Greenwashing the Occupation-the uprooting of Palestinian olive trees.

Greenwashing the Occupation

By Julie Holm

February 1, 2012 One of the things that have affected me greatly from all the horrors of the Israeli occupation is the uprooting of Palestinian olive trees. In Palestine, olive trees are valued for their historical presence, their beauty, symbolic connotations, and most importantly for their economic significance. Unfortunately it is not rare that we hear of Palestinian olive trees being uprooted or burned by the Israeli army or by settlers. Often, if the trees are not burned or destroyed by bulldozers they are brought to settlements and replanted as a kind of war token, a symbol of everything the Israelis rob from the Palestinians. But it is not just the uprooting and stealing of trees that is used by Israel as a tool in the occupation. They actually plant trees on Palestinian land, covering up ethnic cleansing with environmental concerns. This is called 'greenwashing’; using greenery to cover up evidence of violent displacement and destruction. After destroying villages, bulldozing agricultural land, uprooting olive trees and stealing land and vital water sources the State of Israel together with the Jewish National Fund (JNF) disguises the obliteration and claim the land by replanting it, under the pretense of environmentalism. It is not saving the environment that is the goal here, however; these actions have explicit colonial purposes. By banishing Palestinians from their land, Israel seizes the property held by Palestinians for thousands of years. Planting a forest of trees to cover up the destruction, the JNF turns one of the most life affirming symbols into a weapon of occupation and colonialism. The JNF is most commonly known for its campaign to 'plant a tree in Israel’ to 'make the desert bloom’. The fund was created in 1901 to acquire land for a Jewish state in Palestine, and by 1948 around two-thirds of the Palestinian population had been forcibly removed from their homeland. On the ruins of hundreds of depopulated and destroyed Palestinian villages the JNF built forests and parks. This served two purposes: to hide the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and to prevent the Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes. These practices are still ongoing today, especially in the Naqab desert in the south and in the Jordan Valley, where 'development’ projects continue to forcibly displace Palestinians to make way for Jewish settlements and JNF parks and forests. This only gets worse by the fact that the Israeli state and the JNF hides behind the pretence of caring for the environment. The truth is that historically the JNF has not been concerned about the environment at all. Partnering with the state of Israel they destroy the natural habitat and way of life of Palestinians who have lived in the area for thousands of years. By using hazardous chemicals and planting trees that are not native to the land, the JNF has inflicted serious harm on the natural environment in Palestine. The extensive planting of pine trees has killed off much of the native habitat in addition to causing massive forest fires. On Sunday, February 5, the JNF is having a 'Green Sunday’, encouraging people to donate money to 'plant trees in Israel’. The planting of trees has powerful symbolic value for the propaganda and fundraising purposes with the Jewish diaspora. The JNF continues to serve as a global fundraiser for Israeli ethnic cleansing and occupation. Each year they raise more than $60 million in the United States alone. Further the JNF and its affiliate organizations enjoy charitable status in over 50 countries. The JNF continues to promote its 'environmental’ credentials at global summits and international conferences. In relation to 'Green Sunday’ the 'Stop the JNF Campaign’ is asking the international community to take a stand against the greenwashing. The campaign is an international effort aimed at ending the JNFs role in the Israeli occupation. Palestinian civil society calls on international environmentalists to stop the JNF and expose them for what they really do; covering up ethnic cleansing with a fake concern for the environment. Julie Holm is a Writer for the Media and Information Department at the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy (MIFTAH). She can be contacted at mid@miftah.org.

World loses passion for diamonds

 

World loses passion for diamonds

01.02.2012 18:09

The prices on both rough and cut diamonds have been unstable recently. The uneasy situation on the market can be explained with dominating sentiments of major consumer of diamond jewelry in Asia, Europe and the USA, RBC Capital Markets said.

Sales volumes were not bad at all last year. Asia still takes leading positions in terms of the industry growth. The USA, the world's largest market for the diamond industry, showed unpromising results, albeit not in all parts of the country.

The world's largest diamond wholesale center - Antwerp - is worried about the results achieved in the first quarter of the current year. It will be possible to reach success only when the US market retrieves the situation that it had before the crisis. The leading diamond-mining companies - De Beers of Britain and Alrosa of Russia - can improve the situation if they voluntarily restrict the shipments of precious stones on the diamond market.

According to RBC Capital Markets, the program to recreate the sub-industry of rough diamonds includes three basic factors. First off, it goes about the movement of cash assets on the volumes of annual sales of diamond products in large centers. The sales income of De Beers and Alrosa are the second factor. The degree of the debt capital of the bank industry in diamond-cutting centers, particularly in India (due to the fall of the local currency) is the third one.

Nevertheless, the majority of diamond companies believe that the second half of the current year will be marked with more favorable price policies. RBC analysts say that the situation on the market will be favorable enough for both old-timers (Petra Diamonds, Harry Winston Diamond, Gem Diamonds) and newcomers (Stornoway Diamond).

Russian analysts are not so optimistic in their forecasts. They believe that the reason of the international economic crisis, which directly influences the diamond industry, lies in the deindustrialization of the USA and its allies. The level of mass consumption of goods and services remains too high, though. The States is a country with five percent of the global population. At the same time, this country consumes 50 percent of luxury goods. To crown it all, the USA controls 50 percent of international defense budgets of the world. That would be ok if it was not for one little detail. The US GDP is a bubble.

America and many of its allies do not live within their means. This situation lasts for several decades. The total debt o the US government, corporations and households exceeded $50 trillion. The government tries to solve the problem with the help of unbacked money. In the meantime, the number of industrial enterprises in the USA dropped by 56,000 during the past decade. The country was losing 15 factories every day.

For the time being, the USA needs to have political uncertainty and debt problems in Europe. The worse it is for Europe, the better it is for the USA. America needs to be careful, though: the pressure on the Old World must not lead to its collapse.

No grand changes are expected in the United States before the presidential election in the fall of 2012. Brazil, Russia, India and China will be used as sales markets for American and European products with an opportunity for credit and speculative bubbles to grow. As a result, the world diamond market will grow by five percent a year.

Vladimir Teslenko

Russian winter goes extreme, claims lives

Russian winter goes extreme, claims lives

01.02.2012 15:46

Winter temperatures in Russia have gone extreme. The air in some regions of the republic of Yakutia (Siberia)[ΠΑΝΕΜΟΡΦΗ ΠΕΡΙΟΧΗ ΜΕ ΥΠΕΡΟΧΑ ΓΚΟΥΛΑΓΚ--ΔΙΑΡΚΕΙΑ ΖΩΗΣ ΚΡΑΤΟΥΜΕΝΟΥ: ΕΝΑ ΕΤΟΣ] has cooled down to -50 degrees Centigrade.[ΜΕΙΟΝ ΠΕΝΗΝΤΑ ΒΑΘΜΟΙ ΚΕΛΣΙΟΥ!!!] Anomalous cold of -40 degrees is expected in the Perm region of Russia, Vesti.Ru reports.

In the European part of Russia, the current temperatures are ten degrees below the norm. On Wednesday morning, the temperature in the Moscow region dropped to 26 and even 30 degrees below zero Centigrade.!!!!

Cold weather is expected to become even colder this week in Moscow and the region, RIA Novosti reports. Winter cold has already claimed several human lives. One person died of frostbite yesterday in Moscow. Ten others asked for medical help and were hospitalized.

Ukraine suffers from extreme cold as well. According to Ukrainian news agencies, the cold has killed 30 people during the last three days. More than 600 people asked for medical help, 544 of them were hospitalized.

Russia's Chief Sanitary Doctor Gennady Onishchenko believes that there is a positive side to such severe winter cold. Low temperatures prevent the epidemic of flu, the official said.

-------------------------------------------------

Over 40 million women trapped in prostitution

17.01.2012

The Fondation Scelles has released its latest report on sexual exploitation in which it links the oldest profession in the world directly to organised crime, generating huge profits for those who engage in human trafficking and in which it claims there are currently between 40 and 42 million people caught in prostitution, many of them children.

The Report drawn up by the Scelles Foundation (*) claims that today, prostitution is synonymous with sexual exploitation, human trafficking, dangerous organised crime,generating huge profits for those who use and abuse women and girls. It is "dominated by an unparalleled violence, physical, sexual, psychological, social ..." and is nothing less than a "violation of the integrity of human beings and the exploitation of a scandalous state of our moral treatise".

The report answers those who defend the right to prostitute themselves as being part of their freedom as human beings to do what they want with their own bodies, claiming that this position hides a darker and deeper reality, namely "the oppression of women, the trafficking of human beings", and "sexual abuse, insecurity, drugs, social exclusion". It has to do more with the destruction of a human being than with the openness and freedom of a person to do what (s)he wants.

In terms of facts and figures, the report states that there are between 40 and 42 million people working in prostitution worldwide, the vast majority of these being women; 75% of these are aged between 13 and 25 years of age, 90% of them controlled by agencies or pimps. In Europe, the report reveals that there are between one and two million prostitutes, most of these being immigrants, "the victims of human trafficking". To give an idea of the dimension of the criminal activity surrounding prostitution, there are 30 criminal trafficking networks dismantled every year in France alone.

The report suggests that the glamourisation of prostitution is one of the main dangers, luring women and girls into what they imagine to be a life of luxury, apart attracting punters. The full report will be released towards the beginning of February.

As the world gears up for the next Olympic Games, in London, the report warns that football (soccer) and the Olympic Games are the two sports venues which are "the great planetary stages of sexual exploitation".

(*)Fondation Scelles
"Rapport mondial sur l'exploitation sexuelle : La prostitution au cœur du crime organisé"
(World report on sexual exploitation : Prostitution at the heart of organised crime), Directed by Yves Charpenel.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
-------------------------------------

• 
  

McDonald's to expose everything about its chemical food in Russia

16.01.2012 15:09

Consumer rights' advocates filed a lawsuit against McDonald's fast food chain in Russia. The lawsuit was filed at Moscow's Tverskoy Court. The plaintiffs intend to oblige the company to indicate the complete list of ingredients on packaging, rather than the content of protein, fat and carbohydrates.

Representatives of the Consumer Rights Protection Society claim that concealing the content of products the company violates the status of the retail outlet of finished products, not to mention the fact that it misleads consumers. According to experts, the range of milkshakes, which the chain sells, can not be referred to as "milk" under the Russian law, Adindex.ru reports.

Experts discovered the fat of vegetable origin in McDonald's "milkshakes." This drink, according to experts at the Institute of Laboratory of Nutrition, can be called "milk-containing" but not "milk". The advocates of consumers rights do not demand any fines from McDonald's. They only say the company should disclose information and redesign the product packaging. However, even this measure will entail multi-million costs for McDonald's once the court upholds it.

The Society for the Protection of Consumers' Rights reminded that in July 2012, the Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District issued a landmark ruling on the suit of McDonald's  against the Moscow territorial division of the Federal Tax Service. The court ruled that McDonald's in Russia does not provide restaurant services. Instead, the court said, the company sells food products as a store. Therefore, the activities of the corporation should be taxed with 10 instead of 18 percent of VAT.

However, according to the Russian legislation, a store that sells food products (in this case the store also acts as the manufacturer of the food), unlike the restaurant, is obliged to provide all required and accurate information, including the information about the ingredients, food supplements, biologically active supplements, the information about the presence of the GMO, food value, purpose, conditions of use and storage of food, weight (volume), date and place of manufacture and packaging of food. The information about contraindications and indications for use at certain diseases shall also be provided on the product packaging.

---------------------------------------------

Lessons from Iraqi outrage over US drones

Lessons from Iraqi outrage over US drones

Glenn Greenwald

(Credit: AP/Salon) January 30, 2012 The U.S. is continuing to fly surveillance drone aircraft over Iraq, prompting what The New York Times this morning describes as "outrage" among senior Iraqi officials and the Iraqi public. There are several revealing points from this account, beginning with this description of the ongoing American presence in that country now that "the war is over": The drones are the latest example of the State Department’s efforts to take over functions in Iraq that the military used to perform. Some 5,000 private security contractors now protect the embassy’s 11,000-person staff, for example, and typically drive around in heavily armored military vehicles. When embassy personnel move throughout the country, small helicopters buzz over the convoys to provide support in case of an attack. Often, two contractors armed with machine guns are tethered to the outside of the helicopters. So militarized is U.S. foreign policy — and so reviled is the U.S. in Iraq — that even when it "withdraws" from that country, it maintains a presence that is so large and menacing as to be unimaginable in most other countries around the world: basically the equivalent of a small army. Then we have this, about the state of Iraqi domestic politics vis-a-vis the United States: The United States, which will soon begin taking bids to manage drone operations in Iraq over the next five years, needs formal approval from the Iraqi government to use such aircraft here, Iraqi officials said. Such approval may be untenable given the political tensions between the two countries. Now that the troops are gone, Iraqi politicians often denounce the United States in an effort to rally support from their followers. The noble geniuses who planned and publicly crusaded for the war in Iraq insisted that "liberation" would mean a grateful citizenry and a stalwart ally in the middle of the region. Instead, anti-American animus is so high that Iraqi politicians routinely rail against the U.S. as a means of bolstering their own standing — condemning The Liberators is a staple of Iraqi politics — and the Iraqi government is all but barred from being seen as too close with, or accommodating of, the U.S. (that’s why, in the wake of WikiLeaks cables reminding Iraqis of particularly gruesome incidents of U.S. forces slaughtering civilians and then lying about it, the Malaki government was unable to agree to the legal immunity for U.S. forces which Obama officials were demanding as a condition for troops to remain in Iraq). Then we have this, regarding one reason Iraqi animosity toward the U.S. is so high: Many Iraqis remain deeply skeptical of the United States, feelings that were reinforced last week when the Marine who was the so-called ringleader of the 2005 massacre of 24 Iraqis in the village of Haditha avoided prison time and was sentenced to a reduction in rank. "If they are afraid about their diplomats being attacked in Iraq, then they can take them out of the country," said Mohammed Ghaleb Nasser, 57, an engineer from the northern city of Mosul. These same Iraqis watched Blackwater contractors who mowed down 17 Iraqi civilians go free, and then watched Blackwater being awarded all sorts of lucrative contracts — still — by the U.S. Government. If you were a rational Iraqi, what message would that send to you about how much the U.S. values the lives of your country’s citizens? And then there’s this explanation offered as to why Iraqis are so distrustful of U.S. drones even when, as is true for surveillance drones, they are ostensibly unarmed: Hisham Mohammed Salah, 37, an Internet cafe owner in Mosul, said he did not differentiate between surveillance drones and the ones that fire missiles. "We hear from time to time that drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists," Mr. Salah said. "Our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext." When the face you constantly show to the world is one of extinguishing the lives of civilians from the air — which is exactly what the U.S. has been doing for a full decade in multiple Muslim countries — then it shouldn’t come as a surprise that this is how people in that region react (just imagine what an attack on Iran, either with direct U.S. involvement or support for an Israeli attack, would generate in this regard). One of the favorite tropes of the American media is how propagandized and misled Arabs are in that part of the world, yet here we find yet again that well-informed, justified skepticism is prevalent over there – "drone aircraft have killed half a village in Pakistan and Afghanistan under the pretext of pursuing terrorists" and "our fear is that will happen in Iraq under a different pretext" —  in exactly the ways that an uninformed American citizenry most lacks and most needs.

Iraq snapshot - January 30, 2012

Iraq snapshot - January 30, 2012

The Common Ills

Monday, January 30, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, glee in the empire over the hydrocarbons law, at least 18 Sahwa have been killed since December 19th, the drones over Iraq, Iraqi Christians are worse off due to the war according to a US clergy member, AP reports negotiations with Iraq on US troops will continue, Iraqiya ends their boycott of Parliament, and more.   Though US President Barack Obama has repeatedy attempted to portay the Iraq War as a success, reality has refused to play along.  David Kerr (Catholic News Agency) reports today, "U.S. Military Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio says the collapse of Iraq's Christian population is among the legacies of America's invasion in 2003."  He is quoted stating, "Yes, you can say in a certain sense that the invasion of Iraq did provoke this tremendous diminution of the Christian population in that country."  Catholic Culture quotes him stating, "Before they were a minority that was protected but now they are a minority that is not protected."  Meanwhile Mohammed Tawfeeq and Frederik Pleitgen (CNN) report Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is calling out Barack's description of Iraq as "free, stable and democratic," asking, "What sort of Iraq are we talking about?  How the Americans will feel proud? How the American administration is going to justify to the taxpayer the billions of dollars that has been spent and at the end of the day the American saying, 'Sorry, we have no leverage even to put things in order in Iraq'?" In addition, Al Sturgeon (Sioux City Journal) weighs in with his opinion on whether the Iraq War was "'worth it?' Unless you can check reasoning and logic at the door, the answer seems to be a resounding 'no.'"  Actress Kim Schultz wrote the play No Place Called Home to draw attention to the Iraqi refugee crisis. At Policy Mic, she points out:     Over 4 million Iraqis have been displaced since the 2003 invasion, a war that would not have taken place without the Bush administration's violent overreaction to 9/11. That's 4 million people; about 1 in 5 Iraqi citizens have been displaced. After travelling across the country to perform my play, I've learned that most Americans don't know this. And at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since the invasion. 100,000. These are big numbers. Almost 3,000 innocent Americans died on 9/11, a tremendous loss. Yet the carnage in Iraq is far greater, and the 100,000+ innocent lives lost in Iraq in the wake of our invasion get scant attention, if any. These people were real mothers, sons, and daughters. What day commemorates the Iraqi father shot on the street? Or the kidnapped and beheaded uncle? Or the murdered Iraqi child? Most Americans don't know these numbers or the stories behind the numbers, because it doesn't fit the narrative we tell ourselves about our war of "liberation," or what the news media told us about Iraq.   Last week, Ahmed Rasheed (Reuters) was reporting on something troubling western rulers, "The political crisis engulfing Iraq's power-sharing government threatens to further dealy a landmark draft of its long-delayed oil law -- five years after the first version was submitted to parliament. [. . .]  The first hydrocarbon draft law was agreed by Iraq's diverse political blocs in 2007, but it's approval has been held back by infighting among Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish political groups, worrying investors seeking more guarantees for the industry."  The war that was about oil couldn't let the hydrocarbons law remain in a state of limbo.  CNN reports: US Vice President Joe Biden spoke today with Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi and spoke on Friday with Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi: "The two Iraqi leaders described deliberations under way among all Iraqi political factions and parties in the run-up to a proposed national conference led by President Jalal Talabani," the White House statement said. "The vice president discussed with both leaders the importance of resolving outstanding issues through the political process. The vice president and Iraqi leaders agreed to stay in close touch as events unfold." In addition the White House, the Iraqi Parliament also released a statement. KUNA reports, "A statement by the parliament said Biden and Al-Nujaifi, who is a member in the Iraqiya List, discussed ways of narrowing the gaps between the parties to end the political conflict. They also discussed the national conference that would bring about participation of political forces to discuss the political process."     After much intervention from the US, Al Rafidayn reports Iraqiya spokesperson Maysoon al-Damluji announced Iraqiya was ending their boycott of Parliament. The paper notes deep divisions continue between the various blocs. Unlike the New York Times' sad report, Al Rafidayn does note the Erbil Agreement and the failure (by Nouri) to implement it. Aswat al Iraq adds, "The Chairman of Iraq's al-Ahrar (Liberals) Bloc, Bahaa al-Aaraji, has highly assessed the decision of al-Iraqiya Bloc, led by former Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, to resume attending the Iraqi Parliament's sessions and its acceptance of its call, calling on the Bloc to end its boycott to attend the sessions of the Council of Ministers as well." Al Mada reports that Iraqiya made its decision following a three hour meeting of various Iraqiya members. They are seeing their return to Parliament as a gesture of goodwill and state that the political crisis ends only by returning to the Erbil Agreement and releasing the innocnets who have been arrested while resolving the issues regarding Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. Nouri has issued an arrest warrant for the vice president on charges of 'terrorism.' He's also demanded that al-Mutlaq be stripped of his post. Both al-Hashemi and and al-Mutlaq are members of Iraqiya which bested Nouri's State of Law in the March 2010 elections.  At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland declared (link is text with video option):   Well, first of all, we are encouraged by the decision of the Iraqiya bloc to end their boycott and to return to work at the Council of Representatives and also by the statements of other key blocs inside Iraq welcoming that decision. We're also encouraged that President Talabani has pledged to lead a process that's going to prepare a national conference that's going to focus on a political solution that protects the interests of all Iraqis within their constitution. Our understanding is that the consultations leading to that conference are still ongoing. I think we've said here and elsewhere that we have been active, whether it's at the level of Vice President Biden, Secretary Clinton, Ambassador Jeffrey, in encouraging all of the Iraqi leaders to participate in this dialogue. We've been talking to all of them about their interest in preserving a unified Iraq and protecting their hard-fought constitution.   Alsumaria TV notes that only the boycott of Parliament has been ended and nothing has been said about the boycott of the Council of Ministers.  But, of course, the Cabinet was no longer involved in the hydrocarbon process. Making that clear is Reuters report today that, "After five years in the making, Iraq's parliament could have a first reading of a landmark oil law by early February, a senior Iraqi energy official said on Monday." RTT adds, "The development comes amid a Shia-Sunni power struggle triggered by a warrant issued for the arrest of Sunni Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi on terror charges. Hashemi is a senior leader of the Iraqiya bloc headed by former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi."  CNN has a video interview with al-Hashemi.   Tareq al-Hashemi: This case is politically motivated from the beginning. [. . .] For the prime minister to be chief in command [commander in chief], Minister of Defense, Minister of Interior and the Chief of Intelligence and the Chief of National Security, what else you could do that?  My country, in fact,  because of this unbelievable power consolidation that we are heading back to restore the same regime that prevailed before 2003.     Dar Addustour reports State of Law MP Nahida Daini is defending Nouri's failure to name a Minister of Defense by stating Nouri has left the post vacant because he is afraid of a coup. If you were afraid of a coup, you might actually fill the security ministries (Interior, Defense and National Security) but instead Nouri has left them vacant (despite the Constitutional requirement that a Cabinet be named in 30 days for someone to become prime minister). He's left them vacant for a year and a month. Soon to be a year and two months. Because, Daini insists with an apparent straight face, Nouri fears a coup.  Daini does admit that the Erbil Agreement has been ignored. The excitement over the oil law possibly coming to a vote may cause many outlets to ignore the targeting of al-Hashemi as well as the plight of 2 Iraqi women.  Amnesty issued the following:   Amnesty International has called on the Iraqi authorities to reveal the whereabouts of two women arrested earlier this month, apparently for their connection to the country's vice-president. Rasha Nameer Jaafer al-Hussain and Bassima Saleem Kiryakos were arrested by security forces at their homes on 1 January. Both women work in the media team of Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, who is wanted by the Iraqi authorities on terrorism-related charges. Al-Hashimi has denied the charges, saying the accusations are politically motivated.  "The arrest of the two women appears to be part of a wider move targeting individuals connected to Tareq al-Hashemi," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International's Deputy Director for Middle East and North Africa. "The Iraqi authorities must immediately disclose the whereabouts of Rasha al-Hussain and Bassima Kiryakos. At the very minimum they should have immediate access to their family and a lawyer. "The circumstances of their arrest and their incommunicado detention when we know that torture is rife in Iraq can only raise the greatest fears for their safety," she said. Security forces detained the two women without arrest warrants, informing the women's families that they were being taken away for questioning, without explanation. Bassima Kiryakos called her husband on 20 January and informed him she was to be released the following day but neither woman has been heard from since. Bassima Kiryakos was previously arrested and beaten in December but released without charge after three days in detention. The two women worked for Vice-President Tareq al-Hashimi,who is accused of ordering his bodyguards to commit acts of terrorism. "It is up to the authorities to provide convincing evidence that the two women have committed a crime. Otherwise they should be immediately released," said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui. A warrant for Tareq al-Hashimi's arrest was issued on 19 December shortly after his Sunni-backed al-Iraqiya party announced it would boycott Parliament, accusing Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government of being sectarian. Al-Hashimi is currently in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, a semi-autonomous area controlled by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). In December, state run TV channel Al-Iraqiya broadcast "confessions" by men said to be al-Hashemi's bodyguards saying that they had killed police officers and officials from ministries in exchange for payoffs from al-Hashemi. This was followed by a wave of arrests of Sunni politicians. On 19 January, the Iraqi authorities reported they had arrested Ghadban al-Khazraji, the deputy governor in charge of investment in Diyala province and a member of the Islamic Iraqi party. Several of al-Khazraji's bodyguards were also arrested. In the last few years, hundreds of detainees have been shown on the Al-Iraqiyqa channel making "confessions" admitting responsibility for various terrorism related offences. These confessions have invariably been extracted under torture and other ill-treatment. Many people were convicted by the Central Criminal Court of Iraq on the basis of these confessions. While not bothering to cover this, the New York Times also misdirects on drones in Iraq this morning but are we surprised that the paper would intentionally get that wrong? Does any US paper have closer ties to the CIA? No. And the CIA and the FBI operate in Iraq. Strangely Ted Koppel can tell you that while the New York Times refuses to do so. Which is not to say the State Dept isn't operating drones in Iraq. They are. We covered that (an dobjected to it) when it was presented as wonderful to Congress. In addition, Turkey gave space on the Iraq border to the CIA for a base and they are supposed to receive drones in exchange for providing the land for the base. Iraq, which cannot patrol its own skies due to training and a lack of planes, has many drones flying over it. And that may be why Iraqis are objecting and noticing the drones especially. The State Dept indicaes to the paper that it is them but that's what the State Dept would do if it were FBI or CIA drones.  Mark Thompson (Time magazine) sums it up best, "Somehow, the State Department has been able to shoot itself in the foot with an unarmed drone."  At the US State Dept today, spokesperson Victoria Nuland took questions and offered statements on the use of drones in Iraq.     MS. NULAND: Okay. Let me tell you what I can on this situation. First of all, let me say that the State Department has always used a wide variety of security tools and techniques and procedures to ensure the safety of our personnel and our facilities. We do have an unmanned aerial vehicle program used by the State Department. These are tiny little things. They are not armed. They are not capable of being armed. And what they are designed to do is help give us pictures over our facilities to help in their protection. The operation of this program is extremely limited in scope. It is only going to even be considered in critical threat environments. I'm not going to get into the where for obvious reasons. We don't get into our precise security posture anywhere around the world. So I'm not going to divulge details. But just to repeat, we are talking about very limited use in critical threat areas of tiny, little, unarmed, unmanned aircraft which cannot shoot anything. They only take pictures to help us with embassy personnel and facility security.   QUESTION: How big is a tiny, little thing?   MS. NULAND: I haven't seen them, but I've seen pictures of people holding them.   QUESTION: Are we talking about, like, mosquitoes?   MS. NULAND: No, we're talking about like the size of --   QUESTION: That's not tiny.   MS. NULAND: -- my podium. Yeah, like that. Like that.   QUESTION: But when you said they are used to give us pictures over our facilities, is that – is it the case that they are only used over U.S. facilities? Or do they also get used, for example, when U.S. officials may travel?   MS. NULAND: They can be used to protect facilities and personnel, personnel who are moving.   QUESTION: So not just over U.S. facilities?   MS. NULAND: They can be used over the facilities or to track personnel who are moving, yes.   QUESTION: Not in the facilities, though, right, who are moving?   MS. NULAND: They can't see inside walls. No, they cannot. No, they don't have --   QUESTION: No. But I -- it goes to my next -- no, but my next question is sort of directly relevant. Either countries that are sovereign -- and some of us remember the sort of great enthusiasm with which a former administration talked about how Iraq had regained its sovereignty after the U.S. invasion -- either a country that is sovereign has control of its airspace or it doesn't. And so if you are letting these things not fly just over your embassy or your facilities, as you suggested, but in fact, they can roam elsewhere in the country, do you have any agreement or authorization from the Iraqi or from any government in the world to do that, to essentially give you access to their airspace?   MS. NULAND: Well, let me just make a general statement in response to that, Arshad, and I think you will understand that, again, to protect operational security I'm not going to get into details. But we, the State Department, always work closely with host governments on the physical protection of our facilities and our personnel, and this was part and parcel of that.   QUESTION: But you can work closely with somebody and still not have their explicit agreement for you to use their airspace, correct?   MS. NULAND: Suffice to say that this is part and parcel of a larger security program where it is necessary and we do work closely with host governments.   QUESTION: Well, in each instance, and I'm not asking you where these are used and I understand you don't want to talk about exactly where they're used, but in each instance when they are used, do you obtain the agreement of the host country for use of their airspace?   MS. NULAND: In the context of our larger security posture, we always work with host governments.   QUESTION: That's not a yes. I mean, you can work with them. It doesn't mean you've gotten their permission.   MS. NULAND: We are talking about something that started as a pilot program, something that is now being bid out and looked at for broader use. So some of the questions that you are probing for are premature; but in the context of our general consultations with governments on security, those are ongoing and we always consult with hosts.   QUESTION: Does the -- consultation is a very different thing from obtaining their permission.   MS. NULAND: I understand. I don't have anything further on your precise question.   QUESTION: Last one on this for me, if I may.   MS. NULAND: Yes.   QUESTION: What -- does the U.S. Government permit any foreign country to use unmanned aerial vehicles over -- in its airspace?   MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, Arshad, we have never received such a request from a foreign country.   Nuland would go on to deny any knowledge that the drones were resulting in any anger on the part of Iraqis.   Last Friday, a US helicopter went down in Baghdad (emergency landing) and a second US helicopter instantly landed and took away the people in the first helicopter.  The helicopter incident is important to Iraqis. Dar Addustour notes that Parliament's Security and Defense Committee will be addressing the issue this week and they see it as a clear violation of the Strategic Framework Agreement that the US currently operates in Iraq under.  So the sick and addictive relationship between the two countries leaders continues.   If I lay my head down on you, would it be, would it be too late? 'Cause I can't blame you, baby, it's me that done wrong 'Cause I broke the skies that shine above But I can't live, oh, without you, love you, And it's hard to breathe when you're not near But I can't lie here beside you, beside you 'Cause you steal my soul when you leave Set me free, baby, set me free -- "Free," written by Jamie Scott and Tommy D, appears on Grafitti6's just released Colours   (Disclosure, I just plugged a friend's band and while I will make nothing off the sale of the albums and singles, I do have a charity bet with a friend in London on how big Graffiti6 will be this year in the US.  If I win, he donates a sum to Amnesty International, if he wins, I donate to the Actors Benevolent Fund. Stream the "Free" video and  I think you'll agree Jamie Scott should make a big impression here in the US -- for his singing, for his songwriting and, yes, for his looks.)   Dar Addustour also notes that a spokesperson for Nouri's Cabinet has announced there are approximatey 50,000 Sahwa ("Awakenings," "Sons Of Iraq") and that they are mainly in 9 provinces and that they wil move to dispense with them despite calls by military commanders to keep them.  Sahwa's been targeted for some time but they've especially been targeted since December 18th.  From the 19th of December to today, there have been at least 20 reported attacks targeting Sahwa and 18 have been killed with eight more left injured (if you include family members of Sahwa, the number killed and wounded increases). Before the announcement today, Dan Morse (Washington Post) had reported on the difficulties Sahwa face in finding government jobs.  If Nouri's plan to dispense with them is carried out, finding employment will probably continue to be a huge problem for Sahwa.  Susan Ryan (The Journal) notes AKE's John Drake has compiled figures which see Iraq averageing "56 violent attacks a week" for 2011.  Reuters notes today's violence includes a Wajihiya bombing targeting a police officer's home left one person injured, a Baquba bombing targeted a court official (no one was killed or injured), a Baquba roadside bombing claimed the life of 1 police officer and left three more injured, a Baquba suicide car bombing claimed the lives of 3 police officers with three more people left injured, 1 police officer and his father were shot dead in a Mosul drive-by shooting, 1 government worker was shot dead in Mosul, 1 suspect was killed and an Iraqi soldier injured in Mosul, a Rabia clash left 1 person dead and one Iraqi soldier injured, a Baquba roadside bombing injured on Iraqi soldier and a Basra grenade attack left 1 police officer dead and another injured. Robert Burns (AP) reports this morning Michele Flournoy, outgoing Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, explained to reporters that talks will be kicking off shortly between the US and Iraq -- part of the reason the White House strong-armed Ayad Allawi on Friday and over the weekend -- and "to start thinking about how they [Iraqis] want to work with" US troops.  Which is completely expected despite the failure of press outlets to pay attention in November.  See the November 15th "Iraq snapshot," November 16th "Iraq snapshot," November 17th "Iraq snapshot,"  Ava's "Scott Brown questions Panetta and Dempsey (Ava)," Wally's "The costs (Wally)," Kat's "Who wanted what?" and Third's "Enduring bases, staging platforms, continued war" and "Gen Dempsey talks "10 enduring" US bases in Iraq."  One key exchange.   Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta: Senator, as I pointed out in my testimony, what we seek with Iraq is a normal relationship now and that does involve continuing negotiations with them as to what their needs are.  Uh, and I believe there will be continuing negotations.  We're in negotiations now with regards to the size of the security office that will be there and so there will be -- There aren't zero troops that are going to be there. We'll have, you know, hundreds that will be present by virtue of that office assuming we can work out an agreement there.  But I think that once we've completed the implementation of the security agreement that there will begin a series of negotiations about what exactly are additional areas where we can be of assistance? What level of trainers do they need? What can we do with regards to CT [Counter-Terrorism] operations? What will we do on exercises -- joint-exercises -- that work together? Senator Joe Lieberman: Right.   Secretary Leon Panetta: We -- we have these kind of relationships with other countries in the region and that's what we're going to continue to pursue with Iraq.   Senator Joe Lieberman:  And in fact, just using the term that both of you have used, that would be a normal relationship.  A normal relationship would not exlcude the presence of some American military in Iraq, correct?   Secretary Leon Panetta: That's correct.   Senator Joe Lieberman:  So what I hear you saying, assuming that this question of immunities can be overcome, do you, Mr. Secretary, personally believe that it's in the interests of the US to have some military presence in Iraq as part of an agreement with the Iraqis?   Secretary Leon Panetta: I believe -- I believe there are areas where we can provide important assistance to the Iraqis but again I would stress to you, Senator Lieberman, I know that you have been there that in order for this to happen we've got to be able to have them basically say, 'These are our needs, this is what we want, these are the missions that we want accomplished.'  And then we can assist them in saying we can provide this in order to accomplish those missions.  It's got to be a two-way street.

Jew Fails To Pull Off The Old Fake "Hate Crime" Scam

Jewish man arrested for swastikas, anti-Semitic calls

NEW YORK | Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:17pm EST

(Reuters) - A Jewish man was under arrest on hate-crime charges on Monday, accused of making anti-Semitic telephone calls to his mother and other elderly women and putting swastikas on apartment doors, police said.
A family business dispute drove David Haddad, 56, of Manhattan, who is Jewish, to make threatening phone calls to his mother, 80, and two other women, ages 87 and 78, a police source said.
"He threatened to kill the other individual on the phone as well as her relatives," said a police spokesman. "He said basically that all Jews should die and go to hell."
Haddad, who was charged with aggravated harassment as a hate crime, also was accused of taping notes with anti-Semitic symbols including swastikas on five apartment doors and in the hallway of a building in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan.
Haddad lives in Chelsea but police declined to say whether he targeted his own building.
-----------------------------------------------------

Meet The Jew Who Is Behind Newt Gingrich

Behind Gingrich's Rise, Billionaire Pal Sheldon Adelson

ABC News – Wed, Jan 25, 2012

Before Newt Gingrich dominated the South Carolina primary, a so-called super PAC supporting him spent millions of dollars savaging Mitt Romney in negative ads and fliers.

A driving force behind that super PAC is Sheldon Adelson (photo), a Las Vegas casino tycoon who has translated his deep friendship with Gingrich into a financial bonanza to buoy his candidacy. Adelson gave the PAC, Winning Our Future, $5 million just before the South Carolina primary, and this week, his wife gave the group another $5 million. 

The Adelsons make Mitt Romney look like Tom Joad. Adelson, the eighth-richest American, is worth more than $20 billion. He built the iconic Venetian hotel (and another in Macao to match) and has given to a host of Jewish causes — in addition to funding a nonprofit group that led to Gingrich's presidential run.

Adelson met Gingrich when he was the speaker of the House, and they bonded over their dedication to support Israel as Congress debated passing a bill that would encourage the American Embassy in Tel Aviv to be moved to Jerusalem, the capital. Since then they've been friends, with obvious benefits.

"He admires and likes Newt for his intellect and his creativity, and those are two traits that are very strong with Sheldon himself," said Robert List, a former governor of Nevada who was Adelson's legal counsel when he acquired the historic Sands Hotel. "It's no surprise that he's liked Newt from the beginning."

In October, Adelson attended a fundraiser for Gingrich at a Las Vegas restaurant owned by George Harris, a former political consultant who worked for the casino baron for years and ate lunch with him every day. They raised $60,000 for Gingrich.

Next week, Gingrich is due back at the restaurant, and so is Adelson, Harris said. Nevada's Republican caucus is Feb. 4.

"Sheldon Adelson — if he said he's going to do something, he does it," Harris said. "He's a humongous supporter of Newt. They're friends. They're buddies. It's a true relationship."

The money that the Adelsons have given to Winning Our Future is double what the super PAC has already spent to support Gingrich, which is just over $5 million as of Wednesday. It's unclear how much money the group has ready to spend, because super PACs aren't required to report how much they've raised until the end of January — after the four first primary contests.

Lifted by the donation from Adelson's wife, Winning Our Future is placing a big bet on the Florida primary, spending $6 million to run a TV ad that demonizes the health care plan that Romney led in Massachusetts.

The plan is awfully similar to what happened in South Carolina, where Romney's lead over the other candidates shrank by the day as the pro-Gingrich super PAC crowded the airwaves with anti-Romney commercials. Now the PAC is spending much more in Florida, though the Adelsons are said to have asked that the ads be positive.

"He wants to advance Newt's cause," List said. "He'll do what he can to help."

Gingrich was seen as a serious candidate only recently, months after Adelson first attended that Las Vegas fundraiser for him in October. The headlines were about Romney, and Gingrich was being called a long-shot. In some ways, Adelson's friends saw a parallel to a meeting with his senior staff when he was describing his vision to build a "new Las Vegas strip" in Macao.

"At that time, it was just a dream, and huge, involving billions and billions and billions of dollars," List said. "People were sitting around the table saying, 'Do you really think this could happen?' You know? And it did."

In an alternate universe, if Gingrich had never befriended Adelson years ago, the super PAC supporting the former speaker would probably have a significantly diminished effect. Perhaps South Carolina would have gone Romney's way, all but crowning him the nominee before January is over. Or maybe Gingrich's victory would have just been smaller.

Either way, Adelson reportedly doesn't expect anything in return from Gingrich. "Sheldon doesn't need anything from anybody," Harris said.

And those who know Adelson well say that despite his loyalty to Gingrich, he'll be quick to reopen his checkbook for Romney if the ex-governor wins the Republican nomination.

"I don't think there's any doubt that he would support Romney, absolutely not one doubt in the entire world," said Fred Zeidman, a Romney fundraiser who speaks often with Adelson and who was the chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council (the Adelsons have donated profusely to the museum). "This is all about beating Barack Obama."

ACTA: Worse Than SOPA and PIPA

ACTA: Worse Than SOPA and PIPA

by Stephen Lendman

January 28, 2012 Internet freedom's on the line. SOPA and PIPA threatened Net Neutrality and free expression. So does ACTA. More on it below. For now, the largest online protest in Internet history got Congress to abandon SOPA and PIPA but not permanently. Expect resurrection in modified form. Language may change but not intent. ACTA's worse. Launched on October 23, 2007, America, the EU, Switzerland and Japan began secretly negotiating a new intellectual property enforcement treaty - the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Other nations got involved, including Canada, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand, Mexico, Jordan, Singapore, and the UAE. Ostensibly for counterfeit goods protection, it's about fast-tracking Internet distribution and information technology rules at the expense of Net Neutrality, privacy, and personal freedoms. It establishes unrestricted supranational global trade rules. In the process, it tramples on national sovereignty and personal freedoms. Moreover, negotiations were secret until WikiLeaks reported in May 2008: "If adopted, (ACTA) would impose a strong, top-down enforcement regime, with new cooperation requirements upon (ISPs), including perfunctionary disclosure of customer information." "The proposal also bans 'anti-circumvention measures which may affect online anonymity systems and would likely outlaw multi-region CD/DVD players. The proposal also specifies a plan to encourage developing nations to accept the legal regime." Those opting out face retaliatory measures. On April 22, 2010, Electronic Frontier Foundation writer Gwen Hinze headlined, "Preliminary Analysis of the Officially Released ACTA Text," saying: "The text (leaves no doubt) that ACTA is not just about counterfeiting." It's far more. It covers copyrights, patents, and other intellectual property forms, including the Internet. It's also about the ability of users to "communicate, collaborate and create" freely. In addition, it imposes obligations (on) Internet intermediaries (and), requir(es) them to police" cyberspace and its users. As a result, it raises serious questions about open affordable access, free expression, personal privacy, and "fair use rights." On May 27, 2011, the Foundation for Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) said the European Commission published a final ACTA text with few changes from its last known version. Since introduced, major media scoundrels reported little about its destructive provisions. Last October, Washington, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signed ACTA. US deputy trade representative Mariam Sapiro hailed the occasion, saying: "As with many of the challenges we face in today's global economy, no government can single-handedly eliminate the problem of global counterfeiting and piracy. Signing this agreement is therefore an act of shared leadership and determination in the international fight against intellectual property theft." Public Knowledge attorney Rashmi Rangnath called the deal the Obama administration's "attempt to foist US law on other countries." It also broke another candidate Obama promise to "(s)upporte the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet." In fact, doing so lawlessly circumvented Congress. On October 1, 2011, Obama acted by "executive agreement." He falsely claimed ACTA's not a treaty requiring Senate approval. Constitutional issues remain unresolved. By law, executive agreements apply only to sole presidential authority issues. Treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds Senate supermajority. As a result, a circulating petition demands Senate consideration. By February 21, 25,000 are needed. So far, thousands are recorded. Dozens of legal scholars support it. So far, the administration's stonewalling. It's circumventing the law like it always does and breaking a campaign pledge in the process. Post-SOPA/PIPA, Obama diktat authority rammed it through illegally. In contrast, the Mexican Senate rejected it in a non-binding resolution. On January 26, Poland's Japan ambassador, Jadwiga Rodowicz-Czechowska, signed it. It's yet to pass parliament. Public anger raged across the country against it. The hacktivist group Anonymous targeted signatory countries' official web sites. It threatened to reveal sensitive information about officials in countries passing it. Anti-ACTA sentiment affected Poland's parliament. Opposition MPs wore masks to reflect their refusal to back it. Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he'll submit the treaty to parliament and sign it provided "the government is sure Polish law guarantees freedom on the Internet...." On January 26, infojustice.org headlined, "EU Signs ACTA, But Treaty Remains in Doubt," saying: The European Parliament (EP) has final say. Consideration begins late February or early March. Committee voting follows in April or May. In June, Parliament decides. After SOPA and PIPA's derailing, expect a close vote. On January 23, 2012, FFII headlined, "EP (European Parliament) legal service consistently overlooks known issues with ACTA," saying: In a letter to members of the European Parliament, FFII said: "The legal service fails to see major issues with damages, injunctions and provisional, border and criminal measures. The legal service consistently overlooks known issues." Clearly, "ACTA goes beyond current EU law, the acquis." According to FFII's Ante Wessels: "ACTA will negatively impact innovation, start up companies, mass digitization projects, access to medicines and Internet governance. ACTA threatens the rule of law and fundamental rights." FFII asked Parliament to reject ACTA. Issues cited included: (1) Violating EU law. (2) Unjustifiably discriminating. Threatens access to generic drugs and local foods. (3) Criminalizes "everyday computer use." Liability extends to private individuals, newspapers, web sites, office workers forwarding files or documents, and whistleblowers revealing information in the public interest. (4) Civil measures also apply to the digital environment. ACTA pressures ISPs to preemptively censor online communications. It also "incites privatized enforcement outside the rule of law." "The ARTICLE 19 organization" said ACTA's "fundamentally flawed from a freedom of expression and information perspective. If enacted, it will greatly endanger the free-flow of information and the free exchange of ideas, particularly on the internet." (5) Endangering public health by restricting access to medicines. It cracks down on generic drugs, makes food patents more extreme, enforces global standards on seed patents, empowers agribusiness, and threatens small farms and food independence. (6) Global pricing and cultural life issues aren't addressed. (7) Violates Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), stating: "The Union's action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles (of) democracy, the rule of law, the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms...." Negotiations were conducted secretly. Civil society, public interest groups, and legislatures were entirely shut out. Major decisions were made extralegally. They violate established laws and fundamental freedoms. On December 27, 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation said: ACTA threatens personal and digital freedoms. It creates an extralegal "global IP enforcement institution to oversee its implementation." It turns ISPs into enforcers. The agreement requires signatories "promote cooperative efforts within the business community" on issues regarding copyright and trademark infringement. As a result, Internet access, censoring, and lost freedom may result. "ACTA suffocates collaborative creativity and innovation, and less explicitly, but just as gravely, threatens free speech through provisions that may lead to Internet access restrictions for the 'sake' of combating 'imminent violation' of intellectual property laws." Worst of all, secret negotiations facilitate similarly drafted future international agreements, benefitting powerful interests at the expense of personal freedoms. For ACTA, heavy-handed Washington pressure forced through draconian provisions. Civil society organizations are outraged. In addition, some nations exposed gross political treachery in back-room dealmaking. For example, Brazil called ACTA "illegitimate." The Dutch Parliament refused to consider it. India strongly opposes it. So do other emerging economies saying it stifles their development. Other nations are undecided. They all have until May 2013 to vote up or down. As a result, Washington's exerting immense pressure to bring opponents on board. EFF calls back room dealmaking "an affront to a democratic world order." It's committed to work with other anti-ACTA groups to defeat ACTA. The Inquisitr calls the agreement worse than SOPA and PIPA. It "takes a fairly bland idea - the right of companies to profit from their own intellectual property - and turns it into a governmental power grab and an excuse to weaken" Internet privacy. La Quadrature du Net (Internet & Libertes) says ACTA "has absolutely no democratic legitimacy." Unelected bureaucrats drafted it. It urges mass actions to defeat it. A Final Comment ACTA potentially criminalizes almost anything online. It lets government and corporate predators censor, shut down sites, and prosecute owners if they object to posted content. Imagine the effect on free thought and opinion. Criticize government or corporate lawlessness and be silenced behind bars. That's why stopping ACTA is crucial. SOPA and PIPA outrage was round one. ACTA's the main event. A truth emergency exists. So far, it's mostly below the radar. Exposing it widely is crucial. Now's the time to act before it's too late. Internet freedom's on the chopping block for elimination unless mass public outrages stops it. EFF cites other plurilateral deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP). It's more draconian than ACTA. Secret negotiations again drafted it. Bureaucrats alone were involved. Civil society, public interest groups, and lawmakers had no say. Internet freedom's on the line. The stakes are immense. Jefferson understood by saying that: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Now's the time to assure it doesn't happen. Spread the word! Mobilize! Agitate! Involve Congress! Stop this monster! It's our Internet! Get in the fight to save it! Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.