Views
Published by

What The Media Didn't Report About Houthis

Yemeni civilians are suffering under the Saudi-led airstrikes and the sea and air blockade on Yemen.
Moreover, Saudi-led airstrikes used banned cluster munitions according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). And 25 million Yemenis face risk of starvation.

Morocco participates in the Saudi-led coalition against Houthis. The coalition which formed in relatively short time after Iran-backed Houthi movement captured the Yemeni capital.
 Wreckage of the Moroccan F-16 fighter jet, in the the Wadi Nushur area in the north Yemen's province of Saada (WSJ)
Yemen’s Houthi militants said they had shot down a Moroccan F-16 fighter jet carrying out airstrikes against their northern stronghold, as fighting escalated in the hours leading up to a five-day cease-fire.

The Iran-backed rebels on Monday said the jet was brought down over Saada province. They also provided photos showing what they said was the wreckage of the jet and the remains of its pilot. None of the Houthi claims could be independently confirmed.

The Moroccan military, which is participating in the Saudi-led military operation against the Houthis, acknowledged that one of its planes had gone missing over Yemen on Sunday evening. In a statement published by the state news agency, it gave no reason for the disappearance and said it was still investigating the incident.

But what the media didn't report is: Houthis unconditionally handed over the body of Moroccan pilot to be buried in his homeland, although he was flying in Yemeni sky to pound Sa'da, Houthis' stronghold.
Read More
Views
Published by

NY Times Headline in Nakba day

Views
Published by

British Troops Could Be Deployed On The Ground In Libya

British troops could be deployed in Libya in a military offensive to stop the flow of migrants headed for Europe.
Leaked EU papers yesterday revealed plans for an air and naval blitz on the people-smuggling networks responsible for putting migrants on boats making perilous journeys across the Mediterranean.
But the document also suggests ground operations might be needed to destroy the smugglers’ vessels and assets, such as fuel dumps.

The papers say: ‘The operation would require a broad range of air, maritime and land capabilities. These could include: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; boarding teams; patrol units (air and maritime); amphibious assets; destruction air, land and sea, including Special Forces units.’
Last night officials declined to specify what role Britain would play in the operation, which is due to be debated by EU ministers on Monday. But the reference to Special Forces will lead to speculation of SAS involvement on the ground.
It is unclear who would be in charge of a military operation but the most likely candidate is the United Nations.

Britain – which has HMS Bulwark in the region, carrying out rescue missions – could also play a role in any naval strikes against the smugglers.
Home Secretary Theresa May has said that Europe must use the ‘military, intelligence and crime-fighting assets’ at its disposal to crush the gangs.
Source: Daily Mail
Read More
Views
Published by

Why Iran Must Remain A U.S. Enemy

by Gareth Porter
Since the start of the US nuclear negotiations with Iran, both Israeli and Saudi officials have indulged in highly publicised handwringing over their belief that such a nuclear deal would represent a fundamental strategic shift in US policy towards the region at the expense of its traditional alliances with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

But the Obama administration is no more likely to lurch into a new relationship with Iran than were previous US administrations. The reason is very simple: The US national security state, which has the power to block any such initiative, has fundamental long-term interests in the continuation of the policy of treating Iran as an enemy.

Some in the Israeli camp have spun elaborate theories about how the Obama administration's negotiations with Iran represent a strategic vision of partnership with the Iranian regime.
Typical of the genre is former Bush administration official Michael Doran's speculation in February that US President Barack Obama based his policy of outreach to Tehran on the assumption that Tehran and Washington are "natural allies".

Saudi response
The Saudi response to the negotiations has been, if anything, even more extreme. Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence, who speaks more candidly in public than any other Saudi public figure, told an audience at London's Chatham House last month, "The Americans and Iranians have been flirting with each other. Now it seems each side is anxious to get over the flirtation and get to the consummation."
Behind the sexual metaphor lie Saudi fears of a "grand bargain" under which Iran would forgo nuclear weapons in return for ratification of Iranian hegemony over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf.

But these Israeli and Saudi imaginings are divorced from the reality of the Obama administration's actual Iran policy. Far from the Nixon-like fundamental strategic revision, as the Netanyahu camp and the Saudis have suggested, the Obama administration's diplomatic engagement with Iran over its nuclear programme represents a culmination of a series of improvised policy adjustments within an overall framework of coercive diplomacy towards Iran.

 Despite Obama's embrace of diplomatic engagement with Iran as a campaign issue in 2008, when he entered the White House his real Iran policy was quite different. In fact, Obama's aim during his first term was to induce Iran to accept an end to its uranium enrichment programme.

'Unconditional talks'
Even as Obama was offering "unconditional talks" with Iran in a letter to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in 2009, he was already pursuing a strategy of multiple pressures on Iran to agree to that US demand.

Obama's strategy of coercive diplomacy involved plans for more intrusive and punishing economic sanctions, a secret NSA programme of cyber-attacks against the Natanz enrichment facility and political/diplomatic exploitation of the threat of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the Netanyahu government in Israel.

Obama made no serious effort to negotiate with Iran until 2012, when he believed the new sanctions that were about to take effect would force Iran to agree to suspend enrichment indefinitely. He dropped that demand in 2013, only because Iran had increased the number of centrifuges in operation from 4,000 to 10,000 and had begun enriching to 20 percent.

Since the beginning of the negotiations, moreover, senior administration officials have repeatedly affirmed the policy of treating Iran as a state sponsor or terrorism and a "troublemaker" and destabilising factor in the Middle East.

In his April 7 interview with National Public Radio Obama said, "I've been very forceful in saying that our differences with Iran don't change if we make sure that they don't have a nuclear weapon - they're still going to be financing Hezbollah, they're still supporting Assad dropping barrel bombs on children, they are still sending arms to the Houthis in Yemen that have helped destabilise the country."

At a deeper level, the most important factor in determining the policy of the US towards Iran is domestic electoral and bureaucratic politics - not Obama's personal geopolitical vision of the Middle East. The power of the Israeli lobby obviously will severely limit policy flexibility towards Iran for many years. And the interests of the most powerful institutions in the US national security state remain tied to a continuation of the policy of treating Iran as the premier enemy of the US.
Bigger bonanza
Since 2002 the US Department of Defense has spent roughly $100bn on missile defence, most of which goes directly to its major military contractor allies. That bonanza depends largely on the idea that Iran is intent on threatening the US and its allies with ballistic missiles.

But an even bigger bonanza for the US arms industry is at stake. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf regimes in the anti-Iran alliance have been pouring big money into Pentagon arms contractor coffers for years. A deal with Saudi Arabia for fighter planes and missile defence technology first announced in 2010 was expected to yield $100-150bn in procurement and service contracts over two decades. And that tsunami of money from the Gulf depends on identifying Iran as a military threat to the entire region.

These sales are now integral to the health of the leading US military contractors. Lockheed, for example, now depends on foreign sales for as much as 25-33 percent of its revenue, according to the Times story.

So the Israeli and Saudi fear of a supposed Obama shift in alliances doesn't reflect fundamental domestic US political realities that are not likely to change for the foreseeable future.
Source: Al Jazeera
Read More
Views
Published by

Netanyahu Congratulates His Think-Tanks In WINEP

SGT Report readers are well aware of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [WINEP], the think tank which has in the past openly advocated the use of false flag events to trigger war with Iran.

For those who are not aware, Patrick Clawson, director of research at The Washington Institute, has himself OPENLY suggested that the US could provoke Iran into war by using a number of various false flag operations.

Clawson proudly and publicly proclaimed at a Washington Institute event in 2012:

“One can combine other means of war with sanctions. Look people, Iranian submarines periodically go down, one day one of them might not come up. Who would know why? … We are in the game of using COVERT means against the Iranians. We could get nastier with that.”...

We remind readers of Clawson and his extremely Machiavellian tones as the Washington Institute celebrates its 30th anniversary with a special message from one of the institute’s biggest fans, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. In this clip, made specially for the Washington Institute, Netanyahu reiterates “his country’s objections to the proposed P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran”...

This special prerecorded message was released today on the Washington Institute’s You Tube channel in honor of the research organization’s 30th anniversary symposium, which took place April 29 – May 1, 2015.



Source: SGT report

Read More
Views
Published by

Normalisation Of Occupation In Movies

Photo: from the movie 'Waltz with Bashir'
by Bea for Palestine (*)

This is a part from a longer piece I wrote, I made a fast translation to english about the Movie “Waltz With Bashir”, which I think is a movie that tries to Normalize the violence inflicted on the Palestinians. With the last Assault on Gaza its important to Highlight those normalization attempts.

SHOOT AND CRY
Some may wonder why my focus is describing the dehumanization of Palestinians, without taking a closer account of Israeli suffering. The answer is simple. No one would require that as much interest was directed towards how the French felt during all the years they colonized other countries. Nor would the Boers in South Africa be put at the same level in an analysis of apartheids humanitarian affects and emotional impacts. During Israel's war against Lebanon in 1982, when Sabra and Shattila suffered horrific massacres, a term was invented, Shoot and Cry. Later this attracted increasing interest, especially after the Israeli film "Waltz with Bashir" by Ari Folman, where the concept really gets a meaning. Shoot, attack, bomb, arrest and kill - there is always a chance to cry out afterwards, the concept could be summarized. You can mourn that you have killed someone, but the dead person does not leave any traces and gives no headlines in the media.

”We'll drop bombs on residential buildings, and then we'll treat the wounded at Ichilov; we'll shell meager places of refuge in United Nations schools, and then we'll rehabilitate the disabled at Beit Lewin Stein. We'll shoot and then we'll cry, we'll kill and then we'll lament, we'll cut down the women and children like automatic killing machines, and we'll overpriced preserve our dignity” (Levy, Haaretz, 2009).

Folman has won a number of prominent awards for his film, including Golden Globe, and it is hailed worldwide for its ability to describe the soldiers' deepest feelings, as the anxiety that comes after shooting someone in the head at such close range that the brain substance spread not only on the floors and walls, but also sticks to your own body. Or how the soldier has consigned all the memories of what happened in Sabra into places where it is black. Where memory is blank. Where the horror is bearable because it does not exist. Folman received his Golden Globe Award at the same time as the bombs rained down on Gaza, and Haaretz journalist Gideon Levy, was not slow to pay attention to this:

“It must be noted that this film is infuriating, disturbing, outrageous and deceptive. It deserved an Oscar for the illustrations and animation - but a badge of shame for its message. It was not by accident That When he won the Golden Globe, Ari Folman did not even mention the war in Gaza, Which was raging as he accepted the prestigious award. The images coming out of Gaza That Day looked remarkably like those in Folman's film. But he was silent. So before we sing Folman's praises, Which will of course ask praise for us all, we would do well to remember that this is not an anti-war film, nor even a critical work about Israel as militarist and occupier. It is an act of fraud and deceit, Intended to allow us to pat ourselves on the back, to tell us and the world how lovely we are (Haaretz 23/2 2009)”.

Just as the former colonial powers glorified his adventures, Israel uses this tactic as a tool to win public opinion, both at home, but perhaps especially in other countries where it is increasingly important to convince public opinion of who we really should feel sorry for. This is a Normalizing process, where the borders between those dropping the bombs from high altitudes and the ones getting bombed to pieces, is erased and the parts are compared as equals. We have to be awake for all attempts to normalize the totally abnormal in Occupying, Sieging and murder people under the cover of “Shoot and Cry”.
(*) Pseudonym of the author


Read More
Views
Published by

Some Propaganda Outlets

Views
Published by

Gaza Through My Eyes - An American Journey to Gaza

Episode 1



Episode 2


On March 29, 2014 Denny Cormier, 68 and retired and an American activist, began a journey to Gaza in search of the truth about Palestine and about the Palestinians.

He had visited Gaza for a month in 2013 to meet the people with whom he had been chatting and Skyping - people who he been following on Facebook and Twitter for many months. He wanted to meet them face to face - to learn more about them - to hear and to share their stories.

He set out to discover for himself what was not being reported by Western media - to reconcile what he had been hearing for months from friends in Gaza versus what he had been reading in newspapers and seeing on television.

He had been told to beware of terrorists - but, in fact, what he found was a beautiful people - welcoming to Americans, warm, kind and generous.

Frankly he fell in love with Palestinian people during that first visit in 2013 - and vowed to return.

That opportunity came in 2014 when he was invited to work with a group of citizen journalists, photographers, filmmakers and social media activists at the Youth Media center.

Over a period of 9 months, he has shared that journey using social media - introducing Palestinians to his friends around the world - sharing stories and photographs about his journey to Gaza.

But his primary work in Gaza is not just about sharing his own experiences. With Palestinian friends he developed a training initiative that was named 1000 Voices for Gaza - an effort to empower a group of new activists who wanted to share their personal stories and the Palestinian story. Together with Palestinian friends he organizes workshops, seminars, speaking engagements, informal Q&A gatherings - and many conversations one on one in homes, coffee shops and in the streets. The focus is more effective use of social media with an emphasis on reaching out to people who live beyond the barricades that surround it.

But Denny has a story too, including his experiences while living in Gaza during the 50 day attack on Gaza that the Israelis named Operation Protective Edge. During the attacks he reported on those experiences using live streaming, Facebook and Twitter. He chose not to leave Gaza. He chose to stay with his friends - as a supporter and a witness. Many of those 50 days were spent at Al Shifa Hospital - reporting on the war, meeting displaced people and families, acting as a human shield - a witness to what he has described as horrific, barbaric in its intensity.

Gaza Through My Eyes is a series of short documentaries about this journey - what an American found in Gaza from the moment he arrived in 2013 and again in 2014 - what he has come to love and to treasure.

This is the first in a series of documentaries. It was filmed during December 2014 and was released on January 1, 2015. It will be followed with a number of other documentaries during the coming months.

This documentary series is being made with the support of and with coordination from the Youth Media Center - Gaza.

Denny is currently living in Gaza City in a home not far from the sea at Al Mena. He spends his days meeting and sharing with Palestinians from all walks of life - including students, farmers, journalists, business owners, photographers, government officials, religious leaders, policemen, taxi drivers, shop keepers, academics, fishermen, working people, families - and many, many children.

This is his story of a journey to Gaza..

Denny Cormier
Gaza City
January 1, 2015

Source: Youtube

Read More
Views
Published by

Who Made Al-Qaeda?

Views
Published by

How U.S. Journalists Inflame Middle East Sectarianism - e.g. Liz Sly

Sectarianism in the Middle East is regularly inflamed by the Sunni Salafi/Wahhabi groups and countries in the Middle East. It is directed against all other strains of Islam as well as against all other religions.

But as the "western" governments and media favor the Saudi Arabian side and often denigrate the "resistance" side, be it Shia, Sunni or whatever else, they insist that it is the Shia side that is preaching sectarianism. One can often experience this with reports on speeches of Hizbullah leader Nasrallah who is always very careful to not ever use sectarian language. When Nasrallah condemns Takfiri terrorists like AlQaeda and the Islamic State as non-Muslim and calls them the greatest danger to Sunnis, Shia and Christians alike the "western" media like to report that he warns of Sunnis in general and is thus spreading sectarianism.

Liz Sly in Baghdad (archive)

Many such reports come from "western" reporters who are stationed in Beirut, speak no Arabic and depend on the spokespersons and translators in the offices of the Saudi-Lebanese Sunni leader Hariri. For an ever growing collection of typical examples see the Angry Arab here and here.

The finding of non-existent sectarian language in "resistance" leaders' communications and the emphasizing of it has been internalized by "western" reporters. You can clearly see the process in the exemplary Twitter exchange copied below.

Liz Sly is the Middle East correspondent for the Washington Post in Beirut and does not speak Arabic. Elijah J. Magnier is Chief International Correspondent for the Kuwaiti TV station AL RAI. He speaks Arabic and has covered the war on Iraq and other wars on the ground for decades.

The issue at hand is a defense bill in front of the U.S. Congress which refers to Sunni militia, Kurds and other groups in Iraq as distinguished "countries" which are to be armed separately from the state of Iraq. "Divide and rule" writ large. Many Iraqi politicians including the Prime Minister have spoken out against it. The Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr warned of the consequences should the bill go through which he says would include an unleashing of his troops against U.S. interests.

Notice how Liz Sly insist on a sectarian aspect/intent in Sadr's proclamation even when there clearly is none. She keeps in insisting on it even after she gets pointed to an official denial of any sectarian intent by a Sadr spokesperson. The exchange:
Liz Sly 17h17 hours ago
Moqtada Sadr to the US: if you arm Iraq's Sunnis, we will fight Americans in Iraq. https://twitter.com/jihadicas/status/593512749235249152 …
Elijah J. Magnier 8h8 hours ago
@LizSly Moqtada didn't say that https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/593324552437903360 …

Liz Sly ‏ 6h6 hours ago
@EjmAlrai Didn't mean literally fighting US troops, but to fight against US presence in Iraq. Presumably would hit embassy, personnel etc?

Elijah J. Magnier 6h6 hours ago
@LizSly U r right as Moqtada said he will fight USA in Iraq and abroad but didn't say if Sunni are armed.

Elijah J. Magnier ‏ 5h5 hours ago
@LizSly "We shall hit US interest in Iraq & abroad, as possible, ', if US approves supporting each religion independently",

Liz Sly ‏ 5h5 hours ago
@EjmAlrai Right, he means if Sunnis are armed directly by the US under that weird bill

Elijah J. Magnier 5h5 hours ago
@LizSly I spoke to S. Ali Seism who said it is not directed to Sunni but 2 all religions (incl Kurds) as there are more than Sunnis in Iraq.

Elijah J. Magnier ‏ 5h5 hours ago
@LizSly In fact the communique' doesn't say in any line the word "Sunni" but "all religions".

Liz Sly ‏ 5h5 hours ago
@EjmAlrai The bill is aimed at arming Sunnis and my tweet makes it clear Muqtada is against the US arming Sunnis, not against arming them

Elijah J. Magnier 5h5 hours ago
@LizSly Moqtada communique' clearly didn't mention Sunni: "Not arming religions": Fayli, Turkman, Sunni, Shia, Yazidi... Feel free.

Liz Sly ‏ 5h5 hours ago
@EjmAlrai Ok, but it's clear he's against a bill whose goal is to permit the US to directly arm Sunnis, not eg Fayli. As are many Iraqis.
The last paragraph of Sadr's statement says:
American should know that if it wants to exacerbate sectarian sentiment, we would continue to tread on the path of national unity. Let sectarianism fall out of existence! This is the very sectarianism that seeks to create [artificial] borders.
The U.S. Congress introduces a law that would exacerbate sectarianism in Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr responses with a statement explicitly speaking out against sectarianism. Liz Sly insist that it is Sadr who is playing a sectarian card.
Is this insistence by Liz Sly on sectarian "Shia leader Sadr is against Sunnis" justified by anything but sly, willful exaggeration, and even falsification, of what Sadr wrote? Who is the sectarian here?
Source: Moon of Alabama
Read More