Archives: Articles

By Jay Janson

If commensurate responsibility of Christian Americans for the death from starvation and bombing of increasingly more than 85 thousand darling Yemeni children has no sobering effect on Christian Americans enjoying Christmas, then there is no Jesus Christ in USA CHRISTmas nor in the CHRISTian religion as practiced by the great majority of Americans who call themselves CHRISTians. No wonder Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s loud and angry cry, “God bless America? No! God Damn America for her crimes against humanity

As Christmas is celebrated in churches throughout the USA, sermons will be heard relating the birth of God in human form here on Earth. Evangelists will preach opening one’s heart to Jesus as salvation during life and afterlife, leaving unmentioned that Americans go on taking the lives of Jesus’ brethren in many Mideastern lands – leaving unmentioned as well that all-knowing Jesus certainly must know Americans are killing HIS brethren in multiple nations while celebrating HIS Birthday.

Though some Christian clergy counsel non participation in the military, the way Martin Luther King did, the vast majority of church congregations will hear no mention of the massive deadly US military action going on at present and for years in Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

Not Separation of Church and State

This is not the often heralded ‘Separation of Church’ doctrine enforced by the government threat to lift a church’s non taxable status if its clergy criticizes its government’s military action bringing death to millions. This is the church in silent acquiescence to the taking of millions of lives.

Church Servile to State

Military chaplains bless soldiers off to kill and maim. Military Chaplains ‘serve’ in invasions that are sinful for Jesus, Who warns in the Bible, “You shall not murder,” (Matthew 19:18) This continual manslaughter is also a crime against humanity under the Nuremberg Principles in the United Nations Charter. Of course we presently still live in a lawless world wherein the military might of the USA, Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand ‘makes right.’

Murderous Apostasy

Given the teaching of Jesus, the Prince of Peace in the New Testament, this clergy led

silent accepting of the continual mass murder of people in their very own counties, as often as not in there very own homes, and silently accepting the lies in corporate mainstream media falsely justifying invasions and bombings, is mega horrific apostasy. Matthew 25:40 has the Lord saying, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you did it to me.”

Already a week ago, even criminal corporate mainstream networks reported that eighty-five thousand Yemeni children had already died of starvation for the bombing Americans are involved in, but Americans have not seen fit to feeding the Yemeni children still alive. Matthew 25:41 has the Lord saying to those on his left, Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food;” 44 and they will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry?’He will answer them, saying, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of my brothers and sisters, you did not do it to Me.” New King James Version

If commensurate responsibility of Christian Americans for the death from starvation and bombing of increasingly more than 85 thousand darling Yemeni children has no sobering effect whatsoever on Christian Americans enjoying Christmas, then there is no Jesus Christ in USA Christmas nor in the Christian religion as practiced by the great majority of Americans who call themselves Christians in the United States of America. No wonder Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s loud and angry cry, “God bless America? No, no, God Damn America for her crimes against humanity! and American filmmaker Michael Moore’s condemning observation,“sick and twisted violent people that we’ve been for hundreds of years, it’s something that’s just in our craw, just in our DNA. Americans kill people, because that’s what we do. We invade countries. We send drones in to kill civilians.”

Two years ago at Christmas time in 2015, OpEdNews, CounterCurrents of Kerala, India and Minority Perspective of Birmingham, UK, among others, published: Christ’s Birthday in an America that Kills Jesus Multiple Times in Multiple Countries Daily In it Jesus warns harming God’s children is equivalent to harming the Lord. “As you did it to one of the least of these My brothers and sisters, you did it to Me.” This principle of a common humanity is basic to the Nuremberg Principles of International Law, written to prosecute anyone who would do what the Nazis did, which included bombing, invading and occupying innocent nations as Christian Americans have done since end of World War Two.

And four years ago, at Christmas 2013, the same publications carried Jesus’ Birthday in an Apostate USA that Kills HIM Everyday Multiple Times USA places itself above Jesus. Shoots an Afghani, Pakistani, Yemeni, Somalian, Bang! Boom! there goes Jesus, shot down again at the same time, for in (Matthew 25:40:) Jesus says, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” “All who draw the sword will die by the sword. ‘ (Matt. 26:52) “you know the commandments: you must not kill” (Mark 10.18)

Someday, America’s rulers, those powerful speculating investor bankers will be forced to factor into calculations for capital gains the possibility of imprisonment, seizure of assets to compensate for wrongful death in the millions, injuries in the tens of millions, massive destruction of property and theft of natural resources. Those present colossal investments in a third world war with China, Russia, Iran, etc. will come to be seen as unprofitable and the planet saved.

P.S. Your servant peoples historian is not naive enough not to realize the lack of interest in the USA for much of the above mentioned. The awakening of a demand for the application of natural, scriptural and international law on genocide will come from the populations in victim nations. This is only to be expected, for as Albert Einstein pointed out, “War …would have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the nations not been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the Press.”

Now to close, back to the long commercialized birthday celebration of Jesus, a Jesus, who was adamant about the damnation price for intentional and criminal homicide.

Jesus said, “you know the commandments: you must not kill…“ Mark 10.18

Jesus said, “why do you call me, “Lord, Lord” and not do what I say?” Luke. 6.46

Jesus said,“You must love your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 10.26-28

Jesus said, “This is my commandment: love one another, as I have loved you.” John. 14.22

Jesus said, “What I command you is to love one another.” John. 14.27

Jesus said, “You have learnt how it was said to our ancestors: ‘You must not kill; and anyone does kill he must answer for it before the court.’ But I say this to you: anyone who is angry with his brother will answer for it before the court.” Matt. 5.21-22

“Put your sword back in its place…for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” Matt. 26:52

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Matt. 5:9

Full passage from Matthew 25:31-43

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Then the king will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him and say, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’

And the king will say to them in reply, “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”

Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, A stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ (New International Version)

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist.

23 December 2018

Source: countercurrents.org

By Andre Vltchek

Text and Photos: Andre Vltchek

Believe it or not, but not long ago, Cyprus used to be the only country in the European Union that was governed by a Communist Party. And it was not really too long ago – between 2008 and 2013.

Also, relatively recently, unification of the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish administered northern part of the island, appeared to be achievable.

And when Cyprus, like Greece, almost collapsed financially, it was Russia which offered to bail it out (before the EU did all it could to prevent this from happening).

Now it all seems like ancient history.

The city of Nicosia is still divided, with the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish immigration check-points located right in the middle of an old town. Graffiti painted in‘no man’s land’ demand an immediate end to the conflict: ‘One country; one nation solution’.

The crossing is busy.And to make it all somehow more colorful, perhaps, there is a huge white Pitbull, phlegmatically hanging around the border area. It does not bark; it is just there. Nobody knows whether he belongs to the Turkish or the Greek side, but it appears that he spends more time with the Turks, as, I suppose, they feed him better.

The Greek-speaking side of Nicosia looks like a slightly run-down EU provincial town. On their flank, Turks are smoking shisha (traditional Middle Eastern waterpipe), and their cafes appear to be more traditional, and the old architecture more elegant. In the southern part, freshly brewed coffee is called ‘Greek’, while a few meters north, you have to order ‘Turkish’, or at least ‘Arabic coffee’. Needless to say, you get the same stuff on both sides.

Otherwise, it is one island, one history and one sad and unnecessary partition.

*

The division of the nation is not the only madness here. Before you get used to the idea, you may go mental, finding out that there are two British administered territories still engraved into the island.

If you drive around, you will never notice that you are actually leaving Cyprus, and entering the U.K.Some car license plates are different to those regular Cypriot ones, but that’s about it.

You cross an invisible line, and you are in the UK; historically the most aggressive (militarily and ideologically) nation on the face of the earth.

You drive through some agricultural fields, but soon you see something very eerie all around the road: a few kilometers after passing the historic Crusader’s Kolossi Castle, there is an ocean of masts of different heights and shapes, as well as concrete, fortified military installations.The masts are ‘decorated’ with strange looking wires. It all looks like some old Sci-Fi movie.

Of course, if you come ‘prepared’, you know what you are facing: tremendous installations of the BBC propaganda apparatus aimed at destabilizing and indoctrinating the Middle East. But that is not all. This entire enclave – ‘Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri’(as well as Dhekelia a few dozens of miles to the east) -is here mostly in order to spy on the ‘neighborhood’ of the Middle East. While London is some 4 hours flight away, Syria is just a short distance across the water, and so is Lebanon.

Further south, after you leave the propaganda and spy installations behind, is a small village of Akrotiri; a typical picturesque Cypriot charming settlement, with an old church, narrow streets and humble local cafes.It sits on top of the hill. But you are, actually, inside the U.K. From here, you can see the blue sea, a salt lake and the city of Limassol; but you are on British turf. How come? Simple: after Cyprus achieved independence from the British Empire, in 1960, the Brits ‘were concerned’ that they could lose control over their military bases in Cyprus, and at least partially, influence over the Middle East.As this being unimaginable to the British imperialist mind, the U.K. arm-twisted the Cypriots into this bizarre arrangement which holds to this day.

One more kilometer further south, and you hit the wall and a gate, decorated with threatening warnings. You are at the perimeter of the RAF Akrotiri base. From here, since December 2015, the RAF is carrying out illegal (according to international law) airstrikes against the sovereign Syrian Arab Republic.

According to Jeffrey Richelson & Desmond Ball, The Ties the Bind: Intelligence Cooperation between the UKUSA Countries, (Unwin Hyman, Boston/London and others, 1990, p.194 note 145):

“As of 2010, around 3,000 troops of British Forces Cyprus are based at Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Ayios Nikolaos Station, in the ESBA, is an ELINT (electronic intelligence) listening station of the UKUSA Agreement intelligence network.”

That was then, but now things are getting even deadlier. Practically, the U.K. is at war with Syria. Many in Cyprus are deeply concerned that Syria could retaliate, sending missiles against the RAF bases, from which it is being bombed (legally, independent Syria has the full right to defend itself against the attacks from abroad). Such retaliation could endanger the lives of the inhabitants of Cyprus.

There have been protests and demands for the British forces to return to Cyprus both of the ‘sovereign bases’, but the U.K. shows no interest in ceding what it controls.

As early as in 2008, former left-wing President Demetris Christofias (who was also the General Secretary of AKEL, the Communist Party of Cyprus) tried to remove all British forces from the island, calling them a”colonial bloodstain”.However, he did not succeed, and in 2013 he decided to step down and not to seek re-election.

Dhekelia Base is carved into the eastern part of Cyprus, bizarrely encircling both Turkish-controlled and Greek-speaking villages.

In the past, the Cypriots fought against the British presence. Nowadays, in the era of omnipresent surveillance, sabotages and resistance had been replaced by toothless protests. Still, hundreds of local people have been detained, demanding the departure of British troops from the island.

*

Cyprus is still divided, although reunification talks began, once again, in 2015. Now it is possible to walk between the Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus (controlled by Turkey).

It was not always this way. As Papadakis Yiannis wrote:

“On 15 July 1974, the Greek military junta under Dimitrios Ioannides carried out a coup d’état in Cyprus, to unite the island with Greece.”

Thousands of Turkish residents were displaced, many killed. Turkey invaded and the island got divided. But inter-cultural violence dated even further back than 1974. The history can be felt on every corner of Nicosia, and in many villages of the island. Northern Cyprus was never recognized by any other country except Turkey, but the division is still there. There are still entire de-populated towns that used to belong to the displaced Turkish and Greek inhabitants.

One of the eeriest is Kofinou, in the south of the island, which suffered on at least two occasions, unprecedented ethnic violence, which could be defined as ‘cleansing’. Once inhabited mainly by the Turkish Cypriots, Kofinou is now a ghost town, dotted with collapsed houses and agricultural structures, with foreign guest workers and farm animals living in appalling conditions.

*

Cyprus has two faces. It is proud to be one of the famous European tourist destinations. It is an EU member.

Simultaneously, it is a symbol of division.

Border fences between the Republic of Cyprus and Northern Cyprus are scarring its beautiful countryside. Deadly British military installations, theair force bases, as well as propaganda warfare and disinformation campaigns are brutalizing, physically and morally, almost the entire Middle East.

Here, in Cyprus, European and Russian tourists coexist, uneasily. The ideological war between the West and the rest of the planet is clearly felt in Pathos and other historic areas of the island.

Some British residents (around 50,000 of them), as well as countless British tourists, often behave insultingly towards the generally humble Russian visitors. Here, the British Empire still appears to be ‘in charge’.

In the port of Pathos, I passed by an elderly Russian couple, who seemed to be simply admiring an old water castle. A British couplewas passing by, then looked back and forged sarcastic, rude grimaces: “Those Russians,” uttered the man. This was not the only instance when I witnessed this sort of behavior.

In Cyprus, I drove exactly 750 kilometers, all around the island, trying to understand and define its present position, and its role in the ‘area’ and in the world.

I hoped to find reminiscences of at least some revolutionary spirit of the Communist (AKEL) government. But I almost exclusively found pragmatism, so typical for basically all European Union countries.Only questions like this were common: ‘Would Brexit be good or bad for Cyprus?’ Or: ‘Would the bombing of Syria be dangerous for the citizens of Cyprus?’

Symbolically, near the village of Kofinou, destroyed by the inter-cultural violence several decades ago, I found a tough-looking refugee camp, built mainly for the immigrants coming from the destabilized Middle East. It looks like a concentration camp. Locals call i

As I was driving around the area, I spotted, just a few kilometers from the camp, in front of an eerie and semi-abandoned farm, a huge goat.It was on its side; dying, in agony, in the middle of the road.

Cyprus has become a divided island with some hedonistic resorts, but also with terribly marginalized communities, located all over its territory.

One could easily conclude: this former British colony is still allowing, for a fee, the tremendous presence of the British/NATO military forces, as well as various spy facilities and propaganda outlets. RAF Tornado jet fighters are presently flying their ‘missions’ against Syria. Missiles are being fired from Akrotiri. People fleeing from the destroyed countries of the Middle East, are then detained in Cyprus, like criminals, behind barbed wire.

In the meantime, the people of Cyprus are calculating, whether all this is truly feasible, or not; whether to be an outpost of the empire is a good business, for as long as it pays, they will do very little to change the situation. Despite of its complex past and present, as well as its proximity to the Middle East, Cyprus is, after all, an integral partof Europe, and therefore of the Western empire.

*

[Originally published by NEO – New Eastern Outlook]

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist.

22 December 2018

Source: countercurrents.org

By Osamah Al-Rawhani

19 Dec 2018 – More than two years after talks between the internationally recognised Yemeni government and the armed Houthi movement collapsed in Kuwait, the two warring sides finally sat down for another round of negotiations.

UN Special Envoy for Yemen Martin Griffiths managed to bring the two sides together for a week of talks in Rimbo, Sweden, which resulted in the announcement of a break-through agreement.

The document includes three provisions: a ceasefire along the Hodeidah front and the redeployment of armed forces out of the city and its port; an agreement on prisoner exchange; and a statement of understanding on the Yemeni city of Taiz.

For the 12 million Yemenis on the cusp of famine and for the country as a whole, this was a much-needed positive step towards peace. But it must be recognised that the agreement has some major limitations and much effort has to be made to secure its implementation.

The good and the bad in the Stockholm agreement

The ceasefire is a highly significant development given that Hodeidah’s port is the entry point for most of Yemen’s food imports, commercial goods and humanitarian aid; currently the country relies on imports for some 90 percent of its food and basic commodity needs.

This also marks the first time that Houthi forces have agreed to withdraw from one of the conflict’s most significant front lines. This makes the agreement seem “too-good-to-be-true”, and indeed, this may turn out to be the case. Various points in the agreement are vaguely worded and open to different interpretations by the warring parties. For example, it talks of “the mutual redeployment of forces from the city of Hodeidah and the ports of Hodeidah, Salif and Ras Issa”; the Houthis interpret this as removing military presence but not withdrawing, while the other side think that the Houthis should withdraw fully. This will be a key point of contention in the coming months.

Furthermore, the timeline of implementation is unreasonably tight. It was agreed that the ports shall be handed over within 14 days of the agreement (December 31) to local police and authorities and city – within three weeks (January 7, 2019). This time might not be enough for the Houthis to withdraw and it is also unclear to what authority they are supposed to handover the city.

Another challenge is the fact that Houthi forces and their affiliates have become highly entrenched in Hodeidah. Even if and when Houthi military forces make their exit, the handover of power would not be achieved immediately as local security forces – such as the police – are full of Houthi partisans and sympathisers. Dismantling these unofficial networks to re-balance civilian power will be difficult and will need to be approached carefully.

Under the Stockholm Agreement, the Redeployment Coordination Committee (RCC) will be tasked with addressing such issues, with the committee comprised of representatives from both warring parties and headed by UN officials. The international community should closely monitor the work of the RCC to limit the influence of spoilers and bolster the UN’s authority and capacity to push for the tangible steps necessary to implement the agreement.

The agreement on prisoner exchange and the statement of understanding on Taiz are also important. Agreeing on an executive mechanism for a prisoner swap is crucial to building confidence between the two parties. The release of prisoners will make a difference for thousands of Yemeni families, given that most people held by the Houthis are civilians imprisoned with no clear justification.

Making progress on Taiz is crucial, but the provision in the agreement, which calls for the formation of a joint committee from both sides of the conflict and the Yemeni civil society to determine the working mechanisms for upcoming consultations has not really resulted in any real action on the ground.

Another major downside of the Stockholm consultations is that they failed to reach an agreement on two other key issues: the reopening of Sanaa International Airport and the reunification of Central Bank of Yemen, which was split along conflict divide in September 2016.

These issues – along with the prisoner exchange – were central to the initial agenda of the Sweden peace talks, and reaching an accord on them would have had direct implications for both the economic and humanitarian crises in Yemen. By contrast, the most significant outcomes of the negotiation – those related to Hodeidah – were on the original agenda. Agreement on them was reached on the very last day of the talks.

How did the agreement come about?

It is worth pointing out that the success of the negotiations – partial as they maybe – would not have happened had the international community not pushed for it. This came at the tail of years of inaction and apparent lack of political will on the international level to push for a solution in Yemen. The war has been raging on for more than three years and for almost two it has been declared the world’s largest humanitarian crisis by the UN. In September, when UN envoy Griffiths attempted to bring the belligerents together in Geneva he failed. So why and how did he succeed in December?

One of the main reasons seems to be that the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in early October finally pushed many Western governments to shift their position on Riyadh and its intervention in Yemen.

Previously, the calculation in Western capitals seemed to be that business contracts with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – Riyadh’s largest partner in the coalition campaign in Yemen – outweighed any humanitarian concerns. With the global media frenzy following the Khashoggi killing, and in turn the attention this brought to the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, continued Western support for Riyadh and Abu Dhabi became domestically less palatable for many politicians.

Most importantly, the coalition’s largest backers, the United States and the United Kingdom, began calling for a ceasefire in the Yemen war. Following this the US also ended its in-flight refuelling of Saudi-led coalition aircraft operating over Yemen, and US legislators have been forcefully pushing for the withdrawal of all military support to the Saudi-led campaign.

The US, and more so the UK, who previously hindered prospects for any new Yemen resolution at the United Nations Security Council, have shifted their positions dramatically. London in particular has begun to play a positive role in ending the conflict. The British mission to the UNSC has been crafting a new UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in Hodeidah and guarantees of safe passage for delivery of food and medicine and British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt attended the peace talks in Sweden.

Moving forward, the international community needs to capitalise on the current momentum. This means both continuing to pressure the Saudi regime to end the conflict, while avoiding implicitly legitimising the armed Houthi movement’s control of areas in northern Yemen. Houthi oppression of the population and their syphoning off of state revenues to fund their war effort must be raised during future negotiations and addressed.

Too often, the international discourse on the war in Yemen has been characterised by oversimplification, and consistent failures to capture the inherent complexities of the conflict on the ground. To ensure and sustain peace in Yemen, peace agreements must serve the interests of the Yemenis and reflect their local dynamics and structures. In this sense, the Stockholm Agreement should be seen as a good start, but the hard work of securing peace in Yemen is only beginning.

Osamah Al-Rawhani is a Yemeni researcher based in the UK and Program Director of Sana’a Center for Strategic Studies.

24 December 2018

Source: transcend.org

By Jonathan Cook

We check in to Banksy’s bizarre Palestinian hotel, where the hospitality is as peculiar as the message is powerful.

21 Dec 2018 – Anonymous British street artist Banksy made headlines in October when his $1.4 million artwork Girl with Balloon self-destructed by passing through a shredder concealed in its frame at a London auction moments after it had been bought.

But in the Palestinian city of Bethlehem, a much larger Banksy art project – a hotel boasting “the worst view in the world” – appears to be unexpectedly saving itself from similar, planned destruction.

When it opened in March last year, The Walled Off Hotel – hemmed in by the eight-metre-high concrete wall built by Israel to encage Bethlehem – was supposed to be operational for only a year. But nearly two years on, as I joined those staying in one of its nine Banksy-designed rooms, it was clearly going from strength to strength.

Originally, The Walled Off Hotel was intended as a temporary and provocative piece of installation art, turning the oppressive 700-kilometre-long wall that cuts through occupied Palestinian land into an improbable tourist attraction. Visitors drawn to Bethlehem by Banksy’s art – both inside the hotel and on the colossal wall outside – are given a brief, but potent, taste of Palestinian life in the shadow of Israel’s military infrastructure of confinement.

It proved, unexpectedly, so successful that it was soon competing as a top tourist attraction with the city’s traditional pilgrimage site, the reputed spot where Jesus was born, the Church of the Nativity. “The hotel has attracted 140,000 visitors – local Israelis, Palestinians, as well as internationals – since it opened,” says Wisam Salsa, the hotel’s Palestinian co-founder and manager. “It’s given a massive boost to the Palestinian tourism industry.”

Exception to Banksy’s rule

The Walled Off Hotel was effectively a follow-up to Banksy’s “Dismaland Bemusement Park”, created in the more familiar and safer setting of a British seaside resort. For five weeks, that installation in Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, England, offered holidaymakers a dystopian version of a Disney-style amusement park, featuring a nuclear mushroom-cloud, medical experiments gone wrong, boat people trapped on the high seas and the Cinderella story told as a car crash.

But unlike Girl with Balloon and Dismaland, Banksy appears uncharacteristically reluctant to follow through with the destruction of his Bethlehem creation. Some 21 months later, it seems to have become a permanent feature of this small city’s tourist landscape.

Given that Banksy is notoriously elusive, it is difficult to be sure why he has made an exception for The Walled Off Hotel. But given his well-known sympathy for the Palestinian cause, a few reasons suggest themselves. One is that, were he to abandon the hotel, it would delight the Israeli military authorities. They would love to see The Walled Off Hotel disappear – and with it, a major reason to focus on a particularly ugly aspect of Israel’s occupation. In addition, dismantling the hotel might echo rather uncomfortably Israel’s long-standing policy of clearing Palestinians off their land – invariably to free-up space for Jewish settlement.

Israel strenuously claims the wall was built to aid security by keeping out Palestinian “terrorists”. But the wall’s path outside The Walled Off Hotel seals off Bethlehem from one of its major holy sites, Rachel’s Tomb, and has allowed Jewish religious extremists to take it over.

A rare success story

In sticking by the hotel, Banksy appears to have been influenced by Palestinian “sumud”, Arabic for steadfastness, a commitment to staying put in the face of Israeli pressure and aggression. But significantly, there is a practical consideration: The Walled Off Hotel has rapidly become a rare success story in the occupied territories, boosting the struggling Palestinian economy. That has occurred in spite of Israel’s best efforts to curb tourism to Bethlehem, including by making a trip through the wall and an Israeli checkpoint a time-consuming and discomfiting experience.

Israel’s attitude was highlighted last year when the interior ministry issued a directive to travel agencies warning them not to take groups of pilgrims into Bethlehem to stay overnight. After an outcry, the government ­relented, but the message was clear.

Salsa notes that The Walled Off Hotel has not only attracted a new kind of visitor to Bethlehem, but has also persuaded many to spend time in other parts of the occupied West Bank, too.

Salsa understands the importance of tourism personally. He was an out-of-work guide when mutual friends first introduced him to Banksy in 2005, shortly after the wall cutting off Bethlehem from nearby Jerusalem had been completed. The city was economically dead, with tourists too fearful to visit its holy sites as armed uprisings raged across the occupied territories. The Second Intifada from 2000-2005 was the Palestinians’ response after Israel refused to grant them the viable state most observers had assumed was implicit in the Oslo Accords of the 1990s.

Banksy arrived in 2005 to spray-paint on what was then a largely pristine surface, creating a series of striking images. It unleashed a wave of local and foreign copycats. The wall in Bethlehem quickly became a giant canvas for artistic resistance, says Salsa.

Much later, in 2014, Banksy came up with the idea of the hotel. Salsa found a large residential building abandoned for more than a decade because of its proximity to the wall. In secret, The Walled Off was born. “It was a crazy spot for a hotel,” says Salsa. “It felt like divine intervention finding it. It was close to the main road from Jerusalem so no one could miss us.”

Palestinians’ reality

Importantly, the hotel was also in one of the few areas of Bethlehem inside “Area C”, parts of the West Bank classified in the temporary Oslo Accords as under full Israeli control. That meant the army could not bar Israelis from visiting. “Nowadays there are no channels open between Palestinians and Israelis. So The Walled Off Hotel is a rare space where Israelis can visit and taste the reality lived by Palestinians.

“True, Israelis mostly come to see the art. But they can’t help but learn a lot more while they are here.”

Salsa is happy that the Walled Off Hotel provides a good salary to 45 local employees and their families. His hope in setting up the hotel was to “encourage more tourists to stay in Bethlehem and for them to hear our story, our voice”.

But Banksy’s grander vision had been fully vindicated, he says. “The Walled Off Hotel gives tourists an experience of our reality.

“But it also emphasises other, creative ways to struggle and speak up. It offers art as a model of resistance.

“The hotel magnifies the Palestinian’s voice. And it makes the world hear us in a way that doesn’t depend on either us or the Israelis suffering more casualties.”

Global impact

The hotel’s continuing impact was underscored last month when it featured for the first time at the Palestinian stand at the annual World Travel Market in London, the largest tourism trade show in the world. The event attracts 50,000 travel agents, who conduct more than $4 billion in deals over the course of the show.

Banksy had announced beforehand that he would bring a replica of one of his artworks on the wall just outside the Bethlehem hotel: cherubs trying to prise open two concrete slabs with a crowbar. He also promised a limited-edition poster showing children using one of Israel’s military watchtowers as a fairground ride. A slogan underneath reads: “Visit historic Palestine. The Israeli army liked it so much they never left!” As a result, there was a stampede to the Palestinian stand, one of the smallest, that caught the show’s organisers by surprise.

Rula Maayah, the Palestinian tourism minister, praised Banksy for changing the image of Palestinian tourism by diverting younger people into the West Bank, often during a visit to Israel. “He promotes Palestine and focuses on the occupation, but at the same time he is talking about the beauty of Palestine,” she said.

At the Walled Off Hotel, however, Israel has made it much harder to see the beauty. Most windows provide little more than a view of the wall, which dwarfs in both height and length the Berlin Wall to which it is most often compared. That is all part of the Walled Off “experience” that now attracts not only wealthier visitors keen to stay in one the hotel’s rooms, but a much larger audience of day trippers.

So successful has the Walled Off Hotel proved in such a short space of time that even some locals concede it upstages the Church of the Nativity – at least for a proportion of visitors. A local taxi driver who was guiding two French sisters along the wall outside the hotel said many independent tourists now prioritised it ahead of the church.

Only wanting to be identified as Nasser, he said: “We may not know who Banksy is, but the truth is, he has done us a huge favour with this hotel and his art.”

Sanctuary in a police state

If Dismaland created a dystopian amusement park in the midst of a fun-filled seaside resort, the Walled Off Hotel offers a small sanctuary of serenity – even if a politically charged one – in surroundings that look more like a post-apocalyptic police state.

Along the top of the wall, there are innumerable surveillance cameras, as well as looming watchtowers, where ever-present Israeli soldiers remain out of view behind darkened glass. They can emerge unexpectedly, usually to make raids on the homes of unsuspecting Palestinians.

When I made a trip to the Walled Off in October, I parked outside to find half a dozen armed Israeli soldiers on top of the hotel’s flat roof. When one waved to me, I was left wondering whether I had been caught up in another of Banksy’s famous art stunts. I hadn’t. They were real – there to watch over Jewish extremists celebrating a religious holiday nearby at Rachel’s Tomb.

The hotel’s lobby, though not the rooms, are readily accessible to the public. It is conceived as a puzzling mixture: part cheeky homage to the contrived gentility of British colonial life, part chaotic exhibition space for Banksy’s subversive street art. Visitors can enjoy a British cream tea, served in the finest china, sitting under a number of Israeli surveillance cameras wall-mounted like hunting trophies or alongside a portrait of Jesus with the red dot of a marksman’s laser-beam on his forehead.

A history of resistance

The lobby leads to a museum that is probably the most comprehensive ever to document Israel’s various methods of colonisation and control over Palestinians, and their history of resistance.

At its entrance sits a dummy of Lord Balfour, the foreign secretary who 101 years ago initiated Britain’s sponsorship of Palestine’s colonisation. He issued the infamous Balfour Declaration promising the Palestinians’ homeland to the Jewish people. Press a button and Balfour jerks into life to furiously sign the declaration on his desk. Upstairs is a large gallery exhibiting some of the best of Palestinian art, and the hotel reception organises twice-daily tours of the wall.

Entry to the rooms is hidden behind a secret door, disguised as a bookcase. Guests need to wave a room key, shaped like a section of the wall, in front of a small statue of Venus that makes her breasts glow red and the door open.

A stairway leads to the second and third floors, where the landings are decorated with more fading colonial splendour and Banksy art. Kitsch paintings of boats, landscapes and vases of flowers are hidden behind tight metal gauze of the kind Israel uses to protect its military Jeeps from stone-throwers.

A permanent “Sorry – out of service” sign hangs from a lift, its half-open doors revealing that it is, in fact, walled up.

No mementos

Although the rooms are designed thematically by Banksy, only a few contain original artworks, most significantly in the Presidential Suite.

Hotels may be used to customers taking shampoos and soaps, even the odd towel, as mementos of their stay. But at the Walled Off, the stakes are a little higher. Guests are issued with an inventory they must sign on departing, declaring that they have not pilfered any art from their room. But it is the wall itself that is the dominant presence, towering over guests as they come and go, trapping them in a narrow space between the hotel entrance and an expanse of solid grey.

A proportion visit the neighbouring graffiti shop, Wall Mart, where they can get help on how to leave their mark on the concrete. Most of the casual graffiti is short-lived, with space regularly cleared so that new visitors can scrawl their messages and use art as a tool of resistance.

Protest pieces

Banksy’s better-known artworks, however, are saved from the spray-paint pandemonium elsewhere.

The crowbar-armed cherubs he brought to London were painted in time for Christmas last year, when he recruited film director Danny Boyle – of Slumdog Millionaire fame – to stage an alternative nativity play for local families in the hotel car park. The “Alternativity”, featuring a real donkey and real snow produced by a machine on the Walled Off’s roof, became a BBC documentary. Banksy had once again found a way to persuade prime-time TV to shine a light on Israel’s oppressive wall.

Another artwork is his “Er sorry”, a leftover from the Walled Off’s “apologetic street party” of November last year, marking the centenary of the Balfour Declaration’s signing. Children from two neighbouring refugee camps were invited to wear Union-Jack crash helmets and wave charred British flags. A person dressed as Queen Elizabeth II unveiled “Er Sorry” stencilled into the wall. It served both as a hesitant apology on behalf of Britain and as a play on the initials of the Queen’s official Latin title, Elizabeth Regina.

The event, however, illustrated that Banksy’s subversive message, directed chiefly at western audiences, does not always translate well to sections of the local Palestinian population. The party was hijacked by local activists who stuck a Palestinian flag into the Union Jack-adorned cake and chanted “Free Palestine”.

Is this ‘war tourism’?

Salsa outright rejects claims from some locals and foreign critics that the hotel is exploiting Palestinian misery and is an example of “war tourism”.

He points out: “The Balfour party got the media interested in a story they probably would not have covered otherwise, because it lacked violence and bloodshed.”

He adds that the area of Bethlehem in which the Walled Off is located would have been killed off by the wall were it not for Banksy investing his own money and time in the project. As well as the staff, it has brought work to tour guides, taxi drivers, neighbouring and cheaper hotels, shops and petrol stations. “That is a very important form of resistance,” he says.

It is also a rare example of Palestinians reclaiming land from the Israeli army. On the other side of the wall there had been a large army camp until the hotel started drawing significant numbers of visitors.

“The army didn’t like lots of tourists taking pictures nearby, so they moved further away, out of sight.”

Eternal memories

Canadian tourist Mike Seleski, 30, visited the hotel to see Banksy’s art before standing in front of the wall. He said he had heard about the Walled Off from an Israeli he befriended in Vietnam during a year travelling.

This was a detour from his stay in Israel – his only stop in the occupied territories. “I don’t like the usual tourist experiences,” he said. “It is important to hear the other side of the story when you travel.”

In every one of the 32 countries he has visited, he has stood to be photographed before a famous local spot holding a cardboard sign with words to reassure his worried mother: “Mum – I’m OK.”

In Bethlehem, he said it was obvious he’d take the photo in front of Banksy’s art on the wall, rather than the Church of the Nativity. “You see the wall on TV and forget about it. You get on with your life. But when you stand here, you realise Palestinians don’t have a choice. They simply can’t ignore it.”

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001.

24 December 2018

Source: transcend.org

By Veterans For Peace

24 Dec 2018 – Veterans For Peace is pleased to hear that President Trump has ordered a total withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, where they had no legal right to be in the first place. Whatever the reasoning, withdrawing U.S. troops is the right thing to do.

It is incorrect to characterize the U.S. military intervention in Syria as “fighting terrorism,” as much of the media is doing. Although the U.S. fought against the ISIL Caliphate (aka “ISIS”), it also armed and trained Islamist groups, including al-Qaeda aligned forces, who are seeking to destroy the secular, multi-religious Syrian state and establish a harsh fundamentalist order of their own.

Furthermore, the U.S. aerial bombardment of the city of Raqqa, Syria, similar to its bombardment of Mosul, Iraq, was itself terror in the extreme, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians. These are huge war crimes.

A continued U.S. presence in Syria would only prolong a policy that has been disastrous for all the peoples of the region, who have already suffered way too much as a result of years of U.S. intervention and occupation on their soil. It would also be a disaster for the troops who are being asked to carry out this impossible burden.

In these moments when those in power advocate for remaining at war, Veterans For Peace will continue holding true to our mission and understanding that war is not the answer. We sincerely hope that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria will be total, and will be soon. We hope this will also lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, where the U.S. government is currently in talks with the Taliban and an end to U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which is causing the death by starvation of tens of thousands of innocent children.

Veterans For Peace knows that the U.S. is a nation addicted to war. At this time of uncertainty, it is critically important that we, as veterans, continue to be clear and concise that our nation must turn from war to diplomacy and peace. It is high time to unwind all these tragic, failed and unnecessary wars of aggression, domination and plunder. It is time to turn a page in history and to build a new world based on human rights, equality and mutual respect for all. We must build momentum toward real and lasting peace. Nothing less than the survival of human civilization is at stake.

Veterans For Peace is an international organization made up of military veterans, military family members, and allies.

24 December 2018

Source: www.transcend.org

By Anthony Marsella

Whose Child is This? Whose child is this? Is this child an Iraqi . . . an Israeli . . . a Chechnyan . . . an Afghani . . . a Kurd . . . a Nigerian? Is she or he English, Indonesian, Spanish, Lebanese, Turkish, Congolese, Bosnian, Persian? Does it matter? Is this child not a daughter or son to each of us?

Is this child not a human being born of a union of a man and woman whose intimacy, whose passion, whose very breathe yielded a life that sought only to live . . . to enjoy some moments of laughter and delight, some moments of comfort and calm . . . to make yet another life.

Now this child rests amidst the dust and debris of war . . . lifeless . . . torn and shattered . . . killed by someone whom she or he never knew, and would likely never meet. Death from a distance. . . a bomb from a plane, a shell from a mortar, a strap of explosives . . . intentional and willing, calculated and planned, a measured effort to destroy.

The Source: an agent of death and destruction, a pilot or soldier, an insurgent or terrorist . . . does it matter? They have killed their own child . . . they have killed our child. And in doing so, they have diminished each of us as human beings, each of us as creatures of consciousness and conscience, each of us as reflections and carriers of life. Words cannot console her or his parents, if they, indeed, survived this horror. They are left with only endless pain . . . memories of a child eating, sleeping, playing . . . a reminder of a tragic moment inscribed in mortar and blood.

Enough! Enough! Stand, speak, write, act against those who advocate violence and hate no matter the source — be they presidents, prime ministers, generals, terrorists, mullahs, rabbis, dictators, ministers, true believers . . . tell them that we do not share their quest for power and greed. Tell them we do not share their hate, nor their blindness and indifference to suffering. Tell them we do not share their empty post-tragedy rhetoric designed to keep us mired in the fulfillment of their selfish needs. We are not pacified and contented by their explanations and assurances. We challenge and contest their motives! We resent and resist their excuses. How shallow their words in the face of dying or dead child.

THIS IS OUR CHILD! Today, we claim this child as our own, too late to keep her or him alive, too late to know her or his hopes and dreams, too late to know the promise and possibilities of their life had it been given the chance to be lived free of oppression, abuse, and indignity.

But we are not too late to affirm to all living children that we will try to protect you, to guard you, and to shelter you from the terror of war and violence, and from an untimely, painful, and meaningless death, by choosing peace over war, compassion over violence, voice over silence, and conscience over comfort.

Note: I first wrote this brief appeal in July, 2005, following a conference in Savannah, Georgia, in which Dr. Amer Hosin shared photos of death and suffering in the Middle East. I emailed this appeal in the December holiday season, when the poignant holiday carol, “What child is this?” is played endlessly on radio and television, testimony to Christian faith, but indirectly testimony to the consequences of violence against children, and the reality our hope for recovery and redemption reside in children – all children!

Today, as I viewed the now iconic photo of the stalwart Syrian boy, covered in dust, his mind and body shattered by bombs he could never fathom, and I recalled the iconic photo of the naked Vietnamese girl escaping napalm. I decided I must share this appeal today. It is upon all of us. What can we do to stop the destruction of life? What can we do end the reflexive response of violence and hate toward those we deem enemies.

I say to you, I plead with you now: “Hate begets violence, and violence begets hate, and always innocents become the victims.” We use the word “hate” daily, casually expressing our so often disgust or revulsion with something as benign as broccoli, or an athletic team. “I hate __________!

The powerful emotion of “hate” has escaped our conscious awareness! We “hate” too much, too often, too easily; the consequences of the word and the behaviors it implies are lost to us. Ask: Do I have a right to “hate?” Is “hate” a choice? What do I mean when I say I “hate”! Stare at the image of a dead Iraqi child? Embed the image of the struggling shocked Syrian boy in your mind. Make room for it! It is more important than so many other images you hold. Ask: Whose child is this? He or she is your child! If you deny this reality, then await the day the face returns to remind you of your failure, to haunt your minds as you look at your child.

Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment.

24 December 2018

Source: www.transcend.org

By Tyler Durden

Syria will adopt a new rule of engagement with Israel now that Russia has taken a tougher and clearer stance on the conflict between Israel and the “Axis of the Resistance”. Henceforth, Damascus will be responding to any Israeli strike. If it damages a specific military target it will reply with a strike against a similar objective in Israel. Decision makers in Damascus said, “Syria will not hesitate to hit an Israeli airport if Damascus airport is targeted and hit by Israel. This will be with the consent of the Russian military based in the Levant.”

This Syrian political decision is based on the clear position taken by Russia in Syria following the downing of its aircraft on September 18 this year. In 2015 when the Russian military landed in Syria, it informed the parties concerned (i.e. Syria, Iran and Israel) that it had no intention to interfere in the conflict between them and Hezbollah and that it would not stand in the way of Tel Aviv’s planes bombing Hezbollah military convoys on their way to Lebanon or Iranian military warehouses not allocated to the war in Syria.

This was a commitment to remain an onlooker if Israel hit Iranian military objectives or Hezbollah convoys transporting arms to Hezbollah from Syria to Lebanon, within Syrian territory. Russia also informed Israel that it would not accept any attacks on its allies (Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and their allies) engaged in fighting ISIS, al-Qaeda and its allies. Israel respected the will of Moscow until the beginning of 2018, when it started to attack Iranian bases and Syrian military warehouses, though it never attacked a Hezbollah military position. Israel justified its attack against the Iranian base, a military facility called T4, by claiming it had sent drones over Israel.

Tel Aviv considered violation of its neighbors’ sovereignty as its exclusive prerogative. Damascus and Iran have responded with at least one confirmed shooting down of an Israeli F-16. Israel started to attack Syrian warehouses, mainly where Iranian missiles were stored. Iran has replaced every single destroyed warehouse with other more sophisticated precision missiles, capable of hitting any objective in Israel.

However, Russia’s neutrality towards Israel in the Levant turned out to be quite expensive. It has lost more than Iran, especially after the downing of its IL-20, and with it, 15 officers highly trained to use the most advanced communication and espionage systems.

Russia then brought to Syria its long-awaited advanced S-300 missiles and delivered them to the Syrian army while maintaining electronic coordination and radar command. The S-300 poses a danger to Israeli jets only if these violate Syrian airspace. Tel Aviv has kept its planes out of Syria since last September but launched long range missiles against a couple of targets.

For many months, the Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to receive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Only through real harassment by the latter did Putin finally accept to briefly meet with Netanyahu over lunch or around the dinner table during a large Summit or meeting of Heads of State, without however accepting any compromise or reconciliation. Russia has now taken a clear position and has no intention of extending its embrace or pardon to Israel. Russia felt that its generosity (by closing its eyes to Israel’s activities in Syria) was neither recognized nor sufficiently appreciated by Tel Aviv.

This past week, Moscow agreed to receive an Israeli military delegation led by Major-General Aharon Haliva, following Israel’s insistence on breaking the ice between the two countries. However, Russia’s position is not expected to change in Syria and no Israeli bombing of Syrian or Iranian targets will be tolerated.

According to these sources:

“Russia has informed Israel that there are Russian officers present at every Syrian or Iranian military base and that any strike against Syrian or Iranian objectives would hit Russian forces as well. Putin will not allow his soldiers and officers to be struck down by Israel’s direct or indirect bombing”.

Moreover, Russia has given Syria the green light — said the source — to strike Israel at any time if and when Tel Aviv’s planes launch raids against Syrian military targets or launch long-range missiles without flying over Syria (for fear of the S-300 and to avoid seeing its jets downed over Syria or Lebanon).

The source confirmed that Syria — contrary to what Israel claims — now has the most accurate missiles, which can hit any target inside Israel. The Syrian armed forces have received unrevealed long and medium-range missiles from Iran. These operate on the GLONASS system – the abbreviation for Globalnaya Navigazionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema, the Russian version of the GPS. Thus, the delivery of Iran and the manufacture of missiles inside Syria (and Lebanon) is now complete.

Israel, however, claims it has destroyed Syria’s missile capability, including that of the missiles delivered by Iran. According to the source, Damascus controls a very large number of precision missiles, notwithstanding those destroyed by Israel. “In Iran, the cheapest and most accessible items are the Sabzi and the missiles”, said the source.

The new Syrian rule of engagement — according to the source — is now as follows: an airport will be hit if Israel hits an airport, and any attack on a barracks or command and control center will result in an attack on similar target in Israel. It appears that the decision has been taken at the highest level and a clear “bank of objectives” has now been set in place.

The rules of engagement are changing and situation in the Levant theatre is becoming more dangerous; regional and international confrontations are still possible. The Middle East will not return to stability unless the Syrian war ends — a war in which the two superpowers, as well as Europe, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have played essential roles. The final chapters have not yet been written.

15 December 2018

Source: zerohedge.com

By presstv.com

Under the leadership of Prime Minister Imran Khan Pakistan has stood up to the United States from its position as a sovereign nation, and is demonstrating a clean break from the past, according to Adam Garrie, an independent political analyst and writer based in London.

Garrie made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Saturday while commenting on a statement of Prime Minister Khan where he expressed regret over Pakistan’s past dealings with the United States, adding that Islamabad will not act as a “hired gun” for the US anymore.

“I would never want to have a relationship where Pakistan is treated like a hired gun — given money to fight someone else’s war. We should never put ourselves in this position again,” Khan said in a Washington Post interview on Thursday.

Khan’s latest comments came days after he had a heated exchange with US President Donald Trump.

He rejected Trump’s accusation that Pakistan had done “nothing” to fight terrorism despite receiving “billions” in US aid, underlining US failure in ending conflict in Afghanistan after spending nearly two decades in the country.

“Well, when Imran Khan first came to power and formed his government just a few months ago I went out on a limb but very confidently saying that that he would be the best political ruler that Pakistan has had since the late and great Muhammad Ali Jinnah,” Garrie said.

“And events that have happened over the last few months now that Imran is in the government, have totally vindicated this. He’s put very few feet wrong and many feet right in terms of foreign policy relations. He has embraced with that spirit of win-win multi-polarity,” he stated.

“At the same time he has done something that none of his predecessors in recent decades has done: He stood up to the United States from a position of a sovereign nation, as opposed to a nation with a neo-colonial mentality that can be bamboozled by the CIA , whose civilians can be butchered by unmanned drone strikes, and that the US can spit upon whether it was withdrawing so-called aid which is really frankly just reparations in disguise – and a measly, paltry amount at that,” the analyst said.

“And, so Imran is really putting his nation in a position, that’s repositioning it from one of subservience to one of regional leadership. This will in the coming years have positive economic repercussions and positive diplomatic repercussions,” he added.

“In some ways we have already seen the flowering of this as Donald Trump within weeks went from criticizing and frankly maligning Pakistan to now asking Islamabad for help in the exit war of America’s creation in Afghanistan which frankly the US started in the early 1980s or late 1970s, and which continued with only a short period of quasi abatement in this 1990s,” he stated.

“So because of this it would behoove anyone with a rational mindset to realize that you cannot solve the crisis in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s help and that indeed goes for all neighbors of the besieged Afghan nation,” the commentator noted.

“So it is anyone’s guess what the US will do now because especially under Trump an atmosphere of volatility pervades the general atmosphere where one day he is someone’s friend, one day he is someone’s enemy. This is true whether it’s Emanuel Macron, and Justin Trudeau or Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. But if Imran continues on the path that he is pursuing I believe that Pakistan’s best days are very much ahead,” he said.

“Of course, there are economic problems which need to be solved, and are being solved. But in terms of foreign policy, I think Pakistan’s new government really is demonstrating that it’s a clean break from the past, not just in terms of who the prime minister is but in terms of what he is doing. He’s creating a new mentality in terms not only of the general political atmosphere but in terms of all the policies that all of them are very positive thus far,” he concluded.

8 December 2018

Source: www.presstv.com

By Abdullah Al Ahsan

“On this day, 45 years ago, 93,000 members of Pakistani troops raised white flags and surrendered to Indian Army …,” wrote an Indian daily around this time two years ago. Indians celebrate December 16, 1971 as Vijay Diwas or victory day commemorating the event every year. For many reactionary caste-ridden Hindu nationalists this development came as a sweet revenge against almost thousand years of Muslim rule. Why these Hindu nationalists are are so Islamophobic? This phenomenon demands some reflections in the wider context of history.

The main challenge for these Hindu nationalists is history itself. History bears witness that Ikhtiar Uddin Muhammad Bakhtiar Khilji (d. 1206), a Turkish general, had spread political Islam in Bengal in 1203/4 with the help of only 18 horse-riders. The original author of the Indian national song Vanda Mataram, Bankim C Chatterjee, claimed that only a black sheep or an outcast could believe in such a claim. Unfortunately, these Islamophobic elements do not like to examine history properly. One must note that Islam was already known to the people of Bengal through traders and Sufis and there was a demand from the local population for political Islam. Islamophobics also ignore the fact that just next to India, throughout Southeast Asia, no Islamic political conquest occurred and yet the whole area hosts one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in the world today. One should also note that although liberal Hindu historians such as Jawaharlal Nehru or Shashi Throor recorded the economic prosperity that India had achieved under Muslim rule and how the British East India Company (EIC) destroyed the economy of Bengal, they hardly offer any credit to Muslim rulers of Bengal for their achievements. That is why one must evaluate the so-called Vijay Diwas in light of such Islamophobic mindset.

Indian nationalists clearly did not want Pakistan to come into existence. They wanted to see Pakistan collapse immediately. India subjugated the people of Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagarh and imposed war in Kashmir. India also refused to deliver Pakistan’s due share funds from the central government budget and military hardware. Pakistan did not inherit any seat for its central government. Yet Pakistan survived almost miraculously. However, Pakistan became victim of its own burden for which it must conduct self-assessment. It has paid a very high price in 1971. Some references to the role of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, leader of what he called Naya or new Pakistan, will illustrate this point.

For any self-assessment, one must first admit that something has gone wrong and that there is a need for evaluating a given situation. However, this has not happened in Pakistan. Immediately after the election 1970 an arrogant Bhutto began to create obstacles for a peaceful political transition. He literally threatened the newly elected West Pakistani members of the parliament that if they had gone to East Pakistan to attend any session, their legs would be amputated. He then joined in a conspiracy with some military and civilian bureaucrats to crackdown on East Pakistanis who were genuinely demanding their legitimate rights. But military cracked down and Pakistan armed forces were accused of killing millions, raping hundreds and thousands and committing genocide. The new administration deliberately covered up the report of its own investigation on the subject. The containment was necessary because it found Mr. Bhutto was greatly responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan. Pakistan’s refusal to take a stand on the allegations implied an acceptance of those claims. Almost half a century has passed since the event and although the event haunts many Pakistani psyches, the propaganda rhetoric against Pakistan has not been directly challenged. On this day Pakistan must revisit history and find out what went wrong.

Unfinished Battle of Faith or Stolen Victory

I have recently received two books related to the subject for review. The first one is The Political History of Muslim Bengal: An Unfinished Battle of Faith (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019) by Mr. Mahmudur Rahman, editor of the popular Bangladeshi daily Amar Desh; and the other The Stolen Victory by Brig Sultan Ahmed, a Pakistani officer who served in East Pakistan in 1971. The last book was originally published in 1996 but has been re-published in 2018. Brig Sultan’s heroic resistance against the advancing Indian armed forces has been well-recognized both by Indians and international observers. He notes that, “India stole victory from Pakistan … Armed forces begged for battle … they were prepared to offer sacrifice of their lives to save the integrity and honour of their country. Their commanders, however, whose weak wills had been conquered, abjectly and ignominiously, surrendered (p.82).” His commander was rather interested in rewarding his “men, who ought to be given gallantry awards,” he reports (p.233).

Although many Bangladeshis celebrate December 16 as Bijoy Dibos or Victory Day, Editor Mahmudur Rahman seems to have a mixed feeling about the occasion. Reporting about the Pakistan army’s surrender document, he says, “No signature from the Bangladeshi representative was felt necessary by the Indian command (p. 168).” He also notes that, “The day of December 1971 is the most glorious in the history of post-1947 India as the dream of Nehru and Patel to divide Pakistan was fulfilled (p. 170).” Rahman also notes that, “President Yahya would later foolishly fall into the Indian trap by declaring war against India on 3 December 1971 at the height of Indian preparedness (pp 153-4).” He also records that, “Just one day before Niazi’s surrender, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto surprisingly torpedoed the last chance for a face-saving withdrawal of the beleaguered Pakistani forces from Dhaka by rejecting a Polish proposal at the United Nations. Whether it was a deliberate act to complete the humiliation of arrogant armed forces of Pakistan, or sheer madness on the part of the head of the Pakistani delegation at UN remains unanswered (p. 169).” These are very penetrating observations for reflections on the significance of the day.

Rahman continues with his description of what he calls, “unfinished battle of faith.” In independent Bangladesh resumed a struggle for self-assertion of Muslim Bengal, which one perhaps may call – the shaping of Bangladeshi nationalism. This was happening mainly as opposed to an imposition of Indian hegemony immediately after the war in 1971. India wanted to see a Bhutan or Sikkim in Bangladesh. One event is particularly noteworthy in this context. On February 25, 2009 a segment of Bangladesh’s armed forces revolted and Rahman reports, “It had been an orgy of slaughter and rape. Fifty-seven officers, from major generals to lieutenants, had been murdered in cold blood (307).” The UK based Telegraph reported that “Bangladeshi army officers blame prime minister for mutiny.” It should be noted that in 1971, during the nine-month long war, Bengalis didn’t lose so many officers. The message to the armed forces was loud and clear: armed forces must be subservient to hegemonic power. Bangladesh army has witnessed many coups and counter coups since 1975, and must now be very careful about any such attempt in the future. Indian hegemony had now stood at a much firmer grounds. Since 2009 Bangladesh has turned into another vassal state along with Bhutan and Sikkim in the Indian neighbourhood.

According to Mahmudur Rahman, assertion of Muslim identity of Bengal would be essential to regain dignity of Bangladesh. But why Muslim Bengal? Doesn’t it sound communal? These questions demand some reference to history of Bengal. When the EIC occupied Bengal in 1757, it was Muslim Bengal, ruled under the prescriptions of Shari’ah. The land was economically very prosperous which had ensured participation of all communities in its prosperity. Adam Smith in 1776 recognized the importance of trade between Bengal and London. In order to consolidate power, the EIC established Calcutta Madrasah in 1781, Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal in 1784 which paved the way to colonial educational policy and what one may call Orientalism. Many British liberals such as Lord Macaulay, John Mill, James Mill, and the academic William Muir all worked for the EIC. The EIC literally crushed the local aristocracy and encouraged what came to be known as Bengal renaissance creating mostly a new Hindu landlord class. Both authors of the Indian national song, mentioned above, were products of this development. Britain’s Bengal experiment became model for colonial control in the 19th century. One must understand the demand for the restoration of Muslim Bengal in this context.

The Muslim Bengal concept explains why Bengalis not only demanded but became the backbone for the Pakistan demand. When the All India Muslim League, political party that led the Pakistan movement, was founded in 1906 Mr. Jinnah was invited to participate. But he rejected the idea calling it communal. However, with the passage of time his experience working with the so called Indian liberals changed his perception and he found solution to India’s problem in the Islamic worldview. The idea of Pakistan, of course, came from the poet-philosopher Muhammad Iqbal who wanted to see an independent India with equal rights and dignity for all. But he too was disappointed with the attitude of self-styled liberals such as MK Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. Iqbal was also aware of the social Darwinist stricken Europe and found solution to the problem of humanity in his Pakistan demand. I find striking similarity between Mahmudur Rahman’s Muslim Bengal and Iqbal’s Pakistan idea.

Paigham-e-Pakistan

During my last visit to Pakistan about a month ago I was given a book entitled Paigham-e-Pakistan to review. This book has been published to counter the rise of extremist ideas in Pakistan in recent years. I thought the message of the book was timely, particularly following the last general election. In my view Imran Khan’s model state of Madinah is no different from Paigham-e-Pakistan envisioned by the poet Iqbal. I also find striking similarity between Iqbal’s vision and the demand for the restoration of Muslim Bengali identity.

Now, returning to the significance of December 16 – whether the day is a victory day or a day of disgrace – it all depends on where one stands. For someone who values human dignity and lessons from history, this day can’t be a victory day. This is particularly true in the context of the current situation in Bangladesh where the ruling party seems to have taken contract from India to impose Indian hegemony on the nation. In this struggle for self-assertion Bangladeshis need Pakistan’s support. However, Pakistan needs to come forward for its own sake. One must recognize with admiration Imran Khan’s citizenship offer to Bengalis living in Pakistan. This is the first government in Pakistan since 1971 which seems to recognize the importance of looking at its history rationally. On this day Pakistan should go further and recognize Bengal’s contributions to the Pakistan movement. History bears the witness that without Bengal’s contribution, Pakistan could not have been achieved. Pakistan should apologize for Bhutto’s arrogant behaviour and armed forces’ crackdown in 1971. This apology will have the potential to restore Pakistan’s own dignity. It will pave the way from disgrace to dignity.

Dr.Abdullah Al Ahsan is a member of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

19 December 2018

By Bill Van Auken

The US military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM) claimed on Monday to have killed 62 members of the al-Shabab Islamist militia in a series of six airstrikes over the weekend in a coastal region south of Somalia’s capital of Mogadishu.

The bombings were only the latest in a steadily escalating US air war in Somalia. They follow a pair of air strikes last month that the Pentagon claimed killed 37 al-Shabab members, a strike in October that it said claimed the lives of 60 fighters and another in November of last year that supposedly killed around 100.

In the latest bombing, as in all those that have preceded it, the Pentagon insisted that there were no “collateral” civilian casualties, following a longstanding ground rule that anyone killed by American bombs and missiles is by definition a targeted militant.

Somalia is one of the shadow wars that Washington is waging in Africa, with little or no information provided to the public, much less even a shred of popular approval.

In the latest attacks, AFRICOM reported that US warplanes carried out four strikes on December 15, leaving 34 people dead, and another two strikes on December 16 that killed 28.

The latest strikes bring the total for this year to 46, a significant rise over the 31 carried out last year, which was itself double the number conducted in 2016.

The Trump administration introduced sweeping changes to the rules of engagement in Somalia, casting aside previous restraints on bombing and other operations.

In addition to the air war, AFRICOM maintains a force of 500 US special operations troops on the ground in Somalia, its largest combat deployment on the continent. These troops participate in search-and-kill operations together with Somali government forces.

In addition, some 20,000 troops from Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda and Burundi operate in Somalia under the auspices of the African Union and in conjunction with the US military operation.

Despite this array of military power, al-Shabab continues to hold sway over vast swathes of the country’s rural areas and is able to make frequent attacks throughout Somalia.

The government that the US is attempting to prop up in Mogadishu is riddled with corruption and crises, pretending to preside over a society that has been left shattered by a quarter of a century of US imperialist intervention.

In the week before the latest US airstrikes, the town of Baidoa, the capital of the southwestern Bay region of Somalia, was the scene of bloody clashes between protesters on the one side and Ethiopian troops and Somali security forces on the other that have left at least eight people dead, including one local legislator and a 10-year-old child.

The protests broke out after Ethiopian troops arrested Muhktar Robow, the former second-in-command of al-Shabab, who quit the group and became the leading candidate for the presidency of the southwestern state in what is the first of a series of regional elections. According to reports, he was tortured, flown to Mogadishu and imprisoned there.

Ethiopian troops are reported to have occupied Baidoa, driving tanks through residential neighborhoods.

The clashes are only the sharpest expression of the breakdown of relations between the central government in Mogadishu and the regional administrations, which have largely cut off cooperation with the capital as a result of multiple conflicts.

Meanwhile, in Mogadishu itself, legislators earlier this month initiated impeachment proceedings against President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed Farmajo charging him with signing “secret deals” with Ethiopia and Eritrea and acting unilaterally in the appointment of military commanders and judges. The lawmakers also accused the president of abusing his powers by authorizing the unlawful rendition of a leader of the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), Muse Qalbi Dhagah, a Somali national, from Somalia to Ethiopia.

The intensive US air strikes in Somalia came on the heels of Washington’s unveiling of a new policy in which the operations of AFRICOM, whose ranks have swelled to 7,500—compared to about 6,000 in 2017—are being overtly developed from the standpoint of Africa as an arena of great power conflict.

Until now, AFRICOM’s operations, which involve deployments of US forces in virtually every country of the continent, have been cast as part of the “global war on terrorism.” The strategy outlined last Thursday by US National Security Adviser John Bolton, however, placed counter-terrorism as Washington’s “second priority,” eclipsed by the imperative of confronting “great power competitors, namely China and Russia.”

Bolton’s rabid address, delivered before the right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation, indicted both Beijing and Moscow for pursuing “predatory practices” that “threaten the financial independence of African nations; inhibit opportunities for US investment; interfere with US military operations; and pose a significant threat to US national security interests.”

The thrust of Bolton’s speech was that China and Russia have been poaching—with considerable success—on territory that Washington views as its own semi-colonial preserve.

In particular, the national security adviser laid stress on the Horn of Africa and its strategic location on the shores of the route for much of the world’s seaborne oil traffic from the Middle East to Asia. He called attention to the building of a Chinese military base in Djibouti, just miles from where AFRICOM has its own main base on the continent, and on a proposed deal that would place Djibouti’s main Red Sea port facility under the management of a Chinese company, saying that this would shift “the balance of power in the Horn of Africa” in China’s favor.

In what was undoubtedly the most laughable segment of Bolton’s speech, he vowed that Washington would carefully review and substantially reduce its aid programs to African countries, vowing that it would not “fund corrupt autocrats, who use the money to fill their coffers at the expense of their people or commit gross human rights violations.”

This from a government that has provided unconditional defense of the Saudi monarchy, supporting its genocidal war in Yemen and covering up for its brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside its Istanbul consulate. One would never guess from Bolton’s sanctimonious speech that Washington has been the principal prop for African dictatorships, from that of Mobutu Sese Seko in the Congo onward.

Bolton’s speech, and the savage intensification of the US assault on Somalia constitute a warning: US imperialism views Africa as a battlefield in its global bid to employ military aggression as a means of defending its hegemony over every region of the planet. To the extent it faces challenges in terms of trade and investment from Russia and China, it will respond with intensified militarism, with the peoples of Africa suffering the consequences.

Bill Van Auken is a politician and activist for the Socialist Equality Party and was a presidential candidate in the U.S. presidential election of 2004, announcing his candidacy on January 27, 2004.

18 December 2018

Source: countercurrents.org