Search

band annie's Weblog

I have a parallel blog in French at http://anniebannie.net

Month

December 2012

‘Iraqis cannot forget what Americans have done here’

Nov 29th, 2012 @ 12:27 pm › Cathy Breen
↓ Skip to comments

“It is not written in our hearts, it is carved in our hearts.” I awoke this morning still shaken with these words in my head.

Yesterday I was in Ramadi and Fallujah. Instead of bringing a message of caring, of empathy for their suffering and a desire for peace, my presence as someone from the U.S, seemed to open wounds that are unfathomably deep.

I sat in on a lecture, given in English, to maybe fifty or more young men and women at a college in Ramadi. They were all about 22 and 23 years of age, in their last year of a 5-year program. That means they were about 13 or 14 years old during the U.S. led invasion and beginning of the occupation. I was invited to speak by the president as an “honored guest” after the lecture. To my embarrassment the professor graciously hurried through his lecture on my account. I had everyone’s attention. It was awkward for me, and after introducing myself, I said I would be grateful to hear from them. There was only silence. I am sure my words sounded empty, trite and artificial.

Then a young man in the front row only a couple of feet from me said in a quiet voice “We have nothing to say. The last years have been only sad ones.” Again there was silence.

Sami, my host from Najaf and part of the Muslim Peacemaker Team, stood and shared. He told the story of how, after the U.S. bombing assaults on Fallujah, he and others came from the Shia cities of Najaf and Karbala, to carry out a symbolic act of cleaning up rubble and trash in the streets of Fallujah. This gesture, he said, melted hearts and healed some of the brokenness between Sunni and Shia. He
spoke of the delegation of peacemakers from the United States who were just in Najaf for twelve days, of the work to build bridges and seek reconciliation.

An impassioned young woman from the middle of the lecture hall spoke up. It was obviously not easy for her. “It is not,” she said, “about lack of water and electricity [something I had mentioned]. You have destroyed everything. You have destroyed our country. You have destroyed what is inside of us! You have destroyed our ancient civilization. You have taken our smiles from us. You have
taken our dreams!”

Someone asked, “Why did you this? What did we do to you that you would do this to us?”

“Iraqis cannot forget what Americans have done here,” said another. “They destroyed the childhood. You don’t destroy everything and then say ‘We’re sorry.’ “You don’t commit crimes and then say ‘Sorry.’”

“To bomb us and then send teams to do investigations on the effects of the bombs…No, it will not be forgotten. It is not written on our hearts, it is carved in our hearts.”

We are happy to make bridges between people, said the president of the college, but we will not forget. What can you do? In Fallujah 30% of the babies are born deformed.” What can you do?

He spoke of how he’d met an American soldier in the airport. He was part of the Special Forces in Iraq. The soldier told him “The bible tells us not to kill. But we were taught to kill, to kill for nothing. Just kill. I am so sorry.”

“Build bridges? the president repeated. Apologize? he said. What can you do?” There was no rancor in his tone or demeanor, only anger and deep pain.

A young man said….The U.S. is still here. There are fifteen thousand people at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. [and 5,000 security personal to protect them]. They have their collaborators. The war is not over.

We later visited a Sheik in Fallujah in his home. He and Sami embraced warmly and he welcomed us into the sitting area. In the course of our sharing we spoke of our visit to nearby Ramadi, of what was said there. “War always results in two losers,” he said sorrowfully.

Cathy Breen works with Voices for Creative Non-Violence and is a Catholic Worker at Mary House in New York City. She lived in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion in 2003 and during the occupation.

source

The Eyes of Homs

By Amal Hanano
A loyal son of Homs braves planes and tanks to capture the destruction of his city. Courtesy of Shaam News Network, Aug. 14, 2012.

Abu Mohammed is stubborn. He knows every live broadcast risks exposing his location to regime forces. Still, he starts his days at dawn, loads his handgun – which is no match for the tanks, helicopters and planes targeting him – and gathers his gear to transmit long, unedited footage of life in Homs, where the deadly thuds of shelling intersperse with moments of serenity.

In a few hours the sun will climb higher in the sky, the shelling will slow down, and Abu Mohammed will pack up his laptop, tripods, and cameras, untangle the cords, and walk to whichever safe house he currently calls home. I’ve done my part: tweeted Bambuser livestream links, chatted with him in our broken translations, commented on his homslive feed, and found some relief knowing the rest of his work will be done inside, at his desk, uploading the footage into YouTube clips and speaking to the media. For today, Homs is still in the news. For today, he is still alive.

By placing severe restrictions on foreign journalists, the Assad regime thought it could shield its crimes from the world with its propaganda machine and sell the myth of armed gangs demolishing the very neighborhoods that gave them shelter by booby-trapping buildings and bombing roads. It’s the brave amateurs like Abu Mohammed who dispelled that narrative, clip by clip, live stream by live stream. As Homs was reduced to mountains of concrete slabs folded onto themselves, the cameras of Homs exposed the wanton destruction of Syria at the hands of its ruthless military.

Over the past year, as Abu Mohammed moved from Baba Amr to al-Khalediyeh to Juret el-Shiyah, al-Hamidiyeh and Old Homs, I learned the city’s neighborhoods and skylines through his lens. I know its streets and balconies, the sounds of the birds and roosters, and the endearing, exaggerated drawl of its people’s dialect. Over the past year, I’ve spoken to dozens of activists and fighters. You never know which one you will speak to only once, which one will become a trusted source, and which one will become a brother.

******

In early February, 2012, I interviewed the well-known citizen journalist Rami al-Sayed, known by his alias “Syrian Pioneer,” who was in Baba Amr in a room filled with muffled voices. At the time, Baba Amr was surrounded by Assad’s army and the soldiers were intent on rooting out the armed opposition there. Much of the working class neighborhood would be destroyed by the end of the month.

Aboud’s live feed is used by TV stations around the world.

I became emotional at the end of the call when I heard sounds of shelling in the background as Rami patiently explained the exodus of residents of the nearby Inshaat neighborhood. I was not yet used to listening to the shelling that would eventually be Homs’ permanent soundtrack. Rami consoled me, confident everything was going to be okay. Of course both of us didn’t know that ten days later, Rami would be dead.

After a few days, Abu Mohammed messaged me. He was one of the men in the room and had overheard my conversation with Rami. He told me he was wounded from the shelling in al-Khalediyeh the week before. He had moved to Baba Amr to work at the [rebel] media office with Rami. He had read one of my articles on Homs and said he had a story for me. I asked him for details. He began to type:

My father was 52 years old. He used to work at a construction company in Homs. A few months into the revolution, he started working as a micro-bus (shared taxi) driver to support our large family of 13. One day, soldiers at a checkpoint stopped him and ordered him to transport shabiha [the regime sponsored militia] from al-Zaharaa to Fairuzeh. He was scared and obeyed them. A few days later, they asked him again and he obliged once more. The time after that he refused and told them he would be fired if he took more time off his route. They yelled at him and threatened to beat him. He ignored them and drove away. It was a Thursday. There was no work on Friday because of the protests. On Saturday, they stopped him at the checkpoint and ordered the passengers off the bus. It was 4:30 p.m. It was Ramadan and everyone was fasting. He was fasting. They took him into a nearby school they used as a base. They beat him and electrocuted him. They struck him with their rifles. He was dead within an hour. They transported his corpse to the Military Hospital that evening, and to the National Hospital after that. We received a call at 7:10 p.m. while we were breaking our fast: Come and pick up the body. It was the 27th of Ramadan.

His body was stained from the beatings. There was no place in his body that hadn’t been beaten. Even his jaw was displaced. He was trying to pray in his final moments by raising his right pointer finger to say a final shahadeh [bearing witness to God], so they burned his finger with an iron rod.

This is his body.

I filmed it.

This was his funeral.

He finished typing. But I didn’t respond.

A few minutes later he asked, “Do you have any questions?”

I replied, “I’m crying.”

He messaged back, “Me too.”

“Will you write it for my father?”

“Yes.”

His last message that first night before we separated: “I’m Aboud, son of Homs.”

Over the next days, as I watched, along with everyone else, Baba Amr slowly being destroyed by Assad’s tanks on our screens, I learned more about Aboud. Before March 15, 2011, he was a young man trying to start his own business after completing his mandatory military service. He had marched in the first protests of the revolution. Then he started filming protests with his cell phone. In the summer of 2011, he was surrounded by regime forces in the Bayada neighborhood. Soldiers were searching homes and arresting any man who was suspected to be participating in the protests against the Assad regime. He was trapped at home with a laptop, cell phone, and memory sticks filled with incriminating material. His aunt helped him cross the checkpoint, hiding his equipment within the folds of her coat. She passed easily (those days they didn’t search the women) while Aboud was searched thoroughly and found clean. After he crossed safely, he met his friend Adnan abd al-Dayem, the 27-year-old pioneer of citizen journalism in Homs. He was one of the first activists to film with a camera instead of a cell phone.  He was also one of the first Syrians to die because of his camera. Adnan was shot by a sniper in the back of his head outside a mosque a few days later on the first night of Ramadan. Aboud lost his best friend and would lose his father before the holy month was over.

Smoke fills the skies of Homs. Shaam News Network and the Syrian Revolution Memory Project, June 14, 2012.

Aboud messaged me on February 21, 2012: Rami was wounded. I was at the dentist’s office, in the chair, mouth open, phone in hand, watching my Skype screen, and praying that the message I was dreading would not appear. But it did. Rami had bled to death. It was the most painful cleaning I ever had. Aboud was grieving alone at the media center with the large revolution flag they used in the protests — which would be known after as the “Baba Amr flag” — on the wall. He sent me footage of Rami to upload onto YouTube and it became my first revolution video. Rami had been counting the days he had spent away from his toddler daughter Maryam, and although he predicted the Skype message he posted hours before dying would be his last, I know he wanted to live.

At the end of the February, Aboud said the fighters were planning to retreat from Baba Amr, shielding the remaining citizens as they exited before Assad’s army stormed the neighborhood. He told me not to worry if I didn’t hear from him for a few days. But I did worry. And I asked other activists about him. No one had any news. Three days later, I received an email from him. I opened the attachments: pictures of Aboud in a Homs covered with a blanket of fresh snow. Like postcards. He was posing and smiling. He looked much younger than I had expected. Early twenties, perhaps younger. He called me later. It took them an entire day to cross the short distance from Baba Amr to a nearby neighborhood. They walked through the outskirts of the city, hiding from the shabiha and camouflaged by the snow — a 15-minute trip under normal circumstances. He had smuggled one item inside his shirt from the abandoned media center: the Baba Amr revolution flag.

Since then, I have received many pictures from Aboud and many Skype calls. He has called just to let me hear the call to prayer at dawn from the Khaled bin al-Walid Mosque, to show me the full moon over Homs, to flip his laptop camera so I could see the fresh artillery holes in the building on his street. And he calls to talk. We talk about being far from our families, about dreams for the future in Syria, about the dangers of sectarianism, about soccer while he watched the EuroCup matches (these were one-sided conversations), about the home-cooked meals he missed. But most of the time, we talk about death.

Sometimes, when he was frustrated with lack of action by the Arab and international nations to stop the atrocities that he filmed daily, he would talk about quitting his media work and joining the Free Syrian Army on the front lines to defend Homs. Every time I would emphasize the importance of the media, of his voice, of his broadcasts, and I would remind him that hundreds of thousands of people were watching his live streams. I felt the weight of my hypocrisy as I typed the words: Don’t fight. Don’t pick up a weapon. And I would leave out what I wanted to type but knew would anger him: You are supposed to live.

One morning in July, he was back at the tower. He loved that location because it gave him a 360 degree vantage point to film shelling from two opposite sides of Homs. Because the broadcasts are picked up live by satellite television channels, these locations are eventually exposed to the regime. A tank hit the wall behind him while he was filming. In the unreleased videos, Aboud and his friend are completely covered in dust in the aftermath of the explosion. Looking like moving stone statues, they pick their laptops and cameras out of the rubble. They walk back home, filming the entire way. Men on the street salute them. He appeared to be fine. But he didn’t leave his bed for days. After getting over the initial adrenaline rush, he realized his back was injured badly and there were no doctors, no medicine. His friend could not move at all and needed to be transported to Turkey for medical care. These videos angered me. Why did he go back to the tower even though he was targeted the last time? Why was it so important to keep filming for an oblivious world? How many more people need to die for the crime of holding up a camera? Hadn’t we seen enough?

Explosion in Jouret Al Shayah, Homs. Shaam News Network and the Syrian Revolution Memory Project, July 21, 2012.

Aboud was promoted after the death of his friends and became the director of the SNN media center in Homs. The first thing Aboud requested after his promotion was a private Dropbox account to upload his pictures for his mother and sisters and aunts so they could see him. As he dictated the emails to share the folder with, he mentioned mine. The other SNN activists asked him, “Are you sure you want to include Amal? You don’t even know who she is.” He replied, “She’s family.”When we spoke after the tragedy, he messaged: “I felt was going to die.” I was numb and could focus on one thing only: I wanted him to leave Homs. “Enough. Haven’t you had enough?”  He was defensive and as usual, stubborn, “I won’t stop. I need to finish what we started. I can’t betray my friends, my brothers, my mentors. I’m going to go to be with them. They left me alone in this dirty world. Don’t say these words to me, Amal. This life is not mine. It’s for the next generation to live and stand on our bodies to free Syria and stop the bloodshed.”

*****

He asked me to write his father’s story and I said yes, but I knew the father’s story could not be told without the son’s. Yet, Aboud was adamant that his story not be told. He would ask me every few weeks, what happened to the story? I would say I’m still working on it, which was true. He would joke, are you waiting until I die so you can have two martyrs’ stories in one?

One day last spring, Aboud said there was another journalist who wanted to tell his story. I was annoyed. Who was this journalist who had convinced Aboud to tell his story? That story belonged to me. He tried to soothe me, saying, “Don’t be upset, Amal. It’s your story, but each of you can tell it in your own way. He wants to make a film about my work in the revolution and the live broadcasts.” Reluctantly, I conceded. Later I found out that the filmmaker was the beloved Syrian activist Basel Shahadeh, who had left his Fullbright scholarship in the US to document the atrocities in Homs. Basel visited Aboud to console him after his friends were killed. He held Aboud’s hand and said, “We’ll make something for their memory. I’m coming back to see you tomorrow so we can plan it.” Basel was killed by sniper fire that day on his way home.

On August 17, the SNN Homs media center suffered yet another loss, the young teenager, Abu al-Izz, whose uncle, Abu Omar, had been killed in Damascus. SNN activists had begged him to leave Homs, to not work in the media, to help the revolution from outside Syria, but he refused. He wanted to continue his uncle’s legacy, and he wanted to die in Homs. That day a rocket ripped Abu al-Izz’s body apart and killed eight others, leaving left behind a gruesome scene of torn limbs and body parts that Aboud and his friends collected in plastic bags and buried together in a mass grave. He told me, “We found his hand later, and had to go back and bury it with the other parts.” And I thought to myself, what has become of us that our normal conversations are about burying body parts? Abu al-Izz had taken pictures a few days before he died. Empty scenes of a shell-shocked Homs. We received the other pictures from that day, after he died, except he was in the frames, his red shirt, his curly, black hair, his face in profile with a straight, beautiful nose and a pensive expression that was almost identical to his uncle’s. His name was Fayyad al-Sabbagh, but he had grown into his alias, he really was Abu al-Izz, a man of integrity.

[youtube http://youtu.be/gEjnzxPiEEA?]

*****

Months have passed since February, and I became superstitious about this story as men continued to die around Aboud. In my mind, by keeping it in perpetual drafts, the story, and Aboud, remained alive. On the day the tower was shelled, I thought, what if he had died? My selfishness eventually outweighed my superstitions – I couldn’t live with yet another unfulfilled promise to a dead man. My unpublished story would not protect him from the stories he released every day. His stories were the ones that had the power to kill him.

To me, Homs was once just a place on the way from Aleppo to Damascus, a source of funny jokes and exquisite eggplant. But Homs became something else through the lens of revolution. It was resistance and determination. It was unity and loyalty. It was destruction and death. And most of all, to me, it was Aboud. When I watched his live broadcasts I was no longer mesmerized by the horrific scenes or frightening sounds, I was thinking about this young man who stood bravely facing a shooting tank with his unflinching camera.

Aboud’s folder on my Dropbox still feels like opening postcards from another world. He poses with his friends in their city, now in ruins. Many times their expressions are at odds with their grim reality. They look happy and proud; the opposite of humiliation. They are survivors and they know it.

Like most Syrians, I wasn’t prepared for this revolution or for my role in it. I wasn’t ready to experience the excruciating wait between “Rami has been injured” and “Rami is a martyr.” Not ready to recognize Abu al-Izz’s face in reverse, mentally connecting his blown-off head, frozen in a scream, to his handsome face in the photographs that were released after he was killed. Not ready to have to live with the shame of being jealous of Basel Shehadeh over a story he could have told much better than me. If he were still alive.

But Aboud was not ready either. He was not ready to film his father’s bruised corpse or pick Abu al-Izz’s body parts off the street. Not ready to protect the children playing soccer in the street with his gun, when a few months ago, he would’ve joined them for a game. Not ready to be the only one left in Homs with a camera, documenting the bloody truth. Not ready to ask a woman he’s never met, across the world, “Do you think it’s better to die a martyr or marry a girl from Homs?” And I would always reply, simply but not without pain, “It’s better to live.”

The soft-spoken young man who was wounded and listening that first night in a room of men who were older and bolder than him, has slowly emerged as one of Homs’ surviving witnesses. He refused to retreat to Lebanon and promised to never leave Homs because, as he says, if he leaves, who will continue after him? And he repeats his constant vow, “I will only leave victorious or a martyr.”

This was supposed to be the story of Aboud’s father alone. Aboud insisted he was not to be included with the real heroes, the martyrs. He wondered why he continued to be wounded but not killed. He wondered whether he was even worthy of martyrdom. But the story became larger than a murdered father and his heroic son. It became the story of Homs’ eyes behind the lenses. It’s the story that Basel didn’t have the chance to tell. The story of Abu-al-Izz and his uncle Abu Omar, of Rami al-Sayed and his cousin Basel al-Sayed, of Adnan abd al-Dayem and Abu Suleiman, of Ahmad Hamadeh who captured his own death while filming Homs, and dozens of unnamed citizen journalists, including 22 of SNN’s own men, who have fallen in Syria to tell the story of the revolution. Our lives have been entangled and implicated by their lenses.

Aboud sets up his camera to capture the destruction in his city. Courtesy of Shaam News Network and the Syrian Revolution Memory Project, July 24, 2012.

When we speak now, I no longer ask Aboud to leave Homs. I know he will never leave Homs. So we watch together as bombs fall over his city and we talk about other things, about our families, about life, and, as always, about death. But as I take in the smoky skyline in front of his lens and listen to the exploding sounds, sometimes near, sometimes far away, my refrain to Aboud silently repeats in my mind: Isn’t it enough? Haven’t you had enough? Haven’t you filmed enough?

It repeats relentlessly, thudding in my head in rhythm with the thuds inside Homs, until I no longer know who these words are for. Are they for the people behind the lens or the ones in firing in front of it, or are they directed towards the ones watching it?

Haven’t you watched enough? Haven’t you seen enough? Isn’t it enough?

Enough.

How the Israeli lobby works in the United States

“…Several years ago, I found out how AIPAC worked, directly…”

Arab News One of the most influential lobbying groups in America, it is often argued that no politician can be elected into office without AIPAC’s support. No president can take the White House without affirming unbreakable allegiance to Israel, and attendance at the annual AIPAC meeting is mandatory. Once in office every member of Congress is expected to act, vote and defend the state of Israel on almost every issue, or face the consequences.

Originally called the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was an offshoot of the American Zionist Council, changing names in 1963. With a sole purpose to advocate for the state of Israel, AIPAC ought to be listed with the US government as a Foreign Agent; instead, the Committee continually denies receiving any funds from Israel.*

What are AIPAC’s tactics? How do they get away with controlling so much of government of the United States, and thus veto power at the United Nations? Several years ago, I found out how AIPAC worked, directly.

During the 1990s, I was actively involved in a major US symphony orchestra as a financial donor and artistic liaison, having studied classical piano for fifteen years and forever a frustrated pianist. Close to the conductor, main players, and several board members, another more significant contributor became a good acquaintance. She, like the conductor, was an ardent Zionist – her family sent to the concentration camps in Austria during the war. Throughout the years my professional involvement in Middle Eastern affairs was never brought up, and despite our opposite views on Israel we nevertheless were on good terms before 9/11.

After 9/11, the atmosphere in America became highly charged. My friend Sarah (not her real name) lost no opportunity in blaming Arabs for every attack in the US, for not only 9/11 but also every violent act before or since. Before we ended our relationship, she explained how AIPAC controlled Congress.

Several years earlier Sarah had been a leading AIPAC representative. Confident in America’s ability to go after the Arab “terrorists” who wanted to destroy Israel and the West, she explained how the wars in the Middle East were due to AIPAC’s influence. She knew the system from the inside because she was a part of it.

AIPAC watched every political race in every election, she explained. Whether local or national, AIPAC had dossiers on every candidate, grading each according to their loyalty to the Israeli state. Once the newly elected moved into their new offices in Washington DC, Sarah would lead a delegation of AIPAC members to the capital city to pay them a courtesy visit. The new Congressmen and women would welcome the lobby, AIPAC merely expressing good wishes for their new terms. The meeting would last less than 20 minutes, nothing but pleasantries and a photo-op having passed.

Upon leaving the team would then add, “Anything you need to know about the Middle East, contact us. We’ll provide whatever information you need. Here is our telephone number and someone will get back to you right away.”

No laws were broken, no monies were exchanged, and no threats were implied. The novice politician had someone to call at anytime day or night to learn about the pressing issues of the Arab world. The ongoing issues of the region meant the new Congress member had to become rapidly informed. If no one else was available – and they never were – AIPAC was ready.

Settled in to office, a fortnight later Sarah would bring a second delegation back to Washington to “see how they were getting along”. Again, they would offer on-call expertise on the Middle East 24 hours a day, and invite them on an all-expenses paid trip to Israel to witness the “terror” Israelis suffered every day. Upon their departure, this time AIPAC would present a check for a few thousand dollars “as a donation” to the Congressman’s office.

At this point, strict lobbying rules would kick in and every contribution would have to be carefully noted. However, the implicit message was left that there would always be more money where that sweetener came from.

The more allied they were to the Jewish state, the more benefits the politicians would receive. It was easy to deliver promising post-Congressional careers to those who were overtly pro-Israeli, but the harder work went to the more neutral members. With no counterefforts by any Arab or Muslim groups, AIPAC’s massaging of the message on the Middle East dominated: They were highly reactive to calls, instantly available, ready to provide support and receptive to all requests for analysis. AIPAC has an almost exclusive ability to control the narrative because until there is an equally well-organized, heavily staffed, dedicated and immediately responsive alternative, empty words and promises leave any contrary explanations far behind.

“After our second visit, an AIPAC member would then follow-up every week to remind the Congressman that we were available,” Sarah continued. “We were constant, polite and as regular as clockwork.” The methodology so well crafted, AIPAC could not fail.

After a few months, a third visit raised the stakes. Senior AIPAC delegates would visit the office, this time with a metaphorical gun in one hand and cash in the other. Funds could never be presented directly lest laws are broken. Instead, having studied the Congressman’s family, friends, hobbies, chosen causes and voting record, AIPAC would add financial incentives to make the more reluctant “see the light” for its services.

“Your eldest daughter is going to college next year isn’t she? That’s expensive. Perhaps a full scholarship could be arranged,” Sarah illustrated. Or, “Your wife lost her position last year? Maybe we can help secure a new career for her” in a law-firm, think-tank or other environment where AIPAC maintained leverage. If not direct, other benefits important to the Congressman would be dangled. The point was lost on no one.

Skirting laws, AIPAC’s largesse was provided with heavy expectations. A Congressman knew that if he did not vote in favor of Israel in the next Bill, his perquisites would be dropped. Moreover, it was evident that support for his re-election bid was either guaranteed, or -if not pro-Israel enough – not only withdrawn but an organized campaign would ensue to make sure he was defeated.

AIPAC works with a heavy but quiet fist. It has been using propaganda and threats for decades because it works. Having tried unsuccessfully to influence the British government in the 1940s, the Zionist body switched to manipulating the US Congress because it was an easier more malleable target, as the officials admitted themselves.

Thanks to the multi-million dollar multi-generational policy of organization coupled with implied blackmail, every US Senator and Representative will at the very least look the other way when Israel continues to violate international laws, occupy and steal Palestinian territory, illegally blockade Palestinians and bomb innocent civilians. The alternative is the end to a political career.

Just ask President Jimmy Carter or Ambassador Charles “Chas” Freeman.


* Editor’s Note: Funding from a foreign gov’t/entity is not absolutely required to be considered a foreign agent.  The FARA statute says:

“(1) any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person—(i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal;

(ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal;

(iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or

(iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States; and

(2) any person who agrees, consents, assumes or purports to act as, or who is or holds himself out to be, whether or not pursuant to contractual relationship, an agent of a foreign principal as defined in clause (1) of this subsection. ”


For a list of other institutions in the Israel lobby see: Introduction to the Israel Lobby

Beitar, Jerusalem

E:60’s Jeremy Schaap travels to Jerusalem to report on those who have been called “the most dangerous fans” in Israel soccer.

Site 911: Secret US Construction in Israel

By Stephen Lendman on 12/02/2012

Washington and Israel partner in jointly planned imperial wars and related activities.

Walter Pincus reports on national security issues for the Washington Post. He’s been at it many years. In late December he’ll turn 80.

On November 28, he headlined “US overseeing mysterious construction project in Israel,” saying:

“The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers plans to supervise construction of a five-story underground facility for an Israel Defense Forces complex…”

It’s called “Site 911.” It’ll be built at an Israeli air force base near Tel Aviv. Construction will take two years or longer. Time frames are often extended. Cost is expected to be about $100 million. Before completion, double that amount or more wouldn’t surprise.

Washington’s Baghdad embassy was originally projected to cost $592 million. When completed, cost overruns spiraled the total over $2 billion some believe.

The Israeli facility will “have classrooms on Level 1, an auditorium on Level 3, a laboratory, shock-resistant doors, protection from non-ionizing radiation, and very tight security.”

“Clearances will be required for all construction workers. Guards will be at the fence, and barriers will separate it from the rest of the base.”

Construction bids are due by December 3. Only US firms are involved.

Under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program, Washington supplies weapons, munitions, and other defense related services to other nations and international organizations.

Sometimes they’re sold. Other times they’re given. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) administers FMS.

Washington was involved in many previous construction projects for Israel’s IDF. They’re undertaken under FMS.

About half a billion dollars in US military construction for Israel followed its 1998 Wye River Memorandum with Palestine. Another half billion went for Israeli security measures. Palestine got smaller amounts.

Both sides agreed to terms. At issue was finalizing the September 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Oslo II).

Israel reneged like it always does. Palestine was blamed. Netanyahu was prime minister at the time.

Pincus omitted those inconvenient facts. Israeli construction was done in the Negev. IDF forces got three new bases. Supposedly it was to facilitate redeploying forces from West Bank locations.

Israel’s Nevatim air base was built at the time. It’s one of Israel’s largest. The Corps of Engineers constructed extensive facilities. Other ones were built earlier.

They included “underground hangers for Israeli fighter-bombers, facilities for handling nuclear weapons…command centers, training bases, intelligence facilities and simulators.”

Washington provides Israel more aid than all other nations combined. It’s very generous with US tax dollars for its imperial ally.

The Corps maintains three facilities in Israel. In the past two years, it built Nevatim hangers. They cost $30 million.

It also “supervised a $20 million project to build maintenance shops, hangers, and headquarters to support Israel’s large Eitan” UAV program.

Site 911 will be built elsewhere. It appears to be one of the Corps’ largest projects. Three underground floors will be roughly 41,000 feet each.

Sponsored by:


Buy Palestine non-Stop Mug from Sabbah Store
Browse more Palestine Mugs

Two others below them will be smaller. They’ll store equipment. Security is high. So is secrecy. Non-Israeli workers will only come from America, “Canada, Western Europe countries, Poland, Moldavia, Thailand, Philippines, Venezuela, Romania and China.”

Palestinians are excluded. According to security considerations, the site “shall have one gate only for both entering and exiting the site.”

“No exit or entrance to the site shall be allowed during work hours except for supply trucks.”

Guards will only be Israeli citizens with air force experience. “The collection of information of any type whatsoever related to base activities is prohibited.”

Israeli architectural firm Ada Karmi-Melamede is involved. Eventual site employees will be provided amenities.

Mezuzahs are parchments with inscribed Hebrew verses. Usually they’re contained in decorative cases.

The facility will have special ones. They’ll be “written in inerasable ink on….uncoated leather parchment.” They’ll be handwritten by a ‘scribe’ “holding a written authorization according to Jewish law.”

They’ll “be proof-read by a computer at an authorized institution for Mezuzah inspection, as well as manually…for the form of the letters by a proof-reader authorized by the Chief Rabbinate.”

Mystery surrounds the site. Pentagon and Israeli Defense Ministry spokesmen said little. Pincus said bids for another secret Israeli project costing about $100 million for starters is scheduled to be awarded next summer.

It will involve “a complex facility with site development challenges.” Services required will include “electrical, communication, mechanical/HVAC, and plumbing.”

The US contractor chosen must have secret US/Israeli clearance. Two years of construction are likely. Pincus guesses it’s for a “secure command center.” What’s planned for Site 911 “is far less clear.”

What’s ongoing nearer-term matters most. Iran’s in focus. Washington and Israel want regime change.

Previous articles explained lawless sanctions, sabotage, subversion, cyber attacks, assassinations, saber rattling, falsified IAEA hype, Netanyahu bluster, US warmongering, spurious accusations, manipulated to fail P5+1 talks, and inflammatory headlines.

Will Obama attack in 2013? Will Israel ride shotgun? Netanyahu will likely be reelected in January. Expect him to head a new coalition government.

It may be more hardline than the current one. Prospects for peace aren’t good. Washington and Israel deplore it.

Heading into the new year, look for propaganda to intensify. An Iranian threat will again make headlines. Perhaps a major false flag is planned. Put nothing behind extremists in charge in both countries.

Direct US-led NATO intervention in Syria perhaps looms. Washington won’t quit until the entire country is destroyed. Libya 2.0 may be planned.

Death squad mercenaries need air power. Installing US-controlled Patriot missiles in Turkey on Syria’s border ups the ante. At issue is providing no-fly zone protection. Doing so is an act of war.

Reports suggest Obama plans “deeper intervention.” “Responsibility to protect (R2P)” slaughter and mass destruction may follow.

Post-election, Obama is unrestrained. Hawks want him to act. He needs little pushing. Full-scale intervention could come anytime. It won’t stop until Syria is entirely ravaged.

Perhaps Pillar of Cloud was act one. Terror-bombing Syria may follow. Hezbollah may be next. Then Iran if plans to isolate the Islamic Republic succeed.

Post-holiday tidings are worrisome. The entire region may be ravaged. At stake are more monstrous crimes. No end of them loom.

Article by Stephen Lendman | © Sabbah Report: http://sabbah.biz/mt/?p=15817

Transcript: TIME’s Interview with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi

cover_1210.jpg

[Note: TIME had spelled the president’s surname as “Morsy” based on his Ph.D. dissertation for the University of Southern California; his advisers in Cairo say the preferred spelling is now Morsi. Protocol required President Morsi to answer questions from TIME editors and reporters in his native Arabic, the official language of Egypt.  Instead, as a courtesy to his guests, he spoke for most of the hour in English, which he last spoke regularly three decades ago.]

TIME: You’re on the world stage now.

President Mohamed Morsi: (In English) The world stage is very difficult. It’s not easy to be on the world stage. The world is now much more difficult than it was during your revolution. It’s even more difficult. The world. More complicated, complex, difficult. It’s a spaghetti-like structure. It’s mixed up. So we need to somehow take things, easily, so we can go together, the whole world — peacefully, peacefully, hopefully, all kinds of peace. I think you know that in general people like to say that we should keep peace by all means. I’m not talking about peace by its traditional meaning. Peace of mind, peace of heart, peace of living together, socially, culturally, not only militarily.

(MORE: Should Mohamed Morsi be TIME’s Person of the Year?)

Obama’s Middle East Cynicism

MJ Rosenberg

The U.S. vote against raising the status of Palestine at the United Nations was a deeply cynical move. It was cynical because there is not a chance that President Obama believes that he did the right thing. It is also cynical because, in the name of friendship for Israel, Obama led Israel closer to the cliff.

The last thing a true friend of Israel would have done would be to stand by as Israel demonstrated its almost complete international isolation. Just eight countries backed the Israeli position – the US, Panama, Palau, Canada, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Czech Republic and Micronesia – while 138 voted with the Palestinians. Was this display helpful to Israel?

But Obama was not trying to be helpful. The administration enabled this “disaster” (from Israel’s point of view) because Obama seems to truly not care about Israelis or Palestinians.

Take the two most recent examples. The first was his absolute refusal to express a word of sympathy for the Palestinians killed in the Gaza war. Under previous administrations, certainly under every Democratic administration, sympathy was expressed for the dead and injured on both sides along with a call for an end to the fighting. But Obama would not do that. Even when asked directly his spokesperson at the State Department would only speak of Israel’s pain. (To her credit, Secretary of State Clinton did say that she felt for both sides.)

But not Obama. He is determined not only to demonstrate that there is “no daylight” separating the two countries but that no amount of darkness separates us either.

The argument that he has to behave this way because of the power of the lobby doesn’t hold up. I would be the last person in the world to deny that the lobby is a powerful force in the making of U.S. Middle East policy. But, unless there is some mysterious element to the lobby’s power that I am missing, its ability to intimidate ends when a president is re-elected.

Believing that Obama is worried about Congressional Democrats being punished in 2014 is just as inaccurate. One: that is two years away. Two: Obama has rarely demonstrated (like almost all presidents before him) much concern for the Congressional wing of his party. And, three: the November 6th election demonstrated yet again that Jewish voters do not cast their ballots (or make campaign contributions) based on Israel. Nor do Israel’s fundamentalist Christian backers. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats and Christian Zionists are conservative Republicans. Those facts seem never to change.

Besides, does Obama really believe that he would lose votes or campaign contributions from Jews and other pro-Israel Americans if he expressed sympathy for dead Palestinian children? Or called on both sides to stop the violence. I hold no brief for the lobby but Obama could have said what he no doubt felt without losing anyone’s support. Even the lobby does not demand that politicians withhold human sympathy.

As for the United Nations vote, Obama could have prevented the huge embarrassment inflicted on both Israel and the United States by telling Israel to “chill.” I am glad he didn’t because I think the vote will be seen by history as a significant step toward Palestinian statehood. But it also delegitimized Israel in the eyes of the world which is a terrible defeat for those of us who care about Israel ultimately achieving peace and security alongside the Palestinians.

And it could easily have been averted if Obama had told Israel that the United States would vote for the resolution and that Israel should, too. In that case, the vote for Palestine’s elevated status would have been unanimous which would have rendered the Palestinian victory meaningless. Unanimous backing for any measure almost always demonstrates the measure’s insignificance. Instead, Israel’s hysteria and America’s arm-twisting against the resolution gave the Palestinians a big victory, a victory that the United States and Israel both elevated to historic proportions.

So why did Obama behave the way he did? I am afraid it is because he does not think Israelis or Palestinians are worth the hassle. If he can avoid dealing with Netanyahu and his vocal backers here, he will. He has more important fish to fry – like the domestic economy and preserving the social safety net.

I understand that but nonetheless ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian issue – by simply parroting the Israeli line – has done terrible damage to America’s standing in the world. Look at the UN vote which was neatly summed up by the front-page New York Times headline: “UN Assembly, In Blow To U.S., Elevates Status of Palestine.” Perhaps it is of no concern of Obama’s that Israel appears utterly isolated, but so does the United States. To put it in crude terms: we look like Israel’s tool.

I will not conclude by expressing the hope that Obama will now do the right thing for Israel, Palestine and, most importantly, the United States by convening negotiations and acting as an “honest broker.” I doubt he can do that anymore both because he has entirely lost the trust of the Arab world and because events have demonstrated, in large part due to this administration, that history can move on without us. But primarily because I do not think President Obama cares enough to invest any time or energy in Middle East peacemaking. He seems not to care that resolving conflict in a vital region of the world is not just some favor we do for people 6000 miles away; it is something we do to defend America’s interests. It’s sad. But above all, it is just cynical.

Postscript: Prime Minister Netanyahu reciprocated President Obama’s misplaced kindness today when he announced that he will build 3000 new settler housing units in the E-1 corridor of the West Bank. This housing, designed to permanently separate the southern West Bank from the northern part and to separate both from Jerusalem would destroy any chance of achieving the two-state solution. It also breaks a specific promise Netanyahu made to Obama.

Additionally, AIPAC is rushing to get Congress to “punish” Palestinians for going to the UN by blocking aid. Netanyahu and his lobby now believe (probably correctly) that Obama will permit them to do whatever they want. This is what the United States gets for its “no daylight” policy and what we taxpayers get for $3.5 billion a year in aid.

source

Right-Wing US Politicians Pressured Banks to Blockade WikiLeaks

See also : Accused WikiLeaks Whistleblower Bradley Manning Testifies He Thought He Would “Die in Custody”

 

Sen. Joe Lieberman and Rep. Peter King muscled US corporations to isolate WikiLeaks

by John Glaser, November 27, 2012

(WIKILEAKS PRESS RELEASE) – Hard-right U.S. politicians were directly behind the extrajudicial banking blockade against WikiLeaks, according to documents released by the anti-secrecy organization.

In the heavily redacted documents leaked from the European Commission, MasterCard Europe admits that Senator Joseph Lieberman and Congressman Peter T. King both “had conversations” with MasterCard in the United States over cooperating on the blockade.

Lieberman, the chair of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, is revealed boasting of instigating Amazon’s cutting of service to WikiLeaks.

Senator Lieberman tried to introduce the SHIELD Act into the Senate and advocated for prosecuting the New York Times for espionage in connection with WikiLeaks’ releases.

Rep. Peter King, current chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, tried to formally designate WikiLeaks as a foreign terrorist organization, have its staff listed as ‘enemy combatants’, and have WikiLeaks put on a U.S. Treasury blacklist. On 13 January 2011 the U.S. Treasury announced it would not do so because there was no evidence that WikiLeaks should be on such a list.

While Lieberman and King were unsuccessful in these methods of legally cutting WikiLeaks from its popular donor base, they were successful in doing so extra-legally via VISA and MasterCard, which together hold a monopoly of 97 per cent of the market of EU card payments.

VISA Europe is registered in London and is owned by a consortium of European banks. MasterCard Europe is registered in Belgium and has similar ownership, but the Commission papers show that European control of VISA Europe and MasterCard Europe is a fiction. The papers reveal that the instructions to blockade WikiLeaks’ operations in Europe came directly from VISA and MasterCard in the United States. Ownership would normally imply control, but VISA and MasterCard Europe are essentially controlled by confidential contracts with their U.S. counterparts, a hidden organizational structure that the Commission calls an “association of undertakings.”

Julian Assange said: “There is no sovereignty without economic sovereignty. It is concerning that hard-right elements in the United States have been able to pressure VISA and MasterCard, who together hold monopoly over the European market, into introducing a blockade that the U.S. Treasury has rightly rejected. These unaccountable elements are directly interfering in the political and economic freedoms of EU consumers and are setting a precedent for political censorship of the world’s media.”

Roger Waters indicts Israel at the UN

29 November 2012 — We are delighted that an overwhelming majority of countries at the UN General Assembly voted to upgrade Palestine to a non-member observer status.  To coincide with this, here is Roger Waters, the front man for Pink Floyd, the greatest rock band ever, speaking earlier in the day, on behalf of the Russell Tribunal, delivering his indictment of Israeli criminality at the UN and making a plea for the recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state.

source