zaterdag 22 juni 2013

Zionist Terror 140

How American University Got Involved in Israel’s Public Interest

Email this item EMAIL    Print this item PRINT    Share this item... SHARE

Posted on Jun 19, 2013
AP/Bernat Armangue

A Palestinian man pauses near the Qalandia checkpoint between the West Bank city of Ramallah and Jerusalem.
By Thomas Hedges, Center for Study of Responsive Law
Herman Schwartz was shaped by New Deal liberalism. He was born in 1931 and says that it was the emphasis on economic and social justice during that time that contributed to his moral upbringing and, eventually, his life as an attorney. Now 82, he teaches at American University’s Washington College of Law and is an adviser to the fellows enrolled in a program he created almost 30 years ago. The Israel-U.S. Civil Liberties Law Program trains Israeli and Palestinian lawyers in public interest law and then sends them back to Israel to practice what they have learned.
The program has snowballed and given vigor to the civil rights movement in Israel. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described the fellowship as “a quiet revolution” that “has changed the map of human rights in Israel.”
The idea came to Schwartz after a trip he took to Israel in 1983. “I figured I would look up people who were doing civil rights and civil liberties work as I had been doing,” he told me in his office at the Washington, D.C., school. “Turns out there were almost none. So I came back with this rather grandiose idea that we would train Israeli lawyers—Jewish and Palestinian. ... The school did something that is simply unheard of,” he continued, “which is to give me, for the program, free tuition for a fellow.” The program has since expanded to take on a second and sometimes a third student.
Whether they are promoting affordable housing, defending Negev Bedouins, litigating on behalf of the disabled, fighting the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, which prevents family reunification between Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, the 56 civil liberties program graduates are bringing what they’ve learned in the U.S. back to Israel.
Carmel Pomerantz, 28, and Samar Qudha Tannous, 38, the two fellows for the academic year 2012-13, say that because of the program, Washington has become the capital of public interest law for Israel. Washington-based nongovernmental organizations, they say, are exporting the tradition of civil rights in America to Israel, a country that, despite its own complex history, did not develop the same kind of robust social justice movement that evolved in the U.S.

It might be that Israel is so young, they say, or that the Knesset is not balanced out with state or regional powers that allow for opposition and discussion—a quality that, according to Tannous, allowed for the Little Rock, Ark.,school integration crisis to be resolved and that subsequently fueled the 1960s civil rights movement.
Although public interest law continues to grow in Israel, Schwartz, Tannous and Pomerantz acknowledge that there have been some backward steps. The displacement of Palestinians for new settlements, the Nakba Law, which allows the Israeli finance minister to cut funding from organizations that mark the country’s independence day instead as “the catastrophe,” and continuing accusations of torture—progress sometimes ends up in the shadow of new human rights abuses.
“One of the things I’ve always felt is that people who try to make things better will lose most of the time,” Schwartz says, “because it always involves taking on powerful interests and the better, as they see it, is often at their expense.”
“There’s a wonderful line in a Joan Baez song addressed to Bob Dylan” called “To Bobby,” Schwartz says, “when he gave up his social conscience stuff and went into other things telling him to ‘come back.’ And there’s a line in which she sings ‘we’re still marching in the streets with little victories and big defeats.’ ”
“If you’re trying to make change,” Schwartz says, “that’s basically the story.”
This article was made possible by the Center for Study of Responsive Law.

The Empire 936

How Would American Indians Teach US History?

Saturday, 22 June 2013 00:00By Four Arrows and Barbara MannPeter Lang Publishers | Book Excerpt
American Indian Historian.(Photo: Wikimedia)The following are excerpts fromTeaching Truly: A Curriculum to Indigenize Mainstream Education
By Four Arrows
(May, 2013 Peter Lang Publishers)
From the Preface:
Many say that public schooling is failing. The evidence offered depends upon the critic's viewpoint. Policymakers, politicians and the private education industry point to the inability of schools to meet federal mandates. Left-leaning reformers complain it is the take over of schools by corporations that defines school failure. Employers complain about job skills. Parents cry about dropout rates. Teachers refer to crumbling infrastructure and diminished finances. Students say the curricula is boring and irrelevant. On it goes. Schools are failing, but the evidence to substantiate the assertion is that life systems on Earth are at a tipping point. Schools are failing because the standards and curricula stifle even the best teachers, allowing for the harmful influences of corporatism and hegemony to continue the insanity dominating our world today. But growing numbers of teachers are ready to take control of what and how they teach in the classroom. They want practical guidelines for doing this in ways that have not been available until this book with its course specific guidelines offering both sufficient proof about educational hegemony and with clear guidelines for offering alternative and complementary lessons that can offset hegemonic influences.
It was not long ago when the U.S. government used education to harm our Indigenous neighbors to prevent the spiritual knowledge and values of Indigenous Peoples from threatening more materialistic goals. How federal education policies and common core standards today use education is not all that different, except now the same suppression of vital knowledge and values is hurting us all in ways soon revealed if not already known to the readers. As mainstream classroom teachers come to realize that standard curriculum and pedagogy have long been intended to suppress, not foster democratic ideals, they will embrace the solutions offered in this book without waiting for more school reform efforts to fail. Teaching Truly offers teachers the kind of authentic, truth-based teaching ideas most hoped they would be able to use when they first became teachers. "Partnering" mainstream curricula with Indigenous perspectives allows for such teaching. It can guide learning toward building rich, joyful relationships between diverse humans and between humans and non-human. It allows for a collaboration that can effectively counter the pitfalls of mainstream policies, politics and curriculum in ways that a more confrontational critical pedagogy alone has been unable to do.
Bruce Lipton and Steve Bhaerman write, "True sanity must face and embrace the insanity of today's world and, in the process, offer to the temporarily insane anew awareness and a pathway to achieve harmony . . . sanity is about integrating opposites rather than taking refuge in one polarity or the other" (2009, p. 195).
There is no question that the Indigenous perspectives offered here stand in stark contrast with the Western ones most readers have embraced. Yet this "partnership" between cultural assumptions about living and learning is essential in this era of crises. We are now forced to ask ourselves, "What must we do in this crucial moment as educators? Getting this book's message and practical lesson plans into classrooms is one answer. Using this handbook will significantly help education do better that which best serves joy, balance, health and justice for all.
1. In his book Theory and Resistance in Education, Henry Giroux (2001) argues that resistance is essential for authentic school reform and that studying minority values and comparing them to dominant ones is the best form of resistance. He says that this reexamination of schools must begin with a study of hegemony in the curriculum. Critical pedagogy over the years has concerned itself largely with a hegemony that is mostly oppressive of subordinate groups. Today it is the "99 percent" of the population who are beginning to realize that the goals of hegemony serve a more concentrated elite.
Excerpted from Chapter 8: United States History
With guest author, Barbara Mann
K-16 Teacher Instructions:
Adapt and use this chapter's information according to your students' ages and cognitive levels. Use it as an introduction to your standard course content or weave values,
ideas or critical reflections into it throughout the course. Encourage students to
carefully reflect on this information with the goal of deciding what mainstream ideas
are best replaced with Indigenous ones, which ones are best as they are, and how the
two might be partnered in terms of practical benefits for the students and their community (local and global). Use the questions at the end of the chapter to help with this process and to stimulate primary source research and enthusiastic, critical dialogue.
Since, in Indigenous ways of thinking, the ideas related to this subject have relevance to all the other subjects, you may want to incorporate some of this chapter's material into the study of another subject area. As with all chapters in this section, this chapter is organized as follows:
1. Corporate and Hegemonic Influences
2. Real-World Outcomes
3. Indigenous Curricular Alternatives
4. Questions for Research, Dialogue, Choices and Praxis
Indigenous Curricular Alternatives: How Indians Would Teach American History
by Barbara Alice Mann
Western scholars develop history based on war-to-war timelines, interspersed with intensive, great-man profiles. Nothing could be further from Indigenous notions of how to tell history. In the first place, Indigenous cultures assume that peace is the natural state of humanity, so war cannot be the focus. Second, particular stories belong to particular places and may be told only at particular times. Third, history consists of a set of cycles, in each of which the people learned something really important to community cohesion and survival. Fourth, Indigenous Peoples are communal and democratic, so what matters is the central event of any given cycle and how all the people fared under it, not how some elite individual distinguished himself or herself by wielding power over others. Finally, qualified Elders are listened to as they relay the many versions of each story that exists.
Each culture has its own geographical place, to which its stories are tied. The rivers that run through it, the weather, the plants, the animals, the people - everything is seen in terms of its spiritual connections to its locale. Thus, for instance, the Lenapes are called "the Grandfather Nation" because they were the first to arrive in Dawnland (the mid-Atlantic coast).
Indigenous cultures have, moreover, particular times of the year, which coincide with when particular stories are to be told. Thus the Laguna-Keres-Acoma story Kochinnenako, or Yellow Woman (Corn), is told at the change of seasons from winter to summer, which also signals the shift of civic responsibility from one half of a clan to the other. In the eastern woodlands, storytelling is not even allowed during the summer, when all the crops are being planted and tended. Everyone loves a good story, so if the Elders told stories in the farming season, everyone would stop work to listen, and nothing would get done. This is why "going ga-ga," or telling stories, is put off until harvest time.
It is interesting that settler culture in the U.S. copied the "summer is for work" notion of the woodlanders in setting up its school system. Any Indigenous teaching of history would certainly continue to respect the times of the year during which any story can be told, as well as the geographical place concepts vital to the stories.
Because the purpose of telling history is to ensure that the central lessons of the cycle at hand are understood and honored, Indigenous history would work from a consensus on what any particular story meant to the people. In this way, the Plains Peoples create what they call their "Winter Counts," officially recording the event that all agree most impacted the entire group over the previous year. Many Indigenous groups have also formal cycles covering hundreds, or even thousands, of years and comprising multiple events. Thus do the Hopi People keep "Worlds" (epochs), saying that we are today living in the Fourth World. Instead of pushing the memorization specific dates, then, Indigenous history would be clear about the cycle to which any particular story belonged and where in that cycle it fell. For instance, in the epochs of the Iroquoian tradition, the creation of the clan system occurred in the First, or Creation, Epoch, whereas invasion by the Europeans occurred in the Second, or Great Law, Epoch. As is obvious from the names, the Creation of Turtle Island, and the land life on it, was the main event of the First Epoch, whereas overthrowing oppression to create the Iroquois Constitution was the main event of the Second Epoch. Proper storytellers know the impact of all events recounted in all cycles on the people living today and make them clear. The community, not any individual, is the focus.
Cultural heroes about whom the people have many stories, such as Nanapush of the Anishinabe or Skunny Wundy of the Senecas, would be recognized as present primarily for their comic value, although small morals are also part of the stories. Some great actors, such as White Buffalo Calf Woman of the Lakotas or the United States prophet Wovoka of the Paiutes, would be mentioned, with both spiritual actors (White Buffalo Calf Woman) and human actors (Wovoka) included as real. It would, however, be the deeds of these actors, not the individuals themselves, that mattered. The impact of the deeds on the whole community, both at the time and in the present, would be emphasized over the biography of any one individual because communal peoples just do not see this or that specific individual as all important.
Biography is not an Indigenous genre.
Not everyone is viewed as qualified to tell the stories of their people, nor is only one version of an event viewed as "the one, right story." Instead, there are various recognized "Keepers" (historians) who belong to the particular lineages through which the stories have come. This is why there is always more than one version of even the most sacred traditions. Even though some versions may be generally considered better than others, all versions of a traditional story are considered simultaneously true.
This is because communal peoples work toward harmonious relations, not continual confrontation and sour spats. Everyone's point of view is respected. Consequently, Indigenous history would present all versions of every story, from all points of view, instead of imposing the view of just the most powerful or elite group on everyone.
Belonging to Elder-based cultures, Indigenous groups revere their oldest members. Youngsters do not demand stories (or anything else) from Elders. Instead, the Elders choose when and on whom to bestow a story, making the gift of history highly valuable to the recipient. Elders must be approached with great respect and humility and be asked gently to recite some of what they have "seen and heard in their travels" through life. Youngsters do not despise hearing the stories, wriggling resentfully under the telling or surreptitiously playing with their iPhones, but listen intently to comprehend what is being said. They thank their teachers when the story is done. The final exam for history, Indian-style, would evaluate the competence with which any youngster was able to repeat all versions of a story, complete with the names of the lineages through which each story came.
Thus, instead of being seen as boring, irrelevant and soon forgotten, history would be seen as a vital link to the ancestors, those that paved the way for good things and those whose mistakes offer lessons for the present. History can remind us about the spirits that continue to influence and oversee our stories. History is the opportunity for truth-seeking stories and when these stop, the people cease to exist as well.

Obama's Crimes 27

Fighting Al Qaeda by Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria: The Obama Administration is a “State Sponsor of Terrorism”

Global Research, June 19, 2013
A major transition in US counter-terrorism doctrine is unfolding.
While Barack Obama, following in the footsteps of George W. Bush, remains firmly committed to waging a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), his administration is now openly supporting selected rebel units in Syria which are part of the Al Qaeda network.
Known and documented, Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA, which has covertly supported the “Islamic Terror Network” since the heyday of the Soviet Afghan war.
While Al Qaeda is a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, a “New Normal” has been established.
An Al Qaeda affiliated organization, namely Syria’s Al Nusrah, is being supported “overtly” by the US President, rather than “covertly” by the CIA.
The support of Al Nusrah, an affiliate of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), is no longer channeled in secrecy as part of a CIA-MI6 covert operation, it is now being supported –in a semi-official fashion– as part of a US foreign policy agenda. The latter is also part of America’s diplomatic discourse, implemented in consultation with Britain, Canada, Germany and France. Although Al Nusrah was not mentioned explicitly, “support to the Syrian rebels” was the main topic of debate at the June 2013 G-8 meetings in Northern Ireland.
While intelligence covert ops continue to perform an important role, Washington’s support to Al Qaeda in Syria is now “out in the open”, within the public domain. It is no longer part of a secret undertaking. It is part of the mainstay of US foreign policy, carried out under the helm of Secretary of State John Kerry.
“Support to the rebels” is also debated in the US Congress. It is the object of a bill which has already been adopted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Corker who co-sponsored the bill stated that:
“The future for Syria is uncertain, but the U.S. has a vested interest in trying to prevent an extremist takeover, which poses a very real risk for us and the region,” (emphasis added)
In a twisted logic, the bill purports to prevent “an extremist takeover” by supporting an Al Qaeda terrorist formation.
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted 15-3 in favor of the proposed bill.
Ironically, the pro-Israeli lobby was also actively involved in lobbying in favor of aid to jihadist rebels.
Israel has supported Al Nusrah militarily in areas adjacent to the occupied territories of the Golan Heights.
Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky (left) voted against the bill, warning:
“You will be funding today the allies of al Qaeda” (quoted by RT)
Al Qaeda, Osama and “The Blowback”
Everybody knows that Al Qaeda is now directly supported by the US government.
The implications are far-reaching. Obama’s decision not only undermines the legitimacy of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), it also casts doubt on the “blowback” thesis.
Moreover, it begs the embarrassing question: Why is the US president supporting Al Nusrah, which is on the US State Department list of terrorist organizations?
The CIA refers to the so-called “blowback” thesis whereby an “intelligence asset”, (i.e. the Islamic jihad) is said to “have gone against its sponsors”; ”
The sophisticated methods taught to the Mujahideen, and the thousands of tons of arms supplied to them by the US – and Britain – are now tormenting the West in the phenomenon known as `blowback’, whereby a policy strategy rebounds on its own devisers. (The Guardian, London, September 15, 2001).
“What we’ve created blows back in our face.” The US government and the CIA are portrayed as the ill-fated victims. The CIA had been tricked by a deceitful Osama. It’s like “a son going against his father”.
While the CIA acknowledges that the late Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda, was an “intelligence asset” during the Cold War, the relationship is said to “go way back”. In the wake of 9/11, news reports would invariably dismiss these Osama-CIA links as part of the “bygone era” of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are invariably described as “irrelevant” to an understanding of the post-9/11 era:
“Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, ... Since September 11, [2001] CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden.” (Phil Gasper, International Socialist Review, November-December 2001)
Afghan Mujahideen Commanders meet with President Ronald Reagan
While the “blowback” thesis is an obvious fabrication, it has nonetheless served to provide legitimacy to the “Global War on Terrorism”. With “overt” support channeled by the US government to an Al Qaeda affiliated organization, the blowback thesis falls flat, it is no longer credible.
The evidence amply confirms that the CIA never severed its ties to the “Islamic Militant Network”. Historically, US covert support to terrorists was a safely guarded secret, unknown to the broader public. Moreover, the CIA would never channel its support directly. It would proceed through its intelligence counterparts in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Since the end of the Cold War, these covert intelligence links have not only been maintained, they have become increasingly sophisticated.
The broad political and media consensus in the wake of the 9/11 attacks was built around the blowback: Al Qaeda had attacked America.
The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) against Al Qaeda and its affiliates had been launched. Yet the evidence amply confirms that US intelligence continues to harbor several terrorist organizations which are on the US State Department’s list.
Paradoxically, covert support to the terrorists by Western intelligence agencies (including the CIA, MI6, Germany’s BND) is an essential instrument of the “Global War on Terrorism”. Namely the war on terror to protect the Homeland is waged by using US-NATO sponsored terrorists and mercenaries as foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance.
The support provided covertly to “jihadist” terrorist organizations in a large number of countries (e.g. former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Niger, Mali, Algeria, Egypt, etc.) has been used by the US-NATO alliance to destabilize sovereign states.
Obama and Al Nusrah. The “State Sponsors of Terrorism”
Al Qaeda was identified as the mastermind of the 911 attacks on the World Trade Center Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 was immediately identified as a “state sponsor of terrorism” leading to the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan by US and NATO forces on October 7, 2001. In turn, a gamut of counterterrorism legislation and executive orders were put in place in the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Executive Order 13224, signed by President George W. Bush on September 23, 2001 “authorizes the seizure of assets of organizations or individuals designated by the Secretary of the Treasury to assist, sponsor, or provide material or financial support or who are otherwise associated with terrorists.” (Sept. 23, 2001).
The US Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act 2001, signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The legislation was in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, which allegedly had been perpetrated by Al Qaeda.
According to the 2001 Patriot Act, those “who pay for the bomb“, namely those who fund affiliates of Al Qaeda, are terrorists. In the words of George W. Bush on September 11, 2001, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
The Act pertains to the harboring and financing of terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are defined in the PATRIOT Act as a terror network. Persons and organizations which support or abet Al Qaeda are considered as terrorists.
The forbidden question: Does the substance of Executive order 13224 and the PATRIOT legislation quoted above apply to a US president, a Secretary of State, a Member of the US Congress?
The Department of Justice “has prosecuted individuals and organizations for providing material support to the terrorist organization, while the Department of Treasury has frozen the assets of dozens of terrorist financiers and networks.” (See Council on Foreign Relations)
Similar measures, including the freezing of assets or organizations supportive of terrorism, were adopted in the European Union. “Since 2007, Britain’s Ministry of Finance has frozen the assets (PDF) of hundreds of individuals and organizations connected to al-Qaeda via its Asset Freezing Unit.” (Ibid)
National governments which provide support to Al Qaeda are categorised as “State-sponsors of terrorism”.
The designation is determined by the US State Department. In fact, the Secretary of State, namely John Kerry has the authority “to determine that the government of such country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” (State Department List), See also theCounterterrorism Bureau)
Barack Obama and John Kerry: Are They “Terror Suspects”?
Now let us examine in more detail the Al Nusrah Front, which constitutes the main rebel fighting force in Syria. Al Nusrah is affiliated to Al Qaeda. The leader of Al Nusra, Abu Mohammad al-Golani, has pledged his allegiance to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who replaced Osama bin Laden after his death.
According to the State Department Bureau of Counter-terrorism, Jabhat al Nusrah, the main rebel force in Syria is a terrorist organization, an affiliate of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).
The State Department has issued a “prohibition against knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front, and the freezing of all property and interests in property of the organization that are in the United States, or come within the United States or the control of U.S. persons.” (emphasis added).
It is understood that US State Department Counter-terrorism policy also applies to “state sponsors of terrorism”.
Al Nusrah is financed by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel in close consultation with NATO and the Pentagon.
The Obama administration has openly confirmed its support for the Syrian rebels with most of this aid channeled to Al Nusrah.
The PATRIOT Act “prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses”.
Moreover, an entire gamut of executive orders as well as the 2001 Patriot legislation prohibit “the harboring of terrorists”.
According to the US Justice Department:
The Patriot Act imposed tough new penalties on those who commit and support terrorist operations, both at home and abroad.” The terror threat emanates both from “the terrorist who pays for a bomb as by the one who pushes the button”.
According to the Patriot legislation, those “who pay for the bomb”, namely funding affiliates of Al Qaeda, constitutes a terrorist act.
In other words, the Obama administration and its allies are harboring a terror organization which is on the US State department list.
In this regard, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry could be held responsible for “knowingly providing, or attempting or conspiring to provide, material support or resources to, or engaging in transactions with, al-Nusrah Front”:
“The [PATRIOT] Act created a new offense that prohibits knowingly harboring persons who have committed or are about to commit a variety of terrorist offenses”, yet the Obama administration is openly supporting a terrorist entity, in violation of its own counter-terrorism legislation.
Media Complicity
According to CNN, quoting intelligence sources, Al Nusrah is “the best-equipped arm of the terror group” in Syria, with an estimated 10,000 forces. Where do they get their money and weapons? CNN does not provide any details as to Why Al Nusrah is the best equipped, in relation to the various so-called moderate rebels factions, which from a military standpoint are broadly inoperative.
How many of these Al Nusrah forces remain operative following the government’s counteroffensive remains to be established.
Ironically, this latest CNN report (June 18, 2013 suggests that the rebels rather than the government have chemical weapons in their possession:
“They [Al Nusrah] are making desperate attempts to get chemical weapons,” the analyst told CNN, noting that in the past few weeks, security services in Iraq and Turkey arrested [Al Nusrah] operatives who were “trying to get their hands on sarin.”
In relation to the later, Turkish Police confirmed that the arrested Al Nusrah operative was in possession of sarin gas.
CNN contradicts its own reports. The same CNN article which intimated that the rebels were “attempting to get” chemical weapons, makes the case for “arming the rebels”:
The Obama administration announced last week that it will start arming rebels because Syria crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons — including sarin gas — against the opposition.
The development is likely to be at the center of the Group of Eight summit in Northern Ireland on Monday, setting a riveting backdrop to the meeting after Syria’s longtime ally Russia said the move supports “those who kill their enemies and eat their organs.”
…Obama has not detailed the increased military support, but Washington officials told CNN that the plan includes providing small arms, ammunition and possibly anti-tank weapons to the rebels.
The Broader Implications of Obama’s Support of Al Nusrah

The blowback thesis is now defunct. The US has never ceased to support Al Qaeda. These terrorist organizations were created by US intelligence and supported by Washington. The blowback thesis is refuted not only by Obama’s “overt support” of Al Nusrah but also with regard to the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an Al Qaeda affiliate, which was directly supported by NATO from the outset of the insurgency and Libya bombing campaign in 2011.
The “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) has become an increasingly fragile concept. Waging a “War on Terrorism” with the active participation of an Al Qaeda affiliated organization constitutes an obvious fallacy, a big lie, a non sequitur.
The propaganda and media disinformation campaign behind the “Global War on Terrorism” has also entered a dead alley. Going after the terrorists by supporting the terrorists? Will the American public support a government which funnels billions of tax dollars to a terrorist organization as a means to “combating terrorism”?
The Pentagon’s post-911 military doctrine is predicated on the “Global War on Terrorism”. It is a consensus within US military. It is used in the recruitment, training and indoctrination of US forces.
Will American servicemen and women accept to swallow the big lie and fight in what visibly constitutes a fake “war on terrorism”.
The Criminalisation of the US State
President Obama’s “overt” support to Syria’s Al Qaeda rebels “opens up a can of worms”.
How are we to categorize an American President who says he is committed to fighting Al Qaeda, while at the same time supporting Al Qaeda?
The entire Homeland Security doctrine tumbles like a deck of cards.
The US government is in blatant violation of its own counter-terrorism legislation.

Order Directly from Global Research

America’s “War on Terrorism”

Michel Chossudovsky

originalIn this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”. Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.
The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.
According to Chossudovsky, the “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.
September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.
Also available other formats
For PDF format, click here
For Kindle edition, click to visit
Special: America’s “War on Terrorism” + Globalization of Poverty (Buy 2 books for 1 price!)
Copyright © 2013 Global Research

Forward email


Here are the highlights from the FAIR Blog this week.
Your efforts help us get the word out! Please consider forwarding this email and sharing these stories on FacebookTwitter and other social media outlets.

If this message is forwarded to you and you are not on FAIR's email list, please sign uphere!

    Fair Blog

PVDA steunt Zionistische Terreur 6

Netanyahu die nooit het Oslo Akkoord heeft geaccepteerd en minister Timmermans. Terrorist en terroristenvriend. Van Netanyahu kreeg Timmermans te horen wat het Nederlandse standpunt moest zijn ten aanzien van mogelijke EU-sancties tegen de Joodse staat.

Het Palestijnse dorp Nahalin dat door de omliggende illegale Joodse nederzettingen bijna volledig van de buitenwereld is afgesloten, rechts ervan het land van Daoud Nassar.

Nu de PVDA als regeringspartij doorgaat met het mogelijk maken van de zionistische terreur tegen de Palestijnse bevolking zal ik de komende tijd een voorbeeld geven van een tamelijk willekeurige slachtoffer van deze sociaaldemocratische steun. Afgelopen zondag bezocht ik samen studenten die zich specialiseren in het internationaal humanitair recht, het Palestijnse dorp Nahalin. Ik sprak daar met Daoud Nassar.

Daoud Nassar is een christelijke Palestijn uit Bethlehem die boven het Palestijnse dorp Nahalin vruchtbaar landbouwland heeft met olijfbomen, druivenranken, fruit- en vruchtbomen. De 43-jarige bedrijfskundige, landbouwer en Lutheraans vredesactivist leidde ons rond over zijn land dat op 950 meter hoogte ligt en waar vandaan men bij helder weer de Israëlische stad Ashkelon en de glinsterende Middellandse Zee kan zien. Sinds eind jaren tachtig wordt het grondgebied van Nassar, die eigenaar is van 40 hectare land, steeds verder ingesloten door illegale Joodse nederzettingen op de bezette Westbank. Hoewel hij met officiële documenten uit zowel de Ottomaanse periode als uit de tijd van het Britse mandaat tegenover Israelische rechters heeft aangetoond dat hij de rechtmatige eigenaar van de grond is, wordt hij al decennialang door zowel de zionistische overheid, Israëlische militairen als Joodse kolonisten permanent geïntimideerd en zelfs geterroriseerd. Zo werden tenminste 250 olijfbomen op zijn land omgezaagd in een poging hem te verdrijven. Bovendien worden hij en de bewoners van Nahalin bedreigd door gewapende Joodse fundamentalistische extremisten, die plotseling in de lucht beginnen te schieten. Op die manier proberen ze het leven van de Palestijnse burgers tot zo’n hel te maken dat zij zich gedwongen zien te verdwijnen. Gedocumenteerd tonen de woorvoerders van Palestijnse mensenrechtenorganisaties als Ensan, Badil, Defence for Children International, Addameer, Al Haq dat de ‘stille etnische zuivering’ van bezet Palestijns gebied onverminderd doorgaat. En dit gebeurt zowel via de dagelijkse zionistische terreur in bezet gebied als door officiele confiscatie van hun land. Nadat intimidatie en terreur in het geval van Daoud Nassar niet had gewerkt verschenen op een dag zionistische afgevaardigden op zijn land om hem een blanco cheque aan te bieden. Hij mocht zelf het bedrag invullen wat hij voor zijn grond wilde hebben. Nassar wees het aanbod vriendelijk maar resoluut af en legde de Joodse Israeli’s uit dat zijn land onbetaalbaar was om de simpele reden dat het zijn hele bestaan omvat en dat van zijn familie die hier al zo lang leeft. Hij is hier in een grot geboren, het zweet van zijn grootvader heeft hier de vruchtbare grond besprenkeld. Dit gebied was alles dat hij bezit, zijn ziel is aan het land verbonden. God heeft geen bezwaar gehad dat hij hier leeft. Waarom zouden de zionisten dan bezwaar kunnen hebben? Hij doet niemand kwaad, hij is zelfs een christelijke vredesactivist wiens familie eeuwenlang vreedzaam met Joden heeft samengewoond, tot in 1947 de gewelddadige etnische zuiveringen begonnen onder leiding van de zionistische aartsvader Ben Gurion en zijn militairen. 

De Palestijnse vredesactivist Daoud Nassar voor een mozaiek van een Palestijn en een Jood die vreedzaam naast elkaar leven.

Morgen meer over Daoud Nassar. U kunt alvast hier meer achtergrond informatie over hem en zijn familie lezen, waardoor u een indruk zult krijgen van zijn situatie, en duidelijk zal worden dat de PVDA-minister Timmermans terreur steunt.

Daoud Nassar

Daoud Nassar toont schilderingen van zijn vader, grootvader en oom in de vroegere woonruimte van zijn ouders en grootouders op het land van de 'Tent of Nations'. December 2011.
"We refuse to be enemies": tekst op de grenssteen van 'Tent of Nations',gericht op Israëlische settlers in de omgeving om hen af te houden van het aanrichten van vernielingen. December 2011.
Toegang tot de ondergrondse gebedsruimte van de 'Tent of Nations' bij Bethlehem in een opnieuw uitgegegraven herdersgrot. December 2011.
Daoud Nassar (Beit Jala18 oktober 1970) is een Palestijnse bedrijfskundige en landbouwerLutheraans vredesactivist en oprichter en directeur van het vredesproject "Tent of Nations ", ten zuidwesten van Bethlehem. Nassar is getrouwd met de docente computerwetenschappen Jihan Hawwash. Het echtpaar heeft drie kinderen. Daoud Nassar is een zoon van de christelijke Palestijnse boer Bishara Nassar († 1976). Hij wordt geïnspireerd door de geweldloosheid van Mahatma Ghandi enMartin Luther King. Zijn familiebezit ligt negen mijl ten zuidwesten van Bethlehem.



Jeugd en opleiding[bewerken]

Nassar bracht zijn jeugd door in Bethlehem. Hij deed in 1989 zijn eindexamen aan de Evangelisch-Lutherse school Talitha Kumi in Beit Jala. Door persoonlijke contacten van een leraar kon hij zijn middelbare schoolopleiding doen aan de Bijbelschool Schloss Klaus in Oostenrijk, hij deed in 1991 eindexamen in Kirchdorf an der Krems. Daarna keerde hij terug naar Palestina, studeerde bedrijfskunde aan de University of Bethlehem en voltooide die met een Master. Na eerst een jaar in Bethlehem gewerkt te hebben, voltooide hij in 1997/1998 aan de University of Applied Sciences in Bielefeldeen postgraduaat "International Tourism Management". Sinds zijn schooltijd heeft Nassar zich intensief beziggehouden met jeugdwerk en nam deel aan verschillende uitwisselingsprogramma's. Hij was coördinator van het Zweedse project "Youth Action Plan for Human Rights" in Bethlehem. Hij werkte beroepsmatig in het toerisme voor pelgrims in de Lutherse Kerk in Bethlehem. Sinds september 2000 is hij directeur van de "Tent of Nations" en organiseert internationale bijeenkomsten voor jongeren op het oude boerenbedrijf van zijn familie. Ze werken er mee bij de aanplant, de verzorging van het terrein en de oogst. Daoud Nasser houdt wereldwijd lezingen en verzamelt fondsen voor zijn project en organiseert er culturele en religieuze evenementen. Daoud Nasser en zijn medewerkers hebben oude, ondergrondse herdersgrotten opnieuw uitgegraven, en er waterbassins, ontmoetingsruimten en een kapel in aangelegd. Hij heeft zijn hele project voorzien van eigen zonne-energie en eigen afvalverwerking.

"Tent of Nations"[bewerken]

"Tent of Nations" ziet zich als symbool van christelijk pacifisme en wil uitgroeien tot een ontmoetingscentrum en een belangrijke alternatieve pelgrimsplaats in de Palestijnse bezette gebieden, vooral voor jonge mensen. Elk jaar slaan veelal christelijke jongerengroepen uit Europa hun tenten op in de "Tent of Nations" om mee te werken in de keuken, de winkel, het kantoor, en bij de verzorging van het land en de dieren. Nassar stelt zich daarbij tot doel om vrede en begrip tussen mensen uit verschillende landen en culturen te bewerkstelligen. Hij ontvangt daarom steeds vaker nieuwsgierige Israëlische groepen, soms ook uit de omringende plaatsen. Bij de ingang van zijn terrein heeft hij een grenssteen opgericht met de tekst: “Wij weigeren vijanden te zijn”. Onder het juridische eigendom van het "Bethlehem Bible College", hebben Daoud Nassar en zijn Palestijnse projectmanagers een beschermingscomité opgericht, dat er sinds 2000 voor moet zorgen dat dit internationale vredeskamp verder kan worden ontwikkeld. Thans wordt "Tent of Nations" gesteund door vriendengroepen over de hele wereld.
"Tent of Nations" heeft ook een plaatselijke opbouwfunctie. Regelmatig verblijft er bijvoorbeeld een groep van ongeveer 30 christelijke Palestijnse jongeren van 16 tot 30 jaar, die opgoeien in de door muren en checkpoints afgesloten steden Bethlehem, Beit Sahur en Beit Jala. Door mee te werken op het land, leren de jongeren dat hun stad ook nog een omgeving kent, waar zij historisch in geworteld zijn. Een ander educatief project betreft ontmoetingen tussen christelijke en moslimjongeren, de laatsten veelal nakomelingen van Palestijnse vluchtelingen die tijdens de Nakba in 1948 en de Zesdaagse Oorlog in 1967 door de Israeli waren verdreven en er zich als afzonderlijke groep in en om het toen nog bijna geheel christelijke Bethlehem hadden gevestigd.

Dreigende confiscatie[bewerken]

Op 14 februari 2012 werd de familie Nassar bezocht door de Civil Administration, het Israëlische bestuursorgaan dat op de Westelijke Jordaanoever opereert. De Civil Administration is een onderdeel van een grotere entiteit, bekend als Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), die een eenheid is van het ministerie van defensie van Israël. De Civil Administration heeft bij de familie Nassar de boodschap achtergelaten dat de zij 'illegaal' aanwezig zou zijn op het land waar zij wonen. Daoud Nassar kreeg 45 dagen om in beroep te gaan. De Nederlandse kerkelijke organisatie "Kerk in Actie" riep op om de familie Nassar te steunen en voor ze te bidden.[1] Tot nu toe heeft Daoud Nassar zijn zaak tot op het niveau van het Israëlisch Hoog Gerechtshof gewonnen.


Daoud Nassar is al voor verschillende vredesprijzen genomineerd en ontving in 2007 in Rottenburg am Neckar de “Michael Sattler Peace Prize” van het Duitse doopsgezinde Peace Committee.

Externe link[bewerken]

Bronnen, noten en/of referenties

In de grot waar de familie Nassar woonde met portretten van zijn voorvaderen
 die hier al tijdens de Ottomaanse tijd het land bezaten en bewerkten

Yeats: The Wheel

The Wheel THROUGH winter-time we call on spring, And through the spring on summer call, And when abounding hedges ring Declare that winter&#...