Posts
Michael Parenti Blog: The September 11 Orgie by Michael Parenti
This is worth checking out. Even more "real" than Chomsky.
This is worth checking out. Even more "real" than Chomsky.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Fascism,. Stupidity, Israel, and Palestine -- A little Ron Paul as well
Stupidity abounds on the 9/11 nonsense and this helps clarify. Unfortunately, most people simply WILL not learn. Another 9/11 was the assassination of Allende of Chile, by US, and the killing that took place would amount to the equivalent of 12 million people in the United States. We don’t care. People prefer their ignorance and always will. Not until the poverty rate keeps increasing to the point where masses have no choice but to attack will there be any change.
However, here is a depiction of the last R. debate, followed by an interview with Noam Chomsky.
Noam Chomsky on the 9/11 Decade and the Assassination of Osama Bin Laden: Was There an Alternative?
Ten years ago, at a time when lawmakers from both sides of the aisle joined together to authorize endless war, Noam Chomsky’s was the leading voice to call for the United States to rethink its actions in the Middle East and across the globe. His 2001 book, simply titled "9-11," became a surprise bestseller. The book collected a series of interviews Chomsky had given on the roots of the 9/11 attacks and his prescription for a just response. A decade later, Chomsky has just released an updated version titled "9-11: Was There an Alternative?" which refers to the U.S. assassination of Osama bin Laden and the continuity Chomsky sees between the Bush administration’s foreign policy and President Obama’s. "Right at this moment, Obama has succeeded in descending even below George W. Bush in approval in the Arab world," says Noam Chomsky. "The policies change, but they’re hostile. We should understand where atrocities come from. They don’t come from nowhere. And if we’re serious, we should try to do something about what is the basis for them." [includes rush transcript]Filed under Noam Chomsky, 9/11, 9/11 anniversary, War on Terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bush, Obama, Author Interviews
Email to a friendHelp
Printer-friendly version
Purchase DVD/CD
LISTEN | Real Video Stream Real Audio Stream MP3 Download More… |
Noam Chomsky, author and Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than 50 years. He is author of dozens of books. An updated edition of his book 9-11 has just been published, called 9-11: Was There an Alternative?
Related stories
- From One Ground Zero to Another: Sister of 9/11 Victim Meets Afghan Who Lost Family in U.S. Bombing
- U.S. Wasting Billions While Tripling No-Bid Contracts After Decade of War in Iraq, Afghanistan
- A Debate on Human Rights Watch’s Call for Bush Administration Officials to be Tried for Torture
- Former CIA Agent Glenn Carle Reveals Bush Admin Effort to Smear War Critic Juan Cole
- Noam Chomsky on the U.S. Economic Crisis: Joblessness, Excessive Military Spending and Healthcare
Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
Related Links
- Democracy Now!’s Archive of Reports of the September 11, 2001 Attacks and Its Aftermath
- Noam Chomsky’s Official Website
- See all of Noam Chomsky’s interviews on Democracy Now! over the years
- "9-11: Was There an Alternative?" By Noam Chomsky. (Seven Stories Press, 2011)
In the months after 9/11, as the Bush administration attacked Afghanistan and geared up for the invasion of Iraq, Noam Chomsky released a small book that provided the definitive counter-narrative to the jingoism of the time. The book was called simply 9-11, a collected series of interviews Chomsky had given on the roots of the 9/11 attacks and his prescription for a just response. At a time when lawmakers from both sides of the aisle joined together to authorize endless war, Chomsky’s was the leading voice to call for a look in the mirror, for a rethinking of U.S. actions in the Middle East and across the globe. 9-11 went on to become a surprise bestseller.
Ten years later, Professor Chomsky has just released an updated version. It’s called 9-11: Was There an Alternative? "Was there an alternative?" refers to the U.S. assassination of Osama bin Laden and the continuity Chomsky sees between the Bush administration’s foreign policy and President Obama’s.
Today, we’ll speak with Noam Chomsky about the decade since 9/11, at a time when the U.S. is at war in several areas, at home in continued economic turmoil. Noam Chomsky has just returned from Iceland and Norway. He’s joining us from Boston, Massachussetts. And I’m joined here in New York for this interview by Democracy Now! producer Aaron Maté, who covered the thwarted Gaza-bound aid flotilla in Greece.
Welcome, Aaron, joining me in this interview. It’s good to have you with us.
AARON MATÉ: Thanks, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: And thanks so much, Noam Chomsky, for being with us so soon after you’ve come back from your trip. Noam, why don’t we begin with this new book? You wrote 9-11 10 years ago, what become the definitive counter-narrative at the time. What did you feel was important to understand then, and now, with Was There an Alternative?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, as you mentioned, it wasn’t really a book, it was a collection of interviews, the ones that we were able to get transcripts for. Some of them we couldn’t.
There were a number of things that I thought had to be pointed out. By now, I think they’re hardly even controversial. But one was that the claim that the U.S. was being attacked because, as the president put it, they hate our freedoms was completely untenable. They hated our policy. In fact, it would be more accurate to say we hate their freedoms. There’s plenty of documentation about that, going back to the 1950s. Shortly after the president’s speech, the Pentagon had a study of this, and they concluded, yes, it’s not that they hate our freedoms, it’s they hate our policies.
And as I say, evidence about that is enormous, back to the '50s. So, for example, in 1958, President Eisenhower, in internal documents long since released, asked his—raised the question with his staff about why there's a campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world. He said, not from the governments, but from the people. And the National Security Council, major planning body, had just released a study on this in which they said that they concluded that there’s a perception in the Arab world that the United States supports harsh, oppressive dictatorships and that the U.S. blocks democracy and development and that we do it because we want to keep control over their energy resources. And it went on to say that this is fairly accurate, and that’s pretty much what we should be doing, as long as the populations are kept quiet.
And so it goes on. I won’t run through the details, but so it goes on until the present. In fact, right at this moment, Obama has succeeded in descending even below George W. Bush in approval in the Arab world. It’s minuscule, few percent. And it’s the policies, same—the policies change, but they’re hostile. So, one thing is, we should understand where atrocities come from. They don’t come from nowhere. And if we’re serious, we should try to do something about what is the basis for them.
That’s been—the other issue, which was important, or I think we have a lot more evidence about it now, is that there probably were much more constructive alternatives. The attack, the attack on the—the 9/11 attack was pretty harshly criticized in the—throughout the Muslim world, but particularly in the jihadi movement—you know, fatwas from leading clerics, harsh condemnation. It would have been—it’s very likely that it would have been possible, then, to split the jihadi movement, to isolate al-Qaeda, to move to apprehend the suspects—and, of course, in our system of justice, theoretically, people are suspects unless they’re—until they’re sentenced—so, to apprehend the suspects, treat it as a criminal action, try to make use of the fact that there were—that there was tremendous antagonism to this even among the jihadi movement, and move on to a much more constructive relationship with the general Muslim-Arab world.
Well, that path wasn’t taken. The path that was taken was to lash out of violently, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. That simply was kind of following Osama bin Laden’s playbook. Actually, that was pointed out pretty quickly by people like Michael Scheuer, the—he didn’t identify himself then, has since—the CIA—head of the CIA task force that was tracking bin Laden. He ended up concluding the United States is bin Laden’s best ally. We’re helping—his goal was to mobilize the Muslim world around the fear that the United States was attacking Islam, was carrying out a crusade, they have to defend themselves. And we helped. The invasion of Iraq, particularly, gave a big shot in the arm to the jihadi extremists. It was predicted by U.S. and British intelligence agencies—that’s been released since—that the attack on Iraq would increase terror, and it did, by a factor of seven the first year, according to RAND Corporation quasi-governmental statistics.
Well, that’s what happens when you lash out violently without seeking to understand the nature of what’s happening and pursuing the options for diplomatic, peaceful, negotiated settlements, and treating crimes as crimes. When there’s a crime, you try to identify the likely perpetrators, apprehend them, bring them to—bring them to a fair trial. I mean, that—it’s very likely that that could have been done at the times. We don’t know. There were tentative offers from the Taliban to allow a trial of bin Laden. It was not pursued. It was—the U.S. just dismissed it: "We don’t talk to you." Well, could that have succeeded? We can only speculate.
It truly could have been done on May 2nd, when U.S. commandos, Navy SEALs, apprehended bin Laden—defenseless, was with his wife, no arms—apprehended him and assassinated him, then dumped his body at sea. That’s kind of an action which is just bound to increase speculation, cynicism, doubt—quite different from what in fact should have been done. Actually, one of the leading British legal specialists, civil libertarian, who incidentally approved of the action, nevertheless pointed out that the way it was carried out was criminal and dangerous in its implications. He compared it to the treatment of the far more horrendous war criminals after the Second World War. He pointed out that the British government wanted to just kill the Nazi leaders, but the U.S. government, or Truman, insisted that they be tried. They followed. And, in fact, then came the Nuremberg trials, which, you know, had their flaws, but at least did bring out in public the nature of the crimes. They also led to a quite an important conclusion by the chief prosecutor, U.S. chief prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson. He informed the tribunal, in rather eloquent words, that, as he put it, we were handing these defendants a "poisoned chalice," and if we ever sip from it, if we ever commit such crimes as aggression, one of the major crimes, then we must suffer the same punishment, or else, essentially, the trial is a farce. And that’s a choice we’ve had to make since. Not the right answer, in my opinion.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus at MIT. He has a new book out, 10 years after his book 9-11. It is called 9-11: Was There an Alternative?, with a new essay written after the assassination of Osama bin Laden. We’ll come back to this discussion in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest for the hour is MIT professor Noam Chomsky. His latest book is called 9-11: Was There an Alternative? That last question, "Was there an alternative?," referring to the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Aaron?
AARON MATÉ: Well, Noam, you mentioned the changes in discourse between 10 years ago and today. And actually, this issue of the reasons behind 9/11 came up last night at the Republican presidential debate. Congress Member Ron Paul of Texas drew boos from the crowd and a rebuke from other candidates on the podium when he criticized U.S. foreign policy in discussing the roots of 9/11.
REP. RON PAUL: We’re under great threat because we occupy so many countries. We’re in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world. We’re going broke. The purpose of al-Qaeda was to attack us, invite us over there, where they can target us. And they have been doing it. They have more attacks against us and the American interests per month than occurred in all the years before 9/11. But we’re there, occupying their land. And if we think that we can do that and not have retaliation, we’re kidding ourselves. We have to be honest with ourselves. What would we do if another country, say China, did to us what we do to all those countries over there?
So, this whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda have been explicit. They have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked—we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment, and you have been bombing—I didn’t say that, I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. At the same time, we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem.
AARON MATÉ: That was Republican Congress Member Ron Paul of Texas speaking last night at the Republican presidential debate. Noam Chomsky, your response?NOAM CHOMSKY: I think what he said is completely uncontroversial. You can read it in government documents. You can find it in polls. Maybe people don’t like to hear it, but, as I mentioned before, it goes back to the 1950s. Actually, right after 9/11, the Wall Street Journal, to its credit, did a study of privileged Muslims, sometimes called "monied Muslims," people in the Muslim world who are deeply embedded in the U.S. global project—lawyers, directors of multinational corporations and so on, not the general population. And it was very much like what Eisenhower had—was concerned about, and the National Security Council, in the 1950s. There was a lot of antagonism to—a lot of antagonism to U.S. policy in the region, partly support of dictators blocking democracy and development, just as the National Security Council concluded in 1958.
Also, by then, by 2001, there were much more specific things: very much a lot of anger about the U.S. backing for the way—Israeli occupation of the Occupied Territories, settlements, the bitter oppression of the Palestinians, and also, something that isn’t discussed much here but meant a lot there—and remember, these are privileged Muslims, leaders of—those who kind of carry out, implement the general U.S. economic and social policies in the region. The other thing, besides the Israeli—support of Israeli crimes, was the sanctions against Iraq. This was 2001, remember. The sanctions against Iraq were brutal and destructive. They killed hundreds of thousands of people. Both of the international diplomats who administered the Oil-for-Food program, distinguished international diplomats—Denis Halliday, Hans von Sponeck, in sequence—both of them resigned in protest because they regarded the sanctions as genocidal. They were carrying out a kind of a mass slaughter of Iraqis. They were strengthening Saddam Hussein. They were compelling the population to rely on him just for survival. And these were major crimes of the 1990s. And privileged Muslims, monied Muslims, in the Saudi Arabia, elsewhere, were bitterly opposed to this, not because they hate our freedoms, because they don’t like murderous and brutal policies.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us. Noam Chomsky: U.S. to Veto Palestinian Statehood Bid Despite "Overwhelming International Consensus"
Filed under Gaza Flotilla, Noam Chomsky, Middle East, Israel, Gaza
Email to a friendHelp
Printer-friendly version
Purchase DVD/CD
LISTEN | Real Video Stream Real Audio Stream MP3 Download More… |
Noam Chomsky, author and Institute Professor Emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for more than 50 years. He is author of dozens of books. An updated edition of his book 9-11 has just been published, called 9-11: Was There an Alternative?
Related stories
- As Turkey Freezes Israel Ties, Critics Decry "Whitewashed" U.N. Report on Gaza Flotilla, Blockade
- Ali Abunimah Responds to Israeli Claims that Gaza Flotilla is a "Provocation"
- Israeli Official Condemns Gaza Flotilla, Refuses to Deny Israeli Role in Sabotage of Boats
- U.S. Ship in Freedom Flotilla Attempts to Leave Greece for Gaza, Despite Threats and Risk of Sabotage
- Live Update from Jewish Holocaust Survivor on U.S. Ship in Gaza Flotilla
Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
Related Links
- Democracy Now! Archive of Reports on Palestine & Israel
- See all of Noam Chomsky’s interviews on Democracy Now! over the years
As the Palestinian Authority launched its bid for statehood recognition at the U.N. last week, the Obama administration confirmed it would veto any statehood measure that came before the Security Council. This is State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland.
VICTORIA NULAND: It should not come as a shock to anyone in this room that the U.S. opposes a move in New York by the Palestinians to try to establish a state that can only be achieved through negotiations. So, yes, if something comes to a vote in the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. will veto.
AMY GOODMAN: And President Obama has affirmed this. Noam Chomsky, your response?NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, unfortunately, it’s quite consistent with past practice. The list of U.S. vetoes at the Security Council to protect Israeli aggression and occupation is huge. The most recent one, which actually got some attention because it was so outlandish, was last February, when Obama vetoed a Security Council resolution endorsing official U.S. policy. Look at the resolution. Its core part was opposing expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That’s supposed to be U.S. policy. Obama vetoed it. If the Palestinians do bring the issue to the Security Council and the U.S. vetoes it, it will be just another indication of the real unwillingness to permit a settlement of this issue, in terms of what has been for a long time an overwhelming international consensus.
And this goes back a long time. The first relevant U.S. veto was in January 1976, 35 years ago. The major Arab states, so-called confrontation states—Syria, Egypt, Jordan—brought a resolution to the Security Council calling for a two-state settlement on the international border. And then the resolution incorporated the basic wording of U.N. 242, which everyone agrees, at least in theory, is the basic Security Council document, called for recognition of the rights of every state in the region—that would include Israel, a new Palestinian state—to exist in peace and security within secure and recognized boundaries—wording approximately like that. U.S. vetoed it. Another veto in 1980, a similar resolution. A long series since of—then things shifted to the General Assembly, where there are almost annual votes with, you know, numbers like 150 to three, and so on—U.S., Israel, sometimes a Pacific island, El Salvador. And this is just continuing right up to the present.
There are pretty ugly ones, too. The U.S. has blocked ceasefire efforts at the time of Israeli attacks. In fact, Obama himself—you can take a look at his—I don’t know if he still has it, but in his website prior to the election, there was a section on the Middle East. And it’s worth looking at. It gives you an indication of what’s been happening since. It’s full of, you know, adoration of Israel. You expect that. Practically not a word about the Palestinians, a few phrases saying maybe they should have some rights. But that was right in the middle of the latest Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, a brutal, murderous invasion, without any credible pretext—you can go into that—actually, the fifth such invasion. And Obama took pride, in his webpage, in having co-sponsored a Senate resolution, right in the middle of the invasion, insisting that nothing be done to impede Israel’s attack in Lebanon and that the U.S. should censure and maybe sanction anyone who tried to interfere with it—Iran and Syria. So, let them—they must be able to go on to achieve their objectives, of killing a thousand Lebanese, again, destroying a strong a large part of the country, and so on. That’s Obama. When he—during the—after he was elected, Israel attacked Gaza, major attack on Gaza, late December 2008 right through January 2009. Obama was—I’m sure your listeners are familiar with that horrible, atrocious attack. The United States blocked efforts at the Security Council to establish a ceasefire to end the atrocities. Obama was repeatedly asked would he say something about it. His answer was, "There’s only one president. I can’t say anything about it." He was saying all sorts of other things, but not this.
AARON MATÉ: And Noam—
NOAM CHOMSKY: Actually, his—
AARON MATÉ: Noam—
NOAM CHOMSKY: —campaign—
AARON MATÉ: We only have a few minutes, so I want to cut you off to get in a few more questions—
NOAM CHOMSKY: OK.
AARON MATÉ: —actually, one last question—
NOAM CHOMSKY: OK.
AARON MATÉ: —if we have time, which is that you’ve written about what it would mean for Israel and the U.S. if this statehood bid is passed at the U.N. And, of course, this debate is coming up very soon, scheduled to take place at the General Assembly in the coming weeks. What would it mean if the U.N. passes statehood for the Palestinians?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, that’s really up to us to decide. I mean, it could be—there could be a very harsh reaction on the part of the United States and Israel. The Congress, U.S. Congress, has already declared that it’s going to cut off funding, wants to cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority. Israel controls much of their funds through control of customs, transfer of finance. They all go through Israel. They could cut it off. The Palestinians could be in very serious economic trouble, financial trouble, if the U.S. and Israel, acting jointly, react to any kind of statehood bid by simply cutting off the funding on which they rely. Israel, for decades, has prevented any independent development, serious economic development, in the territories. There is—you know, the numbers show economic growth. It’s highly reliant on outside aid. It’s very artificial. And that could be a very serious blow to the Palestinians. The role that Egypt plays will also be significant, especially with regard to Gaza. My guess is that some kind of compromise position will be worked out, which will provide enhanced observer status to the Palestinians at the United Nations, maybe short of what would trigger U.S. and Israel from simply pulling out the rug from under their survival. It could be worse than that, in fact.
AMY GOODMAN: Noam, we have to leave it there. We have to leave it there for the global show, but we’re going to continue, and people can go to our website for our web exclusive at democracynow.org. Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His latest book is 9-11: Was There an Alternative? You can go to our website for our other web exclusive, "9/11 Decade," that showcases our vast archive of in-depth reporting over the last decade.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us. Saturday, September 10, 2011
#Egypt -- Piss on this Wall!
Egyptians! Prepare your Piss!
*The call went out over Facebook, rallying all Egyptians to gather in Tahrir square to piss against the wall around the Israeli embassy. Rather than cut off relations with Israel, the Military government in Egypt build a wall around the Israeli embassy to protect it against attack.
*Today, or 9/9/2011, the call was to save up thy piss and come ye out to the wall and pisseth against it. Yeah, verily, the only way to show the proper contempt. Say, as did Ben Jonson, the Elizabethan playwright, “Thy Worst! I fart at thee.” [Alchemist, Act 1, Scene 1, line 2].
*If thou must pisseth before prayer, saveth it up in a jar and bringeth it to the wall and throwest thou thy piss against the wall!
*This action is not without biblical precedence and justification. As the King James Version says:
| 1 Kings, 14.10: Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone. |
| 1 Kings, 16.11: And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends. |
| 1 Kings, 21.21: Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, |
| 1 Samuel, 25.22: So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. |
| 1 Samuel, 25.34: For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. |
| 2 Kings, 9.8: For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: and I will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel: |
*And shall Israel taketh away its dung.
*As the uric acid weakened the wall, then did the brave youth bring forth an improvised battering ram with full phallic extension and ramethed it against the wall.
*The six pointed star flag was also smartly bepissed and then burnt, a foul stench reported full well.
*Obama called Nitwityahoo and expressed his compassion.
*After that, we heard that the Israeli Ambassador was “evacuated,” a phrase that reminded me very much of a friend’s definition of envy: “Ever have constipation when the guy in the next stall has diarrhea? That’s envy!” Once you evacuate, the envy goes away.
*We should add that all the pissething references are only found in the King James version. The original, we understand, was written in Greek, which led Nietzsche to remark that it was strange that “… when God decided to speak to man, he learned Greek, and that He did not learn it better!”
Not being able to read Greek, Luther’s translation was consulted and it seems to refer to the fact that men have penises, and thus are able to pisseth against the wall. I imagine fucketh was too vulgar for that time, although scatological references were not at all a problem.
*In any case, the call was to piss against that wall, built by the Egyptian military. To paraphrase Ronald Reagen, “Mr. Egypt, piss on this wall!”
Well, that’s enough for awhile.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Last week's stats -- Russia comes in second!
Pageviews by Countries | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Monday, September 05, 2011
Israel Never has to Say it's Sorry -- #Palestine, #Israel, and #Turkey
Palestine and Israel
We have been getting some strange comments over the media about Palestine’s decision to become a member of the United Nations. When it does become one, it then can take all of Israel’s violations of International Law to the International Court where all cases will be decided in their favor as the evidence is overwhelming.
However, can they gain admission? If you listen to our corporate media, it is an open question – it is not certain at all.
Reports on international corporate media suggest that two more votes are needed. [Pause for laughter]
One source that is certain that the votes are easily there is Israeli Television. However, ever ready to argue a point, one commentator asks, “But are they QUALITY votes?” [Pause for more laughter, stereotypes aside]
This is the way it works: first the proposal comes to the Security Council, the bastion of the wealthy class and the elite. Well, it will fail there. At the very least, the United States will veto it. (There is, after all, always an election coming.) Perhaps our lapdog Britain will also vote no. The question really is irrelevant as to what the vote is, at least one vote will be no, and that is the United States with its veto power.
However, then it does go to the General Assembly. Now this is the way the United Nations should always work, but this is also an anomaly. If two-thirds of the 193 vote in favor of admitting Palestine, it is admitted. And that’s that.
They keep saying in September and people obviously wonder when in September. Well, they do not convene until the end of the month, so expect all of this to go down in October or even November.
Oh yes, it has been about a year and Israel did not apologize to Turkey. So, Turkey said “screw you.” They do not know that Israel has never apologized for anything (so far as I know – they are incapable of it – they are “chosen”).
So, here is a discussion of the thing, Norman Finkelstein and Huwaida Arraf:
Huwaida Arraf, chairperson of the Free Gaza Movement and co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement. She was on one of six ships that were in the Gaza flotilla when the Mavi Marmara was attacked.
Norman Finkelstein, author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including "This Time We Went Too Far": Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.
Related stories
- Thousands Protest Widening Inequality in Israel, But Calls Ignore Occupation and Palestinian Rights
- Ali Abunimah Responds to Israeli Claims that Gaza Flotilla is a "Provocation"
- Israeli Official Condemns Gaza Flotilla, Refuses to Deny Israeli Role in Sabotage of Boats
- U.S. Ship in Freedom Flotilla Attempts to Leave Greece for Gaza, Despite Threats and Risk of Sabotage
- Live Update from Jewish Holocaust Survivor on U.S. Ship in Gaza Flotilla
Rush Transcript
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...
Related Links
- Read the Report of the U.N. Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (PDF)
- Free Gaza Movement
- Democracy Now! Coverage of the Freedom Flotilla
AMY GOODMAN: The U.N. investigation was overseen by Geoffrey Palmer, a former prime minister of New Zealand. Turkey says it will expel the Israeli ambassador and downgrade diplomatic ties to their lowest level until Israel drops its refusal to apologize for the raid and provides compensation.
For more, we’re going to go to Ramallah, where we’re joined by Huwaida Arraf, one of the organizers of the Free Gaza flotilla movement. She’s on one of—she was on one of the six ships that were in the Gaza flotilla when the Mavi Marmara was attacked. She’s joining us by Democracy Now! audio stream. And here in New York, we’re joined by Norman Finkelstein, author of a number of books on Israel-Palestine conflict, including "This Time We Went Too Far": Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.
In Ramallah, Huwaida Arraf, your response to the leaked report—the New York Times posted it online—of the U.N.?
HUWAIDA ARRAF: Hi, Amy, Juan, Norman.
Sadly, it’s a completely expected whitewash of Israeli crimes. This panel’s composition—not only its composition, but its mandate—was problematic in so many ways. And it wasn’t designed to get at the truth of what happened or to achieve—to get at justice for the victims of Israel’s attack, but rather to arrive at political compromise between Israel and Turkey. And that’s what we have. It’s an attempt to whitewash the crimes, set them aside, and in addition, it came up with some outrageous claims that completely contradict the findings of numerous human rights organizations and international law authorities, including various bodies of the U.N. itself, about the legality of the Israeli blockade. So, very problematic.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And the report’s criticism or faulting of one organization, in particular, a Turkish organization, that had some members—helped organize the flotilla. Could you talk about what it said and your response to that?
HUWAIDA ARRAF: Sure. It did say—you did quote that we were "reckless," but it also said that Israeli soldiers faced organized violence when they tried to board the Mavi Marmara, which is completely untrue. We spent a long time preparing for this flotilla. And our—everything that we prepared, the passengers and our—the foundations of our movement and what we do is based on nonviolent direct action resistance.
This is not to deny that Israeli soldiers did face some attacks when they boarded, but you can’t say that these attacks were anything more than self-defense, because of the obnoxious way in which Israeli soldiers—and very violent way in which they took over the ships, in the way that was intended to cause tremendous fear and commotion. They boarded the ships firing, even on our very small boat. The boat that I was on was traveling right next to the Mavi Marmara, and we only had about 17 people on that boat. They boarded, beating down people, using tasers, firing stun grenades and paintball pellet at people’s faces. It was completely uncalled-for violence, so that some people, a handful out of 700 volunteers, reacted in what can be called a violent way. It was self-defense, so it was in no way organized. And this is—I’m saying this, being part of the central organizing committee of the flotilla.
AMY GOODMAN: The U.N.'s report notes that, quote, "On the basis of public statements by the flotilla organizers and their own internal documentation, the Panel is satisfied that as much as their expressed purpose of providing humanitarian aid, one of the primary objectives of the flotilla organizers was to generate publicity about the situation in Gaza by attempting to breach Israel's naval blockade. The purposes of the flotilla were clearly expressed in a document prepared by IHH and signed by all flotilla participants," unquote.
The report then cites the document’s statement of purpose, which reads, quote, "Purposes of this journey are to create an awareness amongst world public and international organizations on the inhumane and unjust embargo on Palestine and to contribute to end this embargo which clearly violates human rights and delivering humanitarian relief to the Palestinians."
Norm Finkelstein, your response?
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I noticed that Juan was looking perplexed at that statement. I have to say, last night, when I was reading the report, I was completely dumbfounded, and I had to keep repeating—rereading these passages over and over again. What the report stated—and all of your listeners should hear closely, because it was so shocking, so morally debased—the report said that we doubt, or we question, the true motives of the organizers of the flotilla. They said, we have evidence that their real motive was not humanitarian. And the statement that you just quoted was the evidence that their real motive was not humanitarian, that they had this really sinister, nefarious motive. Their real motive was not humanitarian; the real motive was, they said, the report said, to cast publicity on Israel’s illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza.
Now I have to say, that is—and I’m meaning this literally—it is a new low. I read all the Israeli reports, in particular the Turkel report, the one put out by the former Supreme Court justice. It’s about 300 pages. They never stooped to that level. They claimed that this handful of what they call jihadists, that they were looking for a confrontation with Israelis or the Israeli soldiers, and they brought on weapons for a confrontation. This report does not claim that they were looking for a confrontation. It holds them morally culpable for trying to cast publicity on an illegal and inhumane blockade. With the Israelis, at least we’re in the same moral universe, and it’s a question of fact. What was the intent of these commandos—excuse me, what was the intent of the activists? Was it to get a confrontation, or was it to cast humanitarian—cast light on what’s happening? But with this report, we’ve entered a new moral universe. They are actually saying that to cast light on an illegal and inhumane blockade is a morally sinister act.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask, there were four members on this committee: one from Turkey, one from Israel, then there were two supposedly independent ones, the former prime minister of New Zealand and Álvaro Uribe, the former president of Colombia, who himself presided over a period of the most—the highest level of extrajudicial killings and assassinations in his own country. It seems amazingly strange to have someone like Álvaro Uribe on this panel as an objective member of the committee.
AMY GOODMAN: The Colombian president.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, it was clear from the moment that Ban Ki-moon, the alleged secretary-general of the United Nations—it was clear from the moment he appointed Uribe on the panel that it was going to be a farce. Beyond all the crimes for which Mr. Uribe has been accused and also have been documented, he was also known as being very close to Israel and advocating closer military relations with Israel. So, from the get-go, from the moment the members were named, it was clear which way the report was going to go.
But, you know, you always wonder, what are they going to come up with? How could they possibly justify certain things? They said that the blockade of Gaza—now, we have to be clear. They said the naval blockade was legal. They separated it from the land blockade, for technical reasons, which it’s no point in going into here. But they said the naval blockade was legal. And the grounds they gave were this: that Israel clearly faces security problems from Gaza, the rocket and mortar fire. OK. And they say, to document this security problem, since 2001, some 25 Israelis have been killed by these rocket and mortar attacks. Fair enough. And then they say that many people have suffered psychologically, psychological trauma from these attacks. Fair enough.
Then there’s the other side of the equation. There is not one word, one syllable, on how many Gazans have perished as a result of Israeli attacks. It’s not 25. It’s not 250. It’s at least at an order of magnitude of 2,500. We’re not just talking about the 1,400 Palestinians who were killed in Operation Cast Lead. Israel always has operations in Gaza, has very fancy names—Operation Summer Rains, Operation Autumn Clouds, Operation Hot Winter, Operation Rainbow. All of it vanishes from this report. The only people who have suffered deaths in Gaza due to armed hostilities are Israelis.
Now, let’s say it’s true. Fair enough. They have a right to impose a naval blockade to prevent weapons from going to Gaza, for security reasons. Don’t the people of Gaza have the right to impose a military blockade on Israel, to prevent weapons from going to Israel? You can’t even raise that question. It’s beyond their comprehension. In fact, the irony is, that’s the law. The law is, as Amnesty International pointed out in its report "Fueling Conflict," under international law and domestic American law, it’s illegal to transfer weapons to any country or—any state or non-state party which is a consistent violator of human rights. So, if that commission, the Palmer Commission, named after, you know, the former New Zealand president, if they had any integrity, they would have said, OK, Israel has the right to impose a blockade on Gaza, and the international community" — because this is what Amnesty said. Amnesty says the international community has an obligation—that’s what they said—to impose an arms embargo on Israel, as well, because it’s a consistent violator of human rights.
AMY GOODMAN: I want—I wanted to bring Huwaida Arraf back into the discussion, who’s in Ramallah, chair of the Free Gaza Movement, was part of the aid flotilla last year that the Mavi Marmara was a part of. The U.N. investigation did accuse Israel of excessive and unreasonable force. Now Turkey has announced the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador, the suspension of military cooperation, hours before the report was published. But also, in the last attempts of the Gaza flotilla, just in the last months, they themselves stopped a ship from going forward. Can you talk about all of this, Huwaida?
HUWAIDA ARRAF: Sure. Really quickly, I’d like to just touch on a couple of important points that Norman made, the first one being about the legality of the blockade. And Norman did say that they considered it very separate from the rest of the closure, which has been declared completely illegal and a violation of Israel’s obligations, so there’s no way that this maritime blockade can be legal, no matter what way you look at it. It’s a violation of Israel’s obligations under international law as an occupying power.
Also, in regards to Uribe and the problems that Norman mentioned, the other thing is that he is known to have a complete disdain for human rights defenders. And you can look at complaints from human rights organizations within Colombia. Also, an organization called Human Rights First called this out, that him referring to human rights defenders as "terrorist sympathizers" endangers human rights defenders. So, from the start, he had a disdain for people like us who like to call attention to and take action, nonviolent action, against these human rights abuses.
And the last really important thing before I get to your question is this report and the attention that it’s supposed to get, when we already had an independent U.N. fact-finding mission that released a report almost one year ago, comprehensive, interviewed over a hundred victims and participants, and that was put together by scholars in international law and known judges on international tribunals. This should be the authority on what actually happened, not this farce of a report.
But in terms of what you said about Turkey stopping—about being part of stopping the last flotilla, known as Freedom Flotilla 2, which was supposed to launch last summer, or this past summer, not exactly. It was Israel placed a lot of pressure on a lot of countries, the European countries, to stop their citizens from participating. Not many—you know, some leaders of these countries made statements that the flotilla is not helpful and that they warn their citizens not to take part. But the country that was—that really cooperated with Israel—and it was a shock and quite sad—was Greece. And it did—we did learn that it came under a lot of political and economic pressure also because of the economic situation that they’re in. But they did impose restrictions and did not let our boats leave. So it really became complicit in Israel’s blockade. And we are challenging that on different levels.
Turkey itself didn’t really. It did communicate to us and to our Turkish partners that it might not be helpful at this time, but what happened—but the Turkish organization IHH remained fully a part of the flotilla. The Mavi Marmara was not able to go, because it was not physically, mechanically ready to go. In fact, up until the date that we were supposed to launch, they still had people working to meet all of the guidelines for being certified to go into international waters on the kind of mission that we wanted it to. So we knew—at a point, we realized it wasn’t going to be ready, and we took that boat out of the equation. But the Turks remained fully a part of the organizing. And in fact, we were going to launch one boat from Turkey. One of the boats—it was the Irish ship—was located in Turkey, but it was sabotaged by, we believe, Israeli agents and was not able to launch. So, they didn’t really place any barriers, certainly not like Greece did.
AMY GOODMAN: But the fact that this report did find that Israel’s use of force was excessive and unreasonable, and the significance of Turkey expelling the Israeli ambassador?
HUWAIDA ARRAF: Definitely. Well, it’s kind of funny that Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador today after the release of this report, because the whole point of this report was to reach a political compromise and to repair the relation between Israel and Turkey. And we’re glad that Turkey has taken the position that it has taken. And in fact, Turkey’s foreign minister has said that it’s time that Israel paid a price. And it’s true, because Israel does not pay a price for any of its human rights violations. It continues to act with impunity. And even the fact that this report did say Israel acted using excessive force, it doesn’t—it doesn’t go enough to—money or paying compensation is not—is no kind of justice for the families or for the people that—for the victims of Israel’s actions. And that’s what we want to see. We want to see some kind of accountability. And that’s different from the U.N. report that was issued last September by the independent fact-finding mission, which recommended that human rights abusers be held accountable. And that’s what we’re waiting to see. So, this report, the Uribe-Palmer report, pays some lip service to the victims, but its main—again, its main goal, to repair relations, and we’re glad to see that Turkey is not falling for that.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I’d like to say—
JUAN GONZALEZ: Norman, if we can, we just have a little bit of time.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Sure.
JUAN GONZALEZ: If you could just briefly talk about the implications of this report coming out now and the continuing schism between Turkey and Israel, as we head into the United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood.
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, actually, many Israelis worried that this would be Pyrrhic victory for the Israeli government, because being so stubborn about refusing to make an apology—there are two of consecutive words that just don’t translate into Hebrew. The two words, consecutive words, are "excuse me." They can’t comprehend that. And the Israeli—many Israeli officials were saying, "Make the apology, because we need Turkey. Turkey is our—has historically been our strongest ally in the Muslim world. Things are now turbulent with our other main ally in the Arab world, Egypt. Make the apology, and move on." But there were members of the Netanyahu government—in particular, Mr. Lieberman, the foreign minister, and his party—who refused, because they said if they made the apology, Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, would run with it and would embarrass the Israelis, and Israelis would be humiliated. But they didn’t think it was a wise move. And actually, I don’t think it is, either. Losing the military relationship with Turkey, suspension of diplomatic relations, and now you know Turkey, when the state issue—statehood issue comes up in September, they are going to be in the forefront now, because Erdogan has been humiliated by this report. It was a complete spit in the face of the Turks, what this report said.
So I think, from a moral point of view, it was a disgrace. But from a political point of view, it will probably end up helping the Palestinians. You have to remember the whole point of the report. It described the killing of the nine members of the—on the—passengers on the Mavi Marmara. You know the phrase they used? It was a "major irritant" to diplomatic relations. Killing nine people is an "irritant." And they said, "We have to get over this irritant, so that Israel and Turkey can restore diplomatic relations." That’s their moral level.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there. Norman Finkelstein, we thank you for being with us, author of, among other books, "This Time We Went Too Far": Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion, and Huwaida Arraf, chair of the Free Gaza Movement, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement, was on one of the six ships that were in the Gaza flotilla when the Mavi Marmara was attacked. She was joining us from Ramallah, on the West Bank.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us. Friday, August 26, 2011
Fake Reports from Lybia
This comes from Press TV (seems I already pointed some of this out):
Press TV talks with Stephen Lendman, writer and radio host in Chicago for his assessment of the situation in Tripoli and shares an email from independent journalists being targeted for execution. Below is an approximate transcript of his interview. Lizzie Phelan, our correspondent, then responds to Mr. Lendman's comments and contributes important information about the so-called revolutionary fighters.
Press TV: How are you assessing the situation right now in Tripoli?
Stephen Lendman: I know your reporter on the ground Lizzie Phelan and she is exceptional; she is right there putting herself in harm's way sending back, as able, heroic reports.
I know conditions on the streets are very fast moving, very fluid, very chaotic, and very violent; I also know that anything reported by the major media, especially America's major media - some of it is so shocking it's shameless and it's deliberately falsified. It even gives propaganda a bad name.
When they talk about a conflict like this Libya one that is just an outrageous American-led imperial war for conquest; absolutely illegal and with no humanitarian concern for the Libyan people, even the so-called rebels are not rebels they're mercenaries; they have been hired.
Most of them may not even know what they are doing. They were paid; they were brought in mostly from outside the country; they're probably being paid more than they ever go before so, you know, you need a job and you get a paycheck and you were told “We want to liberate this country from bad people”. And they go in and do what they're told to do because they want to keep getting their paycheck.
About the so-called celebrations in the streets of Tripoli - I absolutely discount them. There were polls taken a week or two ago that showed across the country including in the eastern part of the country in the Benghazi area - wherever they conducted these polls, which is not an easy thing to do in any country at war so you can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of this - but polls showed the longer the NATO bombing went on the higher approval rating Gaddafi got; and the last numbers I saw - 85 percent of the Libyan people approve of Gaddafi.
Earlier when Western media reported a rebel mass celebration in the streets of cities like Zawiyah, Misrata and others that were supposedly liberated by rebels - they never were liberated by rebels; these were lies.
Gaddafi forces took cover while NATO was bombing; rebel elements moved in; fake footage was shown on Western TV of large celebratory crowds with fireworks going off - these were lies.
As soon as the bombing curtailed, Gaddafi forces moved back in and the rebels scattered, afraid. Misrata, Brega and Zawiyah are each still in government hands and who knows what's going on in Tripoli.
Just days ago there were supposed rebel's mass celebrations of victories in Misrata while there were massive crowds in Tripoli 2 days ago celebrating government victories over the rebels. The vast majority of people in Tripoli especially detest the rebels. All the major tribes in Libya detest the rebels and detest NATO.
The idea that there would be a mass celebratory crowd in Tripoli now celebrating whatever is put across as a rebel victory - who knows what is really going on - I don't think there has been any rebel victory I think it is very chaotic and violent, so we have to wait and see how this plays out. There may be lots of people in the street, but they're certainly not supporting the rebels...
Can I read you something from an email from Mahdi Nazemroaya who is there in Tripoli with Lizzie Phelan, Franklin Lamb is also there... Mahdi's overnight email said, “NATO landed insurgents in Tripoli harbor. They are attacking my hotel. I almost got shot. They are still lying a lot about claims of controlling the capital, but we are in danger”. Mahdi also asked about any help Press TV can supply to get him, Franklin and Lizzie out of the city; they need whatever help they can get and as Lizzie said on air just moments ago she is afraid to leave the hotel because she is a marked woman and Mahdi and Franklin are marked men.
NATO knows who they are and they are targeted. There is sniper's on roof tops - who knows who is friend or foe. Franklin was shot in the leg - I think he's OK. He was shot in the leg on Sunday and Marty said he was shot at and came very close to being hit. But he also said the rebels are armed guerilla gangs and mercenaries who are indistinguishable from Tripoli residents - they're waging street warfare.
Press TV: So what you're saying is that we cannot say what is really happening in Libya or what the situation is looking like; there is a bigger picture we must see on what the people are really thinking is happening to their country.
Tell us about the NATO role in all this, when you are saying this is something that the Western governments have been trying to achieve. What has been NATO's role since those airstrikes started and now it appears they are going to continue those strikes?
Stephen Lendman: This is a Washington-led effort; this is Obama's war. This is NATO's war of which the main NATO partners are Cameron in the UK, Sarkozy in France and of course Obama - they're the three main co-conspirators in this war.
If the bombing stopped the rebels would disintegrate and disappear - they wouldn't last even 24 hours if the bombing stopped. It's the bombing that is really doing everything and the bombing is killing an awful lot of civilians. I absolutely believe that NATO wants a blood bath in Tripoli.
Let's say that hundreds of mercenaries came in; they landed on the shores of Tripoli and they look like any other Libyan - nobody else knows who the person next to them is.
All Libyans are armed; it's not unusual to see a Libyan on the street with a weapon. So these people came in with weapons looking like other pro-Gaddafi Libyans and they intermingle.
I also believe that there were sleeper cells in Tripoli awaiting orders and who knows how many people might have been in them - there could have been dozens or even hundreds and they are scattered at points that NATO wants them positioned at including on roof tops shooting at people.
Just imagine going out on the streets anywhere and you hear gun fire and you sense that it's coming very close to you - you would be very terrified. The residents of Tripoli don't know what's going on so they're scared; they're also mostly armed. Gaddafi handed out something in the order of two million weapons to Tripoli residents and others.
My understanding is they're committed to defending their country against NATO against the rebels. So again, I discount everything coming through the major media. They even show stock fake footage - they make this stuff up.
Now, there is a big difference between Iraq 2003 - the Gulf War also - to what's going on in Libya. You had the US military invade both times. The US military is far different to ragtag rebels - you can't even begin to compare the two. So the situation is entirely different. Of course the US military had great air cover as well so Saddam didn't stand a chance.
The Libyans are civilians and you've got Gaddafi's military force, but if they come out visibly in the open NATO bombs them. So they have to be very careful and clever and disguise themselves. They have to disperse and use non-military vehicles and such so as not to look like a military target because they will be bombed immediately.
By the way, in Mahdi's email he said to me that CNN - not directly to him, but through another person - threatened him and said that he personally would pay for opposing the war. Now if you can imagine that, a broadcaster threatening an independent journalist for reporting the truth about events on the ground... not the propaganda CNN, the New York times and the other major media report daily.
Lizzie, Mahdi and Franklin and there are reporters from various countries from South America and they are all being targeted. They could be targeted by the rebels and assassinated; they are very fearful and that's why these people need help to get out...
I don't for a minute believe that the Libyan people support what's going on. Sure, there are elements of Libyans that may support this, but the vast majority, I am sure, are against this. They know what happened to the Iraqis and the Afghanis - they know what's awaiting them if NATO wins this battle.
If they don't want to be colonized and occupied and plundered and their lives made miserable because NATO has won this conflict, I think in the end they will put up a fight to defend their country - I'm hopeful...
SC/MYA
Press TV talks with Stephen Lendman, writer and radio host in Chicago for his assessment of the situation in Tripoli and shares an email from independent journalists being targeted for execution. Below is an approximate transcript of his interview. Lizzie Phelan, our correspondent, then responds to Mr. Lendman's comments and contributes important information about the so-called revolutionary fighters.
Press TV: How are you assessing the situation right now in Tripoli?
Stephen Lendman: I know your reporter on the ground Lizzie Phelan and she is exceptional; she is right there putting herself in harm's way sending back, as able, heroic reports.
I know conditions on the streets are very fast moving, very fluid, very chaotic, and very violent; I also know that anything reported by the major media, especially America's major media - some of it is so shocking it's shameless and it's deliberately falsified. It even gives propaganda a bad name.
When they talk about a conflict like this Libya one that is just an outrageous American-led imperial war for conquest; absolutely illegal and with no humanitarian concern for the Libyan people, even the so-called rebels are not rebels they're mercenaries; they have been hired.
Most of them may not even know what they are doing. They were paid; they were brought in mostly from outside the country; they're probably being paid more than they ever go before so, you know, you need a job and you get a paycheck and you were told “We want to liberate this country from bad people”. And they go in and do what they're told to do because they want to keep getting their paycheck.
About the so-called celebrations in the streets of Tripoli - I absolutely discount them. There were polls taken a week or two ago that showed across the country including in the eastern part of the country in the Benghazi area - wherever they conducted these polls, which is not an easy thing to do in any country at war so you can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of this - but polls showed the longer the NATO bombing went on the higher approval rating Gaddafi got; and the last numbers I saw - 85 percent of the Libyan people approve of Gaddafi.
Earlier when Western media reported a rebel mass celebration in the streets of cities like Zawiyah, Misrata and others that were supposedly liberated by rebels - they never were liberated by rebels; these were lies.
Gaddafi forces took cover while NATO was bombing; rebel elements moved in; fake footage was shown on Western TV of large celebratory crowds with fireworks going off - these were lies.
As soon as the bombing curtailed, Gaddafi forces moved back in and the rebels scattered, afraid. Misrata, Brega and Zawiyah are each still in government hands and who knows what's going on in Tripoli.
Just days ago there were supposed rebel's mass celebrations of victories in Misrata while there were massive crowds in Tripoli 2 days ago celebrating government victories over the rebels. The vast majority of people in Tripoli especially detest the rebels. All the major tribes in Libya detest the rebels and detest NATO.
The idea that there would be a mass celebratory crowd in Tripoli now celebrating whatever is put across as a rebel victory - who knows what is really going on - I don't think there has been any rebel victory I think it is very chaotic and violent, so we have to wait and see how this plays out. There may be lots of people in the street, but they're certainly not supporting the rebels...
Can I read you something from an email from Mahdi Nazemroaya who is there in Tripoli with Lizzie Phelan, Franklin Lamb is also there... Mahdi's overnight email said, “NATO landed insurgents in Tripoli harbor. They are attacking my hotel. I almost got shot. They are still lying a lot about claims of controlling the capital, but we are in danger”. Mahdi also asked about any help Press TV can supply to get him, Franklin and Lizzie out of the city; they need whatever help they can get and as Lizzie said on air just moments ago she is afraid to leave the hotel because she is a marked woman and Mahdi and Franklin are marked men.
NATO knows who they are and they are targeted. There is sniper's on roof tops - who knows who is friend or foe. Franklin was shot in the leg - I think he's OK. He was shot in the leg on Sunday and Marty said he was shot at and came very close to being hit. But he also said the rebels are armed guerilla gangs and mercenaries who are indistinguishable from Tripoli residents - they're waging street warfare.
Press TV: So what you're saying is that we cannot say what is really happening in Libya or what the situation is looking like; there is a bigger picture we must see on what the people are really thinking is happening to their country.
Tell us about the NATO role in all this, when you are saying this is something that the Western governments have been trying to achieve. What has been NATO's role since those airstrikes started and now it appears they are going to continue those strikes?
Stephen Lendman: This is a Washington-led effort; this is Obama's war. This is NATO's war of which the main NATO partners are Cameron in the UK, Sarkozy in France and of course Obama - they're the three main co-conspirators in this war.
If the bombing stopped the rebels would disintegrate and disappear - they wouldn't last even 24 hours if the bombing stopped. It's the bombing that is really doing everything and the bombing is killing an awful lot of civilians. I absolutely believe that NATO wants a blood bath in Tripoli.
Let's say that hundreds of mercenaries came in; they landed on the shores of Tripoli and they look like any other Libyan - nobody else knows who the person next to them is.
All Libyans are armed; it's not unusual to see a Libyan on the street with a weapon. So these people came in with weapons looking like other pro-Gaddafi Libyans and they intermingle.
I also believe that there were sleeper cells in Tripoli awaiting orders and who knows how many people might have been in them - there could have been dozens or even hundreds and they are scattered at points that NATO wants them positioned at including on roof tops shooting at people.
Just imagine going out on the streets anywhere and you hear gun fire and you sense that it's coming very close to you - you would be very terrified. The residents of Tripoli don't know what's going on so they're scared; they're also mostly armed. Gaddafi handed out something in the order of two million weapons to Tripoli residents and others.
My understanding is they're committed to defending their country against NATO against the rebels. So again, I discount everything coming through the major media. They even show stock fake footage - they make this stuff up.
Now, there is a big difference between Iraq 2003 - the Gulf War also - to what's going on in Libya. You had the US military invade both times. The US military is far different to ragtag rebels - you can't even begin to compare the two. So the situation is entirely different. Of course the US military had great air cover as well so Saddam didn't stand a chance.
The Libyans are civilians and you've got Gaddafi's military force, but if they come out visibly in the open NATO bombs them. So they have to be very careful and clever and disguise themselves. They have to disperse and use non-military vehicles and such so as not to look like a military target because they will be bombed immediately.
By the way, in Mahdi's email he said to me that CNN - not directly to him, but through another person - threatened him and said that he personally would pay for opposing the war. Now if you can imagine that, a broadcaster threatening an independent journalist for reporting the truth about events on the ground... not the propaganda CNN, the New York times and the other major media report daily.
Lizzie, Mahdi and Franklin and there are reporters from various countries from South America and they are all being targeted. They could be targeted by the rebels and assassinated; they are very fearful and that's why these people need help to get out...
I don't for a minute believe that the Libyan people support what's going on. Sure, there are elements of Libyans that may support this, but the vast majority, I am sure, are against this. They know what happened to the Iraqis and the Afghanis - they know what's awaiting them if NATO wins this battle.
If they don't want to be colonized and occupied and plundered and their lives made miserable because NATO has won this conflict, I think in the end they will put up a fight to defend their country - I'm hopeful...
SC/MYA
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Don't Predict Gaddafi
IT AIN’T OVER TILL IT’S OVER
The title is a famous quote from Yogi Berra. It has two sources. One is the fact that many operas end with an aria by the main soprano who then dies. Operatic sopranos are stereotyped as being fat as a result of the eating they do to maintain the energy needed for opera, especially a Wagnerian one. The other is the fact that there is no time clock in baseball. Each team gets 27 outs or nine innings or as many a needed until a winner is decided.
Well, this applies to Gaddafi and Libya as well. Last night, all the news outlets, including Al-Jazeera, considered him finished. He then blew up a bunch of people and made a few audio appearances on a Libyan and a Syrian station.
I have heard arguments that “it is difficult to argue that he should remain in power, despite how well he administered the country.” Actually, it is quite easy to argue either side of that issue as any attorney or rhetorician will tell you, but that it besides the point. What happened is that NATO attacked the country and led to the chaos you see because NATO serves capitalist interests and Libya was essentially Socialist. As a capitalist force, there is no point in making any sort of moral (“should”) judgments as Capitalism is at best an amoral system.
I have also had to point out to people that it is foolish to attempt to predict what Gaddafi will do next. There is no way of telling or predicting. The only thing that is clear is that he has said that the “rebels” are “traitors and rats.”
A final point on Al Jazeera: it is owned by Qatar, a country that joined NATO in the attack. Most decisions in Qater, I understand, are made by the wife of the leader and her name is Moza or, in English translation, Banana. Banana has mad policy changes that have led to the resignation to many fine journalists from the station. Even so, it is still more reliable than most western news outlets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
