Saturday, June 16, 2018

In the Wind: Rumours of Imminent Syria Gas Attacks Reminiscent of False Flags Past

Russian-Syrian Warnings of a Coming False-Flag Chemical Attack Have Ring of Truth

by Whitney Webb - MintPress News


June 15, 2018

Both Russia and Syria have sounded the alarm over an impending ‘chemical weapons provocation,’ a possibility compounded by the U.S.’ Truman’ strike group’s recent deployment to Syria.


In recent days, speculation has swirled regarding whether another chemical-weapons attack will soon take place in Syria, as sources in both Syrian intelligence and the Russian military have warned that U.S.-backed forces in the U.S.-occupied region of Deir ez-Zor are planning to stage a chemical weapons attack to be blamed on the Syrian government.

Concern that such an event could soon take place has only grown since the U.S. government announcement this past Thursday that the U.S. would provide $6.6 million over the next year to fund the White Helmets, the controversial “humanitarian” group that has been accused of staging “false flag” chemical weapons attacks in the past.

Notably, the White Helmets were largely responsible for staging the recent alleged chlorine gas attack in Eastern Ghouta, which led the United States, the United Kingdom and France to attack Syrian government targets.

That same attack in Eastern Ghouta had been predicted weeks prior by the Russian military and Syrian government, who are warning once again that a similar event is likely to occur in coming weeks.

An additional and largely overlooked indication that another staged attack could soon take place has been the recent movements of U.S. military assets to the Syrian coast, particularly the deployment of the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG).

As MintPress previously reported, the deployment of the HSTCSG – which consists of some 6,500 sailors — was first announced in April prior to the U.S., France and U.K. bombing of Syria. However, the group did not arrive until after that bombing had taken place.

While the April bombing was called a “one-time shot” by U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, the fact that the Truman strike group’s deployment to the region was not canceled after the bombings occurred led some to suggest that the U.S. may have been anticipating more strikes against Syria’s government in the coming months. Indeed, soon after the U.S.-led bombing of Syria, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, declared the U.S. was “locked and loaded” should the Syrian government again be accused of using chemical weapons.

Now, amid claims from both the Syrian and Russian governments of another chemical weapons provocation, as well as the U.S.’ renewed funding of the White Helmets, the strike group’s deployment directly off the Syrian coast has only given greater credence to those previously voiced concerns.

According to a recent announcement from the U.S. Navy:

“Bringing the Harry S. Truman strike group back into the fight against ISIS sends a powerful message to our partners that we are committed to peace and security in the region, and anywhere threatened by international terrorism.
“Once again, we demonstrate the incredible flexibility and capabilities of a carrier strike group: we are combat-proven and ready to answer the call anytime and anywhere to carry out any mission we are directed [sic].”

The statement also noted that fighter squadrons would be working with the strike group to “conduct precision strikes on ISIS targets” as part of the U.S. coalition’s Operation Inherent Resolve, which claims to be aimed at eliminating the presence of ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

In addition to the strike group, a report from SouthFront last month provided evidence that the U.S. had recently established a military garrison near the Jafra oil field, the exact location cited by both Syrian and Russian sources as the likely location for the future staging of a chemical weapons attack.

Fog of war: U.S. aiding the very terrorists it vowed to exterminate


While the U.S. has publicly claimed to be moving military assets as part of its campaign against ISIS, the fact that the U.S. has recently been accused of aiding ISIS in Syria — both as a pretext for its indefinite occupation of Syria’s Northeast and as a means of distracting and weakening the Syrian government that it has long sought to topple — casts doubt on the official narrative.

Indeed, since the U.S. and its proxy force, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), took control of northeastern Syria – nearly a third of the entire country – last November, neither group has done anything to target the ISIS pockets in the area until the recent June 4 announcement by Mattis that the U.S. and the SDF had “re-commenced” their offensive after a lengthy hiatus.

The U.S. has yet to offer an explanation for the hiatus and reports have not yet surfaced regarding the specific actions of the new offensive to target ISIS.


Unidentified U.S.-backed Syrian rebels surround a piece of artillery 
during training by American special forces member in Southeastern 
Syria near Tanf. Photo | Hammurabi’s Justice News


However, during the “hiatus”, and despite its occupation of the territory, the U.S. has re-trained ISIS fighters and regrouped them into small militias which have been placed under the SDF banner. In addition, SDF defectors have asserted that the U.S. and SDF regularly collaborate with the terror group.

More recently, the U.S. again threatened the Syrian government over the latter’s planned offensive aimed at removing militant groups from the Dara’a governorate in the south of Syria. On Friday, the U.S. State Department announced that the U.S. would issue a “decisive response” if the offensive goes forward as planned.

Given that the militants in the Dara’a governorate are either ISIS, Al Qaeda or their affiliates, the U.S. threat against a Syrian military offensive targeting these groups has been largely interpreted as a U.S. move actually aimed at protecting ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Given that the U.S. has been documented to be retraining ISIS fighters and protecting ISIS in the portion of Syria it occupies and elsewhere in the country, the movement of U.S. military assets such as the Truman strike group suggests that the official claim that those assets will be used in “the fight against ISIS” may not be what it appears.

Indeed, accusations by Russia and Syria of an imminent “false flag” chemical weapons attack, as well as the U.S.’ renewed funding of the White Helmets to the tune of over $6 million, instead suggest that the Truman strike group’s new deployment to Syria is in preparation for the U.S.’ predetermined response to anticipated accusations regarding the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Republish our stories! MintPress News is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License. 

Thursday, June 14, 2018

In Thoughts and Song: Britain's Satire Police Sentence Singer

Trouble Clef

by Gilad Atzmon


June 14, 2018

The Jewish Chronicle seems dismayed that the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has escaped jail time, at least for the time being. But the message conveyed by Ms. Chabloz’s conviction is devastating for Britain. This kingdom has, in just a short time, become a crude authoritarian state.

For posting so-called ‘grossly offensive songs’ on the internet, Chabloz was sentenced by District Judge John Zani to 20 weeks imprisonment suspended for two years. It seems that now music is deemed a major threat to Britain.

Chabloz was also banned from posting anything on social media for 12 months. I am perplexed. What kind of countries pre-vet social interaction and intellectual exchange?

Israel imposes such prohibitions on its Palestinian citizens. Soviet Russia banned certain types of gatherings and publications and, of course, Nazi Germany saw itself qualified to decide what type of texts were healthy for the people and actively burned books. I guess that Britain is in good company.

Chabloz was further “ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work.” This amounts to something in the proximity of 90 Jazz gigs. And Chabloz is required to attend ‘a 20-day rehabilitation programme.’

In 21st century Britain, a singer songwriter has been sentenced to ‘re-education’ for singing a few tunes that offended some people. The initial objective of the Nazi Concentration camp was also to ‘re-educate the people.’ Dachau was built to re-educate cosmopolitans, dissenter communists and to make them into German patriots.

I wonder what this particular rehab program will entail for the revisionist singer?

Chabloz was guilty of introducing new lyrics to Ava Nagila, will she have now to learn to sing Ava Nagila in Yiddish, or maybe to try to fit her own original ‘subversive’ lyrics to the music of Richard Wagner? Who is going to take care of Chabloz’s education, and what happens if the singer insists on continuing to mock the primacy of Jewish suffering or far worse, compare Gaza to Auschwitz?

Satire aside, the Chabloz trial and other recent legal cases suggest to me that Britain is no longer the liberty-loving place I settled in more than two decades ago. If liberty can be defined as the right to offend, Britain has voluntarily removed itself from the free world. In contemporary Britain, exercise of the ‘right to offend’ evidently leads to conviction and possible imprisonment.

And who defines what establishes ‘an offence’?

British law fails to do so. Chabloz was disrespectful to some Jewish cult figures such as Elie Wiesel and Otto Frank (the father of Anne Frank). Would Chabloz be subject to similar legal proceeding if she offended the Queen, the royal family or Winston Churchill? What message is Judge Zani sending to British intellectuals and artists?

Since every person, let alone Jews, can be offended by pretty much anything, Britain is now reduced to an Orwellian dystopia. We may have to accept that our big Zionist brother is constantly watching us. If we want to keep out of trouble, we better self-censor our thoughts and learn to accept the new boundaries of our expression.

Democracies are sustained by the belief that their members are qualified to make decisions regarding their own education: they decide what films to watch, what books to read and what clubs to join. Seemingly, this is no longer the case in Britain. Decisions regarding right and wrong thoughts are now taken by ‘the law’.

According to the JC, Judge Zani told Chabloz that:

“The right to freedom of speech is fundamental to a fully-functioning democratic society. But the law has clearly established that this right is a qualified right.”

While many of us believe that freedom of speech is an absolute right, Judge Zani made it clear today that this is not the case or at least not anymore. Freedom of speech in Britain is now a ‘qualified right.’ In other words Government and the Judicial system are allowed to interfere with such right at any time.

Just two years ago, the Crown Prosecution Service didn’t think that Chabloz should stand trial. Presumably at the time the CPS didn’t believe that Chabloz’ rights should be qualified or quantified. Two years later there has been a clear change in speech that is prosecuted.

Article 19e of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by Great Britain and enacted in 1948 declares:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

This was the law in 1948. In 2018, freedom and democracy are rights we have to remember, we experience them no more.

To Support Gilad's Legal Defence Fund

 

Mega Media Merger Unfair for Viewers Says FAIR

AT&T – TimeWarner Merger: A Disaster for Consumers when Combined with Net Neutrality Repeal (Pt. 1/2)

by TRNN


June 14, 2018

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the proposed eighty-five billion-dollar merger between AT&T and Time Warner may proceed because it does not violate U.S. antitrust laws. Judge Richard J. Leon, of the United States District Court in Washington, argued that the merger would not reduce competition because AT&T and Time Warner operate in different markets. AT&T distributes content, while Time Warner, which owns HBO, CNN, Warner Brothers Studios among other divisions, create content.

Now, during the 2016 presidential campaign, then candidate President Trump complained about the proposed merger, saying that, as president, he would stop it.




The argument that this merger, which will create one of the world’s largest media giants, is not anti-competitive lacks all basis in reality, says Jeff Cohen of RootsAction.org and FAIR.

Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Bird on a Barbed Wire: Extinction Now

The Plight of Birds and the Hand of Man in the Sixth Great Extinction 

by Arshad Khan - CounterPunch


June 13, 2018  
 
As birds become fewer, wildflowers vanish, butterflies disappear, and animals in the wild are threatened, extinction and a grim future haunts. How often did Rumi write about birdsong … there is a reason. Nature revives the spirit.

June 5th was World Environment Day. A UN outreach program hosted by a different country each year, it is designed to draw attention to its environmental challenges and to offer it support. This year the host country is India and the theme is beating plastic pollution.

But plastics are not just a blight on the landscape, they are in the seas destroying coral and the species it shelters, painfully killing whales and other creatures … including birds. Yet, it is far from the only cause of bird distress and their sharply declining numbers.

Photo: Mark Gillow | CC BY 2.0

One example comes from the Arctic, where receding ice has taken with it the nutritious cod, which favor cold waters, and has endangered the black guillemot now forced to feed their chicks on the bony and difficult-to-digest fourhorn sculpin.

When the EU commissioned a State of Nature report, they expected bad news but not quite as dire a result. Prepared by the European Environment Agency and sourced from EU-wide data, it found one in three bird species threatened and only a little over half secure. It also drew a bleak picture of European habitats finding over half of those studied to be unfavorable. Habitat loss, pesticides particularly neonicotinoids, even excessive hunting, notably in southern Europe, are all to blame.

Earlier, a comprehensive study conducted by University of Exeter (UK) professor Richard Inger and colleagues had analyzed avian biomass across 25 countries over 30 years. Using data from Birdlife International and the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme, they discovered a surprisingly large and troubling decline: from 1980 to 2009 the estimated total avian population had been reduced by 421 million birds.

Meanwhile, research in the US with far-reaching consequences places blame squarely on human activity. It examines avian consequences of noise pollution. If certain constant noises irritate humans — think of road repair and a pneumatic drill — then birds are no exception. Noise from oil and gas operations is stressing out birds and harming reproduction. They exhibit signs of chronic stress, lay fewer eggs or fewer eggs hatch, and nestling growth is stunted.

So reports a study by Nathan Kleist and colleagues in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (unfortunately not available to the general public without a fee). The authors studied three species of cavity nesting birds (the ash-throated flycatcher, the mountain bluebird and the western bluebird) breeding near oil and gas operations on Bureau of Land Management property in the San Juan Basin in New Mexico.

The researchers placed 240 nest boxes on 12 pairs of sites, close to and at varying distances from the drilling pads where loud compressors operated non-stop. The team took blood samples of adult females and nestlings from all the nest boxes for three years. They also examined nestling body size and feather length — less well developed in both noisy and lower noise areas, suggesting any level of irritating noise disrupts.

Baseline levels of a key stress hormone, corticosterone, showed high stress in birds nesting closest to the noise. And nestlings in noisy areas produced significantly greater stress hormones than those in quiet areas when subjected to the test of being held for 10 minutes.

It also turned out that the western bluebird was the only species willing to nest in the sites closest to the compressors; such behavior had led to the belief it was immune to noise. Not so, the study results revealed.

Environmental stress is increased by noise pollution and that it degrades avian reproductive success is the conclusive message of this study. With background noise constantly increasing in the US, even protected areas are no longer immune.

If the anthropocene is our age, it is also our look in the mirror to see what the human footprint has wrought, even if unwittingly. Global warming, extreme weather events becoming more severe, plastic pollution and stressed wildlife, record extinctions, insect declines … all portents of an impaired future warning humans repeatedly of urgency.

The sixth mass extinction is underway but it will take centuries if not thousands of years, and man can help by alleviating global warming and preservation efforts. Related to CO2 levels, global warming has been the culprit in the previous five. CO2 levels are already in excess of 0.04 percent perilously close to the 0.05 percent calculated to melt icecaps through temperature rise causing serious flooding of coastal areas.

Are leaders and decision-makers listening?  


Arshad M. Khan is a former professor who has, over many years, written occasionally for the print and often for online media outlets.
More articles by:Arshad Khan

Palestine's Most Urgent Moment: Beating the US Veto

Beating the US ‘Veto’: Palestinians Need Urgent Protection from Israel

by Ramzy Baroud - ramzybaroud.net


June 13, 2018

What is taking place in Palestine is not a 'conflict'. We readily utilize the term but, in fact, the word 'conflict' is misleading. It equates between oppressed Palestinians and Israel, a military power that stands in violation of numerous United Nations Resolutions.

It is these ambiguous terminologies that allow the likes of United States UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, to champion Israel's 'right to defend itself', as if the militarily occupied and colonized Palestinians are the ones threatening the security of their occupier and tormentor.

In fact, this is precisely what Haley has done to counter a draft UN Security Council Resolution presented by Kuwait to provide a minimum degree of protection for Palestinians.

Haley vetoed the draft, thus continuing a grim legacy of US defense of Israel, despite the latter’s ongoing violence against Palestinians.

It is no surprise that out of the 80 vetoes exercised by the US at the UNSC, the majority were unleashed to protect Israel. The first such veto for Israel’s sake was in September 1972 and the latest, used by Haley was on June 1.

Before it was put to the vote, the Kuwaiti draft was revised three times in order to 'water it down'. Initially, it called for the protection of the Palestinian people from Israeli violence.

The final draft merely called for "The consideration of measures to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in the Gaza Strip."

Still, Haley found the language "grossly one-sided."

The near consensus in support of the Kuwait draft was met with complete rejection of Haley's own draft resolution which demanded Palestinian groups cease "all violent provocative actions" in Gaza.

The 'provocative actions' being referred to in Haley’s draft is the mass mobilization by tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, who have been peacefully protesting for weeks, hoping that their protests will place the Israeli siege on Gaza back on the UN agenda.

Haley's counter draft resolution did not garner a single vote in favor, save that of Haley’s own. But such humiliation at the international stage is hardly of essence to the US, which has wagered its international reputation and foreign policy to protect Israel at any cost, even from unarmed observers whose job is merely to report on what they see on the ground.

The last such 'force' was that of 60 – later increased to 90 - members of the Temporary International Presence in Hebron (TIPH).

TIPH was established in May 1996 and has filed many reports on the situation in the Occupied Palestinian city, especially in Area H-2, a small part of the city that is controlled by the Israeli army to protect some of the most violent illegal Jewish settlers.

Jan Kristensen, a retired lieutenant colonel of the Norwegian army who headed TIPH had these words to say, following the completion of his one-year mission in Hebron in 2004:

"The activity of the settlers and the army in the H-2 area of Hebron is creating an irreversible situation. In a sense, cleansing is being carried out.
"In other words, if the situation continues for another few years, the result will be that no Palestinians will remain there."

One can only imagine what has befallen Hebron since then. The army and Jewish settlers have become so emboldened to the extent that they execute Palestinians in cold blood with little or no consequence.

One such episode became particularly famous, for it was caught on camera. On March 24, 2015, an Israeli soldier carried out a routine operation by shooting in the head an incapacitated Palestinian.

The execution of Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif, 21, was filmed by Imad Abushamsiya. The viral video caused Israel massive embarrassment, forcing it to hold a sham trial in which the Israeli soldier who killed al-Sharif received a light sentence; he was later released to a reception fit for heroes.

Abushamsiya, who filmed the murder, however, was harassed by both the Israeli army and police and received numerous death threats.

The Israeli practice of punishing the messenger is not new. The mother of Ahed Tamimi, Nariman, who filmed her teenage daughter confronting armed Israeli soldiers was also detained and sentenced.

Israel has practically punished Palestinians for recording their own subjugation by Israeli troops while, at the same time, empowering these very soldiers to do as they please; it is now in the process of turning this everyday reality into actual law.

A bill at the Israeli Knesset was put forward late May that prohibits "photographing and documenting (Israeli occupation) soldiers", and criminalizing "anyone who filmed, photographed and/or recorded soldiers in the course of their duty."

The bill, which is supported by Israeli Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, demands a five-year imprisonment term for violators.

The bill practically means that any form of monitoring of Israeli soldiers is a criminal act. If this is not a call for perpetual war crimes, what is?

Just to be sure, a second bill is proposing to give immunity to soldiers suspected of criminal activities during military operations.

The bill is promoted by deputy Defense Minister, Eli Ben Dahan, and is garnering support at the Knesset.

"The truth is that Ben Dahan’s bill is entirely redundant," wrote Orly Noy in the Israeli 972 Magazine.

Noy cited a recent report by the Israeli human rights organization ‘Yesh Din’ which shows that "soldiers who allegedly commit crimes against the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories enjoy near-full immunity."

Now, Palestinians are more vulnerable than ever before, and Israel, with the help of its American enablers, is more brazen than ever.

This tragedy cannot continue. The international community and civil society organizations, - independent of the US government and its shameful vetoes - must undertake the legal and moral responsibility to monitor Israeli action and to provide meaningful protection for Palestinians.

Israel should not have free reign to abuse Palestinians at will, and the international community should not stand by and watch the bloody spectacle as it continues to unfold.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His forthcoming book is ‘The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story’ (Pluto Press, London). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

Gorilla Radio with Chris Cook, John Helmer, Kees van der Pijl, Janine Bandcroft June 14, 2018

This Week on GR

by C. L. Cook - Gorilla-Radio.com


June 14, 2018

O! Canada, what have you done NOW? Apparently, the Make America Great Again crowd's unhappy and up and declared war on the Great White North. Incredibly, the fully prostrate boot-licking of Canada's immaculately coiffured Justin Trudeau hasn't proven enough to spare us the wrath of the MAGA Khan!!!

The proverbial poo hit the Twitter fan Saturday as Donald Trump departed the Charlevoix, Quebec G7 fiasco, bound for greater glory in Singapore.

It was left for Trump economic acolytes Larry Kudlow and Peter Navarro to shovel the load the leader left in the bilateral trade commode upon his allies' heads, and across America's myriad Sunday morning shows.

Listen. Hear.

The strain of the effort apparently triggered a "very mild heart attack" in the former, and a brain fart from the latter that ripped across the mediasphere as a miasmic and unprecedented damnation to Hell's foul and sulphured core for our Prime Minister.

John Helmer is a long-time, Moscow-based journalist, author, and essayist whose website, Dances with Bears is the only Russian-based news bureau “independent of single national or commercial ties.” He’s also a former political science professor who’s served as advisor to governments on three continents, and regularly lectures on Russian topics.

Helmer’s book titles include: ‘Uncovering Russia,’ ‘Urbanman: The Psychology of Urban Survival,’ ‘Bringing the War Home: The American Soldier in Vietnam and After,’ and ‘Drugs and Minority Oppression’, among others.

His latest article, 'Defecation in Public - Was It Soft or Hard When White House Officials Did It On the Canadian Prime Minister? Is Chrystia Freeland Also Aiming at Justin Trudeau?' gets to the bottom of the sewering Canada/US relationship.

John Helmer in the first half.

And; last month, the Dutch Joint Investigation Team tasked to look into the MH17 disaster came down with an opinion of how the Malaysian airliner came to be shot down over Ukraine in 2014, and who it believes is responsible.

The JIT report unsurprisingly concludes Russia is the culprit, as it argued from the beginning, but is there another possibility? The impartiality of the panel in charge of the nearly four years-long probe has been questioned, with criticism coming mainly from Russia and the separatists of Eastern Ukraine who have fought a bitter war against the NATO-sponsored coup regime in Kyiv.

Kees van der Pijl is emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Sussex and Fellow of the Centre for Global Political Economy. The Dutch political scientist is known for his critical approach to global political economy as found in his trilogy 'Modes of Foreign Relations and Political Economy'.

Kees' other works include; 'Global Rivalries from the Cold War to Iraq', 'Transnational Classes and International Relations', and 'The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class'. Pijl's also known as one of the World's foremost authorities on the MH17 crash, and the fate of his book dealing with the crash, due out later this month, is now in question.

Kees van der Pijl and getting to the truth of MH17 in the second half.

And, Victoria-based activist and CFUV Radio broadcaster, Janine Bandcroft will be here at the bottom of the hour with the Left Coast Events Bulletin of some of the good things to get up to in and around our town in the coming week. But first, John Helmer and a really very sh*tty week for Justin Trudeau and Canada/US trade relations.

Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Thursday between 11-Noon Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca.  He also serves as a contributing editor to the web news site, http://www.pacificfreepress.com. Check out the GR blog at: http://gorillaradioblog.blogspot.ca/

With Friends Like These...Trump's Trade War(s)

Defiant Trump Ignites Trade War with Canada and G-7 Allies

by TRNN


June 12, 2018

Citing national security issues to get around WTO rules, Trump ordered tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports from Canada and EU countries.


 

William Black and Gerald Epstein discuss the implications of these tariffs on the different economies.

Tuesday, June 12, 2018

Trump-Kim Sign Agreement in Singapore

Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit 

via ICH


June 12, 2018

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new US-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.





Convinced that the establishment of new US-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

  1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
  2. The United States and DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
  3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
  4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the US-DPRK summit -- the first in history -- was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in the joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the US-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new US-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and the security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America

KIM JONG UN
Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea


June 12, 2018
Sentosa Island
Singapore

Monday, June 11, 2018

Finding Your Neo: Looking Through the Corporate Media Illusion

The corporate media’s world of illusions 

by Jonathan Cook


11 June 2018

For several years now, I have been writing these regular blog posts with one end in mind: to help open a door for readers and encourage them to step through. I select issues, usually those that dominate western media coverage and represent a consensus that we might term the Great Western Narrative, and try to show how this narrative has been constructed not to inform and enlighten but to conceal and deceive.

It is not that I and the many other bloggers doing this are cleverer than everyone else. We have simply had a chance – an earlier one – to step through that door ourselves, because of a jarring life experience that the Great Western Narrative could not explain, or because someone held the door open for us, or more usually because of a combination of the two.

My personal awakening


It is easy for me to identify my own process of awakening. It began with the dislocation of moving to Nazareth and being immersed in someone else’s narrative – that of the Palestinians. Then, I faced for the first time in my career as a journalist an impenetrable wall of opposition, even from my own former newspaper, the Guardian, as I tried to explain that counter-narrative. In fact, I found that the Palestinian narrative was invariably misrepresented as anti-semitism. These were dark years of disillusionment and the loss of a professional and ideological compass.

It is in such a moment of bereavement – deprived of the consolation of the Great Western Narrative – that one searches for a door to enlightenment. It can be a long journey to find it.

My door appeared while reading about the Propaganda Model of Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky in their book Manufacturing Consent, as well as stumbling across a website called Media Lens. They helped me understand that the narrative problem was not restricted to Israel-Palestine, but was a much more general one.

In fact, the Great Western Narrative has been developed and refined over centuries to preserve a tiny elite’s privileges and expand its power. The role of journalists like me was to keep feeding these illusions to readers so they would remain fearful, passive and deferential to this elite. It is not that journalists lie – or at least, not most of them – it is that they are as deeply wedded to the Great Western Narrative as anyone else.

Once one is prepared to step through the door, to discard the old script, the new narrative takes its hold because it is so helpful. It actually explains the world, and human behaviour, as it is experienced everywhere. It has genuine predictive power. And most importantly, it reveals a truth understood by all figures of spiritual and intellectual enlightenment throughout human history: that human beings are equally human, whether they are Americans, Europeans, Israelis, Palestinians, Syrians, Russians, Venezuelans, or Iranians, whether they are North or South Koreans.

The term “human” is not meant simply as a description of us as a species, or a biological entity. It also describes who we are, what drives us, what makes us cry, what makes us laugh, what makes us angry, what elicits compassion. And the truth is that we are all essentially the same. The same things upset us, the same things amuse us. The same things inspire us, the same things outrage us. We want dignity, freedom, safety for us and our loved ones, and appreciate beauty and truth. We fear oppression, injustice, insecurity.

Hierarchies of virtue


The Great Western Narrative tells us something entirely different. It divides the world into a hierarchy of “peoples”, with different, even conflicting, virtues and vices. Some humans – westerners – are more rational, more caring, more thoughtful, more fully human. And other humans – the rest – are more primitive, more emotional, more violent. In this system of classification, we are the Good Guys and they are the Bad Guys; we are Order, they are Chaos. They need a firm hand from us to control them and stop them doing too much damage to themselves and to our civilised part of the world.

The Great Western Narrative isn’t really new. It is simply a reformulation for a different era of the “white man’s burden”.

The reason the Great Western Narrative persists is because it is useful – to those in power. Humans may be essentially the same in our natures and in our drives, but we are very definitely divided by power and its modern corollary, wealth. A tiny number have it, and the vast majority do not. The Great Western Narrative is there to perpetuate power by legitimising it, by making its unbalanced and unjust distribution seem natural and immutable.

Once kings told us they had blue blood and a divine right. Today, we need a different kind of narrative, but one designed to achieve the same end. Just as kings and barons once owned everything, now a tiny corporate elite rule the world. They have to justify that to themselves and to us.

The king and the barons had their courtiers, the clergy and a wider circle of hanger-ons who most of the time benefited enough from the system not to disrupt it. The role of the clergy in particular was to sanction the gross imbalance of power, to argue that it was God’s will. Today, the media function like the clergy of old. God may be dead, as Nietzsche observed, but the corporate media has taken his place. In the unquestioned premises of every article, we are told who should rule and who should be ruled, who are the Good Guys and who the Bad.

To make this system more palatable, more democratic, to make us believe that there is equality of opportunity and that wealth trickles down, the western elite has had to allow a large domestic middle class to emerge, like the courtiers of old. The spoils from the rape and pillage of distant societies are shared sparingly with this class. Their consciences are rarely pricked because the corporate media’s function is to ensure they know little about the rest of the world and care even less, believing those foreigners to be less deserving, less human.

Nothing more than statistics


If western readers, for example, understood that a Palestinian is no different from an Israeli – apart from in opportunities and income – then they might feel sympathy for a grieving Palestinian family just as they do for an Israeli one. But the Great Western Narrative is there precisely to ensure readers won’t feel the same about the two cases.

That is why Palestinian deaths are invariably reported as nothing more than statistics – because Palestinians die in large numbers, like cattle in an abbatoir. Israelis, by contrast, die much more rarely and their deaths are recorded individually. They are dignified with names, life stories and pictures.

Even when a moment arrives to single out a Palestinian from the mass of death, western corporate media show great reluctance to do so. Just take the case of Razan al-Najjar, the 21-year-old Palestinian medic executed by a sniper’s bullet as she tended to the unarmed demonstrators regularly being killed and wounded at the perimeter fence encaging them in the prison of Gaza.

Gaza is slowly sinking into the sea, but who cares? Those primitive Palestinians live like cavemen amid the rubble of homes Israel has repeatedly destroyed.

Their women are hijabbed and they have too many children. They don’t look like us, they don’t speak like us. Doubtless, they don’t think like us. They cannot be us.

Even those young Palestinian demonstrators, with their faces covered with strange scarves, launching flaming kites and throwing the odd stone, look different. Can we imagine ourselves standing in front of a sniper to protest like that?

Of course not. We cannot imagine what it is like to live in one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, in an open-air prison over which another nation serves as jailers, in which the water is becoming as saline as seawater and there is no electricity.

So how can we put ourselves in the demonstrators’ shoes, how can we empathise? It is so much easier to imagine being the powerful sniper protecting the “border” and his home.

But al-Najjar undermined all that. A young, pretty woman with a beautiful smile – she could be our daughter. Selflessly tending to the wounded, thinking not of herself but of the welfare of others, we would be proud to have her as our daughter. We can identify with her much better than the sniper. She is a door beckoning us to step through and see the world from a different location, from a different perspective.

Which is why the corporate media has not invested al-Najjar’s death with the emotional, empathetic coverage it would if a pretty young Israeli female medic had been gunned down by a Palestinian. It was that double standard in his own newspaper that outraged cartoonist Steve Bell last week as he noted in correspondence with the editor that the Guardian had barely covered the story of al-Najjar. When he tried to redress the imbalance, his own cartoon of her death was censored.




The Guardian’s editors argued that his cartoon was anti-semitic. But the deeper truth is that al-Najjar is dangerous. Because once you step through that door, you are unlikely to come back, you are unlikely ever again to believe the Great Western Narrative.

The true message of Israel


Israel-Palestine offered me that door, just as it has so many others. It is not, as Israel’s apologists – and the upholders of the Great Western Narrative – will tell you, because so many westerners are anti-semitic. It is because Israel lies in a grey zone of experience, one that is readily available to western tourists but can at the same time give them a chance to glimpse the dark underbelly of western privilege.

Israel is enthusiastically embraced by the Great Western Narrative: it is supposedly a liberal democracy, many of its inhabitants dress and sound like us, its cities look rather like our cities, its TV shows are given a makeover and become hits on our TV screens. If you don’t stand too close, Israel could be Britain or the US.

But there are clues galore, for those who bother to look a little beyond superficialities, that there is something profoundly amiss about Israel.

A few miles from their homes, the sons of those western-looking families regularly train their gun sights on unarmed demonstrators, on children, on women, on journalists, on medics, and pull the trigger with barely any compunction.

They do so not because they are monsters, but because they are exactly like us, exactly like our sons. That is the true horror of Israel.

We have a chance to see ourselves in Israel – because it is not exactly us, because most of us have some distance from it, because it still looks a little strange despite the best efforts of the western media, and because its own local narrative – justifying its actions – is even more extreme, even more entitled, even more racist towards the Other than the Great Western Narrative.

It is that shocking realisation – that we could be Israelis, that we could be those snipers – that prevents many from stepping through the door to see what is on the other side. Or, more troubling still, halting at the threshhold of the doorway, glimpsing a partial truth without understanding its full ramifications.

Equally human


To explain what I mean, let us digress for a moment and consider the allegorical film The Matrix.

Neo, the hero played by Keanu Reeves, starts to realise that the reality around him is not as solid as it once seemed. Things have become peculiar, inconsistent, inexplicable. He is shown the door to an entirely different reality with the help of a mentor, Morpheus. Neo discovers that in truth he exists in a dark world taken over by computer-generated life forms that feed off the consciousnesses of him and the rest of mankind. Until then, he had been living in a dream world created to pacify him and other humans as they are exploited for their energy.

Neo and a small band of others who have liberated themselves from this false consciousness cannot hope to defeat their opponents directly. They must wage war through the Matrix, a digital world in which the computer life-forms always triumph. It is only when Neo finally grasps that the Matrix is an illusion too – that these life forms he is battling are simply binary code – that he becomes strong enough to triumph. 




Back to us. On the other side of the door lies a truth that humans are all equally human. From this vantage point, it is possible to understand that a privileged westerner or Israeli would react exactly like a Palestinian if he had to endure the experiences of living in Gaza. From this location, it is possible to understand that my son might pull the trigger, just like most Israeli teenagers do, if he had been bombarded, like them, with brainwashing all his life from his media, school and politicians depicting Palestinians as primitive and violent.

From the other side of the door, Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Bashar al-Assad look as rational, or irrational, and as criminal as George W Bush, Tony Blair, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump. In fact, they look less criminal – not because they are better humans than their western counterparts, but simply because they enjoy less power and face more constraints in trying to impose their will. The issue is not about who is better. They are the same humans. It is about who has more force at their disposal – and more will to use it – to perpetuate their power.

Enslaved to power


The conclusion from this is that the way to change our societies fundamentally for the better depends on a change in our consciousness, on liberating ourselves from false perspective, on stepping through the door.

If we remain in a world of illusions, of false hierarchies of virtue, oblivious to the role of power, we will continue to be like Neo living in his dream world.

And if we step only to the threshhold, glimpsing the shadows on the the other side, we will be equally in thrall to illusions, just as Neo took his battle back into the Matrix, fighting ghosts in the machine as though they were flesh-and-blood enemies.

This danger can be seen in the case of Israel-Palestine too, where the horrors that Israel inflicts on Palestinians justifiably radicalise many observers. But not all step fully through the door. They linger at the threshhold, angry with Israel and Israelis, and beatifying Palestinians as nothing more than victims. Some manage to find false consolation again, this time accepting readymade conspiracies that “the Jews” are pulling the levers that make such outrages – and western inaction – possible.

To stand in the doorway is as bad as refusing to step through. The illusions are as dangerous, the false consciousness as profound.

Our planet and our children’s futures depend on us liberating ourselves, seeing the ghosts in the machine for what they truly are. We have to begin rebuilding our societies on the basis that we share a common humanity. That other humans are not our enemies, only those who wish to enslave us to their power.


No one pays me to write these blog posts. If you appreciated it, or any of the others, please consider hitting the donate button here.

Into the Crapper: Liberal Flies Buzz Trudeau as Canada-US Trade Stink Rises

Defecation in Public - Was It Soft or Hard When White House Officials Did It On the Canadian Prime Minister? Is Chrystia Freeland Also Aiming at Justin Trudeau?

by John Helmer - Dances with Bears


June 11, 2018

Moscow - The British state broadcasting authority BBC reported on Saturday morning that people who shit in public places are suffering from several different pathologies. That was before Saturday afternoon, followed by all day Sunday, when US President Donald Trump (lead image, left), his national security advisor John Bolton, his economic advisor Lawrence Kudlow, and his trade advisor Peter Navarro coordinated their movements to crap publicly on Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.

“I always ask the police whether it’s soft or hard,” the BBC quoted its expert, Professor Mike Berry, a clinical forensic psychologist at Birmingham City University.

“They look at me like I’m absolutely mad. And I say, if it’s soft, then it’s somebody who’s anxious, so you get a kid who goes and craps on the bed. And if it’s really hard stool then it’s an indication of somebody who’s angry and bitter about what he’s doing.”

To Canadian political analysts, the weekend attacks on Prime Minister Trudeau are the worst insults from the US Government in remembered history. They aren’t sure whether they are soft, because Trump is anxious; or hard because the Americans want to destroy Trudeau politically.

Canadian analysts agree that Trudeau and his Liberal Party government have been weakening in the Canadian polls for the election due on October 21, 2019. The analysts are divided, however, on whether the impact of the American attacks on Trudeau will trigger a patriotic rally in support of the prime minister, or steady erosion of his party support and a gain in Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland’s (lead image, right) ambition to replace Trudeau. One of Freeland’s backers, a veteran Canadian official, claims “the Trump people hate Chrystia before any and all.” He was unable to provide any evidence for this.” Other Canadian sources say that in the American government’s attitude towards Freeland, there is “nothing of the kind.”

The most recent Canadian political polls, published on May 22, show the Canadian Conservative Party, led by Andrew Scheer, has moved sixteen percentage points ahead of Trudeau’s Liberals in the hypothetical election vote. Follow the red line for the Liberals down, and the rising blue (Conservatives, Tories) and green lines (New Democratic Party, NDP) up. Translating these results into seats in the Ottawa parliament, the Tories would win a majority of 234; the Liberals would be left with 72. At present, the Liberals hold 183 seats; the Tories 96; the NDP 43.




Trudeau’s personal approval rating has been steadily dwindling since it peaked two years ago, in July 2016. Since February of this year his score has accelerated downwards. Trudeau’s behaviour on a state trip to India, and an earlier Bahamas holiday paid for by a rich friend, have driven this decline, according to the Canadian press.






Canadian pollsters say their measurements show Canadian voters think Trudeau’s biggest liability is that he has been weak and unconvincing in foreign policy. The latest American insults, they believe, will either make or break Trudeau with Canadian voters.

The Trump Administration’s threats to impose penalty tariffs on Canadian exports of steel, aluminium, automobile and farm products have already triggered massive hostility across the country, creating an anti-American sentiment in favour of retaliation which Trudeau could not resist.

“Mr. Trump has managed to unite Canadians to an extent that few issues do”, reports the Abacus polling company.
“Opposition to the US tariffs is roughly 80% in every part of the country. Conservative voters are 82% against Mr. Trump on this issue, NDP voters 80% and Liberals 87%.”

The week before Trump and his officials attacked Trudeau personally, this was how Canadians said they were ready to retaliate on their own:




On Saturday, after Trump had left the G7 summit meeting in Canada early, he tweeted that Trudeau had been double-talking — “meek and mild” during the face-to-face meetings at the summit table, then “very dishonest and weak” after Trump’s departure. Accusing Trudeau of making “false statements”, Trump said the US was refusing to sign the communique which had already been agreed by the G7 leaders, himself included.

Trump was then followed in the attacks on Trudeau by his economic advisor Kudlow, who accused Trudeau of a “sophomoric play”, of “stab[bing] us in the back”, and of “betrayal”. “POTUS [president of the United States] is not gonna let a Canadian prime minister push him around, push him, POTUS, around,” According to Kudlow, Trudeau’s press conference after the summit meeting was a pitch “for domestic political consumption”.

The words Trudeau had used which Kudlow was referring to were:

“I have made it very clear to the President that it [retaliatory trade tariffs] is not something we relish doing, but it is something that we absolutely will do because Canadians — we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around.”




White House trade advisor Navarro responded:

“There’s a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. And that’s what bad faith Justin Trudeau did with that stunt press conference. That’s what weak, dishonest Justin Trudeau did.”



With a tweet of his own, Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor, joined the attack on Trudeau from on board the president’s aircraft enroute to Singapore.

“Just another #G7 where other countries expect America will always be their bank. The President made it clear today. No more.”

“Trump’s aggression against G7 and Canada” headlined CTV News, a leading commercial Canadian broadcaster. A Canadian diplomat recommends reading CTV’s summary of the trade issues at stake, as Ottawa sees them.

For details in the Canadian press of the G7 meetings which led to the American defecation, read this. The Twitter feed by a Toronto reporter also illuminates the Canadian reaction behind the scenes. For Canadian calculations of the trade flows with the US, identifying the mistakes and misrepresentations of the US trade negotiator, Robert Lighthizer, click to open this.


Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics Min. 0:20.

CTV went to air with Freeland’s press remarks late on Sunday afternoon in Quebec. For Freeland’s attempt to say the same in French, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dQCxPGI8as Min. 3:30.

“What I object to very strongly,” Canada’s Foreign Minister Freeland declared in Quebec City, after the American attacks on Trudeau had been published, “is the illegal and unjustified imposition of tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminium. Ahhh, the national security pretext is absurd, and frankly, insulting.” 

Freeland did not defend her prime minister directly


Freeland has been forced on to the defensive in her own constituency after the crushing defeat of the Liberal party in the Ontario provincial election on June 7. “A total collapse of the Liberals”, a Toronto newspaper called the result.

A few days earlier Freeland had tweeted:

“I know we’re going to win, we’re going to be celebrating in a couple weeks.” 

The outcome in the Toronto riding of University-Rosedale, which Freeland represents in the federal parliament, was a defeat for the candidate she campaigned for by more than two votes to one. The outcome puts in doubt Freeland’s survival in the federal election in sixteen months’ time.

“The Americans are shitting on Trudeau this weekend,” commented a Toronto source, “but last weekend Ontario voters were shitting on the Liberals.”

Following the US attacks, Freeland has responded:

“We particularly refrain from ad hominem attacks particularly when it comes to our relationships with our allies.” “We are always reasonable… always prepared to talk. That’s the Canadian way.”

Without mentioning Trudeau, Freeland predicted the future:

“At the end of the day, common sense will prevail.”

Freeland also participated in a New York Times promotion, which was published on June 9. In response to Canadian reporting of her support of her maternal grandfather’s role in the liquidation of Jews and Russians during World War II, Freeland switched grandfathers and their war records for the New York Times reporter. She reportedly “spoke emotionally about her grandfather’s fighting — and her great-uncle’s dying — in the Second World War.” The newspaper didn’t realize Freeland was referring to her father’s Canadian father, not her mother’s Ukrainian father, Michael Chomiak, who was a propaganda agent and spy employed by the Germany Army in occupied Poland, Austria, and finally in Bavaria. For that story, read this.


Source: http://rabble.ca/ Read the 24-part Canadian series on Freeland here.


For more on Freeland’s attempt to promote her political career through the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton, read this. For the role of George Soros in financing Freeland, click.

Has Freeland been signalling to US officials, as well as to Liberal Party colleagues, that she will make a better Canadian prime minister for the future than Trudeau?

“This is barking”, a veteran Canadian official reacted.

“The Trump people hate Chrystia before any and all. She has driven them nuts over NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement]. The explanation of all this is that Trump is nuts.”

The source was asked to provide evidence of “hate for Chrystia before any and all”. He was unable to respond. No evidence of US Government hostility towards Freeland has been found.

Sunday, June 10, 2018

Shaming the OAS: Attempts to Expel Venezuela Backfire

Embarrassing Defeat for the U. S. in Its Efforts to Expel Venezuela from the OAS

by TRNN


June 10, 2018

At the OAS nineteen member states voted in favor, four against and eleven abstained when the US tried to have Venezuela sanctioned. US will not hesitate to bear tremendous pressure on member countries to get its way in Latin America.


We speak to CEPR’s Mark Weisbrot about the vote and how it came about.

“The aggression against Venezuela is brutal – it’s economic, it’s financial, it’s commercial, it’s political, it’s in the media. And, we’re going to keep moving forward.” […]
“It is (up to) our people to elect their president, not (other) governments, not the United States, not any international institution that elects the president of Venezuela. The President of Venezuela is called Nicolas Maduro Moros and he was elected with 68 percent of popular support in the elections on May 20. And we demand recognition only from our own people. It doesn’t matter to us if the United States or any other nation here recognizes us or doesn’t.” […]
“We are an independent nation, a free, sovereign nation and no empire will step foot in Venezuelan territory and impede the Venezuelan people from fulfilling their will, fulfilling their democracy and fulfilling their destiny of freedom. Thank you very much.” - Venezuela’s foreign minister Jorge Arreaza

Tearless in Gaza: Coldly Witnessing the Palestinian 'Masada'

'NY Times' Columnists Have Lined Up Behind Gaza Massacre 

by Philip Weiss - Mondoweiss.net


June 7, 2018

From the beginnings of the massacre in Gaza we have insisted that Israel’s actions have changed American opinion, and alienated people who were once supportive of Israel. “A frankly unconscionable use of force,” Chris Hayes said, while David Rothkopf called the slaughter the anti-Passover: “A supposedly Jewish state violating the most basic concepts of the religion in order to defend its ‘right to exist.’”

Now Eric Alterman in The Nation bluntly states that Israel used to be “a source of pride and admiration” for liberal Jews, but “today brings only shame and sadness.”

The longtime liberal Zionist acknowledges the weight of this moment.

The killings are “appalling,” Alterman says; and together with Israel’s 70th anniversary and the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem give “every indication of being a turning point.”

His piece is important because he points out that Israel’s defenders are hard at work: “the punditocracy remains filled with those who do not merely excuse Israel’s use of excessive force but actively praise it.”

This is particularly true of the New York Times op-ed page, which, aside from Michelle Goldberg’s laments for the fate of liberal Zionism, is dominated by apologists for the Netanyahu government.
Shmuel Rosner is one of a dwindling number who see their role as defending Israel to liberal Jews. He authored a Times op-ed that was headlined with a phrase that ought to shock defenders of Israel: “Israel Needs to Protect Its Borders. By Whatever Means Necessary.”
In the piece, Rosner argues,
“Guarding the border was more important than avoiding killing, and guarding the border is what Israel did successfully.”
Rosner even tried to justify the use of live bullets. We so often hear that Israel is a technocratic marvel, but is murder by sniper really the best method of border control it can come up with?
No doubt the most prominent member of the “Israel is always right” brigade is the Times’ Bret Stephens, formerly of the Journal, where he was known to complain of the “disease of the Arab mind.” In his latest column on Gaza, Stephens can’t even write the word “occupation” without derisive quotation marks. He whines, Trumplike,
“Why is nothing expected of Palestinians, and everything forgiven, while everything is expected of Israelis, and nothing forgiven?”

This, of course, is transference of the first order. As the pro-Israel (and mostly conservative) Economist observed in a lead editorial, “Gaza is a prison, not a state…one of the most crowded and miserable places on Earth. It is short of medicine, power and other essentials.

Let me fill in the picture. Michelle Goldberg was very good. She called the killings a “massacre” that was condemned by the world, and described the two-state solution as a figleaf for apartheid:

But even if you completely dismiss the Palestinian right of return — which I find harder to do now that Israel’s leadership has all but abandoned the possibility of a Palestinian state — it hardly excuses the Israeli military’s disproportionate violence…
A rising generation of Americans may see an apartheid state with a Trump Square in its capital and wonder why it’s supposed to be our friend.

A Times editorial also faulted Israel’s actions, after a sniper killed journalist Yaser Murtaja. But the criticism was indirect. The right of people to demonstrate peacefully,

should not be controversial. But ordinary Palestinians have few defenders, and much of the world has been shockingly mute about what’s happening in Gaza.

That’s about it. Rosner’s piece actually said that the Palestinians were being shot for their own good, so as to end their illusions about returning to their land:

“I believe Israel’s current policy toward Gaza ultimately benefits not only Israel but also the Palestinians.”

Bari Weiss, the outspoken opinion editor, has echoed Israeli talking points about Hamas and terror. Showing complete indifference to the human toll, Weiss wrote that 50 of 60 killed on May 14 “were Hamas.” And she said the negative headlines are just what Hamas was looking for: “

The press coverage was a major success in a war whose battlefield isn’t really Gaza, but the brains of foreign audiences.”

Tough Tom Friedman of course is also a defender of Israel’s actions. He wrote

“I get why Israel has no choice but to defend its border with Gaza with brute force.”

Friedman says Palestinian refugees need to move on.

Why should they pay with their ancestral homes for Jewish refugees who lost theirs in Germany or Iraq? The only answer is that history is full of such injustices and of refugees who have reconciled with them and moved on — not passed on their refugee status to their kids and their kids’ kids. It’s why so few Arabs, so few Europeans, so few anybody, rose to Hamas’s defense. People are fed up with it.

Roger Cohen was critical to a point. He called the shootings indefensible and “stomach turning” and said that “When snipers shoot to kill civilians approaching a wall,” it is reminiscent of Eastern Europe. But Cohen tempered that condemnation by saying that the killings are what Hamas sought: “Israel haters, and Jew haters, have a field day.”

He all but equated the killings with the insistence of Palestinians on the right of return, which he also labels “stomach turning,” because it would supposedly push Jews into the sea. As Friedman did, Cohen told Palestinians to move on from “fantasies” about Israel’s land.

Half the territory is now less than a quarter in any imaginable deal. I don’t see why that trend would be reversed absent creative, unified and pragmatic Palestinian leadership focused on a two-state future: laptops for kids rather than keys to lost olive groves.

Conservative David Brooks sounded liberal themes in this thumbsucker. He called the Nakba a “historic wrong,” and went on to fault Israel’s response to the demonstrations: “There was plenty of time to figure out how to handle the crowds without bloodshed.” But the thrust of his column was blaming Hamas’s “extremism”: the group incited “a massive border invasion.” In the end, both sides are responsible, but Israel is “soiled.”

I may be missing some opinions, but I’m surprised. I thought Times opinion writers would seek to reflect this moment in some of its horror. But no, at a time of moral reckoning, the stable of New York Times has been strongly on Israel’s side, excepting Goldberg. That’s what you get when you hire only pro-Israel columnists, several with an ideological commitment to Zionism.

Many readers are turning the page.

 

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Other posts by .