Löwith, “From Hegel To Nietzsche,” convinced me that I was right. I thought that God’s Death was a typically Western problem.
But now, after the umpteenth terrorist attack against civilians in Turkey I have started to think that also Allah died. And that he remains dead. And that they have killed Him.
The consequences: an Islamic theology without Allah and Muslim believers without Allah.
In my opinion, this is the best way to explain the self-proclaimed “Islamic State,” the so called Syrian-Iraqi Sunnistan of Islamic atheism and nihilism, since theological explanations of the phenomenon fail to appear.
And completely detaching the phenomenon from Islamic religion would be irrational and irresponsible because the warriors of the Islamic State define themselves as Muslim, relate to Islam, refer to the Quran, and even believe they are better Muslims with the right to define Islamic standards.
Without any doubt, a theology without God, in a monotheistic context, means a theology without a Creator and without Life, because in monotheism, and so also in Islam, Allah is the Creator (haliq) and source of all life.
And this IS theology without God is vehemently opposed to one of the main principles of Islam, enunciated in Quran 5:32 where it says:
… Whoever kills a person [unjustly] … it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.
If Islam means life and belief in God, the Creator of Life, then anti-Islam means nihilism and killing Allah, the Unique, and Only Creator, “in the name of Whom” you read and speak. “Iqra” (read) and “qul” (say) are two main monotheistic calls to all Muslims in the name of Life and Islam as submission to Allah’s world order.
They who arbitrarily kill, violate Allah’s world order and submits themselves to the vacuum He shot into this world. In this nihilistic view of life, the kamikaze attack is to be seen as the logical consequence of Allah’s killing. Allah’s killing is followed by the complete manipulation and necrophile interpretation of Allah’s message of life and light.
The jihad in the name of self-defense is transformed into a sadistic aggressive war in which all means are justified to eliminate all civilians of all religions and cultures because the fact that for this purpose you blow yourself up to be catapulted into the Paradise of Nihilism, suffices as justification. And the more innocent the victim, the better it is. Since for these killers of a self-proclaimed takfiri sect, the matter is to put themselves over normal Muslims saying “salaam” to others and living a modest life, without choosing to play the anti-heroes of a distorted Islam.
However, the nihilistic Anti-Islam without Allah is part of ourselves, it is part of our Muslim society, all Muslims are part of, because also these nihilistic killers of Allah are part of the Ummah (global Muslim community), whether we like it or not. Therefore, as Muslims we are primarily responsible for the determination and solution of this set of issues. And we are responsible because we believe in Allah, ar-rahman ar-rahim ar-ghafur.
Unfortunately, there are many causes explaining these symptoms of a self-proclaimed caliphate of Allah-killers, and these causes are even extremely diversified: on one hand, they are related to the geopolitical, economic, and sociologic conditions of the countries, for which these people “according to their conviction” engage to create a more just and more Islamic world order for the people living in the region. Geopolitically speaking, the whole region of the Middle East is the sad result of a post- and neocolonialist partition plan which pushed millions of people into poverty, dispossession, insecurity, and ethnic and sectarian segregation.
Since the multicultural and tolerant Ummah, the recognition of diversity according to Quran 5:48, dies with Allah:
…If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute.
On the other hand, neither Marxism nor neoliberalism offer an adequate economic solution to the region, because Islam has its own economic solutions. Furthermore, unwavering U.S. support for Zionist colonial crimes with impunity of the apartheid state of Israel, has caused extremely deep frustrations in the Muslim world of the Middle East which is already in a deep existential crisis.
Equal opportunities, professional chances for young people, female empowerment, education for all are a utopia in a region which has already surrendered itself and where the word “inshallah” is just drowned in fatalism. However, there is also a dynamic interpretation of the concept “inshallah” which could give these people back their self-conscience. In my opinion the concept “inshallah” has to be interpreted according to verse 11 of the sura al-rad where it says:
… Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.
In this understanding, Islam means dynamic change, addressing challenges, optimism, and also the personal battle of the soul for good and justice, life and mercy.
The West constantly destabilizes the region where Western secret services, Islamophobic groups, and Western cultural colonialism are considered responsible. In the heads of “distorted” people, this situation justifies the war against everything and everybody: Muslims must die because they are guilty of takfir and Western people have to die because they are on the side of colonialists and have made the Muslim world what it is now.
Where is the solution? In the understanding of the terrorist’s psychology, and in the struggle against external neocolonialism and the connection between militarism and capital and the nihilism and radicalization of young people in Muslim societies in which they see themselves in a vacuum in which Allah, the Creator of all Life is missing.
An urgent sociological program must be implemented worldwide is needed to put Muslims and Non-Muslims together to avoid the radicalization of young Muslims. Perhaps, instead of radicalization, we should say vacuumization and nihilism. Unfortunately, every religion also has its nihilism. And so every religion has its own God-killers. And this also applies to Islam and the Muslim community, in particular in this difficult time characterised by blind violence against innocent civilians.
Only preventive dialogue can solve the problematic complex of “IS,” “Daesh” and its God-killers. What has to belong to this preventive dialogue, is also the engaged struggle against Western militarism, the connection between arms industry, capital, Zionism, neocolonialism, and wars in the Middle East and the constructive struggle against Islamophobia by the dialogue about Islam between people and social groups.
What must not be disregarded is that this is an obligation of the whole society — Muslims and Non-Muslims — all over the world, since only responsibility and involvement of all of us in this problematic set of issues which concerns us all can bring a true, and sustainable solution for the Middle East and the world. It is a long and difficult process, but if we do not start to fill this vacuum with humanity and life, always new God-killers will appear on the horizon with the same purpose but with different names.
The practical struggle against terrorism by national states does not suffice. The solution to the problem does not consist of shooting down terrorists. That is just the final result of this vacuum manifestation and the reaction of the state when the terrorist and the police man look at each other for a last time in a cul-de-sac before the wall of nihilism.
However, it is a matter of preventing the self-proclaimed Allah-warriors from killing the Islamic culture of life and killing Allah. It is not the matter of killing them after their distortion process has achieved the wrong goal and while they are bleeding to death in front of this high wall in the cul-de-sac.
To achieve this goal, you need a socio-politically engaged civil society. Security and police, anti-terrorism and special forces, military forces, infiltration and training of secret services and terrorism experts alone do not suffice because they just eliminate symptoms. If they they sufficed, then terrorism would not be there anymore.
However, there is no successful war of the state against the causes of terrorism, but only against its visible symptoms — when people blindly shoot around and when the first perpetrators and the first victims lie on the marble floor of the airport.
The causes of terrorism can only be eliminated in whole by inclusion, education, economic and social development, equal opportunities, and empowerment of the civil society. The opposite of nihilism is humanism, a humanism existing in all religions and cultures, and which can fill all vacuums with life, a Life which in Islam comes from Allah and returns to Him. The German poet Johann Wolfgang Goethe was right when he said:
If Islam means submission to God, we all live and die in Islam.
Finally, I would like to mention the Verse of Light from the Quran (24:35) because for me it is the symbol of the way Muslims should go through their life in this world, without diametrically opposing East and West:
Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The example of His light is like a niche within which is a lamp, the lamp is within glass, the glass as if it were a pearly [white] star lit from [the oil of] a blessed olive tree, neither of the east nor of the west, whose oil would almost glow even if untouched by fire. Light upon light. Allah guides to His light whom He wills. And Allah presents examples for the people, and Allah is Knowing of all things.
(Source / 08.07.2016)
Mary Anne Grady Flores at the state Capitol on June 15 in Albany, N.Y protesting Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s executive order prohibiting state investments in any company that supports a boycott of Israel
In recent months, a number of states have passed laws or taken other official actions to punish companies that participate in boycotts against Israel. California soon may do the same. But if it does, it will be making a mistake.
You don’t have to support the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to be troubled when state governments in this country penalize American citizens for their political speech. As the Supreme Court has recognized, boycotts are a form of speech, protected under the Constitution.
The BDS movement has been the subject of much heated debate in recent years. It calls on people and companies to boycott Israel until that country ends its occupation of “all Arab lands,” ensures equal legal rights for its Arab citizens and accepts the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the former homes of their families in Israel. Some supporters of BDS accept the “two-state solution” in which Israel and an independent Palestine would exist side by side; others don’t.
Although BDS hasn’t inflicted significant economic damage on Israel, the movement’s increasing visibility — especially on some American college campuses — has alarmed Israelis and their supporters in the United States. Many supporters of Israel have sought to portray the BDS movement as anti-Semitic.
One result has been a flurry of actions in state capitals, from a law in Illinois divesting state pension funds from companies refusing to do business in Israel or the Palestinian territories to an executive order by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo providing for the disinvestment by state agencies under his control from companies engaged in “boycott, divestment, or sanctions activity targeting Israel.” Most recently, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill barring the investment of state pension and annuity funds in companies that boycott Israel or Israeli businesses.
Do such laws violate the 1st Amendment? Although the Supreme Court has held that government may engage in its own “speech” and express its own opinions, it also has held that government may not deny a benefit to a person (or a company) because he holds the “wrong” opinion. In our view, denying state business to an otherwise qualified contractor simply based on its views about Israel — and its participation in a legal boycott — goes beyond “government speech” and raises serious constitutional concerns.
In California, the situation has grown even more complicated. Opponents of BDS in the Legislature previously proposed a bill that would have forbidden state contracts with companies engaged in a boycott of Israel. But after legal objections, the legislation was radically reconfigured.
The latest version, approved by a state Senate committee last week, no longer seeks to penalize boycotts directly. Rather, it targets violations of existing anti-discrimination laws that take place under the pretext of a boycott or other “policy” aimed at “any sovereign nation or people recognized by the government of the United States, including, but not limited to, the nation and people of Israel.” The bill would require any person who seeks to contract with the state to certify, under penalty of perjury, that it hasn’t engaged in discrimination as part of such a policy.
This shift to an emphasis on individual rights may solve some of the 1st Amendment problems in earlier versions, but it also raises the question of why this proposed law is necessary at all. The state’s Public Contract Code already says that contractors may not discriminate “on the basis of age, sex, pregnancy, maternity leave status, marital status, race, nationality, country of origin, ethnic origin, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or political opinion.” Why is it necessary to reiterate what already is the law — and to throw in a specific mention of boycotts and Israel?
Also, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which a company boycott aimed at a “sovereign nation” would result in discrimination against an individual employee or customer. And if it were to happen, there already are laws on the books to address racial and religious harassment. One theory is that the law, if passed, might lead to a lawsuit claiming that a boycott created a “hostile workplace environment” for a Jewish employee. But that strikes us as a far-fetched claim.
The proponents of this bill are desperately eager to single out and punish companies that engage in boycotts against Israel. Realizing that their initial proposal ran contrary to the free speech protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, they have now come back with a convoluted, redundant and most likely ineffectual bill that allows them to say they’ve passed an anti-BDS bill.
In California, as elsewhere in this country, support for Israel is strong — which is why laws aimed at boycotts of the Jewish state are a solution in search of a problem.
Politicians are free to denounce BDS if they choose. But they must do so without infringing on the rights of their constituents.
(Source / 08.07.2016)
A major factor encouraging the agenda is America abiding by the premise that ‘any possible settlement must match the positions of the stronger party’
Recently uncovered archives of Israel’s ethnic cleansing policy against the Palestinians have shed more light on operations where tens of thousands were forced to leave their homes and lands during the months of the 1948 Nakba.
By seeking to fulfil the Zionist agenda of establishing a ‘Jewish State’ in Palestine, Israel made it imperative to remove the native Palestinian-Arab population in a mass ethnic-cleansing drive to make room for European Ashkenazi Jews to come and colonise, in phases, all of historical Palestine. Records of such acts have been uncovered by many, but hidden records of the Israeli archives have been obtained and widely published by liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Accounts of the archives revealed that the Jewish Haganah and Stern gangs committed many atrocities against the Palestinians. Between July 12 and 13, 1948, more than 50,000 Palestinian Christians and Muslims were expelled and forced to seek refuge in nearby Arab countries. The archives further included that “more than 400 emptied Palestinian villages and towns were looted and razed to the ground to prevent the Palestinians from ever returning to them and more than 750,000 Palestinians were barred from ever returning to Palestine”. Erasing Palestinian presence along with their homes was accomplished by “bombarding Palestinian homes at night while they slept”.
In his book Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, based on the leaked records, Israeli historian Ilan Pappe wrote that “the 1948 Palestinian Exodus resulted from a planned ethnic cleansing of Palestine that was implemented by the Zionist movement, mainly by Ben Gurion. The birth of the Zionist state came drenched with blood”. Pappe believes that ethnic cleansing is still taking place to this day. He has based his analysis upon the facts that “Palestinian youths, along with the rest of the population, are being targeted by Israeli authorities for extrajudicial assassinations and indiscriminate killings”. Gurion’s ethnic cleansing, according to the archives, was named Plan Dalet — “put to compile inventory of Arab villages and towns with a list of their prominent Arab leaders targeted to be seized and shot on the spot”.
Plan Dalet was meant to create a power vacuum, eliminating effective Arab Palestinian opposition to the Zionist plan of ethnic cleansing. The current Palestinian divisions have effectively given the Zionist state a free hand to expand its colonies in the West Bank and Gurion’s Plan Dalet — in viewing the present against the past — is still active to this day.
Shulamit Aloni, who had once served as minister of education under the late Israeli prime minister, Yitzak Rabin, acknowledged that apartheid existed in Israel. She wrote, saying that “Jewish self-righteousness is taken for granted. It’s simply inconceivable that the ultimate victims, the Jews who suffered for years and years the stigma of racial and religious prejudice, can carry out evil deeds. Nevertheless, the state of Israel practices its own form of apartheid with the native Palestinian population”. Ethnic cleansing and a racist occupying policy are meant to erase the Palestinian national identity while the Zionist colonists are still, to this very day, without any national identity that is required to identify them with their Zionist state.
A bid for endorsement of an Israeli ‘national identity’ or a ‘Hebrew’ one for the citizens of Israel has been rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court. Behind their insistence on a national identity, lies a deep inferiority complex due to the fact that all the Ashkenazi colonists originated from the Aryan tribes who converted to Judaism during the seventh century, when they were known as Khazars, living in present-day Ukraine. They are neither Israelites — “Beni Israel”, the children of Prophet Jacob, who changed his name to Israel — nor Hebrew Semites. Only the Arab-Palestinian Jews are the Hebrews and Israelites, as well. Therefore, the only legal national identity left for the Ashkenazis is the Jewish religious identity.
A major factor encouraging the Israeli apartheid agenda is a long-held attitude of all American administrations dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, manifest in abiding by the premise that “any possible settlement must match the positions of the stronger party”. Israel, in this case, being the stronger party whose “positions” must be accepted by the weaker party — Arabs. Such a premise has given Israel a supremacy that has energised its egotistical fervour, a position, according to Yitzhak Laor, that has “established a rigid apartheid legal system, as the High Court of Justice fades away”. Laor’s words featured in an article published in Haaretz under the title ‘Israel’s apartheid is worse than South Africa’s’.
Haaretz tried to define Israeliapartheid as “the meticulous sub-division of the people in Israel, guided by a principle of equality that benefits the ruling class”, which is the Aryan European Ashkenazi Jews over the Semitic Eastern Arab Jews and the Semitic Palestinian Arab native population. In 2011, Ehud Barak, the then Israeli defence minister, issued a statement that greatly shocked Israelis. He said: “If Israel does not achieve a peace deal with Palestinians, it will have to become a bi-national state or be undemocratic apartheid one.” In 2016, Israel has become both, with half of its population without any civil and political rights, whatsoever.
Ethnic cleansing added to apartheid, and driven by an inferior complex, has created a toxic atmosphere that is leading the racist Zionist colonists into a state of stupor steeped in egotism — something that invariable ends in self-destruction.
(Source / 02.07.2016)
Two years ago General Abdul Fattah el-Sisi, defence minister in Mohamed Mursi’s government, became president of Egypt. He had led a military coup that toppled the Mursi government in July 2013, drowning the military’s Islamist opponents in blood.
Since then, there has been no let-up in the state-organised repression of the el-Sisi regime’s bourgeois political opponents, liberal activists and the working class and repression is increasing as the cost of basic commodities soar.
The judge in yet another kangaroo court sentenced former Muslim Brotherhood President Mursi to 40 years in prison following his conviction on charges of spying for Qatar by allegedly passing on classified Egyptian documents to the petro-state. He sentenced to death six other defendants, including two Al-Jazeera news service employees in absentia. Mursi is currently appealing a previous death sentence and another two sentences—life in prison and 20 years in prison—in separate cases.
El-Sisi banned the Brotherhood after his takeover, declaring it a terrorist organisation. Since then, he has mounted a vicious crackdown against all opponents of the military elite that has dominated Egyptian political and economic life since the 1952 Free Officers’ coup.
The government declared a three-month state of emergency in parts of the Sinai Peninsula in October 2014, which it has illegally extended across the entire Peninsula ever since. It was aimed ostensibly against the Bedouin and Islamist fighters in the impoverished desert region who have killed dozens of security personnel. But the curfews, detention without trial or even charges, shutdown of cell phone and internet networks, and routine abuse by the army and police have only inflamed tensions.
The Egyptian state has outlawed protests, imprisoned tens of thousands, sentenced hundreds to death and introduced a sweeping counterterrorism law that vastly expanded the authorities’ powers. Mass trials, mostly of Brotherhood supporters, failed to establish individual guilt. Several thousand have been tried in military courts. Torture and enforced disappearances are commonplace, with many detainees dying in custody from mistreatment.
The junta harasses and investigates independent NGOs and prosecutes journalists who dare to criticise its actions. Three leading members of the journalists’ union face trial for harbouring “fugitive” colleagues and publishing false news, after the police stormed their headquarters to arrest two reporters hiding inside the union’s offices on May 1. The media were banned from covering the preliminary proceedings.
The regime has also targeted the universities, amending the law to allow the state to appoint senior university personnel and university heads in order to expel students. It has deployed security forces on campuses, arresting at least 790, mainly for protesting against the government, many of whom were tortured or abused. At least 89 were referred to military tribunals where some were sentenced to death or life imprisonment. According to officials from Egypt’s two largest universities, 819 students have been expelled since 2013. Some were Brotherhood supporters, while many others were protesting against abuses by the security forces.
In February this year, Italian doctoral student Giulio Regeni, who had been writing his thesis about independent trade unions, was found tortured to death after disappearing on the January 25 anniversary of the 2011 revolution that toppled long-standing dictator Hosni Mubarak, when security forces were out in force in central Cairo.
All the indications are that the top echelons of the regime were involved in the murder as it prepares to legislate against “independent” unions, with the official state unions filing a lawsuit to criminalise unofficial unions, many of them connected to Washington. The government is also seeking to shut down NGOs that receive overseas funding.
Despite the crackdown on political protests, including a ban on a march on International Workers Day last month organized by independent trade unions, rising prices, low wages and delays in paying wages and bonuses are fuelling social and economic tensions.
In the wake the 2008 global financial crisis and the political upheavals following Mubarak’s ouster, Egypt’s economy has gone into free fall. With its main foreign currency earners, the Suez Canal hit by falling trade and tourism by security fears, the Egyptian pound has plummeted. This, along with the price hikes resulting from the taxes and cuts in subsidies on basic goods imposed in 2014, new import duties on several products, including nuts and fruits, and restrictions on others, has sent prices, particularly foodstuffs, medications and fuel sky high.
Inflation is now running at 13 percent a year and rising in a country where 40 percent of the people live on less than $2 a day and wages have not kept up with inflation. Prices are soaring in Egypt despite a UN Food and Agriculture Organisation report showing global commodity prices falling to their lowest since June 2010.
So great is the fear that rising prices may lead to widespread protests that the government announced government stores would offer basic commodities at discounted prices.
Egypt’s Central Bank has raised interest rates twice this year, to around 12 percent, to bolster the pound. This move threatens the already limited capital investment in Egypt, following its 14 percent devaluation of the pound, which set exchange rate at 8.85 pounds to the US dollar, compared to 7.73 previously. On the black market, traders are paying up to 11 pounds per dollar. Another devaluation is expected later this year.
Egypt’s budget deficit rose to 9.2 percent of GDP in first nine months of this fiscal year, up from 9.0 percent in the same period last year.
The el-Sisi regime is dependent on Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United States for its economic and political survival, with Washington providing at least $1.3 billion a year in direct aid. It was Egypt’s dire financial situation that led el-Sisi to transfer sovereignty of two strategic Red Sea islands at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba to Saudi Arabia as part of an economic deal to stimulate Egypt’s economy, although the courts have unexpectedly nullified the transfer. Under the deal, Riyadh is to provide Cairo with a $22 billion oil and aid deal, including loans of $1.5 billion to develop the Sinai Peninsula, $1.2 billion to finance Egypt’s oil purchases and a $500 million grant to buy Saudi exports and products.
According to Egyptian NGO Democracy Meter, in the first four months of 2016 thousands have defied the ban on protests to take part in a total of 493 actions, ranging from work stoppages to peaceful marches and pickets. This represents a 25 percent increase from the same period last year. In the last month, workers have held sit-ins over unpaid wages in Cairo and at the port of Alexandria, Egypt’s second city. Security forces broke up the protests, arresting 13 workers and engineers who face the possibility of military trials since the Alexandria facility belongs to the navy.
Heightening the political and economic crisis engulfing el-Sisi’s dictatorship is the scandal surrounding the leaking of the school-leaving examinations on which entry to university depends. The revelation has led to the cancellation of one of the examinations and protests by high school students, highlighting the deteriorating conditions of public education in Egypt where teachers routinely take charge of at least 60 students in a class and schools operate daily on a double-shift basis.
(Source / 26.06.2016)