Harassment by Zionists - Unbelievable & Shocking but NOT Surprising - English
Harassment by Zionists - Unbelievable & Shocking but NOT Surprising - English. This is some serious mental torture... It is in violation of all the international laws and above all, it is in...
Harassment by Zionists - Unbelievable & Shocking but NOT Surprising - English. This is some serious mental torture... It is in violation of all the international laws and above all, it is in the violation of basic human rights of humanity.
More...
Description:
Harassment by Zionists - Unbelievable & Shocking but NOT Surprising - English. This is some serious mental torture... It is in violation of all the international laws and above all, it is in the violation of basic human rights of humanity.
Cynthia McKinney in an Israeli jail - English
As if we needed any more proof that the international media deliberately avoids exposing anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian injustices, its suspect behavior during recent days has sealed the case....
As if we needed any more proof that the international media deliberately avoids exposing anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian injustices, its suspect behavior during recent days has sealed the case.
Even as we were being force-fed minute details of Michael Jackson's colorful life along with endless speculation as to the true parentage of his children, a former U.S. Congresswomen and presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, was languishing in an Israeli jail.
Her 'crime' was boarding the Free Gaza Movement's aid vessel The Spirit of Humanity in Cyprus, in an effort to break Israel's cruel siege of Gaza, which even the U.S. President has condemned.
Like several of her sister vessels, The Spirit of Humanity was attacked by the Israeli Navy in international waters before being boarded by Israeli commandos and dragged along with its crew and passengers towards Israel.
Once there, 21 human rights advocates from the U.S., Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Jordan, Palestine and Yemen, including McKinney, Noble Laureate Mairead Maguire, and documentary filmmaker Adam Shapiro, were incarcerated.
Let's be realistic. If just about any other high-profile U.S. politician on any other mission had been detained within a cell block on foreign soil, the incident would have merited headlines.
However, McKinney's abduction went almost unnoticed. Not only was the story relegated to the back pages, if it ran at all, there was a corresponding absence of comment from Congress and the White House.
McKinney is now home after refusing to sign a statement in Hebrew that she was guilty of a violation, but the mainstream media is certainly not clamoring at her door for interviews.
As far as I can tell, her ordeal has mostly been covered by left-wing outlets such as Democracy Now or Middle East networks including Al Jazeera and Press TV.
A number of McKinney's supporters say the reason for the media blackout was the fact that she is a Black American. But, in fact, it's her cause that's the problem rather than her color.
My analysis is based on the lack of media coverage given to the Viva Palestina aid convoy of trucks and ambulances from London to Gaza, led by British Parliamentarian George Galloway.
The Herculean efforts of hundreds of ordinary Britons to deliver much-needed humanitarian supplies to war-torn Gaza earlier this year was a non-event as far as the media was concerned until Galloway was barred from entering Canada as a result.
Unless you're a person who relentlessly digs on the internet, you probably are not aware that during McKinney's ordeal, Galloway, along with Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic, were meeting up with over 200 Americans in Cairo armed with $2 million (Dh7.35 million) that was raised in the U.S. to buy trucks and medical aid destined for Gaza.
The Egyptian English-language paper Al Ahram Weekly dubs this ""the largest grassroots medical relief effort for Gaza in U.S. history"" but once again, this doesn't merit column inches in either U.S. or European mainstream papers.
In a similar vein, is the way that the horrendous courtroom stabbing of 32-year-old Marwa Al Sherbini was considered inconsequential by the German media until it elicited angry protests in her hometown of Alexandria.
There are so many aspects to this story, which should have been emblazoned across front pages.
First of all it was a blatant race crime, which Germany is normally sensitive about. Second, it begs questions concerning court security.
What were armed officers doing when Marwa was stabbed 18 times and why was her husband shot when he attempted to protect his pregnant wife?
What kind of editors would bin reports of such a horrendous crime carried out in full view of the authorities? What were they thinking?
Purely coincidentally, I was sitting at a table with one of Marwa's uncles in an Alexandria coffee shop when he received a call on his mobile and had to dash off because of a ""family emergency"".
Today, this exceptionally close-knit family is devastated and hurt that the murder of one of their own wasn't initially treated with the weight the crime deserved.
Egyptians are outraged at Germany's disinterest and the inaction of their own foreign office. The numbers who attended her funeral, who gathered outside the German embassy in Cairo and who demonstrated in Cairo and Alexandria speak for themselves.
Because Marwa's dispute with her attacker was based on his objections to her Islamic headscarf, the death of the young pharmacist has become an emblem for the rights of Muslim women at a time when the French President is attempting to ban the burqa. Marwa loved life.
She didn't plan to become a martyr. But in the eyes of Egyptians calling for a mosque and a street in Alexandria to be renamed in her honor, she is a heroine.
If the U.S. and Europe are chronically supine when it comes to Muslim causes, then the governments and media throughout the Arab and Muslim world should embrace them clearly and loudly.
With anti-Muslim hate crimes on the rise, Muslims need a strong united voice on the international stage. Shame on the world's media that appears to be united only in its anti-Muslim bias!
Linda S. Heard is a specialist British writer on Middle East affairs.
(Source: Gulf News
More...
Description:
As if we needed any more proof that the international media deliberately avoids exposing anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian injustices, its suspect behavior during recent days has sealed the case.
Even as we were being force-fed minute details of Michael Jackson's colorful life along with endless speculation as to the true parentage of his children, a former U.S. Congresswomen and presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, was languishing in an Israeli jail.
Her 'crime' was boarding the Free Gaza Movement's aid vessel The Spirit of Humanity in Cyprus, in an effort to break Israel's cruel siege of Gaza, which even the U.S. President has condemned.
Like several of her sister vessels, The Spirit of Humanity was attacked by the Israeli Navy in international waters before being boarded by Israeli commandos and dragged along with its crew and passengers towards Israel.
Once there, 21 human rights advocates from the U.S., Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Jordan, Palestine and Yemen, including McKinney, Noble Laureate Mairead Maguire, and documentary filmmaker Adam Shapiro, were incarcerated.
Let's be realistic. If just about any other high-profile U.S. politician on any other mission had been detained within a cell block on foreign soil, the incident would have merited headlines.
However, McKinney's abduction went almost unnoticed. Not only was the story relegated to the back pages, if it ran at all, there was a corresponding absence of comment from Congress and the White House.
McKinney is now home after refusing to sign a statement in Hebrew that she was guilty of a violation, but the mainstream media is certainly not clamoring at her door for interviews.
As far as I can tell, her ordeal has mostly been covered by left-wing outlets such as Democracy Now or Middle East networks including Al Jazeera and Press TV.
A number of McKinney's supporters say the reason for the media blackout was the fact that she is a Black American. But, in fact, it's her cause that's the problem rather than her color.
My analysis is based on the lack of media coverage given to the Viva Palestina aid convoy of trucks and ambulances from London to Gaza, led by British Parliamentarian George Galloway.
The Herculean efforts of hundreds of ordinary Britons to deliver much-needed humanitarian supplies to war-torn Gaza earlier this year was a non-event as far as the media was concerned until Galloway was barred from entering Canada as a result.
Unless you're a person who relentlessly digs on the internet, you probably are not aware that during McKinney's ordeal, Galloway, along with Vietnam War veteran Ron Kovic, were meeting up with over 200 Americans in Cairo armed with $2 million (Dh7.35 million) that was raised in the U.S. to buy trucks and medical aid destined for Gaza.
The Egyptian English-language paper Al Ahram Weekly dubs this ""the largest grassroots medical relief effort for Gaza in U.S. history"" but once again, this doesn't merit column inches in either U.S. or European mainstream papers.
In a similar vein, is the way that the horrendous courtroom stabbing of 32-year-old Marwa Al Sherbini was considered inconsequential by the German media until it elicited angry protests in her hometown of Alexandria.
There are so many aspects to this story, which should have been emblazoned across front pages.
First of all it was a blatant race crime, which Germany is normally sensitive about. Second, it begs questions concerning court security.
What were armed officers doing when Marwa was stabbed 18 times and why was her husband shot when he attempted to protect his pregnant wife?
What kind of editors would bin reports of such a horrendous crime carried out in full view of the authorities? What were they thinking?
Purely coincidentally, I was sitting at a table with one of Marwa's uncles in an Alexandria coffee shop when he received a call on his mobile and had to dash off because of a ""family emergency"".
Today, this exceptionally close-knit family is devastated and hurt that the murder of one of their own wasn't initially treated with the weight the crime deserved.
Egyptians are outraged at Germany's disinterest and the inaction of their own foreign office. The numbers who attended her funeral, who gathered outside the German embassy in Cairo and who demonstrated in Cairo and Alexandria speak for themselves.
Because Marwa's dispute with her attacker was based on his objections to her Islamic headscarf, the death of the young pharmacist has become an emblem for the rights of Muslim women at a time when the French President is attempting to ban the burqa. Marwa loved life.
She didn't plan to become a martyr. But in the eyes of Egyptians calling for a mosque and a street in Alexandria to be renamed in her honor, she is a heroine.
If the U.S. and Europe are chronically supine when it comes to Muslim causes, then the governments and media throughout the Arab and Muslim world should embrace them clearly and loudly.
With anti-Muslim hate crimes on the rise, Muslims need a strong united voice on the international stage. Shame on the world's media that appears to be united only in its anti-Muslim bias!
Linda S. Heard is a specialist British writer on Middle East affairs.
(Source: Gulf News
Gaza - One Year Later by Noam Chomsky - 06Dec09 - English
Gaza is a maximum security prison, something like Guantanamo, basically a torture chamber under a constant harsh and brutal siege.
A seige is an act of war; a total seige is a major war crime....
Gaza is a maximum security prison, something like Guantanamo, basically a torture chamber under a constant harsh and brutal siege.
A seige is an act of war; a total seige is a major war crime.
And its not dramatically different in the West Bank where just about everything going on there is in violation of international law.
This talk by Noam Chomsky, given on 6 December 2009, is titled Gaza - One Year Later.
More...
Description:
Gaza is a maximum security prison, something like Guantanamo, basically a torture chamber under a constant harsh and brutal siege.
A seige is an act of war; a total seige is a major war crime.
And its not dramatically different in the West Bank where just about everything going on there is in violation of international law.
This talk by Noam Chomsky, given on 6 December 2009, is titled Gaza - One Year Later.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN Students Protest IDF Soldiers Campus Visit - All Languages
University of Michigan Campus
On October 20 2010, two IDF soldiers came to the University of Michigan campus as part of a national PR campaign by Stand With Us aimed at justifying Israel's...
University of Michigan Campus
On October 20 2010, two IDF soldiers came to the University of Michigan campus as part of a national PR campaign by Stand With Us aimed at justifying Israel's recent atrocities in the Middle East. Students, staff, and community members collectively engaged in a silent walk-out in memory and in solidarity with all of the silenced Palestinian children that were killed by the IDF during Israel's most recent offensive on the Gaza Strip who are unable to take a stand and give their account today.
More...
Description:
University of Michigan Campus
On October 20 2010, two IDF soldiers came to the University of Michigan campus as part of a national PR campaign by Stand With Us aimed at justifying Israel's recent atrocities in the Middle East. Students, staff, and community members collectively engaged in a silent walk-out in memory and in solidarity with all of the silenced Palestinian children that were killed by the IDF during Israel's most recent offensive on the Gaza Strip who are unable to take a stand and give their account today.
Imam Khomeini: The Incident of Tabas was a miracle by Allah - Farsi
April 25, marks the anniversary of failure of US military aggression to Tabas.
Thirty years ago on April 25, 1980, the US staged a military aggression against Iran's soil with a number of...
April 25, marks the anniversary of failure of US military aggression to Tabas.
Thirty years ago on April 25, 1980, the US staged a military aggression against Iran's soil with a number of choppers and planes.
The US administration, whose different plots to defeat the sacred Islamic system had failed, launched this military aggression with the goal of releasing the spies that had been detained throughout the seizure of US spy den in Tehran.
Meanwhile, despite precise planning, usage of advanced equipment, and numerous exercises that the Americans had done in similar locations, this military assault failed due to occurrence of a sand storm throughout the deserts in the vicinity of the city of Tabas, central Iran, while a number of US choppers and planes caught fire; a number of US troopers were killed; and the rest of these US troopers fled Iran's soil. The Americans had planned to fly to Tehran with a chopper, after landing in the city of Tabas. The occurrence of a sand storm astounded the American officials, who had made all the essential arrangements and had even studied the weather conditions.
In fact, with divine blessings, US military aggression was doomed to fail.
Meanwhile, in reference to the humiliating military failure of the US in Tabas, the Founder of Islamic Republic of Iran late Imam Khomeini (May his soul rest in peace) noted now that the Great Satan has committed such an absurd act, the honorable Iranian nation should become fully prepared for confrontation with the enemies, with all its potential and through reliance on God's strength.
April 25, 1980 is a memorable day for the Iranian nation. This date is unforgettable for the Iranian nation because on this day the Iranian people were blessed by the Almighty in the face of the enemy's plot and conspiracy. This day will also not be forgotten in US history, because it showed that sole reliance on military equipment in confrontation with faithful people will not bring about victory.
Tabas incident paved the way for further unity and solidarity of Iran's revolutionary forces, while also proving Islamic Revolution's righteousness throughout the international community. Throughout the course of this incident, the true ominous visage of the enemy was revealed more than ever and the divine nature of Islamic Revolution was proved to the international community.
In fact, this sand storm unveiled the ugly visage of Washington's rulers and displayed their clear aggression, which was in violation to international rules and regulations.
More...
Description:
April 25, marks the anniversary of failure of US military aggression to Tabas.
Thirty years ago on April 25, 1980, the US staged a military aggression against Iran's soil with a number of choppers and planes.
The US administration, whose different plots to defeat the sacred Islamic system had failed, launched this military aggression with the goal of releasing the spies that had been detained throughout the seizure of US spy den in Tehran.
Meanwhile, despite precise planning, usage of advanced equipment, and numerous exercises that the Americans had done in similar locations, this military assault failed due to occurrence of a sand storm throughout the deserts in the vicinity of the city of Tabas, central Iran, while a number of US choppers and planes caught fire; a number of US troopers were killed; and the rest of these US troopers fled Iran's soil. The Americans had planned to fly to Tehran with a chopper, after landing in the city of Tabas. The occurrence of a sand storm astounded the American officials, who had made all the essential arrangements and had even studied the weather conditions.
In fact, with divine blessings, US military aggression was doomed to fail.
Meanwhile, in reference to the humiliating military failure of the US in Tabas, the Founder of Islamic Republic of Iran late Imam Khomeini (May his soul rest in peace) noted now that the Great Satan has committed such an absurd act, the honorable Iranian nation should become fully prepared for confrontation with the enemies, with all its potential and through reliance on God's strength.
April 25, 1980 is a memorable day for the Iranian nation. This date is unforgettable for the Iranian nation because on this day the Iranian people were blessed by the Almighty in the face of the enemy's plot and conspiracy. This day will also not be forgotten in US history, because it showed that sole reliance on military equipment in confrontation with faithful people will not bring about victory.
Tabas incident paved the way for further unity and solidarity of Iran's revolutionary forces, while also proving Islamic Revolution's righteousness throughout the international community. Throughout the course of this incident, the true ominous visage of the enemy was revealed more than ever and the divine nature of Islamic Revolution was proved to the international community.
In fact, this sand storm unveiled the ugly visage of Washington's rulers and displayed their clear aggression, which was in violation to international rules and regulations.
[Must Watch] In Saudi Arabia - Sheikh Al Nimr - Real Shia who only fear Allah - Arabic Sub English
Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr Dares Saudi Regime to Attack Iran and Declares: We Are Loyal to Allah, Not to Saudi Arabia or its Royal Family
Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by...
Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr Dares Saudi Regime to Attack Iran and Declares: We Are Loyal to Allah, Not to Saudi Arabia or its Royal Family
Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr, which was posted on the Internet on October 7, 2011.
Nimr Baqir Al-Nimr is from the city of Awwamiyah in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia. He is an outspoken Shia cleric known for his criticism of the Saudi government and his constant call for freedom of religion, equality, and justice for the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. In 2009, Al-Nimr said that the dignity of the Saudi Shia is more precious than the unity of the land, and suggested that Saudi Shia might secede from Saudi Arabia. Fearing arrest, Al-Nimr currently is in hiding.
Nimr Al-Nimr: �For the past 100 years, we have been subjected to oppression, injustice, fear, and intimidation. From the moment you are born, you are surrounded by fear, intimidation, persecution, and abuse. We were born into an atmosphere of intimidation. We feared even the walls. Who among us is not familiar with the intimidation and injustice to which we have been subjected in this country? I am 55 years old, more than half a century. From the day I was born and to this day, I�ve never felt safe or secure in this country.
�You are always being accused of something. You are always under threat. The head of the State Security Service admitted this to me in person. He said to me when I was arrested: �All you Shi�ites should be killed.� That is their logic. The head of the State Security Service in the Eastern Province said so himself. [...]
�They are still plotting to carry out a massacre. They are more than welcome. We are here. Our blood is a small price to pay in defense of our values. We do not fear death. We long for martyrdom. [...]
�A few months ago, the flame of honor was sparked in the spirits of the youth. The torch of freedom was lit. The people took to the streets demanding reform, honor, and freedom. There are people who have been held in prison unjustly for more than 16 years. In addition, the Peninsula Shield Force and the Saudi army invaded Bahrain. Then there were more and more arrests.
�So who was it who instigated strife and unrest? [...]
�The strife and unrest in Awwamiya were instigated by the regime, not the people. [...]
�We will continue to defend both the veteran and the new prisoners. We will stand by them. We don�t mind being arrested, and joining them. We don�t even mind shedding our blood for their sake. We will continue to express even stronger solidarity with Bahrain. It is our own kin in Bahrain. Even if the Saudi army and the Peninsula Shield Force had not intervened, it still would have been our duty to stand by the people of Bahrain, our kin, let alone when the Saudi army takes part in oppression, the killing, the violation of women�s honor, and the plundering of money. [...]
�[The Saudi regime says] that we are acting �at the behest of a foreign country.� They use that false pretext. By �foreign country� they mean Iran, of course. You can�t really tell if it�s Iran, Turkey, a European country, or the U.S., but they usually mean Iran. In December 1978, there was an Intifada to defend the honor of Awwamiya, when the riot police attacked the town. This was on December 10, 1978, before the Shah was deposed, before the Islamic Republic of Iran was even established.
�It was in 1978 � four months before the fall of the Shah. A group of people convened to perform the religious rite of taziyeh for Imam Hussein. It had nothing to do with political or security matters, but the security forces arrived and attacked them, and a confrontation ensued. People were defending themselves, as well as their faith and their honor. That night, they arrested 100 people. This was in December 1978, prior to the fall of the Iranian [Shah]. So how can they talk about foreign interferen
More...
Description:
Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr Dares Saudi Regime to Attack Iran and Declares: We Are Loyal to Allah, Not to Saudi Arabia or its Royal Family
Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr, which was posted on the Internet on October 7, 2011.
Nimr Baqir Al-Nimr is from the city of Awwamiyah in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia. He is an outspoken Shia cleric known for his criticism of the Saudi government and his constant call for freedom of religion, equality, and justice for the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. In 2009, Al-Nimr said that the dignity of the Saudi Shia is more precious than the unity of the land, and suggested that Saudi Shia might secede from Saudi Arabia. Fearing arrest, Al-Nimr currently is in hiding.
Nimr Al-Nimr: �For the past 100 years, we have been subjected to oppression, injustice, fear, and intimidation. From the moment you are born, you are surrounded by fear, intimidation, persecution, and abuse. We were born into an atmosphere of intimidation. We feared even the walls. Who among us is not familiar with the intimidation and injustice to which we have been subjected in this country? I am 55 years old, more than half a century. From the day I was born and to this day, I�ve never felt safe or secure in this country.
�You are always being accused of something. You are always under threat. The head of the State Security Service admitted this to me in person. He said to me when I was arrested: �All you Shi�ites should be killed.� That is their logic. The head of the State Security Service in the Eastern Province said so himself. [...]
�They are still plotting to carry out a massacre. They are more than welcome. We are here. Our blood is a small price to pay in defense of our values. We do not fear death. We long for martyrdom. [...]
�A few months ago, the flame of honor was sparked in the spirits of the youth. The torch of freedom was lit. The people took to the streets demanding reform, honor, and freedom. There are people who have been held in prison unjustly for more than 16 years. In addition, the Peninsula Shield Force and the Saudi army invaded Bahrain. Then there were more and more arrests.
�So who was it who instigated strife and unrest? [...]
�The strife and unrest in Awwamiya were instigated by the regime, not the people. [...]
�We will continue to defend both the veteran and the new prisoners. We will stand by them. We don�t mind being arrested, and joining them. We don�t even mind shedding our blood for their sake. We will continue to express even stronger solidarity with Bahrain. It is our own kin in Bahrain. Even if the Saudi army and the Peninsula Shield Force had not intervened, it still would have been our duty to stand by the people of Bahrain, our kin, let alone when the Saudi army takes part in oppression, the killing, the violation of women�s honor, and the plundering of money. [...]
�[The Saudi regime says] that we are acting �at the behest of a foreign country.� They use that false pretext. By �foreign country� they mean Iran, of course. You can�t really tell if it�s Iran, Turkey, a European country, or the U.S., but they usually mean Iran. In December 1978, there was an Intifada to defend the honor of Awwamiya, when the riot police attacked the town. This was on December 10, 1978, before the Shah was deposed, before the Islamic Republic of Iran was even established.
�It was in 1978 � four months before the fall of the Shah. A group of people convened to perform the religious rite of taziyeh for Imam Hussein. It had nothing to do with political or security matters, but the security forces arrived and attacked them, and a confrontation ensued. People were defending themselves, as well as their faith and their honor. That night, they arrested 100 people. This was in December 1978, prior to the fall of the Iranian [Shah]. So how can they talk about foreign interferen
Saudi Ayatullah Sheikh Nimr: We Should Rejoice / No fear of Al E Saud - Arabic sub English
Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr Dares Saudi Regime to Attack Iran and Declares: We Are Loyal to Allah, Not to Saudi Arabia or its Royal Family Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by...
Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr Dares Saudi Regime to Attack Iran and Declares: We Are Loyal to Allah, Not to Saudi Arabia or its Royal Family Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr, which was posted on the Internet on October 7, 2011. Nimr Baqir Al-Nimr is from the city of Awwamiyah in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia. He is an outspoken Shia cleric known for his criticism of the Saudi government and his constant call for freedom of religion, equality, and justice for the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. In 2009, Al-Nimr said that the dignity of the Saudi Shia is more precious than the unity of the land, and suggested that Saudi Shia might secede from Saudi Arabia. Fearing arrest, Al-Nimr currently is in hiding. Nimr Al-Nimr: �For the past 100 years, we have been subjected to oppression, injustice, fear, and intimidation. From the moment you are born, you are surrounded by fear, intimidation, persecution, and abuse. We were born into an atmosphere of intimidation. We feared even the walls. Who among us is not familiar with the intimidation and injustice to which we have been subjected in this country? I am 55 years old, more than half a century. From the day I was born and to this day, I�ve never felt safe or secure in this country. �You are always being accused of something. You are always under threat. The head of the State Security Service admitted this to me in person. He said to me when I was arrested: �All you Shi�ites should be killed.� That is their logic. The head of the State Security Service in the Eastern Province said so himself. [...] �They are still plotting to carry out a massacre. They are more than welcome. We are here. Our blood is a small price to pay in defense of our values. We do not fear death. We long for martyrdom. [...] �A few months ago, the flame of honor was sparked in the spirits of the youth. The torch of freedom was lit. The people took to the streets demanding reform, honor, and freedom. There are people who have been held in prison unjustly for more than 16 years. In addition, the Peninsula Shield Force and the Saudi army invaded Bahrain. Then there were more and more arrests. �So who was it who instigated strife and unrest? [...] �The strife and unrest in Awwamiya were instigated by the regime, not the people. [...] �We will continue to defend both the veteran and the new prisoners. We will stand by them. We don�t mind being arrested, and joining them. We don�t even mind shedding our blood for their sake. We will continue to express even stronger solidarity with Bahrain. It is our own kin in Bahrain. Even if the Saudi army and the Peninsula Shield Force had not intervened, it still would have been our duty to stand by the people of Bahrain, our kin, let alone when the Saudi army takes part in oppression, the killing, the violation of women�s honor, and the plundering of money. [...] �[The Saudi regime says] that we are acting �at the behest of a foreign country.� They use that false pretext. By �foreign country� they mean Iran, of course. You can�t really tell if it�s Iran, Turkey, a European country, or the U.S., but they usually mean Iran. In December 1978, there was an Intifada to defend the honor of Awwamiya, when the riot police attacked the town. This was on December 10, 1978, before the Shah was deposed, before the Islamic Republic of Iran was even established. �It was in 1978 � four months before the fall of the Shah. A group of people convened to perform the religious rite of taziyeh for Imam Hussein. It had nothing to do with political or security matters, but the security forces arrived and attacked them, and a confrontation ensued. People were defending themselves, as well as their faith and their honor. That night, they arrested 100 people. This was in December 1978, prior to the fall of the Iranian [Shah]. So how can they talk about foreign interferen
More...
Description:
Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr Dares Saudi Regime to Attack Iran and Declares: We Are Loyal to Allah, Not to Saudi Arabia or its Royal Family Following are excerpts from a Friday sermon delivered by Saudi Ayatollah Nimr Al-Nimr, which was posted on the Internet on October 7, 2011. Nimr Baqir Al-Nimr is from the city of Awwamiyah in the eastern part of Saudi Arabia. He is an outspoken Shia cleric known for his criticism of the Saudi government and his constant call for freedom of religion, equality, and justice for the Shia minority in Saudi Arabia. In 2009, Al-Nimr said that the dignity of the Saudi Shia is more precious than the unity of the land, and suggested that Saudi Shia might secede from Saudi Arabia. Fearing arrest, Al-Nimr currently is in hiding. Nimr Al-Nimr: �For the past 100 years, we have been subjected to oppression, injustice, fear, and intimidation. From the moment you are born, you are surrounded by fear, intimidation, persecution, and abuse. We were born into an atmosphere of intimidation. We feared even the walls. Who among us is not familiar with the intimidation and injustice to which we have been subjected in this country? I am 55 years old, more than half a century. From the day I was born and to this day, I�ve never felt safe or secure in this country. �You are always being accused of something. You are always under threat. The head of the State Security Service admitted this to me in person. He said to me when I was arrested: �All you Shi�ites should be killed.� That is their logic. The head of the State Security Service in the Eastern Province said so himself. [...] �They are still plotting to carry out a massacre. They are more than welcome. We are here. Our blood is a small price to pay in defense of our values. We do not fear death. We long for martyrdom. [...] �A few months ago, the flame of honor was sparked in the spirits of the youth. The torch of freedom was lit. The people took to the streets demanding reform, honor, and freedom. There are people who have been held in prison unjustly for more than 16 years. In addition, the Peninsula Shield Force and the Saudi army invaded Bahrain. Then there were more and more arrests. �So who was it who instigated strife and unrest? [...] �The strife and unrest in Awwamiya were instigated by the regime, not the people. [...] �We will continue to defend both the veteran and the new prisoners. We will stand by them. We don�t mind being arrested, and joining them. We don�t even mind shedding our blood for their sake. We will continue to express even stronger solidarity with Bahrain. It is our own kin in Bahrain. Even if the Saudi army and the Peninsula Shield Force had not intervened, it still would have been our duty to stand by the people of Bahrain, our kin, let alone when the Saudi army takes part in oppression, the killing, the violation of women�s honor, and the plundering of money. [...] �[The Saudi regime says] that we are acting �at the behest of a foreign country.� They use that false pretext. By �foreign country� they mean Iran, of course. You can�t really tell if it�s Iran, Turkey, a European country, or the U.S., but they usually mean Iran. In December 1978, there was an Intifada to defend the honor of Awwamiya, when the riot police attacked the town. This was on December 10, 1978, before the Shah was deposed, before the Islamic Republic of Iran was even established. �It was in 1978 � four months before the fall of the Shah. A group of people convened to perform the religious rite of taziyeh for Imam Hussein. It had nothing to do with political or security matters, but the security forces arrived and attacked them, and a confrontation ensued. People were defending themselves, as well as their faith and their honor. That night, they arrested 100 people. This was in December 1978, prior to the fall of the Iranian [Shah]. So how can they talk about foreign interferen
[DOCUMENTARY] غزہ کی پٹی Gaza Strip - Arabic sub Urdu
A documentary that goes over some facts about Gaza Strip, Palestine. It brings to light some of the crimes of the Zionist Regime (israel) and its repeated violation of the internal law and...
A documentary that goes over some facts about Gaza Strip, Palestine. It brings to light some of the crimes of the Zionist Regime (israel) and its repeated violation of the internal law and basic human rights.
More...
Description:
A documentary that goes over some facts about Gaza Strip, Palestine. It brings to light some of the crimes of the Zionist Regime (israel) and its repeated violation of the internal law and basic human rights.
Did Obama Lie about FATWA?? - Nuke Free World By Rehbar - English & Persian
DID OBAMA LIE ?????
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the...
DID OBAMA LIE ?????
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
Reading Obama’s Iran speech
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:10PM GMT
2
Phyllis Bennis, The Nation
Related Interviews:
‘Rouhani’s remarks in US, conciliatory’
\\\\\\\'Rouhani speech, perfectly appropriate\\\\\\\'
Related Viewpoints:
Ziocons fume over Rouhani UN speech
All of a sudden we’re talking to Iran. Now, granted, that shouldn’t be such an astonishing bombshell. But given the reality of the last several decades, it pretty much is. And that’s all good. It’s been too long coming, it’s still too hesitant, there’s still too much hinting about military force behind it… but we’re talking. Foreign minister to foreign minister, Kerry to Zarif, it’s all a good sign.
There were lots of problem areas in the speech-President Obama was right when he said that US policy in the Middle East would lead to charges of “hypocrisy and inconsistency.” US policy-its protection of Israeli violations of international law, its privileging of petro-monarchies over human rights, its coddling of military dictators-remains rank with hypocrisy and inconsistency. And Obama’s speech reflected much of it.
But President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly reflected some of the extraordinary shifts in global-especially Middle East and most especially Syria-related-politics that have taken shape in the last six or eight weeks. And on Iran, that was good news. Yes the president trotted out his familiar litany that “we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” But this time, there was no “all options on the table” threat. He added explicitly that “we are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.” The reference to Iran’s right to nuclear energy represented a major shift away from the longstanding claim among many US hawks and the Israeli government that Iran must give up all nuclear enrichment.
Respecting Iran’s right to “access” nuclear energy is still a bit of a dodge, of course-Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognizes not just access but “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran is a longstanding signatory to the NPT, and is entitled to all those rights. Obama referred only that “we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities” under the NPT, while saying nothing about Iran’s rights under the treaty. But the high visibility US recognition of any Iranian right to nuclear power-in the context of a new willingness to open talks-is still enormously important.
It was also important that President Obama spoke of Iran with respect, acknowledging Iranian interests and opinions as legitimate and parallel to Washington’s. He recognized that Iranian mistrust of the United States has “deep roots,” referencing (however carefully) the “history of US interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War.” In fact, his identification of the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh as a product of the Cold War may have been part of an effort to distance himself and his administration from those actions. (It’s a bit disingenuous, of course. The primary rationale for the coup was far more a response to Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil than to his ties to the Soviet Union.)
Obama also paid new attention to longstanding Iranian positions. He noted that “the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.” Now anyone following the Iran nuclear issue knows that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, stated at least as far back as 2003 that nuclear weapons are a violation of Islamic law and Iran would never build or use one, and the fatwa, or legal opinion, was issued at least as far back as 2005. This isn’t new. But for President Obama to mention those judgments in the context of “the basis for a meaningful agreement” is indeed new.
Mainstream US press and officials have long derided those statements, claiming that fatwas are not binding, that 700-year-old religious laws can’t have a position on nuclear weapons, etc. But in so doing they ignore the real significance-that President Rouhani, the Supreme Leader and the rest of Iran’s government have to answer to their own population too. After years of repeating that nuclear weapons would be un-Islamic, would violate a fatwa, etc., it would not be so easy for Iran’s leaders to win popular support for a decision to embrace the bomb.
There is a long way to go in challenging aspects of President Obama’s speech at the United Nations-his embrace of American exceptionalism and his recommitment to a failed approach to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, his view that war and violence can only be answered by military force or nothing, and more. He didn’t explicitly state a willingness to accept Iran’s participation in international talks on Syria. There is a serious danger that any move towards rapprochement with Iran would be matched with moves to pacify Israeli demands-almost certainly at the expense of Palestinian rights.
But in the broader scenario of US-Iran relations, this is a moment to move forward, to welcome the new approach in Washington now answering the new approach of Tehran.
More flexibility will be required than the United States is usually known for. The usual opponents-in Congress, in Israel and the pro-Israel lobbies-are already on the move, challenging the new opening. But these last weeks showed how a quickly organized demonstration of widespread public opinion, demanding negotiations instead of war, can win. We were able to build a movement fast, agile and powerful enough to reverse an imminent military attack on Syria and instead force a move towards diplomatic solutions to end the war. This time around, the demand to deepen, consolidate and not abandon diplomatic possibilities is on our agenda-and perhaps once again we can
More...
Description:
DID OBAMA LIE ?????
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
September 30, 2013 – At his press briefing last Friday, Barack Obama practically ran to the podium to announce his “historic” phone call to Iran and to proclaim that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms.
The media salivated at the courageous, bold initiative by the president to negotiate with Iran and to obtain such a stunning diplomatic commitment. It sounded like the foreign policy coup of the century. And to think, all it took was a phone call. Not only that, it happened just days before Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to meet with Obama about the situation in Iran
Reading Obama’s Iran speech
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
President Barack Obama addresses the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:10PM GMT
2
Phyllis Bennis, The Nation
Related Interviews:
‘Rouhani’s remarks in US, conciliatory’
\\\\\\\'Rouhani speech, perfectly appropriate\\\\\\\'
Related Viewpoints:
Ziocons fume over Rouhani UN speech
All of a sudden we’re talking to Iran. Now, granted, that shouldn’t be such an astonishing bombshell. But given the reality of the last several decades, it pretty much is. And that’s all good. It’s been too long coming, it’s still too hesitant, there’s still too much hinting about military force behind it… but we’re talking. Foreign minister to foreign minister, Kerry to Zarif, it’s all a good sign.
There were lots of problem areas in the speech-President Obama was right when he said that US policy in the Middle East would lead to charges of “hypocrisy and inconsistency.” US policy-its protection of Israeli violations of international law, its privileging of petro-monarchies over human rights, its coddling of military dictators-remains rank with hypocrisy and inconsistency. And Obama’s speech reflected much of it.
But President Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly reflected some of the extraordinary shifts in global-especially Middle East and most especially Syria-related-politics that have taken shape in the last six or eight weeks. And on Iran, that was good news. Yes the president trotted out his familiar litany that “we are determined to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” But this time, there was no “all options on the table” threat. He added explicitly that “we are not seeking regime change and we respect the right of the Iranian people to access peaceful nuclear energy.” The reference to Iran’s right to nuclear energy represented a major shift away from the longstanding claim among many US hawks and the Israeli government that Iran must give up all nuclear enrichment.
Respecting Iran’s right to “access” nuclear energy is still a bit of a dodge, of course-Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognizes not just access but “the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination.” Iran is a longstanding signatory to the NPT, and is entitled to all those rights. Obama referred only that “we insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities” under the NPT, while saying nothing about Iran’s rights under the treaty. But the high visibility US recognition of any Iranian right to nuclear power-in the context of a new willingness to open talks-is still enormously important.
It was also important that President Obama spoke of Iran with respect, acknowledging Iranian interests and opinions as legitimate and parallel to Washington’s. He recognized that Iranian mistrust of the United States has “deep roots,” referencing (however carefully) the “history of US interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War.” In fact, his identification of the 1953 US-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh as a product of the Cold War may have been part of an effort to distance himself and his administration from those actions. (It’s a bit disingenuous, of course. The primary rationale for the coup was far more a response to Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil than to his ties to the Soviet Union.)
Obama also paid new attention to longstanding Iranian positions. He noted that “the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has just recently reiterated that the Islamic Republic will never develop a nuclear weapon.” Now anyone following the Iran nuclear issue knows that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, stated at least as far back as 2003 that nuclear weapons are a violation of Islamic law and Iran would never build or use one, and the fatwa, or legal opinion, was issued at least as far back as 2005. This isn’t new. But for President Obama to mention those judgments in the context of “the basis for a meaningful agreement” is indeed new.
Mainstream US press and officials have long derided those statements, claiming that fatwas are not binding, that 700-year-old religious laws can’t have a position on nuclear weapons, etc. But in so doing they ignore the real significance-that President Rouhani, the Supreme Leader and the rest of Iran’s government have to answer to their own population too. After years of repeating that nuclear weapons would be un-Islamic, would violate a fatwa, etc., it would not be so easy for Iran’s leaders to win popular support for a decision to embrace the bomb.
There is a long way to go in challenging aspects of President Obama’s speech at the United Nations-his embrace of American exceptionalism and his recommitment to a failed approach to Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, his view that war and violence can only be answered by military force or nothing, and more. He didn’t explicitly state a willingness to accept Iran’s participation in international talks on Syria. There is a serious danger that any move towards rapprochement with Iran would be matched with moves to pacify Israeli demands-almost certainly at the expense of Palestinian rights.
But in the broader scenario of US-Iran relations, this is a moment to move forward, to welcome the new approach in Washington now answering the new approach of Tehran.
More flexibility will be required than the United States is usually known for. The usual opponents-in Congress, in Israel and the pro-Israel lobbies-are already on the move, challenging the new opening. But these last weeks showed how a quickly organized demonstration of widespread public opinion, demanding negotiations instead of war, can win. We were able to build a movement fast, agile and powerful enough to reverse an imminent military attack on Syria and instead force a move towards diplomatic solutions to end the war. This time around, the demand to deepen, consolidate and not abandon diplomatic possibilities is on our agenda-and perhaps once again we can
Toronto Protest Against Genocide of Hazara people in Quetta - 01Oct2011 - English
Italian member of European parliament in European parliament Rita Borsellino:
I express my personal sympathy to the people of Hazara ethnicity, victim of a massacre that is taking place while the...
Italian member of European parliament in European parliament Rita Borsellino:
I express my personal sympathy to the people of Hazara ethnicity, victim of a massacre that is taking place while the world witnessing the indifference and silence. Before the numbers of killings of these people and the inAertia of governments to stop this genocide forgotten, it is necessary for the immediate intervention of the European Community and the UN because it would put an end to this perpetual violation of human rights against the Hazaras in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The record gives us continuously executed by the Taliban against those considered infidels because of religious Shiite. All this must be stopped before it turns into another Holocaust. Many Afghan refugees living in Italy are ethnic Hazaras, and both will be Saturday, Oct. 1 in the square in Rome to say no to genocide, I will be with them virtually to support their demands and to insist on an intervention by the bodies of international community can not wait any longer. "
More than 500 people are ethnic Hazaras killed in Pakistan in recent months. The members of the Pakistani Taliban terrorist group "Lashkar-e-Jhangvi" claimed responsibility for killing each claiming that the massacre did not end until the last "infidel" will not be exterminated. On Tuesday, the Taliban stopped a bus and sent down after the 26 passengers killed them on the spot in a grim summary execution. After this latest massacre of ethnic Hazaras people around the world has decided to launch October 1 ˚ for a demonstration to protest against this genocide and against the indifference and silence of the international community. The main cities where protests are taking place in Oslo - Norway, Melbourne - Australia, Sydney - Australia, London - England, United States, Karachi - Pakistan, Islamabad - Pakistan Toronto - Canada, Rome. The Hazaras, like the Jews during the Second World War, have suffered mass killings in different historical periods, so now you can find in every corner of the world to seek asylum and protection due to their systematic genocide. Many Afghan refugees residing in Italy are ethnic Hazaras, they too are meeting in Rome on October 1 in Republic Square (in front of UN headquarters) to say stop the massacre that is taking place and ask to ' UN and EU to intervene to stop the "VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS" and "systematic genocide" of the Hazaras in Pakistan and Afghanistan,
More...
Description:
Italian member of European parliament in European parliament Rita Borsellino:
I express my personal sympathy to the people of Hazara ethnicity, victim of a massacre that is taking place while the world witnessing the indifference and silence. Before the numbers of killings of these people and the inAertia of governments to stop this genocide forgotten, it is necessary for the immediate intervention of the European Community and the UN because it would put an end to this perpetual violation of human rights against the Hazaras in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The record gives us continuously executed by the Taliban against those considered infidels because of religious Shiite. All this must be stopped before it turns into another Holocaust. Many Afghan refugees living in Italy are ethnic Hazaras, and both will be Saturday, Oct. 1 in the square in Rome to say no to genocide, I will be with them virtually to support their demands and to insist on an intervention by the bodies of international community can not wait any longer. "
More than 500 people are ethnic Hazaras killed in Pakistan in recent months. The members of the Pakistani Taliban terrorist group "Lashkar-e-Jhangvi" claimed responsibility for killing each claiming that the massacre did not end until the last "infidel" will not be exterminated. On Tuesday, the Taliban stopped a bus and sent down after the 26 passengers killed them on the spot in a grim summary execution. After this latest massacre of ethnic Hazaras people around the world has decided to launch October 1 ˚ for a demonstration to protest against this genocide and against the indifference and silence of the international community. The main cities where protests are taking place in Oslo - Norway, Melbourne - Australia, Sydney - Australia, London - England, United States, Karachi - Pakistan, Islamabad - Pakistan Toronto - Canada, Rome. The Hazaras, like the Jews during the Second World War, have suffered mass killings in different historical periods, so now you can find in every corner of the world to seek asylum and protection due to their systematic genocide. Many Afghan refugees residing in Italy are ethnic Hazaras, they too are meeting in Rome on October 1 in Republic Square (in front of UN headquarters) to say stop the massacre that is taking place and ask to ' UN and EU to intervene to stop the "VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS" and "systematic genocide" of the Hazaras in Pakistan and Afghanistan,
Anger over Pakistani support-English
Pakistan has agreed to support the king against the protestors
ONE Middle Eastern intervention makes the headlines every day. The other barely rates a mention. The first is ostensibly aimed at...
Pakistan has agreed to support the king against the protestors
ONE Middle Eastern intervention makes the headlines every day. The other barely rates a mention. The first is ostensibly aimed at protecting civilians and at facilitating change, the second at safeguarding the status quo.
Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi has been told he must go. Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa family, on the other hand, must stay. Some Arabs, one could be forgiven for assuming, are worthier of democracy and civil rights than others.
Yet the degree of hypocrisy may not be as great as it seems. After all, while the future of Tunisia and Egypt remains unwritten, there can be little reason to doubt that the US and its allies would prefer to preserve the basic structures of the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes, albeit with new figureheads and, if possible, less visible signs of oppression and the odd concession to pluralism.
From their point of view, the ideal outcome in Bahrain would be similar: a few nods in the direction of cosmetic reform to placate the restive segments of society, but not much more than that — and certainly nothing that could jeopardise Bahrain’s crucial strategic relationship with the US, especially its status as a home for the Fifth Fleet. The trouble, of course, is the impossibility of rearrangements that could be passed off as regime change.
At best the prime minister, in situ for four decades, could be replaced. But he is the king’s uncle, and even if he could be persuaded, without occasioning a family split, to step aside, his successor would inevitably be another Al Khalifa.
That US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton felt obliged earlier this month to mildly berate the regime in Manama for its transgressions against mostly peaceful protesters was obviously in large part a consequence of not wishing the contrast with western actions in Libya to seem too stark. It is highly unlikely that the decision by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to send in troops was taken without Washington’s imprimatur, given that both are effectively American satrapies in geo-strategic terms.
The foreign troops, which are officially supposed to guard strategic installations, rather than assist in ‘crowd control’, were evidently despatched under a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreement dating back to Saddam Hussein’s neighbour-threatening rhetoric in 1990, which preceded the invasion of Kuwait. (His stance was thoroughly embarrassing at the time for oil-rich states that had during the previous decade supported Iraq in its war against Iran.)
That was, however, a joint defence pact among the Gulf potentates, to the effect that the violation of any GCC state’s sovereignty would be construed as aggression against all. Internal unrest did not figure in their calculations. Bahrain does not face any external threat, although there can be little doubt its emissaries have, in private discussions, conjured up the bogey of a threat from Iran.
Tehran’s domestic and foreign policies are often indefensible, but cables from Bahrain-based US diplomats over recent years, released by WikiLeaks, suggest it hasn’t lately been going out of its way to interfere in Bahrain. The Gulf state’s majority Shia population resents the almost exclusively Sunni regime because of irrefutable instances of discrimination rather than because of imprecations from Iran.
Given that at least 70 per cent of Bahrainis are Shias, it is hardly surprising that the majority of those who are economically disadvantaged fall in the same category. But their exclusion from privilege is not just a matter of demographics.
For instance, in order to keep out Bahraini Shias from the security forces, the government regularly recruits troops from abroad — notably from Yemen and Pakistan. And whereas the value of public representation can be judged by the fact that a royally nominated senate can overrule the elected lower house, even so the constitutional arrangements sanctioning the latter preclude the possibility of a Shia majority.
It inevitably follows that the monarchy’s supporters are mostly Sunni and its opponents mostly Shia, and even though the protests launched last month weren’t, on the face of it, sectarian in nature, casting them in that light tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bahrain does not differ from its Gulf neighbours only in a demographic sense: it’s also relatively less well endowed with natural resources, and therefore poorer in per capita terms. And it has been rocked by popular unrest more frequently.
Referring to an uprising in the mid-1950s, Prof Fred Halliday noted in Arabia Without Sultans: “The British realised that Bahrain had a more advanced and therefore dangerous political character than any other Gulf country. Because the oil revenue and level of production was so much lower than in Kuwait, they had been unable to turn the indigenous population into a parasitic class with an enslaved migrant proletariat underneath. Their response was intensified repression, and a tightening of control by the Al Khalifa family.”
Notwithstanding the differences, however, Bahrain’s neighbours realise that if the Al Khalifas are toppled the Al Sauds, Al Nahyans and Al Jabers could follow. The marriage of tribal feudalism and modern capitalism cannot forever endure, but efforts will no doubt be made to preserve it for as long as petroleum remains crucial to meeting western energy needs.
In terms of totalitarian tactics, the Al Sauds in particular are more than a match for Qadhafi and his sons. But don’t expect any push for democracy in Saudi Arabia. Pressure for often intangible and invariably more or less meaningless reforms is at far as it will go.
Bahrain falls in the same basket, essentially. Were the situation to become too fraught, the US would probably begin disentangling itself from its intricate defence links with the troubled kingdom. In the interests of advancing potentially democratic interests, it would make much more sense to do so right away. But don’t hold your breath.
The Yemeni regime, meanwhile, will also continue, for as long as it is feasible, to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. Syria, on the other hand, is a much more likely candidate for the Libyan treatment.
More...
Description:
Pakistan has agreed to support the king against the protestors
ONE Middle Eastern intervention makes the headlines every day. The other barely rates a mention. The first is ostensibly aimed at protecting civilians and at facilitating change, the second at safeguarding the status quo.
Libya’s Muammar Qadhafi has been told he must go. Bahrain’s ruling Al Khalifa family, on the other hand, must stay. Some Arabs, one could be forgiven for assuming, are worthier of democracy and civil rights than others.
Yet the degree of hypocrisy may not be as great as it seems. After all, while the future of Tunisia and Egypt remains unwritten, there can be little reason to doubt that the US and its allies would prefer to preserve the basic structures of the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes, albeit with new figureheads and, if possible, less visible signs of oppression and the odd concession to pluralism.
From their point of view, the ideal outcome in Bahrain would be similar: a few nods in the direction of cosmetic reform to placate the restive segments of society, but not much more than that — and certainly nothing that could jeopardise Bahrain’s crucial strategic relationship with the US, especially its status as a home for the Fifth Fleet. The trouble, of course, is the impossibility of rearrangements that could be passed off as regime change.
At best the prime minister, in situ for four decades, could be replaced. But he is the king’s uncle, and even if he could be persuaded, without occasioning a family split, to step aside, his successor would inevitably be another Al Khalifa.
That US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton felt obliged earlier this month to mildly berate the regime in Manama for its transgressions against mostly peaceful protesters was obviously in large part a consequence of not wishing the contrast with western actions in Libya to seem too stark. It is highly unlikely that the decision by Saudi Arabia and the UAE to send in troops was taken without Washington’s imprimatur, given that both are effectively American satrapies in geo-strategic terms.
The foreign troops, which are officially supposed to guard strategic installations, rather than assist in ‘crowd control’, were evidently despatched under a Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) agreement dating back to Saddam Hussein’s neighbour-threatening rhetoric in 1990, which preceded the invasion of Kuwait. (His stance was thoroughly embarrassing at the time for oil-rich states that had during the previous decade supported Iraq in its war against Iran.)
That was, however, a joint defence pact among the Gulf potentates, to the effect that the violation of any GCC state’s sovereignty would be construed as aggression against all. Internal unrest did not figure in their calculations. Bahrain does not face any external threat, although there can be little doubt its emissaries have, in private discussions, conjured up the bogey of a threat from Iran.
Tehran’s domestic and foreign policies are often indefensible, but cables from Bahrain-based US diplomats over recent years, released by WikiLeaks, suggest it hasn’t lately been going out of its way to interfere in Bahrain. The Gulf state’s majority Shia population resents the almost exclusively Sunni regime because of irrefutable instances of discrimination rather than because of imprecations from Iran.
Given that at least 70 per cent of Bahrainis are Shias, it is hardly surprising that the majority of those who are economically disadvantaged fall in the same category. But their exclusion from privilege is not just a matter of demographics.
For instance, in order to keep out Bahraini Shias from the security forces, the government regularly recruits troops from abroad — notably from Yemen and Pakistan. And whereas the value of public representation can be judged by the fact that a royally nominated senate can overrule the elected lower house, even so the constitutional arrangements sanctioning the latter preclude the possibility of a Shia majority.
It inevitably follows that the monarchy’s supporters are mostly Sunni and its opponents mostly Shia, and even though the protests launched last month weren’t, on the face of it, sectarian in nature, casting them in that light tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bahrain does not differ from its Gulf neighbours only in a demographic sense: it’s also relatively less well endowed with natural resources, and therefore poorer in per capita terms. And it has been rocked by popular unrest more frequently.
Referring to an uprising in the mid-1950s, Prof Fred Halliday noted in Arabia Without Sultans: “The British realised that Bahrain had a more advanced and therefore dangerous political character than any other Gulf country. Because the oil revenue and level of production was so much lower than in Kuwait, they had been unable to turn the indigenous population into a parasitic class with an enslaved migrant proletariat underneath. Their response was intensified repression, and a tightening of control by the Al Khalifa family.”
Notwithstanding the differences, however, Bahrain’s neighbours realise that if the Al Khalifas are toppled the Al Sauds, Al Nahyans and Al Jabers could follow. The marriage of tribal feudalism and modern capitalism cannot forever endure, but efforts will no doubt be made to preserve it for as long as petroleum remains crucial to meeting western energy needs.
In terms of totalitarian tactics, the Al Sauds in particular are more than a match for Qadhafi and his sons. But don’t expect any push for democracy in Saudi Arabia. Pressure for often intangible and invariably more or less meaningless reforms is at far as it will go.
Bahrain falls in the same basket, essentially. Were the situation to become too fraught, the US would probably begin disentangling itself from its intricate defence links with the troubled kingdom. In the interests of advancing potentially democratic interests, it would make much more sense to do so right away. But don’t hold your breath.
The Yemeni regime, meanwhile, will also continue, for as long as it is feasible, to enjoy the benefit of the doubt. Syria, on the other hand, is a much more likely candidate for the Libyan treatment.
2:30
|
12:31
|
3:41
|
3:11
|
4:07
|
5:11
|
4:34
|
4:16
|
23:02
|
23:20
|
21:50
|
3:03
|
20:35
|
[08 Jan 2014] The Debate - Unheeded Complaints - English
Beirut has filed a complaint to the United Nations against Israel over its spying on Lebanon. If Israel\'s spying, along with its violation of Lebanese airspace, \"constitutes a flagrant...
Beirut has filed a complaint to the United Nations against Israel over its spying on Lebanon. If Israel\'s spying, along with its violation of Lebanese airspace, \"constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and continuous aggression on Lebanese lands, Lebanese people, the military, security, and civilian institutions, then why hasn\'t the UN done anything about it? That\'s one of the questions we\'ll be asking in this edition of the debate. We\'ll also discuss the row over gas between Israel and Lebanon, and see what the chances are of a clash between Israel and Hezbollah.
Guests:
- Historian & Political Adviser, Geoffrey Alderman, (LONDON).
- Prof., Notre Dame University, George Labaki (BEIRUT).
Subjects:
1) Lebanon\'s caretaker Fm has not only filed a complaint to the UN: He has sent similar letters to foreign ministers of nations belonging to the 15-member Security Council, as well as to the Arab League, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement Iranian President Hassan Rouhani: Will any action be taken against Israel that will change Israel\'s behavior?
- \"Israel\'s continuous aggression constitutes a violation of international law and relevant international resolutions, particularly Resolution 1701
2) On Israel\'s illegal spying activities: the Dangers of the Israeli Telecomm Towers in Lebanese Territory, along with the Telecommunications Ministry announcement that Israel had installed surveillance posts along the border with Lebanon capable of monitoring the entire country: Why such interest in spying on such a vast scale over Lebanon?
3) REAX: \"Israel\'s next war must start in Lebanon\": Headline a few days of the Jewish Press: The next confrontation must start with heavy bombing attacks that would minimize later damage to Israeli cities like Kiryat Shmona, Tzfat, Nahariya and Tveria.
- Israel air attacks inside Syria took place 5 times in 2013: Israel said to stop transfer of weapons to Hezbollah: Yet, other reports indicate most of the long-range surface to surface missiles has reached Hezbolah: Why has Israel not attacked Lebanon, or Hezbollah strongholds?
- Syria spillover increasing chances of Israel attacking Lebanon: Two rockets fired from Lebanon landed close to the northern Israel: Israel responded to the attack immediately by shelling the area from which the attack originated. Possibility: that a Jihad group launched the attack in order to get Israel to attack Hezbollah and to force Hezbollah to divert some of its troops from Syria back to Lebanon.
4) The United States and Hezbollah are in secret talks to deal with the fight against al-Qaida, regional stability, and Lebanese political issues?
- Talks, brokered by the UK, \"are aimed at keeping tabs on the changes in the region and the world, and prepare for the upcoming return of Iran to the international community
5) The Eastern Mediterranean\'s Oil And Gas: Israel and Lebanon have been at odds over their maritime borders for decades, and recent discoveries in what\'s called the Levant Basin could create more conflict?
6) Israel has found comfort in one of its enemies: Saudi Arabia (who has just given 3 billion in military aid to Lebanon): how do u view this alliance vis-à-vis Lebanon?
7) Terrorist attacks inside Lebanon have been on the rise recently, one twin bombings claiming the life of an Iranian diplomat: Do you agree with the Iranian ambassador to Beirut says all recent terrorist attacks in Lebanon were carried out to serve the interests of the Israeli regime?
More...
Description:
Beirut has filed a complaint to the United Nations against Israel over its spying on Lebanon. If Israel\'s spying, along with its violation of Lebanese airspace, \"constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and continuous aggression on Lebanese lands, Lebanese people, the military, security, and civilian institutions, then why hasn\'t the UN done anything about it? That\'s one of the questions we\'ll be asking in this edition of the debate. We\'ll also discuss the row over gas between Israel and Lebanon, and see what the chances are of a clash between Israel and Hezbollah.
Guests:
- Historian & Political Adviser, Geoffrey Alderman, (LONDON).
- Prof., Notre Dame University, George Labaki (BEIRUT).
Subjects:
1) Lebanon\'s caretaker Fm has not only filed a complaint to the UN: He has sent similar letters to foreign ministers of nations belonging to the 15-member Security Council, as well as to the Arab League, European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement Iranian President Hassan Rouhani: Will any action be taken against Israel that will change Israel\'s behavior?
- \"Israel\'s continuous aggression constitutes a violation of international law and relevant international resolutions, particularly Resolution 1701
2) On Israel\'s illegal spying activities: the Dangers of the Israeli Telecomm Towers in Lebanese Territory, along with the Telecommunications Ministry announcement that Israel had installed surveillance posts along the border with Lebanon capable of monitoring the entire country: Why such interest in spying on such a vast scale over Lebanon?
3) REAX: \"Israel\'s next war must start in Lebanon\": Headline a few days of the Jewish Press: The next confrontation must start with heavy bombing attacks that would minimize later damage to Israeli cities like Kiryat Shmona, Tzfat, Nahariya and Tveria.
- Israel air attacks inside Syria took place 5 times in 2013: Israel said to stop transfer of weapons to Hezbollah: Yet, other reports indicate most of the long-range surface to surface missiles has reached Hezbolah: Why has Israel not attacked Lebanon, or Hezbollah strongholds?
- Syria spillover increasing chances of Israel attacking Lebanon: Two rockets fired from Lebanon landed close to the northern Israel: Israel responded to the attack immediately by shelling the area from which the attack originated. Possibility: that a Jihad group launched the attack in order to get Israel to attack Hezbollah and to force Hezbollah to divert some of its troops from Syria back to Lebanon.
4) The United States and Hezbollah are in secret talks to deal with the fight against al-Qaida, regional stability, and Lebanese political issues?
- Talks, brokered by the UK, \"are aimed at keeping tabs on the changes in the region and the world, and prepare for the upcoming return of Iran to the international community
5) The Eastern Mediterranean\'s Oil And Gas: Israel and Lebanon have been at odds over their maritime borders for decades, and recent discoveries in what\'s called the Levant Basin could create more conflict?
6) Israel has found comfort in one of its enemies: Saudi Arabia (who has just given 3 billion in military aid to Lebanon): how do u view this alliance vis-à-vis Lebanon?
7) Terrorist attacks inside Lebanon have been on the rise recently, one twin bombings claiming the life of an Iranian diplomat: Do you agree with the Iranian ambassador to Beirut says all recent terrorist attacks in Lebanon were carried out to serve the interests of the Israeli regime?
2:03
|
[21 Oct 2013] israeli drones violate Lebanese airspace - English
Several israeli drones have violated Lebanon\'s airspace and flown over the country in flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701.
According to the Lebanese Army...
Several israeli drones have violated Lebanon\'s airspace and flown over the country in flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701.
According to the Lebanese Army Command, the warplanes broke the sound barrier over the southern Lebanese town of Naqoura. They also released heat balloons over the shores of the town of Tyre within Lebanon\'s territorial waters. Israel violates Lebanon\'s airspace on an almost daily basis, claiming the flights serve surveillance purposes. Lebanon\'s government, the Hezbollah resistance movement, and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon have repeatedly condemned the overflights, saying they are in clear violation of the country\'s sovereignty. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 calls on Israel to respect Lebanon\'s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
More...
Description:
Several israeli drones have violated Lebanon\'s airspace and flown over the country in flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701.
According to the Lebanese Army Command, the warplanes broke the sound barrier over the southern Lebanese town of Naqoura. They also released heat balloons over the shores of the town of Tyre within Lebanon\'s territorial waters. Israel violates Lebanon\'s airspace on an almost daily basis, claiming the flights serve surveillance purposes. Lebanon\'s government, the Hezbollah resistance movement, and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon have repeatedly condemned the overflights, saying they are in clear violation of the country\'s sovereignty. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 calls on Israel to respect Lebanon\'s sovereignty and territorial integrity.