A litany of US war crimes exposed

A US watchdog group called ‘the Constitution Project‘ (TCP) has just released the most detailed and revealing report on US torture practices so far.

“Perhaps the most important or notable finding of this panel is that it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture.”

The report details systemic use of torture and other human rights abuses by successive US administrations, particularly since year 2001. It can be downloaded in full here:

http://detaineetaskforce.org/pdf/Full-Report.pdf

In the introductory ‘Statement of the Task Force’ the authors state:

The Task Force examined court cases in which torture was deemed to have occurred both inside and outside the country and, tellingly, in instances in which the United States has leveled the charge of torture against other governments. The United States may not declare a nation guilty of engaging in torture and then exempt itself from being so labeled for similar if not identical conduct.

The second notable conclusion of the Task Force is that the nation’s highest officials bear some responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of torture.

“The most important element may have been to declare that the Geneva Conventions, a venerable instrument for ensuring humane treatment in time of war, did not apply to Al Qaeda and Taliban captives in Afghanistan or Guantánamo. The administration never specified what rules would apply instead.

The other major factor was President Bush’s authorization of brutal techniques by the CIA for selected detainees.”

“The CIA also created its own detention and interrogation facilities — at several locations in Afghanistan, and even more secretive “black sites” in Thailand, Poland, Romania and Lithuania, where the highest value captives were interrogated.”

By the end of 2002, at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, interrogators began routinely depriving detainees of sleep by means of shackling them to the ceiling. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld later approved interrogation techniques in Guantánamo that included sleep deprivation, stress positions, nudity, sensory deprivation and threatening detainees with dogs. Many of the same techniques were later used in Iraq.

The Task Force report also includes important new details of the astonishing account — first uncovered by Human Rights Watch — of how some U.S. authorities used the machinery of the “war on terror” to abuse a handful of Libyan Islamists involved in a national struggle against Libyan dictator Muammar el-Gaddafi, in an effort to win favor with el-Gaddafi’s regime. The same Libyans suddenly became allies as they fought with NATO to topple el-Gaddafi a few short years later.

The U.S. military, learning from its experience, has vastly improved its procedures for screening captives and no longer engages in large-scale coercive interrogation techniques. Just as importantly, the regime of capture and detention has been overtaken by technology and supplanted in large measure by the use of drones. If presumed enemy leaders — high-value targets — are killed outright by drones, the troublesome issues of how to conduct detention and interrogation operations are minimized and may even become moot.

Make your own judgement! Seems to me, one of the most abusive and barbaric regimes in the world, is the one that points the finger of torture accusations at others. By projecting its own evil onto its intended targets, it then ‘gets away’ with war crime after war crime.

NATO terrorism rages on while Boston occupies headlines

Just ten days ago, 11 Afghan children between the ages of 1 and 8 years-old were murdered and 7 women were injured by NATO terrorists in the Shigal district of Kunar province.

 Image

Photo: Huffington post

No one really knows or even appears to care much what the actual numbers were. Al Jazeera reported these numbers. One single AJ article was published stating the Afghan ‘president’ (!) had ‘strongly condemned’ the air strike, and then added ‘while condemning the use of civilians as shields by the Taliban’. So NATO terrorism and their regular cold-blooded murder of Afghan children is really the ‘Taliban’s fault’, and that’s it. NATO, meanwhile said that they were ‘aware of the operation’; and were ‘gathering information to determine what happened’. End of story!

But the same Al Jazeera has run at least five reports and opinion pieces so far on the Boston bombing of just 2 days ago.

The Huffington Post quoted a local ‘tribal elder’ as saying “I don’t think that they knew that all these children and women were in the house because they were under attack from the house and they were shooting at the house”. So there we have it, all is whitewashed and forgotten about NATO terrorism. Obviously not NATO’s fault!

But the report also goes on: “An airstrike in the same district in Kunar that killed 10 civilians in mid-February prompted Karzai to ban his forces from requesting airstrikes.” And, “There are about 100,000 international troops currently in Afghanistan, including 66,000 from the United States.”

The question of why one hundred thousands of NATO terrorists are in occupation of Afghanistan is not even raised.

The Washington Post initially gave the ‘incident’ just 4 paragraphs, amounting to 6 sentences in all. No photos, no names of the children, and no remorse whatsoever. And then another ‘report’ appeared on the ‘airstrike’, one that appears to mimic the Huffington story word for word.

This is a hallmark of how the terrorists’ own media handle such ‘stories’. And no surprise here, for the source of all these stories is the same: Associated Press. That’s how the ‘free’ media of terrorists operate to control and wash the message of its true ugliness with no alternative narratives.

Do a search on the AP website for Afghanistan, and what you get is three stories on a US soldier returning home with no limbs, one on another US terrorist soldier receiving a medal of honour, plus a hodgepodge of pdf files on AP’s own ‘best stories’ or photos of the year in Afghanistan. Not a word about Afghan people.

Scratch the surface, and yet more ugly truths about NATO terror appear: Another report describes a NATO terror attack in the same location (Shigar) on 13 February this year, killing 10 Afghan women and children in 2 houses at 10 pm when families are usually gathered at home.

Yet another NATO terrorist attack (euphemistically and tragically reported as ‘an airstrike’ by the ‘free’ media serving the cause of their terrorist masters) killed two Afghan civilians and 4 policemen 2 weeks ago (4 April), this time in the Deh Yak district of Ghazni province. The dead were nowhere near any fighting.

The same report attributes 316 civilian deaths and 271 wounded to US and NATO terrorists in Afghanistan in 2012. These are the NATO terrorists’ own figures. One wonders what the truth of the matter might be.

On March 2 this year, NATO terrorists ‘accidently’ shot 2 Afghan boys, according to another Huffington report, this time in the southern province of Uruzgan. “They saw two young children who were apparently listening to a radio and they shot them – it is not yet clear why,” a spokesman for the provincial governor said. “Australian forces deployed in Uruzgan said earlier there had been an “operational incident” in the province’s northwest but gave no details except that no soldiers were harmed.”

Yes, no details, just an ‘operational incident’, no doubt involving ‘collateral damage’.

NATO terrorism in Afghanistan is not limited to aerial bombardment of civilians. They also routinely engage in torture of prisoners. Just like US and British soldiers routinely used torture in Iraq, the same has been going on in Afghanistan since the early days of the US/NATO terror campaign that started in Afghanistan in 2001.

While the International Committee of the Red Cross report on Afghanistan has not been leaked like it was in the case of Iraq, NATO terrorists investigating themselves found ‘No Evidence of Torture’. But the clues to the truth have always been there.

It is time to ask: what are the NATO terror campaigns in Afghanistan really in aid of?

Why are there 100,000 foreign troops in occupation of the country after 12 years of a relentless, barbaric war?

Could it be that it is precisely to avoid answering such important questions that a relatively minor attack in Boston is given so much attention?

Perhaps one should ask about NATO’s military industrial complex and its interest in maintaining war for profits.

Perhaps one should talk about the CIA’s global narcotic drugs industry funding its clandestine, destabilising operations.

What can help us relate to each other better?

Image

Human society – everywhere and anywhere almost – is increasingly mixed and diverse. Global trade and production systems are more and more interlinked and human migration has intensified.

Communications beam ‘foreign’ messages and ideas to and from the remotest corners of the world, and every ‘culture’ is tainted and every worldview is challenged.

People can no longer fall back on their warm and safe identities and norms, passed down by their ancestors and recorded history, cultural contents included.

There is a general sense of disorientation among many of us. And those who do not share this experience are almost certainly living on borrowed time for their turn is surely coming.

The balance is gone, as if the rug were pulled from under our feet when we were not looking. Our individual and/or communal identities have gradually evaporated.

Does anyone know what they ‘believe in’ anymore? And those who do, can they honestly claim to belong to a sizeable community of ‘believers’ with no hidden agenda to their beliefs?

Whereas once cultural divisions (on a macro level) were drawn along religious or philosophical worldviews, today a new ‘secular’ divide is thrown in the mix. God, of whatever form, even in the form of atheism, no longer helps as a social unifier.

Even in countries with religiously defined political systems, there is no comfort in the definition made. If anything, segregation and discord are their hallmarks. At best, such countries only barely manage to tolerate minorities or immigrants unless they are of the ‘desired’ type.

A political project to define a religious national identity with such rigour invariably starts from a defensive position in the first place, but ends up building walls around itself and its religion. It therefore becomes exclusive and ‘supremacist’ – that which it was designed to resist.

Similarly, societies that opened their doors to large inflows of migrants with ‘tolerance’ and ‘multiculturalism’ as their mantras, have found themselves in shock once confronted with the growing chasm among discordant cultures after several generations of immigrants.

An economic need for foreign labour and skills has not translated into a happy union despite the hosts’ well intentioned ‘tolerance’ of the foreigners’ otherness.  It turns out that ‘tolerance’ does not really work, for it presupposes cultural superiority by the hosts, and a willingness by the migrants to succumb to the dominant culture, peacefully and dutifully. Apparently, they didn’t want to ‘integrate’ (or even assimilate) as much as expected.

Perhaps it is time to stop focussing on ‘cultures’ and grand ‘identities’ so much? Perhaps there is no need for grand definitions. After all, it is not clear whose purpose such definitions serve other than divide us.

For sure there is a need for us to share something with our neighbours and fellow citizens – something that gives us a sense of belonging and comfort in our social setting. But why does this have to be so broad or grand as a belief in a religion or no god?

Why does our sense of belonging have to encompass a whole country more than our neighbourhood or town where we actually live? Similar to our genetic makeup, cultural and political differences within a country can be larger than across borders or even continents.

So what is it that can help us relate to each other better? Surely the answer is in our shared values – whatever these may be.

Whether or not god exists, and whether or not we admire country X, and whether or not we were born in the same town, we can certainly respect each other in sharing and agreeing on certain values such as integrity and mutual respect. We can share the value of being non-judgemental and non-interfering, for example.

We do not have to like someone’s religion or dress code  – and most of us honestly don’t like most people’s choices in these matters – but we can still like them as people who will respect our rights.

And this is a far simpler effort than many would assume.

Some readers at this point will scream: ‘But this is exactly what multiculturalism is about, and it’s not worked!

Alas, multiculturalism has not even tried this yet.

For shared values to be identified and adhered to, there has to be no hierarchy of cultures or grand belief systems.

Secularism and religiosity would have to share an equal footing in principle.

‘Tolerance’ would have be treated like an ‘F’ word for its condescension. So would ‘integration’.

Society would have to be seen as a mosaic of ever evolving and mutating cultures, rather than ‘multicultural’.

Everyone would have to be allowed to live, and would be expected to let live.

Minorities would not be rejected or targeted. The human right to self-determination would be universally respected or otherwise enforced.

So why have multicultural societies not embarked on such a project in a serious manner? Why aren’t our shared values openly celebrated and used to heal social fissures?

Certainly a society that recognises all its cultural components as equals is a more equal society. Perhaps this was never the aim in the first place?

A culturally harmonious society would in the first place not be structured to use immigrant labour as cheap labour.

It would not place women or immigrants in lower paid jobs, and it would not have any second class citizens.

A culturally egalitarian society would not have privileged ‘representatives’ making decisions on behalf of the people.

Its schools would be governed locally with local citizens involved in the decision-making process, designing curricula, teaching religion and secularism equally, covering all areas of knowledge with fairness and impartiality.

It would not drill racial and cultural superiority into students’ brains.

It would involve all citizens in most votes en masse rather than strip them of that power and responsibility by ‘delegating’ to a ‘representative’.

It is therefore the system of governance itself that glorifies competition over cooperation, and builds its economy on exploitation of easily exploitable groups.

In the final analysis, it is the class system of exploitation that needs and shapes multiculturalism to fail – and with it, our chances of living more harmoniously with each other.

An illegitimate romance: a CIA-MOSSAD-Al Qaeda threesome

An interesting point about Salafi jihadists — such as Al Qaeda — is that at the same time as they have declared Israel, USA and the Shia sect of Islam as “enemies of Islam’, their actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria have been consistently in service of US, Israeli and Saudi ‘interests’.

iran-next

In September 2001, ‘Al Qaeda attacks’ against the US mainland (9/11) provided the US with the ‘Pearl Harbour’ moment that Cheney and Rumsfeld had pined for back in September 2000 when they published “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century“.

In a chapter entitled ‘Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force’, the publication states:

“Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade…Further, the process of [technological] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.“ (pp 50-51)

The document was produced by a ‘Think Tank’ (more like a ‘Think WMD’) established in 1997 with the name: Project for the New American Century or PNAC. It would be no exaggeration to say that PNAC’s vision for the 21st Century was fully reflected in its name.  

Members of this “Think Tank’ included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton, all of whom were noisily pushing for regime change in Iraq during the Bill Clinton presidency in the 1990s, and all of whom were members of the Bush Administration.

Not only did the US bomb Taleban-led Afghanistan deeper into the stone age eagerly and remorselessly in 2001 and at the same time established a ‘strong’ military presence in the country, it went ahead and demolished Iraq starting in 2003 on the pretext of destroying weapons that Iraq did not possess.  

Al Qaeda and the Taleban consequently strengthened their own support base in Afghanistan, and on top that spread their influence deeper into Pakistan. Al Qaeda then established a stronghold in Iraq in tandem with the 2003 US invasion of the country. Similarly, Al Qaeda moved into Libya, riding on the back of a NATO bombing campaign in 2011.

Al Qaeda had no presence or any meaningful influence in either Iraq or Libya before the US and NATO wars there. 

Today, Al Qaeda, under the name of “Jabhat ul-Nusra‘, has got itself a firm foothold in Syria, while devouring its infrastructure and destroying its wealth and resources. Their cultural fascism is winning in Syria, and, as an example, Homs has already been ethnically cleansed of its Christians, at a 90% rate.

The violent destruction of non-subservient regimes in Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011) was certainly no loss to US, Israeli and Saudi ‘interests’, or at least it seemed so before the outcomes were known, especially in Iraq, where Iran emerged as a clear winner of the war without firing a single shot. 

After the loss of Iraq and an unclear outcome in Libya, the Saudis, Israelis and Americans would certainly love to see Iran (and Russia) lose a strong ally in Syria. At this juncture, Al Qaeda certainly helps their short-term geopolitical ’cause’.

While it is not suggested that there is any evidence for direct collusion between these parties, it is quite likely that Al Qaeda, including Al Nusra mercenaries in Syria, is infiltrated by CIA and MOSSAD agents, and manipulated into the required direction with full Saudi intelligence support. This has been standard operating procedure for both the CIA (for example in infiltrating Hezbollah) and MOSSAD (for example in the recent case of Prisoner X). And Saudi Arabia, is the original home of Al Qaeda, and the birthplace of Salafism.

And it is precisely the Saudi Salafi Jihadists who represent the most potent internal challenge to the Saudi regime, as Salafi ideology can only accept an Islamic state led by a supreme religious as well as political leader known as a ‘Caliph’ ruling over all Muslim lands. What better way for the Saudi monarchs to deal with such an internal threat than to pay them to fight for years to overthrow various foreign foes such as Qaddafi or Assad? This strategy has the added ‘advantage’ of getting many of the same Salafi Jihadists killed in the process: two birds killed with one stone, and never mind the cart full of ‘collateral damage’ in a foreign land.  

And all the while, US hegemony is ‘maintained’ as the ‘true religion’ of this unholy alignment of ‘interests’ raining death on the region. 

Rather ironically, this rain of death is precisely the reason why this ‘axis of convenience’ is gradually but surely losing influence in the region, including for the US’ traditional allies, as the events of the past few years clearly show: 

– Iran continues to grow in influence and stature, resisting all sanctions and other machinations;

– Saudi citizens are increasingly demanding reforms and uneasy about their country’s subservient and destructive role in the region;

– Israel has lost all control of events in its neighbourhood, and is laden with a bomb-cartoonist Prime Minister who was publicly forced to apologize to Turkey by the US recently (unprecedented in Israel’s short history);

– Yemen has been plunged into long-term chaos;

– Bahrain’s oppressive regime has been exposed to the world;

– Jordan’s monarch has become a source of embarrassment to all of his own allies and paymasters, and looks increasingly weaker against Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood;

– Egypt has drifted toward a more independent role with a Muslim Brotherhood government that is clearly at odds with the Persian Gulf’s Arab monarchies as well as Salafi Jihadists;

– Tunisia and Morocco too have moved toward greater independence;

– Turkey has lost a great deal of its credibility on the Arab Street through its warmongering actions against Libya and Syria; and

– Libya has plunged into chaos following the 2011 NATO bombing campaign that ousted Qaddafi. 

The fall in US credibility and influence is clearly tangible at a time of economic troubles for the not-so-super power today, as shown in the latest Arab public opinion polls.

 In the longer-term, the US and its allies will have to contend with a growing band of Salafi Jihadists looking for more wars against their stated enemies, namely USA and Israel, as well as the Shia. By the time they finish with Syria, they will be even more battle-hardened and perhaps even emboldened. And their numbers may grow larger, as repeated cycles of war, economic stagnation and growing poverty in the region will provide them with yet more fodder.

As far as the Salafi Jihadists are concerned, the longer-term interests of Iran, Israel, Syria and USA are currently aligned. It is surprising that there is no apparent cooperation in this area. The only real obstacle that seems to be in the way, is the American and Israeli determination to act like regional hegemons in Iran’s backyard. This is simply unacceptable to Iran.

Why Syria’s militias may implode

There are signs of significant rifts among Syrian militias trying to overthrow Assad.

This is particularly the case with the 2 main Islamic groups: On the one hand there is the ‘Jabhat al-Nusra‘ militia (hereafter referred to as ‘Nusra’) who are Salafist jihadists backed by Saudi and Qatari funds and political support, and closely linked to Al Qaeda and the Taleban.

Welcome to 'free' Aleppo - eight year old child sodier
Photo: 8 year-old child soldier in ‘free’ Aleppo

Nusra fighters are among the fiercest and regularly use suicide bombings as standard operating procedure. A large part of this force is foreign, and includes mercenaries for hire from previous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They are highly effective fighters, and constitute one of the most important ‘rebel’ factions. Information on their numbers is scant.

However, this group has no other aim than to grab power for the sake of establishing a fundamentalist Salafist state. Their level of intolerance for any form of pluralism is demonstrated by their atrocities across the previously mentioned countries’ wars. They are extremely dangerous to any Syrian who is not a Salafist, and in the main they tend to come from Saudi Arabia.

The irony of having non-Syrian mercenaries who are dedicated to the establishment of a pan-Islamic Caliphate acting as the ‘lead force’ in ‘fighting for democracy and freedom’ in ‘Syria’ has yet to be appreciated in full by various observers.

The other major Islamic group of fighters in Syria are the ‘Al-Farouq Brigades‘ that are more Syrian in character, and backed up by the Muslim Brotherhood, closely aligned with Egypt. They are said to have emerged from the city of Homs, which has been a hotbed of opposition to the Assad family for decades – similar to Ben Ghazi’s case against Qaddafi in Libya.

Not surprisingly, the first defectors from the Syrian army (such as Lt. Tlass) came from Homs. The numbers of their fighters are likely to be substantial, but unknown. Their funding also comes from Saudi and Qatari sources, but also the West.

The Al Farouq Brigades are said to be more ‘moderate’ than the Salafist Nusra group. However, it is reported that 90% of Christians in the city of Homs have already left following the takeover of the city by the Farouq brigades.

Signs of a rift between the two main Islamic fighter groups emerged on 9 January 2013 when the leader of the Farouq Brigade’s northern command was shot dead on the Syria-Turkey border.

This killing was apparently due to his alleged involvement in the murder of a Nusra commander by the name of Firas al-Absi in September 2012.

Later again in March 2013 a firefight apparently took place in the northeast between the two groups over the detention of some Al Farouq fighters by the Nusra salfists in the area. Al Farouq’s commander was shot in the incident, which reportedly took place near Tell Abiad.

These incidents reflect a fundamental rift between these two most effective forces on the ground. As the fighting rages on, and the more these groups believe themselves to be close to ‘victory’, the more fierce will become their hostilities toward each other.

The other factions, loosely referred to as the ‘Free Syrian Army’, which are said to have more secular leanings as compared to the 2 Islamic militias described above, have already acknowledged that a war with the Salafists is inevitable ‘once Assad falls’.

Signs are, that all these militias could well be at war with each other far earlier than that. 

Continuing conversation with an Israeli

“I agree with you Edward that we all need to do some soul searching. Of that there is no doubt. Please don’t misunderstand my position as one who would negate a positive and cooperative approach. I do sympathise with the Jews in how the West and Russia in particular were abhorrent toward Jews. Christian history is a rather shameful one. Islamic history, in fact, shines in this respect. Muslims and Jews have always co-existed peacefully as a rule. There have been periods of strife. The latest emanated from the fact that Zionists threw millions of Muslims out of Palestine. This was followed by attacks against Jews across the region. Just as the Jewish exodus from Europe did, this too was welcomed by the zionists, and even welcomed as a positive consequence for the cause of zionism. Zionist collaboration with the Nazis was not surprising. Zionist policy of ethnic cleansing and colony making on others’ land was also not surprising. After all, they came from Europe where this approach was commonplace. The whole German-Western European wars were related to this. It was not about fighting the ‘evil’ Nazis. It was about who gets the colonies, and keeping Germany out of the game. We all know this. The demonisation of Germany served that purpose. Regardless, having read your condemnation of Muslims (muchof which is debatable), I would like you to acknowledge one important moral point here: the Arabs and Turks and other non-Westerners who were supporting Germany in that period did so from the outside. Arabs were not being deliberately exterminated by the Nazis. Their enemies were being attacked by the Germans. This would naturally look like ‘help’, especially by those who could not possibly have known what atrocities were being conducted. After all, wasn’t this the reason (or excuse?) that the Western Alllies gave for not coming to the aid of Jews earlier? If They didn’t ‘know’, then for sure, the Arabs didn’t know. What they did know is that the zionists who were consuming Palestine bit by it throughout the 1930s were being attacked by Hitler and his people. Compare this position of Arabs vis-a-vis the Nazis to that of the Zionists who did know what was going on. Surely, the zionist collaboration with the Nazis cannot be compared to the vague support that Arabs might have expressed for Germany, the Mufti of Jerusalem included. Can we agree on that?”

The above was written as a response to the following comment:

“What we need across the board is what Zsolt Hermann and David Prosser propose above — for both Israel and the Arab world. We all must soul-search, and no one has lily white history here. However Mr. Parsi, lets be honest here. Those Zionists saw the Nazi writing on the wall. At the stage where the Nazis were merely expelling and not whole sale murdering, these sought to at least direct that expulsion to their own homeland which unlike France, etc., would be a place of true refuge and dignity. On the other hand, compare this to the collaboration with the Nazis of the Arab world of that period — all the way through the 40s, as characterized by the following from Wikipedia: “In 1932, Hitler was given the name Abu Ali in Syria, and Muhammad Haidar in Egypt.[15] Adolf Hitler was celebrated in large parts of the Arab world, and some newspapers even likened him to the Prophet. Erwin Rommel was almost as popular as Hitler. Arabs Shouting of “Heil Rommel” was a common greeting in Arab countries. Many Arabs thought the Germans would free them from the rule of the old colonial powers France and Britain. After France’s defeat to Nazi Germany in 1940, some Arabs were chanting against the French and British around the streets of Damascus: “No more Monsieur, no more Mister, Allah’s in Heaven and Hitler’s on earth.”[16] Posters with Arabic sayings: “In heaven God is your ruler, on earth Hitler” were frequently displayed in shops in the towns of Syria.[17] One of the principal founder of ba’athist thought and the Ba’ath Party, Zaki al-Arsuzi, stated that Fascism and Nazism had greatly influenced ba’athist ideology.[18] An associate of al-Arsuzi wrote: “We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books that were the source of the Nazi spirit…We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism. Michel Aflaq a founder of the Ba’athist philosophy admired Hitler and the Nazis for standing up to Britain and America. This admiration would combine aspects of Nazism into Ba’athism.” Cooperation: The two most noted Arab politicians who actively collaborated with the Nazi were Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (al Quds) Haj Amin al-Husseini[19] [20] and the Iraqi prime minister Rashid Ali al-Gaylani.[21][22] The British forced the Mufti into exile for his role in the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. The ex-Mufti had agents in the Kingdom of Iraq, the French Mandate of Syria and in Mandatory Palestine. In 1941, the Mufti actively supported the Iraqi Golden Square coup d’état led by Rashid Ali al-Gaylani.[15] After the Golden Square Iraqi regime was overthrown by pro-British forces, Rashid Ali, the Mufti, and others Iraqi veterans took refuge in Europe, where they supported Axis interests. They were particularly successful in the recruiting several tens-of-thousands of Muslims for German Schutzstaffel (SS) units, and as propagandists for the Arabic-speaking world. The range of collaborative activity was wide. For instance, Anwar Sadat, who later became president of Egypt, was a willing co-operator in Nazi Germany’s espionage according to his own memoirs.[14] Adolf Hitler met with Haj Amin al-Husseini on 28 November 1941. The official German notes of that meeting record contains numerous references to combatting Jews both inside and outside Europe.””

Story link: http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/We-are-still-in-Egypt-308165#comment-850984823

A conversation with an Israeli citizen, and Apartheid denier

My dear Makevet,

I’ve actually had the ‘pleasure’ of visiting the last remaining land of Apartheid. I have seen its luxurious and illegal settlements on hilltops overlooking and releasing their sewage on Palestinian ghettos where the inhabitants are not allowed to dig wells or to tend to their farms.

I have met many business people whose factories and warehouses have been directly targeted and whose produce has been labelled as made in ‘israel’ in order to obtain a trade permit. People who are forced to pay taxes to an illegally occupying power, and to pay rent from a mafia-like Iseali state in control of their economy.

I have seen those hundred of checkpoints after checkpoints where people are forced to spend the better part of their days just to be able to move about and visit their families or places of work. Places where their ‘documents’ and all their belongings and even their undergarments are scrutinised for hours on end.

I have seen the ugly Apartheid wall running right through villages and towns, separating children from their schools, people from their families, and friends from friends. I have seen with my own eyes separate roads for Palestinians and Jews, and I have seen how Jews are so free to go about their business without interruption on Palestinian land while Palestinians have to go through the humiliation of oppression and threats by Israeli children with guns, boys who are barely out of school brandishing their lethal weapons in their faces, scrutinising their every move, asking question after question, and treating them with disdain and sheer disgust – even demanding that they answer questions in hebrew.

In the midst of that, I met Palestinians with good hearts, the most wonderful sense of humour, and with optimism and hope for a better future. Most of all, they hold an iron determination to stay and protect what is so close and dear to their hearts, their homeland, despite the misery, the pain, the humiliation and the sheer racism that they face day after day, especially from heavily armed, racist and extremely antagonistic land thieves you call ‘settlers’.

And their most potent weapon, and one that they use to the best of their abilities is to reproduce so as to maintain an advantage that you simply cannot overcome. They are answering your racism and apartheid and evil weapons of mass destruction with lovemaking and procreation.

I hope I have specified it for you exactly enough. Thanks for the Nowruz wishes, and I wish you the best of luck, and most of all, I wish you a change of heart. Shalom

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Anti-Semitism-in-the-Netherlands-308210#comment-848616413