Friday, October 23, 2015

Syrian War Pits Syria, Russia, Iran; versus U.S., Saudis, Qatar, Turkey, ISIS

Eric ZUESSE | 23.10.2015 | 00:00

U.S. aim is a failed Syrian state, so Russia will lose an ally. Thus, on October 13th, Brandon Turbeville headlined, «As Russia Bombs ISIS, US Bombs Syrian Civilian Power Stations». The U.S. aims to destroy Syria; Russia wants to salvage Syria. So: while Russia bombs ISIS and other jihadists, U.S. bombs Syria’s infrastructure. A nation without the infrastructure to hold it together is a failed state — America’s goal.
The U.S. doesn’t announce this as its goal. Instead, the U.S. says simply, that Syria’s President, Bashar al-«Assad must go»or, «the time has come for President Assad to step aside» so that there will be «a new government, without Bashar Assad». This is like George W. Bush’s constant demands for «regime change in Iraq». Who gave the U.S. the right to replace nations’ leaders and still claim that doing this doesn’t constitute an international crime, of aggression, if not of aggressive invasion – the war-crime for which Nazis were hung at Nuremberg?
The Sauds, who own Saudi Arabia, and the Thanis, who own Qatar, want to take over Syria, so as to become enabled (by their ISIS allies) to pipeline oil and gas into Turkey and thus the EU. That’s been blocked by Assad’s Syria. The U.S. goal in Syria is a failed state where the local warlords — who will be ISIS, al-Nusra, and other jihadists — will share the oil-and-gas profits with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which will build through Syria pipelines into Europe, thereby replacing Russia’s supplies of oil and gas. This is Obama’s goal, and not only that of King Saud, the Qatari Emir, and the other direct economic beneficiaries of the plan.
The great investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed headlined in the Guardian on 30 August 2013, «Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern», and another great investigative journalist Christof Lehmann headlined on 7 October 2013 at his nsnbc news site, «Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria». Lehmann opened: «Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry», as planners of the attack. (The U.S. has been allied with the Saudi royal family since 1945.) Lehmann discussed the chemical-weapons attack «in the Eastern Ghouta Suburb of Damascus on 21 August 2013», which attack U.S. President Barack Obama was citing as his reason for planning to bomb to bring down Assad, whom Obama was blaming for the chemical attack — an attack that his own team might more likely have planned. In fact, an MIT study of the evidence found that Obama (and his Administration) had clearly lied, and that, «the US Government’s Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and After the August 21 Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT».
The Administration never offered any answer to that study, because its evidence was unchallengeable. The sarin rocket had actually been fired from territory that was controlled by the U.S.-equipped rebels, not by Syrian government forces. This sarin gas attack is what’s called in the intelligence community a «false flag attack», meaning one that’s designed to be blamed on the opposite side, which one wants to attack. It’s a way to treat one’s own public as suckers, instead of as citizens. This was the U.S. government's way when George W. Bush warned of «mushroom clouds» and «Saddam’s WMD»; and it’s also the way Barack Obama has been dealing with Syria.
The New York Times  reported, on 5 December 2012, that America’s bombing campaign in Libya had been planned in conjuction with the Thanis, the owners of Qatar, who supplied weapons to the jihadist rebels who were doing the actual fighting to bring down Gaddafi. And then, once he was killed, the U.S. continued using the Qataris to supply arms to those jihadists in Libya. However, this U.S. aid to jihadists disturbed secularist leaders in Libya. «Mahmoud Jibril, then the prime minister of the Libyan transitional government, expressed frustration to administration officials that the United States was allowing Qatar to arm extremist groups opposed to the new leadership, according to several American officials… The United States … provided little oversight of the arms shipments». Obama merely wanted to overthrow Gaddafi, who was allied with Russia. And he was allied with the Sauds and Thanis. Also, supplying Islamists in Libya, instead of secularists there, meant that the arms-flow to Islamists in Syria would continue. So, Obama really had no reason to object to what the Qataris were doing there.
In fact, as yet another great investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, reported,  on 17 April 2014, Obama had arranged for weapons in Libya to be sent to jihadists in Syria, these forces being al-Nusra, or Syria’s Al Qaeda branch (Obama calls them «moderate rebels»). «By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities». So: these are the types of fighters that Russia is now bombing. This is why, when Russia’s President Putin asks America’s President Obama to join forces with the Syria-Russia-Iraq-Iran coalition, Obama says no: he’s actually trying to defeat that coalition.
This is consistent with Obama's National Security Strategy 2015which names Russia 17 of the 18 times it charges «aggression». For example, it doesn’t mention Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or the United States itself, even once, as being «aggressive» or using «aggression». That’s like Hitler in the 1930s claiming to seek peace while he charged Poland and then England as being aggressors. What’s even more amazing is that most Americans are still suckered by such a scam. Perhaps Goebbels’s operation is even being outdone in today’s U.S. After all, America is now the longtime world champion in «PR»opaganda. Instead of being on FDR’s side now, America is more on Hitler’s. The ghost of Hitler has come to haunt America’s White House. Hitler’s «Deutschland über alles», or  «Germany above all», has even become Obama’s «The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation». Hitler thought that Germany was. Same type of nation, same nationalistic supremacism, just a different era.
Echoing, again, Goebbels, Hillary Clinton said on 18 August 2011, when the United States was starting its remove-Assad operation: «We understand the strong desire of the Syrian people that no foreign country should intervene in their struggle, and we respect their wishes». But she actually rejects their wishes. When America’s ally the Qatari regime, which funds al-Nusra, hired a polling firm in 2012 to survey Syrians, the finding was that 55% of Syrians wanted him to remain as President. Then, as I reported on 18 September 2015, «Polls Show Syrians Overwhelmingly Blame U.S. for ISIS», and those recent polls were from a British firm that has ties to Gallup. The West no longer polls Syrians about whether «Assad must go». They know that the only way it can happen is the way Obama has been and is trying: bombing, and overthrow. Till Syria becomes a failed state. That would be victory, for Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the U.S. establishment.

Preisgabe der Souveränität: Invasion und Kapitulation Österreichs an den Grenzen - Das erinnert an die DDR-Grenzöffnung 1989

Bericht von Mag. Dr. Rudolf Moser – Major aus Österreich
rot = Kommentar von Hans Fricke

Mein eigener Eindruck ist, dass der  Text von Major Dr. Moser offenbar mit heißer Feder und in Aufregung hingeschrieben wurde und einige Ungereimtheiten* enthält und somit Fragen aufwirft. Aber die geschilderten Verhältnisse an  europäischen Grenzen werden auch durch Beobachtungen von anderer Seite so und ähnlich  bestätigt. Man muss sich mit der Situation realitätsbezogen befassen und darf sich nicht durch staatsoffizielle Propaganda täuschen lassen. 
* Der Verweis etwa auf die jugoslawische Volksarmee, die angeblich Österreich bedroht haben soll 1991 ist unverständlich und die Anspielung auf die Türken vor Wien (1683) beinhaltet eine problematische, unhistorische  Parallelisierung.   Fundiertere Betrachtungen dazu in Bälde (Bloggerin)

Invasion und Kapitulation!    Österreich ist kein souveräner Staat mehr.
21. Oktober 2015: Heute ist der schwärzeste Tag in meinem Leben. Ich musste mit eigenen Augen mit ansehen, wie um 11.30 etwa 5.000, durchwegs junger, durchtrainierter Männer, die Österreichische Grenze bei Spielfeld, völlig ungehindert und unkontrolliert, durchbrochen haben. 
Der Österreichische Staat hat zur Durchsetzung seiner Souveränität und zum Schutze der Österreichischen Bevölkerung seine Polizei- und Militärkräfte vor diesem Ansturm kapitulieren lassen

Ich musste mit ansehen, wie über eine Stunde etwa 5.000 Okkupanten in bedrohlicher, arroganter und auch aggressiver Art und Weise wie selbstverständlich Österreichisches Staatsgebiet besetzten, ungeniert ihre Notdurft verrichteten, Müll in völlig unzivilisierter Manier einfach wegwarfen - all das sieht der Durchschnittsösterreicher nicht. Über all diese Ungeheuerlichkeiten berichten unsere Lügenmedien nicht(das ist in D auch so! ) Bewundernswert jedoch waren die Steirischen FPÖ Politiker, allen voran Mario Kunasek, welche als einzige politische Repräsentanten, trotz der Gefahrensituation, vor Ort sich selbst ein Bild machten. Alle anderen feigen Schönredner waren in ihren sicheren Büros und werden wieder von lieben Kindern und armen Frauen und ach so verfolgten Menschen daherfaseln - nichts von all dem war vor Ort zu sehen, im Gegenteil - diese Pseudoflüchtlinge fotografierten sich und nahezu jeder war mit seinem Handy beschäftigt. 

Nicht nur die deutsche Polizeigewerkschaft schätzt die Lage als explosiv ein, auch mein ehemaliger Regimentskommandant Brigadier Josef - Paul Puntigam. Ich hatte die Ehre mit ihm ein Gespräch vor dem Einmarsch fremder Asylantentruppen
 (dieser Klartext ist in D strafbewehrt) zu führen. Niemand kennt die Grenze so gut wie Brgd. Puntigam, hat er doch 1991 beim Aufmarsch der jugoslawischen Volksarmee an der Österreichischen Grenze mit militärischer Weitsicht unsere Grenze beschützt. Wo bitte ist heute unsere Armee? Wo unsere Exekutivkräfte? 

Niemand schützt in dieser bedrohlichen Situation die Österreichische Bevölkerung. Brgd. Puntigam meinte, es fehlt nur der Wille, es ist möglich auch heute mit den verfügbaren Kräften unsere Souveränität zu bewahren, wie dies auch rechtlich vorgesehen ist. Wer bitte hat unsere Verfassung außer Kraft gesetzt - die Frau Merkel
 (ja, mit Hilfe von BuJuMi Maas) oder unsere absolut nicht führungsfähigen Politiker wie der Zauderer Feymann, ein Vasall der Frau Merkel oder ein fachunkundiger Verteidigungsminister? Niemand – dieser derzeitigen Vorgehensweise fehlt jede Rechtsgrundlage.  Es wäre eine notwendige Sofortmaßnahme wieder auf die Erfahrungen von Brgd. Puntigam zurückzugreifen, er meinte, er stünde sofort für eine entsprechende Expertise zur Verfügung. Es stellt sich nicht die Frage des Könnens, sondern nur die des Wollens. 

In unserer verweichlichten Gesellschaft werden wir den einmarschierenden Kräften wohl nichts mehr entgegensetzen können, wenn noch mehrere Hunderttausende einmarschieren dann Gnade uns Gott!. Wer diese jungen Männer sieht, der weiß, dass ein Großteil militärisch ausgebildet und kampferprobt sein muss
 (soll das jemand von den erwähnten Dumpfbacken begreifen?), denn nicht zufällig erfolgt die Okkupation fremden Territoriums so diszipliniert und planvoll. Die Verbindung durch elektronische Geräte ermöglicht es ihnen das Gewaltmonopol unseres Staates problemlos auszuhebeln. Diejenigen, welche die Kapitulation angeordnet haben, also die so genannten Politiker von rot/schwarz, vertreten keinesfalls mehr die Interessen der Österreichischen Bevölkerung, sie scheinen Konzernbefehle bzw. Anordnungen von EU-Amerika auszuführen, denn dieser Aufmarsch von Invasionskräften ist kein Zufall, das ist militärische Strategie! 

Die Bevölkerung im südsteirischen Grenzland war ob dieser Ereignisse geschockt und entsetzt, denn wieder einmal werden, wie sooft in der Geschichte, unsere Interessen verraten. Es stellt sich auch die Frage ob all diese "selbstlosen" Hilfsorganisationen - immerhin kostet es den Steuerzahler einmal so um die 1,2 Milliarden (1,200.000.000) Euro - nicht an ihren eigenen wirtschaftlichen Profit denken und diese so genannten "Schutzsuchenden" nur ein willkommener Vorwand sind einmal selbst fremdes Geld zu eigenem zu machen.
(Antwort ist „JA“)
Brgd. Puntigam hat auch eine Idee, wie vor Ort, in Syrien etwa, die Lage beeinflusst werden könnte: Alle jungen Männer militärisch ausbilden und dann zur Befreiung ihrer Heimat dorthin bringen, denn nur die eigene Bevölkerung kann wirkungsvoll den IS bekämpfen. 
Grundsätzlich stellen sich rasch zu beantwortende Fragen:
Wer kann diese Invasion beenden?
Wann hört der unkontrollierte Invasionsaufmarsch auf? (ich konnte ja selbst beobachten, dass keinesfalls Passkontrollen bzw. eine Registrierung erfolgt)
Wie schaut das worstcase Szenario aus (etwa wenn der Zustrom nicht gestoppt werden kann und wenn dann auch noch der Familienzuzug erfolgt und auch wieder Türken einfallen) (Diesmal helfen die Polen nicht!)
Brgd. Puntigam stellte jedenfalls die Führungsfähigkeit der derzeitigen "Machthaber" in Frage und meinte, es muss nach genauer Beurteilung richtig, im Sinne der ohnehin richtungweisenden Gesetze, gehandelt werden und das mit voller Verantwortung für Österreich. Es kann nicht sein, dass Österreich ein Schlepperstaat ist und seine Exekutivkräfte dieses Schlepperunwesen auch noch mit Steuergeld begünstigen und zu Dienern der Fremden degradiert werden. (Warum nicht? Ist doch in D auch so!)
Als ehemaliger Kompaniekommandant der 2.Kompanie/522 war ich fast zwei Jahrzehnte an dieser Grenze mobilbeordert und unser einst stolzes Bundesheer hatte den Auftrag die Staatsgrenze zu schützen. Diesen Auftrag hätten wir ohne wenn und aber erfüllt, wie alle Soldaten angelobt auf unser Vaterland. Es ist eine Schande zu sehen, wie unsere Kräfte auch heute noch diesen Auftrag erfüllen könnten, jedoch nicht dürfen.

Es ist Krieg - das darf allerdings nur Bulgarien sagen, unsere Politiker und die gleichgeschalteten Medien beruhigen – 
mediale Schallmaienklänge säuseln die Österreicher ein, wie einst das Orchester der Titanic - und die dankbaren so eingelullten österreichischen Naivlinge (Naivlinge gibt’s in D sogar in der Regierung!) tanzen auch noch fröhlich dazu. Mein Gott - warum hast Du uns verlassen! 

Mag. Dr. Rudolf Moser, Major

Kill Them All – US Strike on Afghan Hospital

Finian CUNNINGHAM | 23.10.2015 | 00:00

The deadly US airstrike on an Afghan hospital has been downplayed by Washington as a «tragic mistake» committed in the «fog of war». But recently disclosed documents on the secret policy of drone assassinations by the Pentagon reveals a cold-blooded calculus to «kill all» within a designated strike zone, even resulting in 90 per cent «collateral damage» of «unintended targets». 
The US airstrike on the Kunduz hospital did not reportedly involve unmanned aerial drones – it was carried out by a warplane. Nevertheless, the same mentality of wiping out non-combatants to «finish» an intended target seems to have been at work.
The director of the medical charity whose hospital was hit by the US warplane has said that the attack was a «premeditated massacre» and amounts to a war crime. The official line from Washington is that the strike on the hospital was a «mistake» and that the death of civilians was a tragic case of «collateral damage».
But evidence points to a deliberate attempt by US forces to take out suspected targets within the facility – even if that meant killing all inside the hospital, including civilian patients and medical staff.
Meinie Nicolai, the president of Doctors Without Borders, said the facility near Kunduz in northern Afghanistan was targeted with «deliberate intent» by US forces. The bombing and heavy cannon strafing of the hospital on October 3 by an American AC-130 warplane resulted in 22 dead and dozens others seriously injured. Three children were among the fatalities. The Intensive Care Unit appeared to be the focus of the attack, as other buildings in the complex incurred much less damage.
US military and their Afghan coalition partners in the locality were given clear GPS coordinates of the hospital, the only major facility in and around the remote city of Kunduz. The last forwarded coordinates for the hospital was made on September 29 – the day before the attack – according to the doctors. Even as the airstrike was being carried out, hospital staff made frantic telephone calls to the US forces alerting them of the «mistake», but the bombing and firing continued for at least another 30 minutes.
The medical charity, also known by its French name Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), is calling for an independent international inquiry into the incident – one of the worst single civilian death tolls in the 14-year-old US-led war in Afghanistan. Washington has refused to comply with the request for such an independent probe, saying that its Department of Defence is conducting its own investigation about what happened.
The Pentagon’s credibility to come clean was undermined this week after a US tank forced its way into the charred hospital compound. MSF has accused the United States military of «destroying evidence» at the site.
What were US forces looking for when they violated – for the second time – the grounds of the hospital? Could they have been trying to retrieve the body of a Pakistani Taliban operative whom they claim was hiding in the facility? The Pakistani man was reportedly acting as an intelligence agent helping to coordinate Taliban insurgents fighting against the US-Afghan coalition forces.
MSF officials and their local staff have strenuously denied that the facility was being used by Taliban fighters. Doctors and a security guard working at the hospital said that on the night of the attack there was no fighting near the medical compound. MSF has also categorically rebutted initial claims that Taliban militants were using the facility to launch attacks on US or Afghan forces. The international aid agency has confirmed too that none of its staff in Kunduz were Pakistani nationals.
MSF has said, however, that its hospital – as with all its international facilities – had a normal policy of treating unarmed combatants as well as civilians. It noted that under international law all individuals are entitled to medical treatment, including combatants. The hospital in Kunduz conducted a strict policy of ensuring that patients are admitted on condition that they are unarmed and that any weapons that might be in the possession of wounded combatants are excluded from being taken into the facility.
A report by Associated Press this week said that the hospital in Kunduz was being monitored by US military intelligence during the days before the airstrike. The incident occurred only a week after the Taliban made a spectacular military gain by taking the city – which was seen as a huge propaganda blow to the US-led Afghan forces.
If the US military believed that Taliban fighters or the alleged Pakistani operative were being treated in the MSF hospital then the decision to launch a strike on the facility may have been made to take out the targets regardless of the civilian casualties.
That scenario contradicts the statement by General John F Campbell, the top US commander in Afghanistan, who claimed that the strike was a mistake and that his forces would «never deliberately target a civilian facility».
Washington’s official account of the incident has flipped suspiciously. Initially, the US claimed that it was unaware that the facility was a hospital, then it changed tack and said that its forces on the ground had come under fire from Taliban militants in the vicinity, for which the AC-130 air gunship was called in. That version of events has been firmly contradicted by staff at the hospital who said there was no militant action in the surrounding area that night. Moreover, the MSF medics say that the warplane made several attack runs over the hospital before it finally launched its deadly firepower.
On a separate but pertinent issue of US military policy was a report on October 16 by The Intercept on the secret use of assassination drone strikes. The information was based on a whistleblower’s in-depth knowledge of Pentagon drone operations in Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen. Those operations are overseen at the highest level of US government, with President Obama being the ultimate authority to sign off on assassinations.
Relevant to the Kunduz massacre is the policy of «find, fix and finish» which Washington’s drone «assassination complex» employs.
Under the heading, ‘Strikes often kill many more than the intended target’, The Intercept report notes the following from its insider source: «The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, US special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets».
In other words, Washington – both the White House and Pentagon chiefs – are using a «kill them all» policy, whereby high levels of civilian casualties are deemed acceptable in order to neutralise an individual suspected combatant.
The Kunduz hospital hit was reportedly carried out by an AC-130 gunship, armed with missiles and Gatling-type machine-guns, heavy enough to penetrate brick walls. Drones were not apparently involved, but the operation was conducted in the same northeast area of Afghanistan where US drones are used with a policy of «kill them all».
US General John F Campbell has acknowledged that the Kunduz hospital strike was carried out «within the US chain of command».
The stark conclusion is that the hospital was bombed and strafed by US forces to take out a suspected militant at the facility, with the deliberate knowledge that civilians would also be taken out in the operation. That puts the prima facie war crime at Kunduz in a totally different and much more serious context, going right up the highest level of culpability.
Tags: Taliban Afghanistan US Source:

US threatening Iraq Into Not Seeking Russian Support

U.S. Tells Iraq: If You Ally w. Russia Against ISIS, You’re Our Enemy

News | 23.10.2015 | 16:12

On October 14th, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that the U.S. government had turned down the proposal from Russia’s President Vladimir Putin for the U.S. and Russia to cooperate together to eliminate ISIS and other jihadists in Syria and in Iraq. Lavrov said:
We’ve made Americans the proposal announced by President Vladimir Putin yesterday. We suggested that they send a [US] military delegation to Moscow to coordinate a number of joint steps, and after that we could have sent to Washington a top-level delegation led by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, [but]… It is sad that our American colleagues in this case in fact do not side with those who fight against terrorism.
Then, on Tuesday October 20th, as CBS News online reported the following day, “The U.S. has told Iraq’s leaders they must choose between ongoing American support in the battle against militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and asking the Russians to intervene instead. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that the Iraqis had promised they would not request any Russian airstrikes or support for the fight against ISIS.”
However, Iraq already had done precisely that — and had even said that Russia seemed more committed to defeating ISIS than America is. As I summed up on October 10th:
Wednesday, October 7th, Reuters headlined, “Iraq Leans Toward Russia in War on Islamic State,” and reported, from Baghdad, that, “Iraq … wants Moscow to have a bigger role than the United States in the war against the militant group, the head of parliament’s defense and security committee said on Wednesday.”
Earlier, in an interview in English, with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, telecast on October 2nd, France24 TV asked him how he would view an extension of Russia’s anti-ISIS bombing campaign into Iraq, and he said (7:54), “I would welcome it.” 
So, at some time between October 7th and October 20th, the U.S. convinced Iraq’s leaders to, in essence, dis-invite the Russians, instead of to ally with them against ISIS in Iraq. 
Two alternative explanations are possible. Either the U.S. had promised the Iraqis that the U.S. will now really get serious about defeating ISIS in Iraq, or else the U.S. had promised the Iraqis that Iraq would be punished — at the IMF or elsewhere — if Iraq followed through on their announced intention to replace the U.S. with Russia. (Or, of course, the U.S. could have done both — the carrot, and the stick.)
In either case (or both), the U.S. has made clear, to the Iraqis, that America will do anything to defeat Russia — even abandon the fight against ISIS in Iraq, if need be — and that the U.S. will absolutely not ally with Russia against ISIS, under any circumstances.
This makes abundantly clear, to the whole world, that the current American government considers its main enemy to be not jihadists, but Russians.
However, already, U.S. President Barack Obama had made this clear when, in his National Security Strategy 2015, he named Russia on 17 of the 18 occasions in which he charged “aggression.” The 18th instance was not Saudi Arabia, the main funder of jihadists, but instead North Korea, which poses little real threat to any U.S. ally except South Korea, and none at all to the United States. (And, of course, the U.S. President didn’t cite the U.S., which in a 2013 WIN/Gallup International poll was overwhelmingly named the most throughout the world as “the country that represents the greatest threat to peace in the world today.”)

The Violence, Crisis and Tragedy of Israeli Propaganda

EDITOR'S CHOICE | 23.10.2015 | 10:53
In recent weeks the world is witnessing another round of violence in Israel/Palestine. Though we are accustomed to seeing the same tragic and violent scenario repeat itself, this time it is different. The current wave of resistance stems from a new generation of Palestinian activistswho are not affiliated with a particular organization or faction. Protests include violent and nonviolent demonstrations as well as attacks on Israeli civilians in both the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and Israel.
The disorganized and sporadic nature of this resistance has caught Israel off guard: whereas the government is accustomed to respond by mobilizing its military and propaganda (aka “Hasbara”) outlets against predefined Palestinian targets such as Hamas, it currently lacks someone to hold directly accountable. As such, Israel has resorted to collective punishment of Palestinian society and inflammatory anti-Palestinian rhetoric. The latter has generated an environment whereby civilian/vigilante violence is currently surging in Israel.
Violence in various forms is necessary to maintain and expand the Israeli occupation in the OPT and for the domination of and discriminatory limitations placed on Palestinians who live as citizens within pre-’67 borders of Israel. For this purpose, the Israeli government enacts policies that have two goals: 1) segregation of Israelis and Palestinians and; 2) fragmentation of Palestinian society.
These are aimed at containing Palestinians within predefined territories on the one hand, while denying them the ability to assemble, organize and thus effectively mount protest on the other. Israel has promoted each of these aims individually but also conjointly; the construction of the separation wall effectively creates a barrier between Israeli and Palestinian societies, but also physically dissects Palestinian villages and separates farmers from their land (for example see here). To implement these policies the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and other branches of Israel’s security forces use violent tactics including curfews, house demolitions, checkpoints, nightly raids, arrests (often without charge) and other routine and often random violence.
Because humans are hard-wired to feel empathy, violence and discrimination need to be morally and ethically justified. For this purpose, Israeli propaganda focuses on two main points: 1) historically linking contested land to Jewish heritage and; 2) dehumanizing Palestinians and their leaders. While the former attempts to provide an inherent Jewish “right” to the land, the latter serves to instill fear and distrust of Palestinians and thus absolve Israelis of any responsibility for their own crimes and those committed in their name.
Quite predictably, because the current wave of resistance does not present the Hasbara with a clear target, it is in crisis. Unaware or indifferent to their underlying racism, Israeli officials have been endorsing vigilante violence and inciting the masses against Palestinians and their leadership of past and present. Some notable examples include the immediate labeling of protesters as suspect of “violence and terrorism”, incendiary remarks by Israeli officials about the current Palestinian leadershipexclusion of Arab-Israeli representatives from official briefingsa call for civilian armament at all times in order to combat “terrorists” and an outrageous claim by Prime Minister Netanyahu claiming that the Mufti of Jerusalem was the impetus behind the Nazi “final solution” for European Jewry.
Segregation and chronic fear lead to an inability to empathize with others’ suffering. When a lack of empathy is combined with incitement of fear and encouragement toward vigilante-style aggression, it produces a dangerous cocktail that leads to unbridled violence. During the past few weeks in Israel these sorts of events have become commonplace including several extra judicial killings of suspects (seehere for sample) and a mob-crazed lynching (of a man who happened to be innocent).
If we are to judge by the rhetoric coming from Israeli officials, their inflammatory propaganda will only get worse, and with it more of these vicious and tragic acts of violence. It is clear that in addition to the daily violence of occupation, this escalation in anti-Palestinian rhetoric/propaganda will have tragic consequences not only for Palestinians, but also on Israeli society.
Yoav Litvin is a Doctor of Psychology/ Behavioral Neuroscience. 

No basis for long-term depreciation of Chinese currency: Premier Li

News | 23.10.2015 | 11:18
Xinhua - China has taken timely measures to cope with unusual capital market fluctuations, and has successfully forestalled potential systemic financial risks, said Premier Li Keqiang in Beijing on Thursday.
While meeting with former U.S. treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Li spoke about the turmoil in the global financial market this year and the unusual fluctuations on China's capital market, especially the stock market.
The measures taken by China were in accordance with international practice and China's own conditions, he added.
"We will continue to boost reform and institutional construction, fostering an open, transparent, stable and healthy multiple-level capital market," said the premier.
Li said China's development relied on reform and opening-up.
China has improved the way it calculates the RMB central parity rate in response to international financial market development, he said.
There is no basis for long-term depreciation of the RMB, Li added.
He said China will expand the financial reform in the Shanghai free trade zone, promote the RMB interest rate marketization, and gradually improve the RMB exchange rate formation mechanism.
"We will encourage financial innovation, boost further opening-up of the financial industry, in order to facilitate the growth of real economy," he said.
The new type of urbanization is the greatest driving force for China's domestic demand, he said, adding China should follow a path of green and sustainable development.
Li hoped the Paulson Foundation would play a positive role in bringing advanced ideas and technology to China.
Paulson spoke positively about China's financial reform measures and its free trade zones.
He said he was glad to see the stable growth of China's financial industry and increased competitiveness through opening-up.
The United States and China have broad cooperation prospects in such areas as green financing and sustainable urbanization, he said, adding the Paulson Foundation would play a positive role to this end.
Vice Premier Wang Yang also met with Paulson earlier on Thursday.
Tags: China

China-Britain "global" partnership sealed with declaration, personal bonds

News | 23.10.2015 | 11:22
Xinhua - China and Britain issued Thursday a joint declaration on building a "global comprehensive strategic partnership for the 21st Century," and visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping is adding personal chemistry to cement the ties.
The declaration specified the bilateral relations with pledges of joint efforts in fields ranging from the internationalization of China's currency RMB and China-European Union (EU) free trade to cyber security and climate change.
Xi's visit to Britain, the first one by a Chinese president in a decade, was hailed to have opened a "golden era" in China-Britain relations featuring enduring, inclusive and win-win cooperation.
"The two sides recognize the global significance and strategic importance of stronger China-UK relations in promoting global peace, stability and prosperity," the declaration said.
The two sides will enhance trade and investment as well as political trust based on equality and mutual respect, it said.
Britain "welcomes the progressive participation of Chinese companies in its civil nuclear energy projects," it said, one day after Chinese and French companies signed an agreement to build a British nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point in southwestern England.
British Prime Minister David Cameron described the deal as "historic" as the project, with the Chinese side taking a one-third stake, would provide reliable, affordable energy to nearly 6 million homes and create more than 25,000 jobs.
Both sides have a strong interest in cooperating on each other's major initiatives, namely China's "Belt and Road" Initiative and Britain's National Infrastructure Plan and the Northern Powerhouse. They will further discuss a "China-UK infrastructure alliance," said the declaration.
Britain reassured its supports to the inclusion of RMB into the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) special drawing rights (SDR) basket.
Both sides support the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange to carry out a feasibility study on a stock connection, according to the declaration.
The two countries call for the swift launch of a joint feasibility study for a China-EU Free Trade Agreement.
They would also establish a high-level security dialogue, with both sides agreeing not to conduct or support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets or confidential business information, the declaration said.
Multilateral cooperation would be increased to tackle the conditions that give rise to terrorism and extremism, it added.
Tags: China UK

Volker Bräutigam beharrt auf Programmbeschwerde gegen Deutschland Radio gegen Hetzte "Die Russen kommen"

Deutschlandradio, der Zündfunk: Hilfe, die Russen kommen

Von Volker Bräutigam
Beste Aussichten, einen „Jährling“ zu feiern. Elf Monate ist es her, dass ich beim Intendanten des Deutschland Radios, Dr. Willi Steul, sowie beim Vorsitzenden des Hörfunkrats des Senders, Frank Schildt, gegen eine der vielen hetzerischen DLF-Sendungen protestierte:
„(...) hiermit erhebe ich gem. § 15 DRadio-Staatsvertrag Beschwerde wegen objektiv falscher, agitatorischer und kriegshetzerischer Ausführungen in der Sendung
Russische Kampfjets über Europa 
Autor: Clement, Rolf, Mitglied der Chefredaktion
Sendezeit: 08:11 Uhr am 30.10.2014
In dem Beitrag behauptete der Autor wiederholt und wahrheitswidrig, russische Kampfflugzeuge hätten am Vortag, 29. 10., die Lufträume anderer europäischer Staaten verletzt und außerdem die Zivilluftfahrt gefährdet. Die NATO habe russische Luftraumverletzungen „in nie dagewesenem Umfang“ registriert. (...) Luftraumverletzungen führen seitens der Regierungen der betroffenen Staaten zu sofortigen und öffentlich erhobenen Protesten, sowohl bei der verantwortlichen Regierung als auch bei den internationalen Flugsicherheitsbehörden. Proteste gegen von russischen Militärmaschinen verursachte Luftraumverletzungen sind aktuell aber nicht bekannt. (...)“
Jetzt, nach elf Monaten, bekam ich den einstweiligen Ablehnungsbescheid des Hörfunkratsvorsitzenden:
„(...) der Programmausschuss des Hörfunkrats hat sich (...) mit Ihrer Beschwerde befasst und ist zu folgendem Ergebnis gekommen:
Der Programmausschuss stimmt der Auffassung des Intendanten von (sic!) Deutschlandradio in dessen Schreiben vom 7. November 2014 an Sie zu. Insbesondere betont der Programmausschuss, dass der Intendant in diesem Schreiben die fehlerhafte Berichterstattung durch (sic!) Herrn Clement an diesem Morgen eingeräumt und sich entschuldigt hat. Auch Herr Clement hat Hörerinnen und Hörern gegenüber sein Bedauern zum Ausdruck gebracht. Der Programmausschuss sieht daher keine Veranlassung, den Hörfunkrat mit der Beschwerde zu befassen. (...) Sollten Sie mit dieser Entscheidung nicht einverstanden sein, haben Sie die Möglichkeit, sich mit ihrer Beschwerde an den Hörfunkrat zu wenden. (...)“
Damit ich fair befinden kann, wem der Titel „Schmock des Monats“ der Rationalgalerie am ehesten zukäme: dem DRadio-Intendanten Steul, dem DRadio-Chefredakteur Clement, dem DRadio-Hörfunkratsvorsitzenden Schildt oder doch lieber gleich dem ganzen DRadio inklusive seinen peinlichen Zuhörergremien, schrieb ich dem Hörfunkratsvorsitzenden:
„Sehr geehrter Herr Schildt,
nach mehr als zehn Monaten reagieren Sie nun auf meine Programmbeschwerde
vom 3. 11. 2014.
Abgesehen davon, dass allein der Zeitraum zwischen beklagtem Vorfall (30. Oktober vorigen Jahres) und förmlicher Reaktion Ihres Gremiums den Stellenwert hervorhebt, den Publikumsbeschwerden über das DLF-Programm in Ihren Kreisen genießen und zugleich etwas über das Selbstverständnis des DRadio-Höfunkrates aussagt, darf ich Ihnen versichern, dass ich mit der Entscheidung des Programmausschusses ganz und gar nicht einverstanden bin. Ich ersuche Sie als Vorsitzenden nachdrücklich, den Hörfunkrat in seiner Gesamtheit mit meiner nun fast ein Jahr alten Beschwerde zu befassen.
In der beklagten Sendung am 30. Oktober 2014 hat der Autor Clement wider die Faktenlage und wider besseres Wissen behauptet, russische Kampfflugzeuge hätten während einer Übung über der Ostsee den Luftraum der baltischen Staaten verletzt. Es handelte sich erweislich um eine bewusste Falschmeldung, nicht nur um fehlerhafte Berichterstattung, aus welchen Motiven des Autors auch immer. Der DRadio-Programmausschuss schließt sich nun Ihrer Mitteilung zufolge einem Schreiben des Intendanten Dr. Steul vom 7. November 2014 an, der die „fehlerhafte Berichterstattung eingeräumt und sich entschuldigt“ habe. Auch Herr Clement habe seinerzeit „Hörerinnen und Hörern gegenüber sein Bedauern zum Ausdruck gebracht“. Der Programmausschuss sehe deshalb „keine Veranlassung, den Hörfunkrat mit der Beschwerde zu befassen“.
Mit Verlaub: Ich schon. Und deshalb rufe ich dieses Gremium hiermit auch förmlich an.
Erstens deshalb, weil Herrn Clement nicht einfach nur ein Fehler unterlief, sondern weil er bewusst eine antirussische, hetzerische Falschmeldung in die Welt gesetzt hat und dies in Zeiten von Krieg und Kriegsgefahr nicht folgenlos bleiben darf. Zweitens, weil der Intendant Dr. Steul sich für diese absichtliche Irreführung der Hörerschaft nicht selbst entschuldigen und damit die Sache auf sich beruhen lassen kann; er kann allenfalls die Hörer darum bitten, diese unsägliche Fehlleistung zu entschuldigen. Drittens, weil der Hinweis „Auch Herr Clement hat Hörerinnen und Hörern gegenüber sein Bedauern zum Ausdruck gebracht“ eine Dreistigkeit der Sonderklasse darstellt: Autor Clement hat nicht d e n Hörerinnen und Hörern gegenüber sein Bedauern geäußert, sondern allenfalls ein paar ausgewählten Rezipienten gegenüber. Offiziell, öffentlich, der Hörerschaft gegenüber, haben sich weder DRadio noch dessen Autor Clement zu der Falschberichterstattung erklärt, wie man das von einem gebührenfinanzierten Sender mit Fug und Recht erwarten durfte. Sie haben keine allgemein empfangbare Berichtigung veröffentlicht, nichts zur Korrektur eines induzierten abwegigen Feindbildes im Publikum unternommen, geschweige denn die Hörerschaft für die agitatorisch-propagandistische Entgleisung um Verzeihung gebeten; von einem Gelöbnis der Besserung gar nicht erst zu reden.
An internen Verbeugungen anstelle von aufrichtigem öffentlichen Bekenntnis hatte und habe ich jedoch keinerlei Interesse, sondern allein daran, dass der öffentlich-rechtliche DLF sich gegenüber seinem Publikum gesetzeskonform verhält und sich, widrigenfalls, wenigstens offen und öffentlich zu seinem Versagen bekennt.
Ich bin mir darüber klar, dass mein Beharren weder zu einer anderen Grundeinstellung bei Ihnen selbst und den Mitgliedern Ihres Gremiums führen wird noch zu einer einsichtsvollen nachträglichen Berichtigung im Programm oder gar zu Regularien, die künftig das DRadio-Programm wieder weniger bellizistisch machen und von den schändlichen Einflüssen der Transatlantiker in der Redaktion befreien könnten. Deshalb beabsichtige ich, diesen Briefwechsel öffentlich zu machen. Ich meine, dass Friedensliebe und professioneller Anstand gebieten, auch journalistisches Versagen des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks bewusst zu machen; mittlerweile scheinen staatsvertraglich geregelte Programmgrundsätze über die Verpflichtung, zur Völkerverständigung beizutragen, das Papier nicht mehr wert zu sein, auf dem sie stehen. (...)“
Nun ist die Spannung kaum mehr zu ertragen: Wird der Hörfunkrat des Deutschlandradios meine Programmbeschwerde vom 3. November 2014 noch im Jahre des Herrn 2015 beraten – oder wird das Jahr 2016 darüber anbrechen? Und wird der für russophobe AgitProp im DRadio zuständige Chefredakteur Clement noch vor Weihnachten über russische Panzerdivisionen schwadronieren, die über das Baltikum herfallen, Teile Polens und der Ukraine besetzen und dass die Russkis selbstverständlich auf den Untergang Westeuropas aus sind? Nicht ohne vorher unsere Frauen vergewaltigt zu haben, die bösen Russen die?
Der Text erschien zuerst als “Schmock des Monats” bei Uli Gellermann’s Rationalgalerie: