guest_621 : They faked the Torah, nothing else. Even their own neutral Rabbies tell that truth. The ORIGINAL Torah has nothing to do with the satansih Talmud or faked Torah!
guest_7642 : Look into Crowley Satanism in Hollywood. Actual Satanic kikes and space kikes working together.
guest_5248 : The Search works. it takes time to sift through 700,000 articles.
guest_5419 : Gotta love that the search doesn't work
NMNV : wake up sheeple
guest_6482 : May this site live on and expand. EVERYONE SAVE THIS SITE AND PDF IT WHATEVER.
guest_7482 : Amen
guest_8470 Revelatio : Revelation 2:9 I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.
guest_380 : New World Order is the Jew World Order
guest_77 : love the chat
guest_2019 : shut it
nazi jews : wake up stupid
nazi jews : lol
guest_5277 : ok
guest_1726 : ok
meee : fuck u dikhead
meee : ggg
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. – John 8.44
“I will make those who are of the synagogue of Satan, who claim to be Jews though they are not, but are liars—I will make them come and fall down at your feet and acknowledge that I have loved you.” Rev 3.9
“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” Rev. 2.9
"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come." Matthew 3:7
“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.” – Romans 2:28-29
"I and my Father are one,[31] Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. JOHN 10:30-31
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God’s wrath has overtaken them at last. - Thessalonians 2:14-16
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. - Ephesians 6:12
GOD cursed the Satanic Jews out of Jerusalem for life. Jesus arrived and focused on Jerusalem because it was the most unholy, evil, place on earth... still is today.
The Nomadic Turks (ashkeNAZIS) have been behind all the Evil in the world since Cain's children... using their News Networks to create the News, and set the stage, to blame their opponents, for everything evil they do, across the globe.
Jewish Communist Dictum:- "Accuse the enemy of those crimes you are guilty of"
1.PROBLEM 2.REACTION 3.SOLUTION.
The Elite Jews create the illness, then sell the Cure. They create Chaos & Terrorism, then sell the solution... for more control and power.
Islam and Christianity have become servants of the Jews. Acting as physical and spiritual cattle for the Jews to harvest in building their Global Satanic Kingdom.
If I converted to Buddhism, does that make me Chinese? If I converted to Hinduism, does that make me Indian? When Khazarians (Turks) converted to Judaism in 740 BC and stole the true Semite Israelite Greek Aegean identity, did that make the counterfeit Jews Hebrew? Well, the Jew World Order seems to think so. They crucified Jesus Christ for exposing them.
The invention of the Muslim Terrorist by our Jewish Governments... to keep us in fear, and to justify raping the World, and slaughtering billions of innocent families in every country for power and control...for their 2 horned Gods.
Every Religion Church and Mosque has been infiltrated by the Jews. How do you know? ... if your Church has not discussed the below phrases by Christ... then it has been compromised.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin says new US President Joe Biden is radically different from his predecessor Donald Trump.
The two leaders will meet in Geneva on Wednesday, fresh off the back of Biden’s participation in the G7 summit in the UK.
The meeting will be the pair’s first since Biden was elected last November and comes at a time when relations between the two countries are strained.
Ahead of the summit, President Putin gave an exclusive interview to US broadcaster NBC.
“We have a bilateral relationship that has deteriorated to its lowest point in recent years,” explained Putin. “President Biden, of course, is radically different from Trump because President Biden is a career man. He has spent virtually his entire adulthood in politics. Just think of the number of years he spent in the Senate, a different kind of person. And it is my great hope that, yes, there are some advantages, some disadvantages, but there will not be any impulse-based movements on behalf of this sitting US president.”
The meeting will take place in an 18th-century manor house in a public park that looks out onto Geneva’s famous lake.
The White House has played down expectations for the summit and said Biden plans to raise Ukraine, arms control, human rights, and cyber ransomware attacks with Putin.
There are no plans for a joint press conference after the talks.
The Group of Seven leaders aim to end their first summit in two years with a punchy set of promises Sunday, including vaccinating the world against coronavirus, making huge corporations pay their fair share of taxes and tackling climate change with a blend of technology and money.
They want to show that international cooperation is back after the upheavals caused both by the pandemic and the unpredictability of former U.S. President Donald Trump And they want to convey that the club of wealthy democracies — Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States — is a better friend to poorer nations than authoritarian rivals such as China
But it was uncertain how firm the group’s commitments will be on coronavirus vaccines, the economy and the environment when the leaders issue their final communique. Also unclear was whether all of the leaders would back the United States’ call to chastise China for repressing its Uyghur minority and other abuses.
U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson the summit’s host, wanted the three-day meeting to fly the flag for a “Global Britain,” his government’s initiative to give the midsized country outsized influence when it comes to global problem-solving.
Brexit cast a shadow over that goal during the summit on the coast of southwest England. European Union leaders and U.S. President Joe Biden voiced concerns about problems with new U.K.-EU trade rules that have heightened tensions in Northern Ireland.
But overall, the mood has been positive: The leaders smiled for the cameras on the beach at cliff-fringed Carbis Bay, a village and resort that became a traffic-clogged fortress for the meeting. The last G-7 summit was in France in 2019. The pandemic scuttled the planned 2020 event in the United States.
The leaders mingled with Queen Elizabeth II at a royal reception on their first evening, and were served steak and lobster at a beach barbecue on their second.
America’s allies were visibly relieved to have the U.S. back as an engaged international player after the “America First” policy of the Trump administration.
“The United States is back, and democracies of the world are standing together,” Biden said as he arrived in the U.K. on the first foreign trip of his 5-month-old presidency. After the G-7 summit, the president is to have tea with the queen on Sunday, attend a NATO summit in Brussels on Monday and hold talks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Geneva on Wednesday.
At the G-7, Johnson described Biden as a “breath of fresh air.” French President Emmanuel Macron, after speaking one-to-one with Biden, said, “It’s great to have a U.S. president part of the club and very willing to cooperate.”
The re-energized G-7 made ambitious declarations during their meetings about girls’ education, preventing future pandemics and using the finance system to fund green growth. Above all, they vowed to share vaccine doses with less well-off nations that urgently need them. Johnson said the group would pledge at least 1 billion doses, with half that coming from the United States and 100 million from Britain.
World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus commended the vaccine pledge but said it’s not enough. To truly end the pandemic, he said, 11 billion doses are needed to vaccinate at least 70% of the world’s population by the middle of next year.
“We need more and we need them faster,” Tedros said.
Public health advocates said much more than just doses was needed, including money and logistical help to get shots into the arms of people in poorer countries.
“It’s not enough to just get vaccines flown into capitals,” said Lily Caprani, head of COVID-19 vaccines advocacy for UNICEF. “We can’t let them potentially go to waste or be at risk or be at risk of not being delivered. So it’s a real end-to-end solution that’s needed.”
The leaders’ final communique is expected to formally embrace placing a global minimum tax of at least 15% on large multinational companies to stop corporations from using tax havens to shift profits and to avoid taxes.
The minimum rate was championed by the U.S., and dovetails with the aim of Biden — and Johnson — to focus the summit on ways the democracies can collaborate to build a more inclusive and fair global economy and to compete with rising autocracies like China.
Non-G-7 nations India, South Korea, Australia and South Africa were invited to attend as guests to bolster the group’s support for fellow democracies.
The White House said the leaders had also agreed an infrastructure plan, the Build Back Better world plan, to help low and middle-income countries. The move is a response to China’s “belt and road” initiative, which has increased Beijing’s influence in countries around the world.
White House officials said Biden wants the G-7 leaders to speak in a single voice against the forced labor practices targeting China’s Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic minorities. Biden hopes the denunciation will be part of a joint statement Sunday, but some European allies are reluctant to split so forcefully with Beijing.
The summit was also supposed to focus on climate change and to set the stage for the U.N. climate conference being held in November in Scotland.
Climate activists and analysts have said filling a $100 billion annual fund that is intended to help poor countries tackle the effects of global warming should be at the top of the G-7’s to-do list.
Johnson’s office said he met with U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres on Saturday and that the two agreed on the need for countries to step up and make ambitious commitments to cut carbon emissions and phase out the use of coal.
But very little substance on the topic has so far emerged from the talks, to the frustration of environmental protesters who gathered nearby to make their message heard.
Large crowds of surfers and kayakers took to the sea in a mass paddle protest Saturday to urge more action on protecting the oceans, while thousands chanted and beat drums as they marched outside the summit’s media center in Falmouth.
“G-7 is all greenwashing,” the protesters sang. “We’re drowning in promises, now’s the time to act.”
___
Follow all AP stories on climate change issues at https://apnews.com/hub/Climate.
Thinking of her late coach the whole time, Barbora Krejcikova went from unseeded player to Grand Slam champion at a French Open full of surprises.
Krejcikova beat 31st-seeded Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 6-1, 2-6, 6-4 in the final at Roland Garros on Saturday to win the title in just her fifth major tournament as a singles player.
“It’s big achievement that nobody really expected,” said Krejickova, a 25-year-old from the Czech Republic who never won a WTA title of any sort until last month. “Not even me.”
When it ended with Pavlyuchenkova’s backhand landing long on Krejcikova’s fourth match point, they met at the net for a hug. Then Krejcikova blew kisses, her eyes squeezed shut, in tribute to her former coach, Jana Novotna, the 1998 Wimbledon champion who died of cancer at age 49 in 2017.
“Pretty much her last words were just enjoy and just try to win a Grand Slam. And, I mean, I know that, from somewhere, she’s looking after me,” Krejcikova told the crowd at Court Philippe Chatrier, limited to 5,000 because of the coronavirus pandemic.
“All of this that just happened, these two weeks, is pretty much because she is just looking after me from up there,” Krejcikova said, lifting her left hand toward the sky. “It was amazing that I had a chance to meet her and that she was such an inspiration for me. I just really miss her. But I hope she’s happy right now. I’m extremely happy.”
Krejcikova is the third unseeded women’s champion since 2017 at Roland Garros. There were zero from 1968 through 2016.
She now will try to become the first woman since Mary Pierce in 2000 to win the French Open singles and doubles titles in the same year. Krejcikova and partner Katerina Siniakova already own two Grand Slam doubles titles and reached Sunday’s final of that event.
Pavlyuchenkova, a 29-year-old Russian, was playing in her first Grand Slam final in the 52nd major tournament of her career — the most appearances by a woman before reaching a title match.
“Who could have thought, like, I would be in the final now? I think I’m just going to keep on going the same, zero expectation, just working hard and doing my job,” said Pavlyuchenkova, who was treated for a left leg problem late in the second set that she revealed afterward arose during her third-round victory over No. 3 seed Aryna Sabalenka.
“OK, of course,” Pavlyuchenkova said, “I believe in myself a little bit more maybe, yes.”
Same for Krejcikova, who spoke frankly about feeling overwhelmed by stress before facing 2017 U.S. Open champion Sloane Stephens in the fourth round. Krejcikova worried she wouldn’t win a game and was in tears until her sports psychologist talked her through it.
Good thing, too, because Krejcikova beat Stephens 6-2, 6-0. That went alongside wins over No. 5 seed Elina Svitolina and No. 24 Coco Gauff before Krejcikova saved a match point in the semifinals against No. 17 Maria Sakkari.
Now Krejcikova is the sixth consecutive first-time Grand Slam champion to collect the women’s championship at Roland Garros, where the red clay can frustrate players by diminishing the effectiveness of speedy serves and by creating odd bounces.
Saturday’s matchup was a fitting conclusion to a tournament filled with success for new names, including a record six first-time major quarterfinalists.
Naomi Osaka withdrew to take a mental health break. No. 1 Ash Barty, the 2019 champion, retired in the second round with an injured left hip. Simona Halep, the 2018 champion, didn’t play at all because of a hurt calf. Serena Williams lost in the fourth round. Defending champion Iga Swiatek lost in the quarterfinals.
Some jitters were apparent in the final’s opening game, when Krejcikova double-faulted twice. But she snapped out of it, excelling with her crisp two-handed backhand, net skills honed in doubles and perfect defensive lobs. One curled over Pavlyuchenkova and landed at a corner to help Krejcikova begin a six-game run in the first set.
Pavlyuchenkova went up 5-1 in the second, before she stretched for a backhand, winced and reached for her upper left leg. During a medical timeout, a trainer taped that leg while Pavlyuchenkova was on a towel, a bag of candy within reach.
In the third set, Krejcikova nosed ahead for good at 4-3 by breaking at love with a forehand winner.
Soon enough, she was being handed the Coupe Suzanne Lenglen by 18-time major champion Martina Navratilova and gently rocking the trophy during the Czech national anthem.
Novotna was on Krejcikova’s mind.
“We just had a really special bond,” Krejcikova said. “She wants me to win. She knows what it means to me, and I know what it would mean to her.”
Summits often feature grand statements and needless fripperies. In Cornwall, the leaders of the G7 countries were trying to position and promote their relevance as the vanguard of democratic good sense and values. They, the message went, remained relevant, valuable and essential to the order of the earth, despite challenges posed by the autocrats.
Never let contradiction get in the way of such a united front. Babbling about liberal democratic values matters little when it comes to crusty realpolitik. The UK and the US continue to supply armaments to their favourite theocracy, Saudi Arabia, even as they take issue with Russia and Chinese actions they deem aggressive, cruel or authoritarian. Germany’s position on dealing with Russia remains distinct within the grouping, not least on the issue of energy politics and the Nord Stream 2 gas project. Nor does the G7 necessarily share the same attitude in dealing with China, each having had its slant in coping with Beijing’s actions in recent years.
The China Syndrome has produced some form of united response at the summit. Welcome, then, to the Build Back Better World (B3W) initiative. This will entail, according to a White House factsheet, “a values-driven, high-standard, and transparent infrastructure partnership led by the major democracies to help narrow the $40+ trillion infrastructure need in the developing world, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.” The initiative will also involve “the G7 and other like-minded partners” coordinating and mobilising “private-sector capital in four areas of focus – climate, health and health security, digital technology, and gender equity and equality – with catalytic investments from our respective development finance institutions.”
A senior official in the Biden administration told Reuters that, “This is not just about confronting or taking on China. But until now we haven’t offered a positive alternative that reflects our values, our standards and our way of doing business.”
Since 2013, President Xi Jinping’s multi-billion dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has niggled the sphere of influence watchers. While the developed world went into something of an investment coma after the Great Recession of 2007-9, notably in developing economies, China took its wallet out. Attached conditions to the investment would be few; questions about human rights, freedoms and business transparency would not be obstacles. As this was happening, high-income states went into chatter mode while keeping their shut purses, formulating principles for quality infrastructure investments.
The BRI infrastructure program, currently featuring 2,600 projects, is China’s geopolitical bridge to developing states, linking Beijing through an assortment of road, maritime and rail projects. These include the $100 billion China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, and the $62 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor. Over time, the initiative has moved into 5G technologies and fiberoptic networks.
The BRI initiative is also a way of jostling out countries long presumptuous about keeping their backyard free of competition. (Australia, for instance, has shown alarm that its long standing position as Pacific bruiser and charity giver is facing dethroning.) And it has worried recipient states initially warmed by Chinese offers of investment. In 2016, Pakistani Senator Tahir Mashhadi, chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Planning and Development, issued a warning. “Another East India Company is in the offing; national interests are not being protected. We are proud of the friendship between Pakistan and China, but the interests of the state should come first.”
The G7 states have been doing much head scratching as to how to rival and blunt the BRI. In 2019, the Trump administration, along with Japan and Australia, suggested their own counter: the Blue Dot Network, the principles of which underpin B3W. The BDN initiative seeks to promote “equality infrastructure investment that is open and inclusive, and transparent, economically viable, financially, environmentally sustainable and compliant with international standards, laws, and regulations.” The inaugural meeting of the Blue Dot Network’s Executive Consultation Group took place on June 7.
While not specifically referencing the BDN (anything deemed worthy by President Donald Trump is to be assimilated rather than acknowledged), US President Joe Biden has been making regular sprays about, as he told reporters in March, establishing “a similar initiative coming from the democratic states, helping those communities around the world.”
In April, Biden and his Japanese counterpart, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, met to discuss “practical commitments” in establishing an alternative to BRI projects. There was a special emphasis on promoting and protecting “the technologies that will maintain and sharpen our competitive edge” based on “democratic norms that we both share – norms set by democracies, not autocracies.”
Cornwall has become the site for similar assurances. The B3W is all about, as the Biden administration claims, “offering a higher-quality choice”. The choice will be offered “with self-confidence … that reflects our shared values”. Kaush Arha, who worked as the US G7 sherpa for the Blue Dot Network in 2020, sees the way paved “for BDN to earn the endorsement of the G7” and feature at the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties in November.
The details of this new plan, for all its claims to transparency, remain opaque. In the first place, it places strong emphasis on private sector contributions that are supposedly drawn in an open, accountable manner. Robert Daly, director of the Wilson Centre’s Kissinger Institute on China and the United States asks the question “whether this is going to be actually new funding, new capacity to build infrastructure in the region, or is this a repurposing and repackaging of resources that are also available.” Eventually, the participating powers will have to show the money.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
President Joe Biden and Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan have known each other for years, but their meeting Monday will be their first as heads of state. And it comes at a particularly tense moment for relations between their two countries.
Previous U.S. presidents had avoided using the term out of concern that it would complicate ties with Turkey, which is fiercely proud of its Ottoman history and insists that those killed in the early 20th century were victims of civil war and unrest.
However, besides blasting the decision in speeches, Erdogan didn’t hit back at Washington. The muted response suggests he wants a good relationship with Biden, said Rachel Ellehuus, an analyst at the Washington think tank Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“Not least because he needs that economic relationship with the U.S. and the appearance of a cooperative relationship in order to retain his base, which is very much built on a functioning Turkish economy that is tethered into the West,” Ellehuus said.
Erdogan, in power for 18 years as prime minister and then president, has dialed down his anti-Western rhetoric as his government grapples with an economic downturn made worse by the coronavirus pandemic. His ruling AKP party has recently been hit by a series of corruption allegations, including drug trafficking and arms smuggling, made by a fugitive mafia boss who has been releasing tell-all videos on social media, without evidence.
“The most important thing for the Turkish leader at this time is to give a veneer of positive relations with the U.S. in terms of Turkey’s image,” said Merve Tahiroglu, Turkey Program Coordinator at the Project on Middle East Democracy. “He seems to understand that to get any kind of international investment to Turkey, he will need to project an image of positive relations with the U.S.”
Biden has often touted the personal relationships he’s developed with world leaders over nearly 50 years as a factor that makes him uniquely equipped to revitalize the reputation of the United States following the presidency of Donald Trump.
In recent days, he’s mentioned to aides that he’s developed a strong rapport with Erdogan over the years, according to a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
Biden still fondly recalls making a house call to Erdogan in 2011 when he was in Turkey to speak at the Global Entrepreneurs Summit, according to the official. Erdogan did not attend because he was recovering from major surgery, but Biden stopped by to check in on him. Their conversation was supposed to be brief but lasted over two hours.
Still, the relationship has been complicated at times. In 2014, while vice president, Biden apologized to Erdogan after suggesting in a speech that Turkey helped facilitate the rise of the Islamic State militant group by allowing foreign fighters to cross Turkey’s border with Syria. During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden drew ire from Turkish officials after an interview with The New York Times in which he called Erdogan an “autocrat.”
Erdogan enjoyed collegial relations with Trump, who didn’t give him a hard time about Turkey’s human rights record and agreed to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria in 2019, paving the way for a Turkish military offensive against Syrian Kurdish fighters who had fought alongside U.S. forces against IS militants. Biden was strongly critical of that decision, accusing Trump of selling out U.S. allies.
Erdogan waited several days before congratulating Biden on his election victory as Trump challenged the results. At the same time, Erdogan sent a message to Trump thanking him for his “warm friendship.”
After taking office, Biden waited three months before giving Erdogan a call, which was widely seen in Turkey as a snub. The first time they spoke after the election was when Biden called to tell Erdogan about the Armenian “genocide” announcement.
In an interview with Turkish state broadcaster TRT on June 1, Erdogan noted he had cordial relations with previous U.S. presidents, particularly Trump, and that he would ask Biden on the sidelines of the NATO meeting in Brussels “why Turkey-U.S. relations are in such a state of tension.”
They are expected to take up Turkey’s purchase of the S-400 advanced Russian defense systems that angered Washington and resulted in Ankara being kicked out of the U.S. F-35 fighter aircraft production program, sanctions on senior Turkish defense industry officials, and bans on military export licenses. Washington says the system is a threat to NATO security and insists that sanctions cannot be lifted until Turkey gets rid of the system, which has cost the country $2.5 billion.
Turkey repeatedly has called for dialogue to resolve the issue. Turkish media reports say Turkey is set to propose the deployment of the S-400s at Incirlik air base, which is home to a U.S. Air Force wing, where they would be watched by U.S. military officials. Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told reporters the S-400s would be “100% under (Turkish) control” and that no Russian military official would be in Turkey.
Erdogan is also expected to raise the issue of U.S. military support for Syrian Kurdish fighters, who Ankara argues are inextricably linked to a decades-long Kurdish insurgency in Turkey.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan said Biden and Erdogan will discuss Syria and Iran as well as what role Turkey can play on Afghanistan following the U.S. troop withdrawal. Also on the agenda is how Washington and Ankara “deal with some of our significant differences on values and human rights and other issues,” Sullivan said.
He said Biden knows Erdogan very well.
“The two men have spent a good amount of time together, and they are both, I think, looking forward to the opportunity to really have a business-like opportunity to review the full breadth of their relationship,” Sullivan said.
__
Associated Press writer Aamer Madhani in Washington contributed.
Initial reports point to a low turn-out in Algeria’s parliamentary election on Saturday.
It’s the first such poll since the gas-rich North African nation’s longtime President Bouteflika was forced to resign two years ago.
The Hirak protest movement had called for a boycott of the election over a crackdown by authorities on weekly rallies. New laws have all but banned demonstrations.
The election was supposed to exemplify President Abdelmadjid Tebboune’s “”new Algeria,” with an emphasis on young candidates and those outside the political elite.
But the fact that Tebboune was prime minister under the deposed former president convinces many that the old regime is still in place.
In its most recent update, given while polls still were open, Algeria’s electoral authority said that less than 14.5% of the country’s 24 million voters had cast ballots.
Some regions, notably in Kabylie, a bastion of opposition east of the Algerian capital, had voter turnout under 1%.
Adjectives such as intolerant, rigid, and incompatible are often associated with Islam. It has been part of usual propaganda carried without context, with vested political motives, and half-baked assertions. It is more viewed in the west and an increasing number of other places as a religion more inclined towards violence and critical of modern civilization. Many authors have argued in their writings as a faith spread by the sword and has bloody borders. It provides an opportunity to us truly investigate it from a historical perspective and through original sources.
It will be desirable to carefully study and sequentially investigate the most common make-beliefs that most people have about Islam and Muslims as a community.
Some common make beliefs are as follows -:
Islam is exclusive as it claims it is the only valid religion-
It is the most common and often trumpeted assertion without any logical basis. It gets amplified in manipulated T.V. debates that have the sole purpose of organizing hate for political gains. Islam is a monotheistic Semitic faith. It is the only faith that makes it necessary for every Muslim to believe in Prophet Isa (Jesus Christ) PBUH and Prophet Moses PBUH as the mightiest messengers of Almighty Allah SWT. It can well be ascertained in the Quranic verse (2:136).
Quran also states in unequivocal terms that a prophet had been sent for every nation with reference being Quraan (16:36). So, therefore, when it is for everybody, there is no reason for it to be exclusive.
There is a Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) with reference being Sahih Bukhari Hadith:438, which states that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said that the whole world is a musallah (Muslim prayer mat) for him. All would agree that there cannot be a more inclusive statement than this.
As far as validity is concerned, every follower of every religion assumes his faith to be most valid. Else, there is no reason for them to follow that faith. It holds for Muslims as well as for others.
Islam promotes forced conversions.
It is also an old accusation turned into a gradual belief that Islam spread by forced conversions. It is totally incorrect and must be addressed in two ways which are as follows-:
Quranic references
There are ample references which state that Islam strictly urges the followers to refrain from forced conversion.
Most notable being Quran 2:256, “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”
A historical and logical reason
Even in their rule, if forced conversion to Islam was the state policy, why would Muslim majority areas be scattered all over and not in geographical continuity, although Muslim rule was all over. Historian De Lacy O’Leary, in the book “Islam at the crossroad,” says, “History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”
Non-Muslims in Gulf countries account for 5-10% of the population, although Muslims enjoy political power in that region for the last 14 centuries. As per the Pew Research Study Centre figures, Islam is the fasting growing religion in Europe and the western world, all though nowhere in those regions Muslims ever enjoyed political power. Muslim rulers have been compassionate most of the time whenever they went to new lands. The best example was that of Jerusalem; when Saladin took the city in 1187, every Christian soul remained unharmed, although when the crusaders had taken the city in 1099, not a single Muslim soul was left alive.
Islam is unjust to women.
It is the most prevalent misconception that Islam is highly unjust towards women. It provides an opportunity to examine it critically. The most common way to determine it is in terms of rights and responsibilities.
Equality is the cornerstone as far Islamic teachings are concerned. An important verse in the Qur’an reads, “The men believers and the women believers are responsible for each other.They enjoin the good and forbid the evil, they observe prayers and give charitable alms and obey God and his Prophet.” (Qur’an, 9:71). It observes that men and women have equal responsibilities as far as following Islamic teachings are concerned.
Women have the right to inherit their parent’s property, have the right to say ‘no’ to a marriage, and can go for voluntary divorce (khula) if needed under specific circumstances. All clearly defined inheritance laws are mentioned under Surah Nisa of Quraan.
As far as permission to a Muslim man to have up to four wives is concerned, it is allowed with a number of conditions, including the ability to provide resource and emotional justice to all four wives. Quranic reference for the same is Surah 4 verse 2. In addition, this provision often provides an option for widows to get remarried and their children to be brought up well.
Muslims cannot have a national identity.
Like most of the other religions, Muslims also have a multidimensional identity. One is related to the country they live in, which comes from surrounding culture and its practices. Secondly, it is the association towards the place which has their holy sites. Lastly, Pan Islamism can be defined as their resonance towards their coreligionists in any part of the world. But the question arises isn’t this true with every religion?
This emotional connection is standard in all communities. For instance, a Hindu living in Fiji will have an emotional attachment towards Hindu religious sites in India. Similarly, Christians anywhere in the world will have an emotional connection with the Vatican or Bethlehem. Arab is an ethnolinguistic term, primarily identifying those people who speak Arabic as their mother tongue.
Moreover, if religion is responsible for national aspirations, then more Muslims are non-Arabs than Arabs. The country with the highest Muslim population is Indonesia. The highest concentration of Muslims is in South Asia. Even Persia, which lies adjacent to Arabia, has different cultures and national aspirations than Arabs despite the same religion. Persians think their culture is superior to that of Arabs. For Indian Muslims, even during the Mughal rule, Arabic was never a language of administration and was confined to Islamic scriptures.
Islam promotes tribal mentality and racism.
It is another misconception that often gets promoted for vested reasons. The last sermon of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) gives us an insight against this where he mentions equality. He stated there is no superiority of rich over poor, white over black, Arab over non-Arab in any way except piety and good action.
Hazrat Bilal (R.A.) was a black slave who embraced Islam in initial days. He was given the status of the first muezzin (one who says azaan (call for prayer)) of Islam. Bilal later married an Arab woman from a respectable tribe – unthinkable for an enslaved African in the pre-Islamic period.
A better understanding can be obtained if the above-stated points are read without any intention to contradict or believe but as food for thought for critical evaluation. Present-day politics of right-wingers try to portray everything under the sun as a struggle between perceived fiercely excited Muslims and proverbially timid others. It is to be acknowledged in no uncertain terms that all communities have enjoyed an excellent relationship for centuries. In today’s world, no country can be a global leader with a strong economy if a particular section feels unwanted and its potential is left underdeveloped and unexplored.
Nadeem Khan is an author and speaker based in Toronto
U.S. President Joe Biden and his NATO counterparts will bid a symbolic farewell to Afghanistan on Monday in their last summit before America winds up its longest “forever war” and the U.S. military pulls out for good.
The meeting is bound to renew questions about whether NATO’s most ambitious operation ever was worth it.
The 18-year effort cost the United States alone $2.26 trillion, and the price in lives includes 2,442 American troops and 1,144 personnel among U.S. allies, according to figures from Brown University NATO does not keep a record of those who die in its operations.
Those casualty figures dwarf Afghan losses, which include more than 47,000 civilians, up to 69,000 members of the national armed forces and police, and over 51,000 opposition fighters.
The military effort followed the 2001 arrival of a U.S.-led coalition that ousted the Taliban for harboring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Few experts argue that it brought long-term stability, meaningful democracy or security.
“At this point, you get the impression that NATO leaders almost want to downplay and leave quietly, rather than making too big a deal of it, and going on to focus on other business,” said Erik Brattberg, director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
With the U.S. leading the withdrawal, European allies and Canada want to hear Biden’s thinking about how security will be assured at their embassies, along major transport routes and above all at Kabul’s airport.
Many wonder whether the Afghan government can survive a resurgent Taliban. Some think Kabul’s capitulation is only a matter of time.
“We are currently in intense discussions with our member states, the United States, NATO and the United Nations on the absence of essential security conditions for our continued diplomatic presence. It will be difficult to keep it” in place, European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said.
For now, NATO plans to leave civilian advisers to help build up government institutions. It’s unclear who will protect them. The 30-nation alliance is also weighing whether to train Afghan special forces outside the country.
As an organization, NATO will not provide sanctuary for Afghans who worked alongside its forces — routinely risking their lives — although a few individual members will. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says it’s simply time to leave.
“Afghanistan has come a long way, both when it comes to building strong, capable security forces, but also when it comes to social and economic progress,” he told The Associated Press. “At some stage, it has to be the Afghans that take full responsibility for peace and stability in their own country.”
Few Afghans share that assessment of their country, which has a 54% poverty rate, runaway crime, rampant corruption and an illicit economy that outstrips the legal economy.
When NATO took charge of international security operations in 2003, Afghanistan was its first major mission outside Europe and North America. The aim was to stabilize the government, build up local security forces and remove a potential base for extremist groups.
Yet 18 years later, security is at its lowest ebb for most Afghans. The capital is rife with criminal gangs, many linked to powerful warlords, and there are routine attacks by an upstart Islamic State.
Quite early into the operations, as combat took its toll on NATO troops, extremists and civilians, a stalemate developed. The Taliban could not be routed from outlying areas, but neither could its fighters seize and hold major cities.
Troop surges made little difference, and it soon became clear that NATO’s military training effort was its exit strategy. Only by creating a big army capable of standing on its own feet could the organization wind up its operations.
But the Afghan army was plagued by corruption, desertion and low morale. Experts say it still is, and this remains a major concern as NATO insists on funding the nation’s security forces after it’s gone.
Donald Trump’s unilateral decision to leave by May 1 stunned U.S. allies. It highlighted NATO’s weakness: European members and Canada simply cannot sustain major operations without logistical support from their biggest partner.
Biden’s decision to pull U.S. troops out by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington changed little, although he did consult allies this time.
James Dobbins, a former Afghan envoy who now works for the RAND Corporation think tank, predicts the exit will mean the loss of government legitimacy.
“The U.S. departure will be seen as a victory for the Taliban and a defeat for the United States,” he said in an opinion piece. “The result will be a blow to American credibility, the weakening of deterrence and the value of American reassurance elsewhere.”
On Monday, NATO’s leaders will reaffirm the strength of their alliance and go back to what they know best: their old nemesis, Russia. Biden will brief his partners before meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani was not invited to NATO’s summit.
“There is little appetite left to continue investing in Afghanistan,” Brattberg said. “There is a sense of being fed up in a lot of NATO countries, and now it’s just time to pack the bags and get out with little consideration about the consequences that could have on the ground.”
____
Associated Press Writer Kathy Gannon in Islamabad contributed to this report.
Football fans are awaiting the first updates on Sunday on Christian Eriksen’s condition following the Danish midfielder’s collapse during his country’s Euro 2020 opening match.
Eriksen was awake and in stable condition Saturday night after being taken to a Copenhagen hospital, the Danish football federation said. It confirmed on Twitter that Eriksen was “awake and is undergoing further examinations at Rigshospitalet”, one of Denmark’s top hospitals which is less than a mile from the Parken stadium.
Many supporters, players and others in the football world have sent goodwill messages.
More details have emerged of the dramatic and harrowing moments after the player’s collapse, which came in the 43rd minute of the match against Finland. It led to the game being suspended for about 90 minutes before both teams made the decision to play on, Finland going on to win the game 1-0.
Christian Eriksen had just played a short pass when he fell face-forward onto the ground. His teammates immediately gestured for help and medics rushed onto the pitch.
Denmark team doctor Morten Boesen quickly realized there wasn’t a second to lose as the player lay unconscious, his pulse slipping away.
“He was breathing, and I could feel his pulse. But suddenly that changed,” Boesen said on Saturday. “And as everyone saw, we started giving him CPR.”
The next 10 minutes were among the scariest to ever unfold during a match at football’s European Championship. Several medics worked frenetically to give Eriksen chest compressions while his teammates choked away tears and formed a circle around the midfielder to shield the scene from public view.
“We managed to get Christian back,” Boesen said. “And he spoke to me before he was taken to the hospital.”
Piero Volpi, the team physician from Eriksen’s club Inter Milan, told The Associated Press that the Italian club was in contact with the Danish soccer federation. “We’re all happy that he’s been stabilized. But that’s all we know,” he said.
Volpi added that Eriksen never contracted COVID-19, has no medical conditions that he’s aware of and has passed every medical exam without problem since joining Inter in January 2020 from Tottenham.
“But we’ll talk about that when the time is right,” he said of Eriksen’s medical history. “Right now, the important thing is that he recovers.”
Eriksen is one of Denmark’s biggest stars and the incident brought an instant sense of shock to the Parken Stadium, where about 15,000 fans fell into hushed silence. Some supporters could be seen crying and hugging in the stands.
International broadcasters came in for widespread criticism for lingering too long on the scene before cutting away. Some apologised, explaining that they did not have their own cameras on the scene and were using a worldwide feed, but viewers were upset that decisions weren’t taken earlier to switch coverage to the studio.
As the fans in the stadium were waiting for updates, Finland supporters started chanting “Christian! Christian,” which was then answered by the Danish fans shouting “Eriksen! Eriksen!”
A huge roar then went up from all supporters when the stadium announcer said Eriksen was “stable and awake”. Later, the players came back out onto the pitch to a huge ovation as they started warming up for a second time.
The incident brought back memories of other footballers who have collapsed on the pitch, including Marc-Vivien Foe and Fabrice Muamba.
Foe died while playing for Cameroon during the 2003 Confederations Cup in France, while Muamba needed CPR in 2012 when he collapsed in a match between Bolton and Tottenham at White Hart Lane in north London.
Muamba, who fully recovered, wrote ”Please God” on Twitter as Eriksen was taken to the hospital.
Homo sapiens is a creature of earth, not separate from the natural world. Just as it is for other species within the web of life of earth, food is a fundamental basis of life for the human species. There are other factors that help sustain life, but food is a root cause of the growth of all species (3,4,5).
Population growth of a species can become a biological problem. In the case of H. sapiens, a self-reinforcing feedback loop has been established in the food-population relationship because other natural limiting factors to the unbridled growth of human population numbers have been eliminated by human ingenuity (e.g., sanitation, medical technology). Humans are an exceptional species in many ways, but not in terms of population dynamics (3,4,8). Hence the recent explosion of absolute global human population numbers that are primarily caused by spectacular annual increases in the human food supply is derived from enhanced food production and distribution capabilities. Other species cannot produce food beyond that provided by the natural world.
The conundrum: increasing food production and distribution capabilities continuously, specifically for the purpose of meeting the needs of a growing human population, has also fueled a population explosion. With each passing year, more people are being fed, yet more people are going hungry.
Regardless of what we believe because it is politically convenient, economically expedient, socially correct, religiously tolerated and/or culturally syntonic to do so, we are currently confronted with an undeniable biological problem that is explained in uncontested ecological science of human population dynamics. A new biological understanding is emerging from ongoing research that replaces a biologically implausible, ideologically driven, logical contrivance. Stated simply: as is the case with other species, food is the independent, not the dependent, variable in the relationship between food and population numbers (3,4,7).
It is food availability that drives population increases and it is that population growth which fuels the false perception, the misleading impression, the fatally flawed conception that food production needs to be increased to meet the needs of a growing population. Year after year, while food production is increased, leading to global human population number increases, hundreds of millions in the human family continue to go hungry. Why are those people not getting fed? And why is it that future generations may never be fed? We are increasing the number of hungry people as we feed more people. World hunger grows annually despite abundant total food harvests. Starvation has not been remedied by boosting food production. Increasing food production to eliminate malnourishment, hunger, and starvation has not been a solution. See graph, World News, 1 billion worldwide are hungry, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization says; prices blamed in part. Updated January 12, 2019. Posted October 15, 2009.
What is becoming evident is that the overproduction, overconsumption, and overpopulation activities of the human species are occurring synergistically and simultaneously threatening life as we know it. The spectacular increases of these distinctly human overgrowth/overshoot activities are causing the mass extirpation of earth’s biodiversity, the relentless dissipation of its limited resources, and the unbridled degradation of its environs which, when taken together, present a clear and immediate threat to a healthy future for children everywhere and coming generations.
The enormous, unbridled increase in the overall magnitude of the human population in our time on a planet with the size, composition, and ecology of earth has precipitated a growing number of deleterious circumstances, including environmental pollution, biodiversity loss, ecological disruption, and climate destabilization. Global human activity is threatening the future of life as we know it and the planet as a fit place for human habitation (1,6).
After thousands of years of stable human population numbers, the past 225 years have seen total population increase in size from 1 to 8 billion. How are humans going to limit sensibly and effectively the current unbridled growth of their population numbers without beginning to limit “increases only” in the total production of food for human consumption? Alternatives to this step (e.g., educational/economic opportunities for females, contraception for males/females, and voluntary sterilization) represent necessary goals to be achieved, that is certain. But these and other helpful interventions, by themselves, will prove insufficient to stabilize human population numbers because human beings will continue to live or die primarily as a function of food supply (1,3,4,5,7).
The science of human population dynamics makes one thing clear. The United Nations mantra “food production must be increased annually to meet the needs of a growing population” is a widely shared and consensually validated mistake of colossal proportions (2.3,7). This mantra is not an expression derived from language of science. By recognizing how the mistake is generated out of the realm of the preternatural, we can replace it with a more accurate understanding of a condition of being human (i.e., population dynamics of H. sapiens) and a more fulsome appreciation of the way the world we inhabit works, with humans now visibly disclosed as an integral part of the web of life.
If ever the human community is sensibly and meaningfully able to restrain the recent bacteria-like growth of human population numbers, limiting increases in total food production for human consumption will need to be a part of any program of action. If food harvests that sustain the lives of eight billion people are simultaneously and more fairly redistributed so that the human family is provided sustenance along with universal, free, safe, accessible, voluntary contraception/sterilization, such steps in a comprehensive program of action might well lead toward population stabilization and the reduction of human suffering associated with the insufficient availability of food.
References
1.Christopher Bystroff. Footprints to singularity: A global population model explains late 20th century slow-down and predicts peak within ten years. May 2021, PLOS ONE, 16(5): e0247214
2.Jared L. Diamond. The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race. 1987, Discover 8(5): 64-66
3.Russell P. Hopfenberg and David I. Pimentel. Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply. January 2001, Environment Development and Sustainability 3(1):1-15
4.Hopfenberg RP. Human Carrying Capacity Is Determined by Food Availability. January 2003, Population and Environment. 25(2):109-117
5.Steven Earl Salmony. Food and Population Growth. June 2004, EnvirHealthPersp. 112(6): A339-40
6.Salmony SE. The Human Population: Accepting Earth’s Limitations. January 2005, EnvirHealthPersp. 112(17): A979-80
7.Salmony SE. The Human Population: Accepting Species Limits. February 2006, EnvirHealthPersp. 114(1): A17-18
8.Diny Zulkarnaen and Marianito R. Rodrigo. Modelling human carrying capacity as a function of food availability. July 2020 ANZIAM Journal.62(3):313-333
Steve Salmony is a self-proclaimed global citizen, a psychologist and father of three grown children and 4 grandkids. Married 49 years ago. In 2001 Steve founded the AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population to raise consciousness of the colossal threat that the unbridled, near exponential growth of absolute global human population numbers poses for all great and small living things on Earth in our time. His quixotic campaign focuses upon the best available science of human population dynamics and human overpopulation of the Earth, in order to save the planet as a place fit for habitation by children everywhere and coming generations. He can be reached at [email protected].
الكيان الصهيوني كيانٌ وظيفيٌ، أُنشئ بالتعاون مع قوى الاستعمار القديم من أجل إدامة السيطرة على المنطقة العربية، بصفتها قلب العالم الإسلامي، كما أنه كِيانٌ توسعيٌّ في أصل نشأته.
حصيلة معركة “سيف القدس” تمثَّلت باضطرار كيان الاحتلال إلى الرضوخ لقواعد الاشتباك الجديدة
المتأمِّل المشهد الصهيوني أن يرى الأزمات المتعدِّدة التي يمرّ الكيان فيها، في أكثر من صعيد. وبينها، على سبيل المثال لا الحصر، أزماته السياسية، وأبرزها الاستعصاء الحكومي الممتد منذ شهور.
يُعَد هذا الكيان، في أصل وجوده جيشاً استيطانيّاً متستِّراً في ظل “دولة”. لذا، فإن معضلته الكبرى تتمثّل بفقدان قواته البرِّية فعاليتَها القتالية، الأمر الذي أفقدها القدرة على إنجاز المهمات المَنوطة بها، ولاسيما في مواجهة الحركات المقاوِمة، التي تُعَدّ منظمات غيرَ حكوميةٍ ذات قدراتٍ تسليحيةٍ تفوق في بعض النواحي القدرات التي تمتلكها دولٌ وازنةٌ في العالم، كما هي حال القدرة الصاروخية التي يحوزها حزب الله، على سبيل المثال، والتي تفوق القدرة النارية للدول الأوروبية الأعضاء في حلف شمال الأطلسي مجتمعةً، وذلك بحسب تقارير مراكز أبحاث صهيو- أميركية.
ناهيكم عن الفارق الواضح بين معنويات مقاتلي محور المقاومة المرتفعة، ومعنويات جنود الاحتلال شبه المنهارة.
بدأ هذا العجز لدى جيش الكيان في الظهور في إثر انسحابه من جنوبي لبنان في أيار/مايو 2000، وتجلّى في حرب تموز/يوليو 2006، ليزداد بعد ذلك عمقُ مأزق سلاح البر لديه، في حروبه الثلاث اللاحقة، والتي شنّها على قطاع غزة في الفترات 2008-2009 و2012 و2014، وصولاً إلى معركة “سيف القدس” الأخيرة، والتي لم يجرؤ فيها على استخدام قواته البرِّية للقيام بعمليةٍ برِّيةٍ على الأرض تواكب عمليات سلاحه الجوي. ويؤكد هذا الفهمَ الكاتبُ الصهيوني يوآف ليمور عقب انتهاء معركة “سيف القدس”، بحيث قال “هذا الخط الخطير – الذي سيطر على الجيش منذ انتهاء وجوده في جنوبي لبنان، وفي جوهره الخوف من القتلى والمخطوفين – يقود باستمرار إلى مخطَّطات تضخّم الجو على البر، وبالتالي قلة الاستثمار في الجيش البرِّي، وانعدام الثقة، وعدم العمل به في الوقت الحقيقي”.
من الضرورة بمكان أن نلتفت إلى ما يشير إليه هذا العجز من محدودية نتائج عملية المراجعة وتطوير استراتيجياتٍ قتاليةٍ جديدةٍ، والتي عكف عليها رئيس أركان جيش الكيان أفيف كوخافي خلال العامين الماضيين، والتي تهدف إلى إعادة صَوغ مفهوم “تصوُّر النصر” لدى جيش الاحتلال.
وفي هذا الخصوص، صدر مؤخراً، عقب معركة “سيف القدس”، مقالٌ مهمّ وتفصيليٌّ عن “معهد القدس للاستراتيجيات والأمن”، في كيان الاحتلال، بعنوان “تصور النصر: الحاجة إلى مفهوم مُحَدَّث للحرب”، بحيث شرح المقال الأفكار الأساسية للأمن القوميّ “الإسرائيليّ”، والتي قام عليها مفهوم “تصوُّر النصر” لدى الكيان الصهيوني منذ بداياته، والتي صاغها رئيس الوزراء الصهيوني الأسبق ديفيد بن غوريون؛ تلك الأفكار الأساسية التي تم تحويلها بعد ذلك إلى قدراتٍ عمليةٍ وعقيدةٍ عسكريةٍ، نجح من خلالها جيش الكيان الصهيوني – في حقبةٍ خلت – في تحقيق انتصاراتٍ حاسمةٍ ضد الجيوش العربية، على أساس الحرب السريعة، والتي اعتمدت، بالإضافة إلى تفوّق سلاح الجوّ على قوةٍ برِّيةٍ ضاربةٍ وقادرةٍ على القيام بمناوراتٍ برِّيةٍ خاطفةٍ، بهدف الاقتحام السريع لأراضي العدوّ، وتحييد قوته العسكرية.
لكننا نجد، من خلال دراسة نتائج الحروب التي خاضها كيان الاحتلال منذ عام 2006 – في أقلّ تقدير – أن هذه القوة البرِّية لم تَعُدْ موجودة في الصيغة نفسها التي كانت عليها. ويقرّ بهذا المقال المذكور ضمن ثنايا النقاش، إذ قال: “مفهوم النصر” لا يحلّ الخلل القائم بين الذراعين الاستراتيجيتين، الجويّة والأرضيّة فحسب، بل يديمه أيضاً، ويصبح مبدعاً في الواقع”. ويضيف المقال إلى ذلك، من خلال انتقاد “مفهوم النصر” المحَدَّث، والذي يعكف الكيان الصهيوني على صياغته، بالقول “يستمر مفهوم النصر في الواقع، سواء أكان بطريقةٍ معقدةٍ، أم وفق الأفكار نفسها التي تمت تجربتها مراراً وتكراراً، من دون نجاحٍ، طوال العقود الأربعة الماضية”.
وتوضح خلاصة النقاش التفصيلي، والذي أتى عليه المقال، أن جيش الاحتلال اعتَمَد، خلال العقود الأربعة الماضية، على نحو متصاعدٍ، على سلاح الجوّ، في مقابل تراجع مكانة القوة البرِّية لديه، على الرغم من الالتزام اللفظي في الكيان بالأفكار الأساسية للأمن القومي “الإسرائيلي”. ويستنتج المقال أن هذا الالتزام اللفظي ينسحب على “تصور النصر” المستجدّ، والذي تغنَّى به كثيراً أفيف كوخافي، ويعمل مع فريقه على صياغته، الأمر الذي يطرخ تساؤلات بشأن مدى نجاعة “تصور النصر” الجديد هذا.
وهنا، يبرز سؤالٌ جانبيٌّ، على قدرٍ بالغٍ من الأهمية، إذ كيف ستكون الحال إذا أخذنا في الحسبان أنه في أيّ حربٍ مقبلةٍ مع حزب الله سيكون من الوارد تعرض سلاح الجوّ الصهيوني لأضرارٍ تحدّ فعاليته بقدر ما؟ فلا يمكن تجاهل حقيقة تطوير إيران أنظمة دفاعٍ جويٍّ فعالةً ومحلية الصنع، يمكن أن تكون قد نُقِلت فعلاً إلى حزب الله. ولا يمكن إغفال عملية إعادة تأهيل أنظمة الدفاعات الجوية لدى الجيش العربي السوري، بالتعاون مع القوات الروسية المسلّحة، بعد أن كانت المجموعات المسلّحة، المسماة “معارضةً سوريةً”، خرَّبت تلك الأنظمة لحساب كيان العدو الإسرائيلي في بدايات الحرب على سوريا.
وإمعاناً في انتقاد جيش الاحتلال بعد معركة “سيف القدس”، تتالت الانتقادات في داخل أوساط الكيان الصهيوني، سواء أكانت “المدنية” منها، أم داخل بعض القطاعات العسكرية، تجاه قيادة جيش الاحتلال، في إثر عدم توظيفه سلاحَ البر في أثناء المعركة. حتى إن يوآف ليمور ذهب، في صحيفة “إسرائيل اليوم”، إلى حد القول إن “النتيجة هي عكسٌ للمعادلة: الجبهة الداخلية تحمي الجيش، وليس العكس. وبدلاً من تعريض جنودها للخطر لحماية المدنيين، يُعرِّض المواطنون أنفسهم للخطر من أجل حماية الجنود”.
وفي مقالٍ مهمّ آخر، نُشِر قبل معركة “سيف القدس”، في مجلة “الأنظمة” الصهيونية، ذهب كلٌّ من نائب رئيس أركان جيش العدوّ الأسبق، يائير غولان، والباحث العسكري غال بيرل فينكل من “معهد دراسات الأمن القومي” الصهيوني، إلى أنه لا يوجد بديلٌ عن قيام جيش الاحتلال بمناورةٍ برِّيةٍ لتحقيق النصر في أيّ حربٍ مقبلةٍ مع حزب الله. ويضيف المقال أن الوضع الراهن لجيش الكيان، والذي يجعل المناورة البرِّية مكملاً للقوة النارية الجوية، هو وضعٌ غيرُ صحيحٍ.
يرى البعض أنه على الرغم من دقة الانتقادات، التي ساقها المقالان المهمَّان الآنِفا الذكر لأداء جيش الاحتلال الصهيوني، فإنهما تجاهلا أمرين جوهريين. الأول: العطب البنيوي الذي أصاب الروح القتالية للجندي الصهيوني. عطبٌ لا يبدو أنه قابل للترميم، بدليل فشَل المناورات العسكرية التي يقوم بها جيش الاحتلال منذ ما يزيد على خمسة عشر عاماً، بغية استعادة الروح القتالية لجنوده، التي لم تعطِ أيّ نتائجَ ملموسةٍ. وندَّعي القول إن لا قوة برِّيةً فاعلةً من دون جنديٍ عقْديٍ مستعدٍّ لبذل الدماء، ولاسيما في مواجهة مقاتلٍ صاحب حقٍ، مؤمنٍ، ذي عقيدةٍ صلبةٍ، ومستعدّ للشهادة في سبيل عقيدته وقضيته المحقة، كما هي حال المقاوم المجاهد ضمن صفوف قوى محور المقاومة.
أما الأمر الثاني، فيتمثّل بالسِّياق الذي أفضى بجيش الاحتلال إلى الاعتماد المتزايد على سلاح الجوّ. ويرى البعض، في هذا السياق، أمراً أساسياً في قراءة الطَّور الذي وصل إليه الكيان الصهيوني من دورة حياته، كما سنجادل.
الكيان الصهيوني كيانٌ وظيفيٌ، أُنشئ بالتعاون مع قوى الاستعمار القديم من أجل إدامة السيطرة على المنطقة العربية، بصفتها قلب العالم الإسلامي، كما أنه كِيانٌ توسعيٌّ في أصل نشأته. فمنذ بداياته، كان قادراً على التوسع جغرافياً على حساب شعوب المنطقة، وكان يفعل من دون ترددٍ، معتمداً على قوتِه البرِّية.
وكانت تلك حِقبته الطامحة إلى إقامة “إسرائيل الكبرى”. لكن هذه الحقبة انقضت بعد أن أُجبر على الانسحابين الأُحاديي الجانب من جنوبيّ لبنان في أيار/مايو 2000، ثم من قطاع غزة في أيلول/سبتمبر 2005. وبهذا، ثَبُت للعدو أنه ربما يكون قادراً على دخول أراضٍ عربيةٍ جديدة واحتلالها، لكنه لن يكون في استطاعته إدامة وجوده فيها، إذا جوبه بمقاومةٍ جادةٍ ومصممةٍ، وذات نفَسٍ طويل.
وهنا، دخل كيان الاحتلال في طورٍ جديدٍ، يعتمد، في صورة رئيسية، على تفوُّقه الجويّ وقدرتيه، النارية والتدميرية، الكبيرتين، من السماء، وذلك بهدف إنفاذ إرادته السياسية على دول المنطقة، إمّا بالحرب من الجوّ على نحو أساسي، وإمّا حتى بمجرد التهديد بحربٍ مدمِّرةٍ، يبتزّ بها دول الإقليم. وبهذا، يستمر في تلبية متطلبات أصل وجوده ككيانٍ وظيفيٍ، وكذراعٍ ضاربةٍ بالنيابة عن القوى الإمبريالية، ضمن استراتيجيات تلك القوى.
إلاّ أن هذه النظرية كُسِرت في حرب تموز/يوليو 2006، عندما أخفق الكيان في تحقيق أيٍّ من أهدافه في تلك الحرب. فلا استطاع القضاء على حزب الله في الميدان، بفعل تفوقه العسكري: جويّاً ونارياً. ولا قدِر على فرض إرادته السياسية على حزب الله، وإجباره على إعادة الجنود الصهاينة الأسرى لديه عبر تلك الحرب، التي اعتمدت، في الأصل، على قوة سلاح الجوّ، قبل أن يُضطر الكيان إلى محاولة تنفيذ مناورةٍ برِّيةٍ داخل الأراضي اللبنانية من أجل تحقيق أي مكسبٍ – ولو شكليٍّ – من أجل حفظ ماء الوجه.
وتتالت بعد ذلك إخفاقات نظرية الكيان هذه في حروب غزة، في الفترات 2008-2009 و2012 و2014، ناهيكم عن إخفاقه المستمر في إجبار سوريا على الدخول في اتفاقيات تطبيع، أو إرهابها لدفعها إلى التخلي عن عقيدتها الراسخة في دعم حركات المقاومة، أو التنازل عن ثوابتها القومية والعربية.
ثمّ جاءت معركة “سيف القدس”، التي رسَّخت، بما لا يدع مجالاً للشكّ، عجزَ سلاح الجوّ الصهيوني عن تحقيق النصر، عبر تحييد قدرات العدوّ من الجوّ، أو عبر إنفاذ كيان الاحتلال إرادتَه السياسية على الفلسطينيين، عبر قَبول انتهاكات الاحتلال الممارَسة في المسجد الأقصى والقدس المحتلة، وتبعاً المقدسات المسيحية في فلسطين.
أما في البر، فمجدداً، لم يجرؤ كيان الاحتلال على تنفيذ أي مناورةٍ برِّيةٍ جديةٍ داخل قطاع غزة، مُثبتاً مرةٍ أخرى عدم جهوزية جيشه لتحمل الخسائر البشرية، أو قدرته على القيام بمناوراتٍ برِّيةٍ حاسمةٍ.
بل قام، في المقابل، باللجوء إلى مناورةٍ برِّيةٍ وهميةٍ فاشلةٍ، سُمّيت “مترو حماس”. وكتب تال ليف رام في “معاريف” العبرية، مقالاً بعنوان “مسؤولون أمنيون بشأن هجوم (المترو): كان يجب إدخال القوات البرية للقطاع”، قال فيه: “هناك انتقاداتٌ متزايدةٌ من القادة الميدانيين للجيش الإسرائيلي، وعلامات استفهامٍ بشأن استعداده لاستخدام القوات البرية في أثناء القتال”. وأشار، في المقال ذاته، إلى وجود ادعاءاتٍ مفادها أن جيش الاحتلال لم يفكّر حتى في إمكان إدخال قواتٍ برِّيةٍ لقطاع غزة، مؤكداً بذلك الفكرتين الرئيسيتين، واللتين خلص إليهما استراتيجيو كيان الاحتلال في المقالين المذكورين في مطلع نقاشنا هنا، وهما تراجع فعالية سلاح البر الصهيوني، وأن سلاح الجوّ لا يمكنه تحقيق النصر مهما كان “مفهوم النصر” المعتمَد.
لذا، فإن حصيلة معركة “سيف القدس” تمثَّلت باضطرار كيان الاحتلال إلى الرضوخ لقواعد الاشتباك الجديدة، التي فرضتها عليه قوى المقاومة الفلسطينية في الميدان، وعنوانها “إن عُدتم عدنا”، طلباً للهدوء وتفادياً لمزيد من الخسائر، بدلاً من نجاحه في تلبية متطلبات أصل وجوده التي ذُكِرت سابقاً، بصفته كياناً وظيفيّاً.
لعلّ هذا المستجِدّ هو ما جعل نتائج معركة “سيف القدس” تحولاً استراتيجياً، يوازي أو يفوق التحول الاستراتيجي الذي فرضته حرب تموز/يوليو 2006، بحيث يمكن القول بشأنها إنها كانت خاتمة الطَّور الثاني في دورة حياة الكيان الصهيوني، وباكورة الطَّور الثالث من عمره، والذي يبحث فيه الكيان الصهيوني عن تحقيق الأمن لمستوطنيه، ولعله يكون الأخير في دورة حياة هذا الكيان المصطنَع.
لقد أكد الأمين العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله، في كلمته يوم 25 أيار/مايو 2021، في معرض تقييم نتائج معركة “سيف القدس”، أن أهم الإنجازات العسكرية والأمنية والميدانية، كانت في شلّ الكيان وأمنه ومجتمعه. ففي كثير من الدول القديمة والحقيقية، يمكن أن تحدث اختلالاتٌ أمنيةٌ أو حروبٌ أهليةٌ، لكن تبقى الدولة ولا تنهار. أمّا في الكيانات المصطنَعة – كما هي حال الكيان الإسرائيلي – فالأمن بالنسبة إليها هو شرط وجودٍ، وليس شرط كمالٍ. فإنِ انتفى الأمن تَنْهَر الدولة. الإسرائيلي، إذا أحس بضياع الاقتصاد وذهاب الأمن وفقدان رفاهية العيش، فأهونُ ما عليه هو العودة من حيث أتى. وهذا هو الفارق بين كيان “إسرائيل” وأيّ دولةٍ أخرى. وكان هذا إنجازاً لمعركة “سيف القدس”، لا سابق له. وهذا التقييم ورد على لسان أحد أهم قادة عصرنا الحالي واستراتيجييه، بشهادة العدوّ قبل الصديق.
Pakistani officials have privately begun confirming a secret visit to Islamabad of CIA Director William Burns and are suggesting that he was firmly told that Pakistan would not host the spy agency’s drone bases on its territory, according to the daily Dawn.
This comes after New York Times in an article published on June 6 claimed that Mr Burns had travelled to Pakistan for meetings with Army Chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa and ISI Director General Lt Gen Faiz Hamid to explore the possibility of counterterrorism cooperation between the two sides.
The Central Intelligence Agency is said to be looking for bases around Afghanistan from where it could gather intelligence on Afghanistan and execute counterterrorism strikes after the completion of troop withdrawal from there, the Dawn said.
The purpose of quietly sharing of information by the Pakistani officials with select journalists at this stage apparently looked to dispel the impression that the two sides were engaged in negotiations on hosting of US drone bases by Pakistan.
New York Times article had at one point said that American officials believed that Pakistan wanted to allow the US to access a base. But, it indicated that Pakistani officials were setting very stringent conditions.
“In discussions between American and Pakistani officials, the Pakistanis have demanded a variety of restrictions in exchange for the use of a base in the country, and they have effectively required that they sign off on any targets that either the CIA or the military would want to hit inside Afghanistan, according to three Americans familiar with the discussions,” as per the NYT article.
Dawn quoted officials as saying that the CIA chief wanted to meet Prime Minister Imran Khan, but was plainly told that only counterpart meeting between heads of government of the two countries was possible.
The officials further said the CIA chief was categorically conveyed that no US operation would be allowed from Pakistani territory. They rather suggested to have asked the Americans to hand over the drones to them for carrying out the strikes against terrorist targets.
Three factors
There are three factors that will account for Pakistan’s perseverance and inflexibility on extending basing rights to the United States, according to Dr. Syed Ali Zia Jaffery of the Diplomat.
First, the consistency with which Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan has vociferously opposed his country’s past dealings with Washington has left little room for his government to acquiesce to U.S. requests. Before coming into power, Khan was a staunch critic of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, even launching a campaign against them.
Second, Pakistan aiding the United States in its efforts to keep an eye on the Taliban would likely vitiate the country’s ties with the powerful Afghan group. Pakistan can ill-afford to attenuate its relationship with the Taliban because it is becoming abundantly clear that they are the most dominant player in the Afghan political landscape.
Having already warned Afghanistan’s neighbors against making the historic mistake of allowing the U.S. to operate military bases, the Taliban would certainly not welcome Pakistan taking such a step. They could accuse Pakistan of wilting under U.S. pressure.
Third, Pakistan allowing the U.S. to use military bases for carrying out combat missions will likely be a cause of concern for two of Pakistan’s neighbors: China and Iran. That both countries are adversaries of the United States is all the more troubling. Washington has termed Beijing the biggest threat to U.S. national security.
Coupled with the U.S. aversion to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), this mean that should Pakistan allow U.S. forces to operate out of its territory, Washington would almost certainly use that advantage to keep tabs on CPEC, which is expected to expand and gain momentum. Both Pakistan and China would not like to see the U.S. physically lurking around CPEC hotspots, including the critical Gwadar port.
Other than China, Iran will also be directly affected if Pakistan were to let the U.S. ensconce itself in close proximity to that country, Dr. Syed Ali Zia Jaffery, a strategic affairs and foreign policy analyst, concluded.
Airspace access
Pakistan has allowed the US military to use its airspace and given ground access so that it can support its presence in Afghanistan, a Pentagon official said last month.
David F. Helvey, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Affairs, told the US Senate Armed Services Committee last month that the United States would continue its conversation with Pakistan because it had a critical role in restoring peace to Afghanistan.
The official was replying to a question from Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, who asked him to “outline your assessment of Pakistan, and particularly of Pakistani intelligence agencies, and the role you expect them to play in our future”.
“Pakistan has played an important role in Afghanistan. They supported the Afghan peace process. Pakistan also has allowed us to have over-flight and access to be able to support our military presence in Afghanistan,” Mr Helvey said.
“We will continue our conversations with Pakistan because their support and contribution to the future of Afghanistan, to future peace in Afghanistan, is going to be critical,” he added.
Diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Pakistan had always allowed over-flights and ground access to the US to facilitate its military presence in Afghanistan and would continue to do so.
My submission is that the Feudal system, Army, Bureucrats and Mullahs constitue the Evil Quad of Pakistan.
What do we mean by feudalism? It has several facets-moral and ethical values, political and economic system ,market economy integrating with it etc.
In my view all the above are a composite whole. Moral and ethical values get far more exposure as they result in cruel and medieval violation of Human Rights.
A typically sad story of “vani” was posted recently. A person was killed. The murderer was convicted and sentenced to death by the sessions court. An appeal was filed in High Court. But a compromise was reached by the parties. The murderer was required to pay the family of the victim blood money. He did not have it. The village punchayat decided that five girls from the extended family of the convicted murderer-all under ten at the time-be married off to boys from the victims extended family. The girls are now educated, the boys remain country bumpkins, and the girls refuse to live with the “spouses” they were “nikahified” to when they were babies. One cleric says that the Nikahs are not valid. But the victim’s family asserts their right under the “vani” scheme and the grooms, to bring the point home as it were, shot and injured two brothers of the girls. They,presumably, did not shoot to kill as they would, in turn, have to provide vani girls.
This story is very instructive and presents so many socially accepted norms of the society.
First, the High Court had to surrender its jurisdiction under the Law of Qisas. The murder was deemed an offence against a family and not the state. This would logically open the way, if a rich person was so inclined, to murder a poor person and reach a compromise to pay a bit of his ill gotten wealth. There is little chance that the compromise will be turned down. People when they are starving, in a State with negligible social supports, sell their daughters into concubinage. All the rich person has to do is to take care not to kill a person from an affluent family. Second, we face the concept of the female human as commodity. Her body is for a punchayat to sell/barter or mortgage even under age girls. To my mind this is a greater atrocity than a punchayat ordained rape. In the latter case the victims are at least adults, not babies.
Third, babies can be legally wedded under parental/gaurdian consent.
Fourth, a cleric says that the nikah is not valid. This is a peculiarly “Islamic” fuddle. There should, one would have thought, be no controvercy on such a basic legal contract as a Nikah.
One could write a book on the moral turpitude of the feudal society, and people have done so, but parade of naked women through a village bazzar, first night of a bride in the chieftain’s bed (not the husband), “Honor” kliing, wedding to the Quran, bedding peasant’s wives routinely, forcing school teachers to leave the village lest the children be infected by the literacy virus, serfdom, bonded labor, feudal jails are a few illustrative examples.
Now let us move on to economic impact of feudalism. Land is not scientificlly utilized. With out ownership rights the tiller does not have an incentive to do his best. He is likely to be dispossessed any way, if he can not come up with his over lord’s share, as it would inevitably happen from time to time. An independent small farmers’ share of water is routonely usurped if the big man’s lands do not get enough of it.
But the biggest albatross is the instinctive resistance of large estate holders to modern farming techniques. They are apprehensive ,and correctly so, that the advent of modern technology, though it gave them enhanced revenues, would sound the death knell of their privelege. They love their place in heirarchy, and rightly so from their perspective, their demi-god status, which no amount of money can offer.
And privelege gave monetary dividend too. Aggricultural income was tax exempt!!. They now pay a nominal tax. Buying barren land was a standard measure of tax evasion. I know a lot of doctors in Karachi who did that. Inter related with their perogeratives is their sway over the local bureucrats and the police. Vast majority of their crimes are not registerred by the police, that is, if the victim dare approach the police station. If a dare-devil does, he is likely to have his mud hut ransacked and his women folk abducted.
They get away with murder, and weddings to the Quran to keep the property in the family(in country head of PPP has two sisters so married).
This ,incidentally, works at the national level as well. Bhutto pointedly asked a recalcitrant High Court judge if his daughter still went to college.
The local Deputy Commisioner (now DCO) will back them up. It is a symbiotic relationship. The feudal will protect them by virtue of his seat in the parliament.
Election in rural constituencies, 80% of the whole lot, is a farce. Peasants are told off to vote for one or the other faction of feudals. It is a veritable musical chairs. Parliamentary seats are inherited. All political parties are patronized. It is a family affair. The most notable example is Abida Husain in ML, and her husband Fakhre-Imam in PPP.
The “Civic” society lost all legitimacy and claim on public support when political parties, feudals and their hangers on, aided and abetted the bureucratic subversion of the political process.They let Ghulam Muhammad, and later Iskander Mirza get away with unconstituitional acts. I recall a story of a wadera taking off rhe soes of Ghulam Muhammad, while on a cruise on GM barrage. He was a mnister a few days later.
High Judiciary gave them a legal fig leaf when the Supreme court decided not to take up his dissolution of the Constituent Assembly.
When the writing was clear on the wall that the scheduled 1958 elections will bring professional bourgoise to power, they conspired with the army to install military rule. Ayub was given a legal fig leaf too.
I must mention the structural difference between East and West Pakistan. The feudals in the East were mostly Hindus. They left for India. Professional bourgoise got a chance to dominate the political process. It is a little known fact that feudalism was abolished in East Pakistan about the same time as it was in India.
When Bhutto, whatever his other faults, and there were many, was able to establish civilian supermacy, the politicians openly encouraged the army to over throw him. His erstwhile sycophants, like the proverbial jackals, hid in the bushes when he was subjected to judicial murder.
They collaborated with Zia in all ways, joining his cabinet, giving retroactive parliamentary sanction for all he violations of the law, and taking part in non-party elections. Fakhr-e-Imam was for a while central assembly speaker. They aided and abetted him in passage of abnoxious Huddod and other laws. Post Zia, during the ten year civilian interregum they did not repeal the laws.
They kow-towed to the army chief Kakar when he forced the PM and President both to resign.
They all serve in the Government of the Ghazi of Kargil, Mullah, ML, PPP, and bureucrats, feudals the whole lot. The ones outside are those the Ghazi did not deign to pick up.
For all his high “falutin” progressive views Aitazaz Ahsan and many other like him do not hesitate in working with the champions of Quran weddings, and spreading the red carpet for the reincarnation of Elizabeth I (when she was PM, Benazir acted the part. Now she is Queen Mary of Scotts. There is a minor difference though, niether of the royal ladies was an embezzler).
They courted fascist organizations like MQM in their quest for offices.
Perhaps the worst exhibition of power hunger and self abasement was the pilgrimage of Benazir to Army GHQ to seek General Aslam Beg’s blessings to be allowed to become PM. He was a collaborator of her father’s assasins. Contrast her behaviour with that of Hasina of BD whose father had also been killed by the Army. She had the army officers tried in a court of law.
Aslam Beg once went to the Supreme Court, and loudly proclaimed that yes, he had diverted hundreds of millions of Government funds to finance candidates and walked away!! The justices gave not a whimper of protest. Only a few honest and intrepid souls like Abid Manto, resisted the embelishments of power.
And Asma Jahangir and her ilk, would have us root for the pansies who masquerade as politicos in Pakistan!! Feudals have undergone tremendous change in post colonial dispensation. They have broken their proverbial chains. They do not give a good God ,,, to law any more.
European feudalism took on the Royalty. The common man was relatively empowered in the process. Our Royals were overtaken by the western bourgeoise. Our feudals never got the chance to follow that path. I should not have to define abolition of feudal system. We have the examples of India and the then East Pakistan. Roughly, the feudals were allowed to keep only the land they themselves cultivated, not share cropped, with a ceiling on canal and rain dependent land. They were left with fruit orchards they worked themselves, again with a ceiling. There were limits on other holdings as well.
India did it because Indian National congress was controlled ny the Indian bourgeoise. East Pakistan got away with it because their feudals were Hindus. Pakistan (West)went through the motions, with out achieving any thing twice, in Ayub and Bhutto days.
Acquisition of vast land holdings by civil/military establishments is an interesting study. If you ask your security gaurd to intervene in your family disputes, he will eventually take over your holdings. The triad of feudals, bureucrats and Mullahs asked the army ,time and again, to get rid of one bunch of civilians or another. The quad constitutes the van gaurd of the society in Pakistan.
Ayub Khan retired the generals from the army on appointment to the cabinet or governorships. His officers learnt graft from the civilians. His son became an industrial magnate over night. Coveted lands were alloted to a select few.Army commission started taking precedence over superior civil services. Indian army officers were green with envy.
But the corruption was limited to a tiny percentage of officers.
Come Zia, he introduced officers, brigadier and above, still in uniform to higher level civilian jobs. He turned a blind eye- it was not too difficult for him, he was cross eyed-to the Generals who were raking it in, in drug and arms trade. Land allotment continued. Army went into commerce and industry in a big way.
Now the army are trying to disposses farmers in Sargodha and many other places in the Punjab.
The Ghazi has placed even junior officers in civilian jobs.
A clear case of collusion between the army and the feudals/bureucrats/mullahs can be made out. Army got land, industries and commerce as a pay off for protecting the vested interests.
Asma is supposed to have emphasised the difference between Islam, Islamists and findamentalists. This is parsing. She could do it with finnese, if she got a lesson or two from the greatest living exponent of the art, good old Bill Clinton.
She should get credit for refusing to visit Guantamo Bay unless she could interview the prisioners with out security gaurds around. UN personnel have turned down similar invitations. That adds to her credibilty, and that may have been the point.
NGO’s and Human Right’s organizations in the third world are beholden to the Imperium for funds and patronage. They are allowed to criticize their Govenments and do cosmetic work. They make a decent living, and would be hard put to making ends meet if the largesse was with drawn. They, like the main stream media in the West and East, do not have to be told in so many words, the bounderies they might not cross. They are truly house broken. They would not participate in any movement aimed at structural change. They would not call for abolition of feudalism. They would not support a militant trade union.
They would sob when a woman’s honor was violated. They would exhibit her in international forums. They would rail against a minor cog in the machine. But they would shy away from raising a finger against the core evil as Asma did.
It is of course a complex problem and mind boggling in scope. The evil quad-Feudals, Army, Bureucrats and the junior hanger ons, the Mullahs are entrenched in Pakistan. Population is exploding. No amount of development, even if the Government were honest, could hope to cope with increase in numbers. Half hearted family planning campaigns are launched once in while but are hastily withdrawn at the first protest from the Mullahs. Illiteracy levels are actually on the rise. Subterfuges are utilized to claim increase in the number of the literate. Any one who can painstakingly scribble his/her name is included in the ranks. Standard of education is so low that university graduates are hard put to write a simple job application. Water supply is totally inadequate. The military have taken over the supply in all major cities, and they charge a hefty price. Air pollution is such that a visitor can not tolerate it during rush hours in Karachi and Lahore. Policemen wear masks. There is a medical condition in which persons exposed to polluted air for long have difficulty breathing clean air. City dwellers in Pakistan hate going out of town. Joblessness has reached alarming proportions. Frustrated youth join the ranks of robbbers and zealots.Health care has deteriorated so that basic services have to be bought, or gone with out.Graft and corruption have reached such heights that it is virtually impossible to get any thing done with out paying a bribe. Long gone are the days when dishonest money was a mtter of shame. Now it is flaunted. Cost of living is such that the vast majority of people just subsist. IMF and world Bank dictate privatization, so basic food will soon get beyond the reach of the common man. Infra- structure, roads , bridges, railway system, electric supply, canals, ports, drainage system,all have been allowed to deteriorate. Clifton in Karachi, a posh area is rendered imppassable for days after an inch or two of rain.There are some show case roads like the motorway and the super highway. But most city roads are full of pot holes or worse. The problem is immense and the sob sisters, agents provcateurs all, would have us worked up at one component of the evil quad, the quasi-military dispensation. They are perhaps worried about their kin getting lesser proportion of the loot.
We, of course, do not have an equitable and civil society. How could we? Distributive justice is an illusion. With the evil quad functioning as the vangaurd of the society, how can it be otherwise?
Scarce resources, from day one, have been wasted on buying arms. They have not enhanced the country’s security. Kashmir(with out going into the merits of the case) is still firmly in the grip of India.Insurgency in Indian controlled Kashmir could not survive with out infiltration of saboteurs from Pakistan. It would be as peaceful as the Indian Punjab where insurgency subsided after Benazir withdrew support from Khalistanis. No Kashmiri in his proper senses would opt for Pakistan any way. They have seen the fate of the country men. Niether country would countenance independence of the region. India pretends that it is a matter of secular principles. Pakistan bases its claim on religious affiliation. The actual prize is the water source.
The vaunted bravery of Pakistani soldiers came to nought in East Pakistan. The commanding General had his epaulets torn off by his opposite number in the Indian Army in full glare of international TV camera lights. A Japanese officer would have committed Hara Kiri. The Pakistani officer socialized, wined and dined with the victors the same evening.
The Ghazi of Kargil managed to suprise the Indians. He had tactical advantage.The PM, stupid that he was ,lauded the bravery of “our martyrs and Ghazis”. But when the going got rough, he had to hasten to Clinton, with tail between legs, to beg for rescue of the country.
The Ghazi cried foul and used it as a pretext to throw the man out.
The much bally hoed efficiency of the army has been exposed recently..Witness their disarray in earthquake relief. That India wants to take over the country is a totally fraudulent concept, exceeding the lies and fabrication of Iraq and WMDs. If India wanted to take over, all Indra Gandhi had to do was to tell her Generals to walk into Lahore in 1971. Pakistan army, never any good except at subjugating unarmed civilians,was in shambles.
I can not vouch for the veracity of the statement, it seems to stand to reason, but a high Indian retired security official told me that in 1971, Indra did want to fulfil the dream of her father- of an undivided India. Her Generals were also gung ho. But she was quizzed by the right wingers in her party, if she really wanted to add to the already considerable number of Muslims in India. With the Muslims of Pakistan in its fold, Indian population adhering to the faith would be 35% of the total. A united and determined 30% can control the central legislature. With 15% of the population, Muslims are the deciding vote on 200 of the 565 seats in the Indian parliament. Congress wins if Muslims support it. They lose when Muslims sit out an election.
Indra quietly subsided.
Canada sits next door to the US behemoth. It does not strive to go down the self destruct path of competing with the giant neighbor. Why can’t Pakistan? Why can’t the country utilize its resources for economic development which will impart it stability? It is among the lowest rank of underdeveloped countries in social services expenditure. NGO’s and Human Right workers, even if their primary loyalty was to the country, have but the substance of straws in a hurricane. For structural change, I can see no alternative to a grass roots radical movement comprising Industrial workers, Peasants, Serfs, Landless laborers, Petty bourgeoise, Lower grade Government officials and Teachers led by Progressives in the vangaurd. It is incumbent on all the honest intellectuals to join the movement. The Government will come down hard on them, but they will prevail in the end. The honest among the do gooders are frittering away their energy, wasting their time, and impeding the historical purpose.
Bio:
I was born in Dewa Sharif, UP, India in 1939.
I went to school from the fourth to eighth class in Gonda, UP and the 9th grade in Jhansi, UP, India.
We moved to Quetta, Pakistan and went to school for the 10th grade and intermediate college in the same town.
I was in Karachi University 1954-57, then Dow Medical College 1957-62. I Was in the National Students Federation from 1954 to 1962, trained in surgery in the Civil Hospital Karachi 1962-65, proceeded to England 1965 and trained in General surgery and orthopedic surgery till 73, when I left for Canada 1973-74, USA 1974-83, back to Karachi 1983 and built a hospital and went back to the USA in 1991, been in the USA since.
I retired from surgery in 2005.
I have worked in various HR and Socialist groups in the USA.
I have Published two books ,:”A Medical Doctor Examines Life on Three Continents,” and ,”God, Government and Globalization”, and am working on the third one, “An Analysis of the Sources and Derivation of Religions”.
It was the virtual ‘midnight knock’! The irony was that the knock took place in broad daylight, and expectedly in a blatantly unjust, uncivilised and unconstitutional manner. On 6 June 2018, Sudhir Dhawale, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut, Shoma Sen and Rona Wilson were arrested from their residences in various parts of the country. The arrests of others then continued in a phased manner: on 28 August 2018, Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao and Vernon Gonsalves; on 14 April 2020, Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha; on 28 July 2020, Hanybabu Tarayil; on 10 September 2020, Sagar Gorkhe, Ramesh Gaichor and (the next day) Jyoti Jagtap – all three from the Kabir Kala Manch were arrested from Pune; finally on 8 October 2020, Fr Stan Swamy was arrested from Ranchi.
It is three years now since the first arrests in the Bhima-Koregaon conspiracy case were made. Today, sixteen (referred to as the BK-16) of the country’s committed citizens continue to languish in jail, with bail being denied to them and with absolutely no signs of any trial beginning. They are no ordinary men and women; they are trade unionists, human rights activists, academics, lawyers, intellectuals and artists. Their crime? To take sides with the poor and the marginalised, to be a voice for the voiceless, to fight for the rights of the Adivasis and Dalits, the women and children, the workers and farmers. They have fought battles in courts; helped organise people to fight for their legitimate rights; consistently exposed the nexus between the politicians and their powerfully rich friends and above all been working for a society which is more just, equitable, free, fraternal and humane. In doing so they have also raised the hackles of the BJP, RSS and their ilk, who obviously have not taken things lightly.
The arrests were preceded by interrogations and investigations; then came the raids! During the raids, the police seized their laptops, mobile phones, pen drives, CDs, documents and apparently whatever they could lay their hands upon (the tragedy was when they seized Fr Stan’s personal belongings – which consisted of practically nothing! With media posting those photos – the joke actually was on the fascist clowns!). All sixteen of them have been charged under provisions of anti-terror law Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and IPC sections 153 A (promoting enmity between groups), 505 (1)(b) (with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public). 117 (abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than 10 persons). They have also been charged under Sections 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy), 18B (recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) 20 (being a member of a terrorist gang or organization) and 39 (offence relating to support given to terrorist organisation) of the UAPA. All fabricated charges – without the slightest shred of evidence! Besides, fairly recently the US-based digital forensic analyst in a report has provided significant information of how so-called ‘electronic evidence’ was planted in the computer of Rona Wilson one of the sixteen!
All these arrests apparently have their ‘roots’ in a mass rally of Dalits, who assemble every year on 1 January in Bhima Koregaon, a small village about 30 km north-east of Pune; the massive rally, which brings together lakhs of Dalits from all over the country, commemorates the historic victory of lower-caste Mahar soldiers in the British army over the Brahmin Peshwa-led Maratha Empire in 1818; and 2018 marked the 200th anniversary of the Bhima Koregaon battle.
In the run-up to the rally, a coalition of 260 non-profit organisations held on 31 December 2017, an event called ‘Elgar Parishad’ at Pune’s Shaniwar Wada. This was the seat of the Peshwai, the Brahmin rulers of the Maratha Empire who rigidly enforced caste discrimination. The Elgar Parishad featured several well-known personalities like politicians Prakash Ambedkar and Jignesh Mewani and Dalit rights activist Radhika Vemula.
The Marathas and some of the upper castes resented the Dalit gathering and apparently Hindutva leaders like Milind Ekbote, head of the Hindu Ekta Manch, and Sambhaji Bhide, chief of the Shiv Pratishthan Hindustan made provocative, anti-Dalit speeches a few days before the event. Large-scale violence broke out in some parts of Maharashtra on 1 and 2 January 2018. On 3 January, police filed cases against Ekbote and Bhide, for allegedly instigating the violence on Dalits. However, while Ekbote was released on bail soon after being arrested in March, Bhide has not yet been arrested, despite a Supreme Court order demanding his arrest. Bhide is close to several of the RSS leaders including PM Modi.
Strangely the tables soon turned- very obviously with pressure from the ‘higher-ups’: the victims became the perpetrators. In June 2018, five activists (as we mentioned earlier), mainly organisers of the Elgar Parishad were arrested for apparently ‘inciting the violence’ and this was followed by the arrest of eleven others till Fr Stan’s arrest on 8 October 2020 (most of these latter are not connected with the Elgar Parishad or for that matter with Bhima-Koregaon). These past three years, there is national and even international outrage at this unconstitutional and repressive act by the Government and their henchmen from the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) Civil society from across the board, including intellectuals, academics have these past three years written statements, signed petitions, held press conferences and protest rallies in different parts of the country and the world. On 11 June 2021, hundreds of concerned citizens from all walks of life joined family and friends of the BK-16 in a pathbreaking webinar ‘Campaign Against State Repression”, demanding the immediate release of those incarcerated and the repeal of the UAPA
Writing a powerful op-ed in the Indian Express (10 June 2021) under the title ‘When justice is incarcerated’, well-known human rights worker and author Harsh Mander says, “three years later, the trial against them has still not commenced. The state has succeeded in misusing the law — with the complicity of all institutions of criminal justice — to confine behind bars the BK-16 accused, without any opportunity for either bail or to prove their innocence. The flimsy evidence marshalled against the accused rests on some alleged emails, but independent agencies contest that these are malign insertions though malware.
The experience of the BK-16 accused reveals the ease with which it is possible for the executive to smear reputations, and imprison indefinitely without bail or trial, people who dissent and organise struggles against state policies. During the pandemic, when governments globally have decongested prisons, the state has been steadfast in its opposition to bail for these pre-trial political prisoners, even after they displayed worrying signs of life-threatening illness.”
In his article Mander not only voices the plain truth but also the concerns of millions of Indians and others; he also exposes the brutality and the lack of humanity that is clearly the DNA of a fascist regime that brooks no dissent! Already in 2018, noted historian Ramachandra Guha lashed out at the government over the arrests of activists, calling it a “brutal, authoritarian, oppressive, arbitrary. Illegal act by the Maharashtra police”. Mr. Guha categorically stated, “corporate cronies of the ruling government were bent on grabbing tribal land, forest and mineral resources.This is absolutely chilling. This is being done to not only intimidate and silence those detained but also those who could potentially come to their legal rescue. The courts must intervene to stop this persecution and harassment of independent voices. Sudha Bharadwaj is as far from violence and illegality as Amit Shah is close to those things. As a biographer of Gandhi, I have no doubt that if the Mahatma was alive today, he would don his lawyer’s robes and defend Bharadwaj in court; that is assuming the Modi Sarkar hadn’t yet detained and arrested him too.” Going further he said, (those arrested) “are people who represent the country’s disenfranchised and the dispossessed. What is happening in the Adivasi heartland of India… it is murder, rape, physical, natural, social… and these were the lawyers representing the tribals… and their arrest leaves those dispossessed unrepresented in court.”.
In a letter dated 10 June 2021 and addressed to the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and others, as many as fifty-seven top international personalities, including Nobel laureates, academics, human rights defenders, lawyers, cultural personalities, and members of Parliament of European countries, have urged them to ensure immediate release of human rights defenders in India “into safe conditions”. Signatories to the letter include Polish writer Olga Tokarczuk (Nobel Prize for Literature 2018) and Nigerian writer Wole Soyinka (Nobel Prize for Literature 1986), former president of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention José Antonio Guevara-Bermúdez, and former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams.
These eminent international personalities, have clearly stated in their letter that the Indian government and authorities should show compassion and responsibility in the current COVID- 19 emergency and release them given the spread of the pandemic in Indian prisons. Their constitutional right to live and die in dignity needs to be guaranteed under the present circumstances, given that legal recourse takes a long time and all of the arrested are under pre-trial detention, they add. This appeal follows an initiative of International Solidarity for Academic Freedom in India (Insaf India), a collective of diasporic Indian academics and professionals from around the world, the as well as numerous prominent lawyers and members of parliament from Germany, UK, Spain, Ireland and other countries.
The open letter said, “among the thousands in India arrested for “political offences” is a group known as the Bhima-Koregaon (BK)-16: four academics, three lawyers, two independent journalists, a union organizer and social activist, a poet, three performing artists, and a Jesuit priest. A majority of them are senior citizens, some of whom have comorbidities that render them particularly vulnerable. All are human rights defenders with a record of writing, speaking and organizing for the rights of workers, minorities, Dalits, and Adivasis through peaceful and constitutional means”. Their letter ends unequivocally, “with this letter, we call on the Indian authorities to take urgent and prompt action:
Release the BK-16 from overcrowded and unsafe prisons immediately.
Allow them to be cared for by their kin.
Show compassion and responsibility in order to avoid catastrophic consequences.
Ensure them their constitutional right to live and die in dignity”.
The country is going through dark times: every single democratic institution is being systematically dismantled and even destroyed. Constitutional and other independent authorities, which were well known for their objectivity and impartiality in the past, have now become caged parrots; this is so obvious be it the case of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the NIA and for that matter, even the Election Commission. Some of those in the judiciary – have brought a pillar of democracy down to the ground with their totally obnoxious, prejudiced and one-sided judgements. The less said about mainstream media the better: they have lost their morality and become a wholly lapdog one. The ruling regime has thrown all propriety to the wind with their brazen corrupt, communal, insensitive anti-national and unconstitutional ways
But thank God for the BK-16: Sudhir Dhawale, Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut, Shoma Sen Rona Wilson Arun Ferreira, Sudha Bharadwaj, Varavara Rao and Vernon Gonsalves, Anand Teltumbde, Gautam Navlakha, Hanybabu Tarayil, Sagar Gorkhe, Ramesh Gaichor, Jyoti Jagtap and Fr Stan Swamy. The system that has incarcerated them is brutal, rotten and unjust. They suffer today in jail because they believed in the idea of India, in the Constitution, in the ‘we the people’, in the rights of the excluded and the exploited. They were voices of democracy and of dissent – and because of that, they are paying the price today.
We all need to be eternally grateful for these heroes, these real freedom fighters of today’s India! We who are not yet in prison – are called to be more visible and vocal: to keep the torch which they have given us, burning! The struggle for their immediate freedom, for justice for all and for the complete repeal of the UAPA must continue relentlessly. We cannot be complacent or think that what has happened to the BK-16 does not concern us! Our engagement today may guarantee a more liveable India for future generations. Deep down we know that we will overcome: because JUSTICE and TRUTH always triumph – till then the struggle will continue!
(Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ is a human rights and peace activist/writer. Contact: [email protected])
U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district Ilhan Omar has already burst onto the political scene, and apparently ethnic cleansers and the Jewish lobby in the United States do not like this.
Omar has recently upset “nearly half of the Jewish Democratic lawmakers in the House” because she has summoned the moral and political law in order to assess what the US and Israel have been doing over the past few years or so. She asserted:
“We must have the same level of accountability and justice for all victims of crimes against humanity. We have seen unthinkable atrocities committed by the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban.”
That’s not supposed to be controversial at all. But among those groups, guess which one is upset? Well, you’ve got it: the Jewish democrats came out with pitchforks saying:
“equating the United States and Israel to Hamas and the Taliban is as offensive as it is misguided. Ignoring the differences between democracies governed by the rule of law and contemptible organizations that engage in terrorism at best discredits one’s intended argument and at worst reflects deep-seated prejudice. The United States and Israel are imperfect and, like all democracies, at times deserving of critique, but false equivalencies give cover to terrorist groups. We urge Congresswoman Omar to clarify her words placing the U.S. and Israel in the same category as Hamas and the Taliban.”
Let’s just lay it on the line: the Taliban cannot and will never be able to top either the United States or Israel when it comes to committing crimes against humanity. Never! If you think otherwise, then pick up just one scholarly study: Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States, by Rebecca Gordon. According to a 2018-report, the so-called war on terror, for example, is responsible for the deaths of at least 500,000 precious lives in Afghanistan Iraq, and Pakistan.
In any event, Omar was absolutely right: every country has to be examined on the same balance. If the United States and Israel cannot abide by the moral law, then they have absolutely no business going around killing precious civilians in the name of democracy and freedom. But it appears that Omar’s statement was viewed as anti-Semitic: “The House previously passed a resolution by Democrats condemning anti-Semitism in response to comments on Israel by Omar, and Republicans have long accused the Minnesota congresswoman of anti-Semitism — a charge she denies.”
It’s just plain silly. You can criticize the crimes in the black community, the United States, the UK, France, Japan, Korea, and you still can be on good terms with the powers that be. But the moment you say anything about the incestuous relationship between the United States and Israel, all of a sudden you are a vicious anti-Semite!
Well, that dumb ideology isn’t really having enough power over many people anymore, and that’s a good thing.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He is currently working on a book tentatively titled, Kevin MacDonald’s Abject Failure: A Philosophical and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and White Identity. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
باحث في “معهد واشنطن” يربط بين اغتيال المتحدث العسكري باسم “هيئة تحرير الشام” والمفاوضات بين روسيا والولايات المتحدة حول الحفاظ على المساعدات في المناطق الخارجة عن سيطرة الحكومة السورية.
المتحدث العسكري باسم “هيئة تحرير الشام” قتل بغارة جوية سورية
كتب الباحث في “معهد واشنطن” أرون زيلين مقالاً تحليلياً اعتبر فيه أن واشنطن ليست حليفاً لـ”هيئة تحرير الشام”، لكن “عليها أن تدرك أن الضربات الروسية ضد الجماعة تهدف بشكل مباشر إلى إحباط الأهداف الأميركية في جنيف، بما في ذلك الجهود المبذولة للحفاظ على المساعدات عبر الحدود”.
وأشار زيلين إلى قتل المتحدث العسكري باسم “هيئة تحرير الشام” أبو خالد الشامي في قرية عبلين السورية، بالإضافة إلى مسؤولين آخرين من التنظيم البارز في محافظة إدلب، داعياً إلى “النظر إلى الحادث في سياق مفاوضات الأمم المتحدة بين الولايات المتحدة وروسيا حول الحفاظ على المساعدات الإنسانية عبر الحدود في المناطق الخارجة عن سيطرة (الرئيس السوري) بشار الأسد”.
1- أن إدلب “لا تزال تديرها جماعة إرهابية مصنّفة من قبل الولايات المتحدة، لذا فإن تقديم المساعدات الإنسانية لتلك المنطقة غير ضروري”.
2- “لا شيء تفعله واشنطن سيغيّر من حقيقة أن روسيا تمتلك كل النفوذ العسكري في سوريا وتواصل اتّباع سياساتها من موقع قوّة”.
وخلص الكاتب إلى أن على واشنطن “أن تدرك أن الضربات الروسية ضد التنظيم هي طريقة أخرى لبوتين لتأكيد أنه الشخص الأقوى على الساحة السورية”.
وتابع: “استمرار النهج الضعيف الذي ميّز السياسة الأميركية في سوريا منذ تدخّل روسيا عام 2015، لن يؤدي إلا إلى المزيد من استعراض العضلات، سواء في إدلب أو خلال اجتماعات جنيف أو قبل اتخاذ قرارات دبلوماسية رئيسية أخرى”.
A researcher at the Washington Institute links the assassination of the military spokesman of the Liberation Of Sham to negotiations between Russia and the United States on maintaining aid in areas beyond the control of the Syrian government.
The military spokesman for “Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham” was killed in a Syrian air strike
Washington Institute researcher Aaron Zelin wrote an analytical article in which he argued that Washington is not an ally of the Levant Liberation Authority, but “must realize that Russian strikes against the group are directly aimed at thwarting U.S. targets in Geneva, including efforts to maintain cross-border aid.”
Zelin referred to the killing of the military spokesman of the “Liberation of the Levant” Abu Khalid al-Shami in the Syrian village of Ablain, as well as other officials of the prominent organization in Idlib province, calling for “looking at the incident in the context of the UN negotiations between the United States and Russia on maintaining humanitarian assistance across the border in areas beyond the control of (Syrian President) Bashar al-Assad.”
“By killing the leaders of the Levant Liberation Commission, Vladimir Putin appears to be sending President Joe Biden two letters before their June 16 meeting in Geneva:
1. Idlib “is still run by a terrorist group designated by the United States, so humanitarian assistance to that region is unnecessary.”
“Nothing Washington is doing will change the fact that Russia has all themilitary influence in Syria and continues to pursue its policies from a position of strength,”hesaid.
The author concluded that Washington “should realize that Russian strikes against ISIS are another way for Putin to assert that he is the most powerful person on the Syrian scene.”
“The continued weak approach that has characterized U.S. policy in Syria since Russia’s intervention in 2015 will only lead to further muscle flexing, whether in Idlib, during the Geneva meetings or before other major diplomatic decisions are taken.”
HONG KONG—Hong Kong police arrested at least three protesters on the anniversary of mass protests against an extradition bill involving China in 2019 that rocked the financial hub and eventually led to Beijing introducing its “national security law” that has stifled dissent in the city by making anti-government speech and organizing illegal.
The protesters were arrested for disorderly conduct and failing to produce proof of identity, while at least 10 people were summoned for violating a ban on gatherings, police said, after protests in the Kowloon district of Mongkok and the chanting of slogans in breach of a National Security Law imposed last June.
Some people blocked roads by placing rubbish bins and other objects in them, police said.
“The police strongly condemn protectors’ acts endangering public health and safety,” police said in a post on Facebook shortly before midnight on Saturday.
The three people arrested were male aged 15 to 19, police said.
Small groups gathered on Saturday to commemorate the first major clashes between protesters and police two years ago when tens of thousands demonstrated against a proposed law for the former British colony that would have allowed criminal suspects to be extradited to the mainland for trial.
Many Hong Kong residents saw the proposed law as further erosion of the city’s special status that was supposed to be guaranteed under a “one country, two systems” formula agreed when Britain handed it over to China’s ruling communist party in 1997.
The 2019 protests snowballed over subsequent months into a mass movement for freedom from the Chinese regime and liberal democracy, as opposed to China’s socialist democracy, that included regular clashes between protesters and police firing tear gas and rubber bullets.
Protesters occupy Harcourt Road the government headquarters in Admiralty, Hong Kong, on June 12, 2019. (Lin Yi/The Epoch Times) Police fired tear gas toward the protesters over 10 times near the Legislative Council of Hong Kong on June 12, 2019. (Song Bilong/The Epoch Times)
Police deployed 2,000 officers around the city on Saturday, the South China Morning Post reported.
Police said on the eve of the anniversary that they had arrested two people on suspicion of promoting and inciting others to join an unlawful assembly. Activist group Student Politicism said two of its leaders were arrested.
A mother from England who managed to lose an incredible 70 pounds (32 kg) during her maternity leave by walking 3.8 million steps and changing her diet has rewarded herself with a body-lift surgery.
Michelle Veszpremi, 38, from Rugeley, Staffordshire, was determined to not keep the weight she gained while carrying her second child, Toby, now 2, and started a strict regime just six weeks after giving birth.
(Caters News)
The mom of two had battled weight issues since she was a teen.
“Up until I was around 16, I was pretty average sized for my age but then I met my first serious boyfriend and piled on the pounds when I was in Sixth Form college,” Michelle recalled. “I began comfort eating in a bad relationship and I was 18 stone [252 pounds] before I turned 18.”
Michelle added that she began overeating because she wasn’t happy in her early relationships and her weight soon got out of hand. From then on, she got into a habit of eating large-portion-size meals. In addition, because the people she was with accepted her size, she continued overeating.
During the period in which her weight spiraled out of control, Michelle’s diet consisted of buttered toast for breakfast; a large sandwich, full-fat mayo, crisps, and chocolate for lunch; and she gorged on biscuits, baked cakes and brownies, and donuts for an evening snack. Meanwhile, for dinner, Michelle ate oversized portions of pasta, pizza, or full-fat versions of food.
At her heaviest, she had once tipped the scales at 287 pounds (130 kg), crippling her 5-foot-6-inch frame. By the time she was 24 years old, she was heartbroken by her size-28 figure.
Michelle before losing weight. (Caters News)
At that point, in 2007, she did manage to lose 84 pounds (38 kg). Michelle’s parents always wanted her to be healthier and supported her decision to lose weight.
“I had enough of being big and it holding me back,” Michelle said. “My weight fluctuated over a number of years, especially having my two children.”
Thus, after her second child, Michelle set herself a target to get to her lowest weight, refusing to keep her post-pregnancy weight as she had after her first daughter, Molly, now 6.
“After having my first child, I just ate and ate and I didn’t want to slip down that slope again,” Michelle said.
So six weeks after giving birth to Toby, Michelle weighed herself and began her weight loss journey at 234 pounds (106 kg). She had decided enough was enough, and set a target for her lowest ever weight.
Michelle began to track her steps, managing to reach 3.8 million, in a bid to drop her baby weight. Twelve months later, she had shed an incredible 70 pounds and says she was already sporting 161 pounds (73 kg).
“I wanted to transform myself and walk back into work after a year on maternity leave and for people to say WOW!,” Michelle said. “It took me a year to get to my target. I had a year off work and no excuses. I would walk for miles and miles while my baby slept.”
(Caters News)
She also shifted to healthier diet options, such as porridge, yogurt, and fruit for breakfast; soup, egg, or toast for lunch; and low-calorie snacks for an evening snack option. Meanwhile, for dinner, Michelle ate smaller portions of pasta, adding more vegetarian options.
“I can eat whatever I fancy but in moderation and gradually lost the weight by calorie counting and exercise,” she said. “I now know exactly what I am putting in my body and what I am eating.”
Last year, Michelle was just 14 pounds (6.3 kg) away from her target weight. Meanwhile, the extreme weight gain and loss had left her with a large amount of loose skin on her stomach.
Michelle before her body-lift surgery. (Caters News)
“I knew I was ready to go under the knife to help me reveal the body I had worked so hard for,” she said.
Michelle thus spent 8,500 pounds (approx. US$12,000) on surgery to remove the loose skin from her body, having a 360-degree body lift.
“I had to get rid of the skin. The operation was canceled last April because of lockdown but I finally had the surgery in October and I cried with happiness when I knew it was all gone,” she said. “It made me so happy and I am really pleased with my scars and the results. They are a million times better than loose skin.”
“I feel like a new woman,” she added. “My ultimate goal is 10st 7lbs [147 pounds], I need to lose another stone to reach my final target weight, but I’m unrecognizable now and I have never been happier.”
(Caters News)
Michelle now proudly shows off her size-10 wardrobe and shares her eating and diet tips on her Instagram page. She has been amazed by the support online and said that sharing her story has kept her motivated.
The new measure is all about countering US/Western use of weaponized sanctions to wage war on China by other means.
Adopted Thursday by China’s National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee, the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law retaliates against what’s imposed illegally on the country, its entities and individuals.
It provides a legal foundation for countering US/Western war on China by other means.
Measures authorized include denial of visas that permit entry into the country, deporting targeted individuals, freezing or seizing property, as well as restricting or denying permission to conduct various transactions.
The law lets entities and individuals affected by foreign sanctions pursue legal action for damages in Chinese courts.
After adoption of the measure, NPC Standing Committee head Li Zhanshu said the following:
“China will not give up its legitimate interests.”
“(N)o one should have any illusion of letting China swallow the bitter fruit that harms our own interests.”
China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin stressed that the new law protects the sovereignty and core interests of the nation against hostile foreign actions, adding:
It “provides a strong legal basis and support for China to counteract foreign discriminatory measures.”
Its adoption is notably in response to illegal US, EU, UK, and Canadian sanctions on issues related to Hong Kong and phony accusations of human rights abuses against Jinjiang Uyghur Muslims.
Law Professor Tian Feilong said discussions began about drafting the measure in response to hostile US actions during Trump’s tenure.
No action was taken to see if Biden might go another way.
When the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee backed the hostile to China Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 last April, a draft of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law was finalized ahead of its subsequent adoption — based on “Biden’s China policies,” Tian explained.
Supporting the legislation, he quoted a Chinese saying that goes:
“Offend no one if none offends you, but retaliate if you are under attack.”
Beijing established a mechanism for responding to foreign sanctions.
China’s Foreign Ministry, its State Council, and other bodies are empowered to prepare countermeasures in response to hostile foreign actions.
Hong Kong’s chief executive Carrie Lam said the new law gives the US and West “a taste of their own medicine.”
Law Professor Huo Zhezngxin explained the following:
“The law precisely and effectively targets those who have taken unilateral sanctions in hurting China’s interests, and this targeted group can be expanded to their relatives or organizations, which would have strong deterrent effect.”
Huo, Tian, and other Chinese legal experts believe the first of its kind law will effectively support the country, its entities and citizens against hostile actions by foreign countries — notably US-dominated Western ones.
It shows that when China’s sovereignty, security, development, and other issues are damaged, it will retaliate appropriately.
Earlier responses by Beijing to hostile US/Western actions were “fragmented and without sufficient legal basis,” said Tian, adding:
The Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law provides a “complete legal basis, offering (China) the same position as the West in taking countermeasures.”
It makes them more systematic, scientific and powerful, he stressed.
Spokesperson for China’s Legislative Affairs Commission of the NPC Standing Committee said the new measure will have no adverse impact on the country’s economic development.
Beijing hopes the new law will deter further hostile US/Western actions.
Because of China’s prominence on the world stage free from US control, chances of achieving this aim are virtually nil.
CNN claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping is struggling to enhance his country’s image abroad due to a combination of so-called “wolf warriors” and the COVID-19 pandemic. In reality, China has developed a “propaganda vaccine” through its fact-based and thought-provoking international outreach efforts that continue to prove its effectiveness by the week in inoculating people from the pernicious impact of information warfare.
The steady improvement of China’s soft power across the world has triggered intense jealousy from CNN as evidenced by one of their latest smear attacks against the country. They published an article last week titled “China Wants To ‘Make Friends’ With The World. But Beijing Can’t Kick Its Wolf Warrior Habits” It claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping is struggling to enhance his country’s image abroad due to a combination of so-called “wolf warriors” and the COVID-19 pandemic. In reality, China has developed a “propaganda vaccine” through its fact-based and thought-provoking international outreach efforts that continue to prove its effectiveness by the week in inoculating people from the pernicious impact of information warfare.
The first point from CNN’s piece that needs to be debunked is the allegation that “wolf warriors” are a detriment to China’s public diplomacy. This term refers to Chinese patriots and their foreign supporters who passionately defend the country from propaganda attacks and articulate the Chinese Dream of a Community of Common Destiny in an emerging Multipolar World Order. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian is described as the embodiment of concept, though CNN misportrays him in a negative light. This diplomat is actually a positive role model for anyone across the world who’s sincere about speaking the truth amidst a barrage of never-ending lies. Mr. Zhao inspires others with his natural confidence and familiarity with the facts.
As for the allegation that the COVID-19 pandemic has harmed China’s soft power, that’s also another falsehood peddled by the American media outlet. Unlike the US, China has shared its vaccines widely with the rest of the world, especially the desperate nations of the Global South. This has earned it the respect of hundreds of millions, perhaps soon even billions, of people. Although Western information warfare operatives continue to claim that the virus originated from a Chinese biological laboratory, people are increasingly suspicious about Washington’s motives in pushing this conspiratorial narrative, especially since the US refuses to discuss the safety of its own such facilities like Fort Detrick. This suggests that the US might be hiding something.
Throughout the past years, Chinese media has succeeded in reviving what what have otherwise been the deceased profession of journalism by sticking to factual reporting and only publishing insightful analyses of recent events. The West hijacked this noble profession in order to turn it into a platform for spewing propaganda under the cover of journalism. Very rarely does one read anything entirely factual about China, as the best that they can hope for is a few facts thrown into whatever article they come across in an insincere attempt to add credence to the multiple falsehoods peddled within. This is especially true whenever Western media attempts to meddle in China’s internal affairs, something that China’s media has never done to the West.
Many observers within the West itself proclaimed the advent of the so-called “post-truth era” upon former US President Trump’s victory in the 2016 elections. They put forth the notion that truth no longer matters since all that’s important is the manipulation of the target audience’s perceptions. Although they meant to discredit Trump’s surprising victory, they ironically reported some truth about themselves for the first time in a while. There’s no doubt that Trump was a masterful perception manager back during the days when he was still allowed on social media, but it was those same Western mainstream media outlets that criticized him which perfected these tactics and strategies, thereby setting the precedent that he would then then use against them.
All of this is pertinent to China because the People’s Republic refused to go with the flow and submit to its counterparts’ claims that journalism was dead. It was indeed dying, but it hadn’t passed away just yet, which provided China with the opportunity to revive the profession through a combination of its own media outlets, diplomats, patriotic citizens, and their most passionate supporters abroad. These all came together to create an unquestionable contrast between East and West whereby the former showed that it had successfully picked up the torch from the latter and was keeping the spirit of truth alive during the dark days of the past half-decade. The end effect is that their audience was increasingly inoculated against the West’s information warfare.
This outcome explains why CNN is so upset that President Xi praised his compatriots for their successful efforts over the years and encouraged them to stay the course well into the future. China’s international reputation is rising across the world as the US’ declines, with both of these trends being natural, attributable to their respective soft power strategies, and irreversible. The louder that CNN complains about this, the more desperate it appears to everyone else. The US sacrificed its soft power once and for all through its selfish stance of hoarding vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic and spewing conspiracy theories about its origins, while China solidified its selfless reputation by sharing vaccines and sticking to the scientific facts about the virus.
RSS Feed
June 13th, 2021 
Awake Goy 
