Articles

NOVANEWS Dateline Jerusalem:  Christian Trail of Tears on the Move While Archbishop of Canterbury Plays Blame Game by Eileen Fleming In ...Read more

NOVANEWS by Stephen Lendman On March 25, 2008, Time magazine writer Tim McGirk headlined “Israelis Blocking Medical Care in Gaza,” saying: ...Read more

NOVANEWS King Abdullah and President Obama Image credit: Opinion Maker The Saudi Arabian Moment In The Movement for Change The ...Read more

NOVANEWS   Beneath The Spin*Eric L. Wattree A Zionist’s Response to “What’s the Difference Between Zionism and Racism?” I recently ...Read more

NOVANEWS   Veterans-For-Change Requests Congress Hold Hearings on Toxic Herbicides Buried by US Army in Korea by Jim Davis As ...Read more

NOVANEWS Part one of two by Tom Valentine (This story is from Tom Valentines archives circa 1996; Vaccines remain one of ...Read more

NOVANEWS   Obama Not Likely to Call for Major Afghan Drawdown by Sherwood Ross   Four cheers for the U.S. Conference ...Read more

USA
NOVANEWS by Stephen Lendman   On March 18, Chicago Tribune writers Matthew Walberg and Dan Hinkel headlined, “Northwestern at odds ...Read more

NOVANEWS Part two Vaccine History by Tom Valentine Paralytic polio was a scourge prior to the 1950’s (polio vaccine first arrived ...Read more

NOVANEWS I truly believed I’d likely end my CIA career as an undercover operative, especially since I was choosing love over ...Read more

NOVANEWS by Cynthia McKinney Global Research, Since coming to Tripoli to see first hand the consequences of the NATO military operations, ...Read more

NOVANEWS GILAD ATZMON   A message from Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo: Dear Friends, I am happy to introduce you to the ...Read more

Christians Flee Holy Land in Mass Modern Exodus

NOVANEWS

Dateline Jerusalem:  Christian Trail of Tears on the Move While Archbishop of Canterbury Plays Blame Game

by Eileen Fleming

In a recent BBC radio interview for the program “”World at One” the Archbishop of Canterbury expressed concerns about Christian minority populations all across the Middle East where life for Christians was “becoming unsustainable.”

The Archbishop is also organizing a conference to raise awareness of the “hemorrhaging of Christian populations from the Holy Land. The fact that Bethlehem, a majority Christian city just a couple of decades ago, is now very definitely a place where Christians are a marginalized minority. We want that to be a little bit higher on people’s radar. We want the public profile of the situation of Christians there to be better known. And we see that as of course part of a general hope to raise the profile of Christians in the region.”

The Archbishop noted that in the Little Town of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus Christ, Christians are now the “marginalized minority…It’s not ethnic cleansing exactly because it’s been far less deliberate than that I think. What we’ve seen though is a kind of Newtonian passing on of energy or force from one body to another so that some Muslim populations in the West Bank, under pressure, move away from certain areas like Hebron, move into other areas like Bethlehem. And there’s nowhere much else for Christian populations to go except away from Palestine.” [1]

In 1947, 20% of the total population of the Holy Land was Christian. Today, less than 1.3% of the total population of that troubled piece of real estate is Christian.  Unless things change very soon, Holy Land churches will soon be nothing more than museums for the Christian Exodus coupled with their low birth rates may be the end of Christianity in the Holy Land.

In response to the Archbishops’ omissions, Rifat Odeh Kassis, Kairos Palestine Coordinator wrote:

“Your inaccurate and erroneous remarks cite Muslim extremism as the greatest threat facing Christians in Palestine and the primary reason for our emigration. Your statements about Bethlehem are particularly faulty and offensive especially when you say that the movement of Muslims into the Bethlehem area, where space is limited, is forcing Christians to leave.

“Equally shocking is how Your Grace managed, diplomatically –instead of being prophetic, as one would expect you to be, not to mention the Israeli occupation, the separation wall, Israel  confiscation of Palestinian land, its policies that violate freedom of movement and worship (Palestinians in Bethlehem cannot, for instance, go to Jerusalem), or its brutal crackdowns on nonviolent protests as one of the major reasons that push not only Christians to emigrate, but also many other Palestinians.

Me at The Wall in Bethlehem, photo copyright Meir Vanunu

“We were hoping that Your Grace would have a different voice than the one in mass media and other right wing political parties, which exploit our sufferings to fuel some islamophobic tendencies and negative images about Islam. Indeed, this is what the Israeli occupation persistently tries to do. It demonizes Islam in a way that deflects blame from the repression levied by the state itself…in the Bethlehem area alone there are 19 illegal Israeli settlements (such as nearby Har Homa built on Jabal Abu Ghneim) and the wall that have devoured Christian lands and put Bethlehem in a chokehold…

“Since Your Grace did not meet or consult with any Palestinian Christians during your recent visit here, we are wondering why would you be suddenly interested to speak on our behalf? This troubles us…Finally, we would like to remind Your Grace that Christian Palestinians need advocates for the truth. It is the truth, and only the truth, that will lead to peace and justice in our home.” [2]

On my third of seven trips to Israel and Palestine since 2005, Hind Khoury, who was the delegate general of the Palestine Liberation Organization in France from 2006 through 2010, informed this reporter:

“The truth has been hidden, and it has been maneuvered by an oppressive and violent occupation.

“This occupation violates every single human right imaginable. Governments today are getting their own way to serve their own interests which are: money and power.

“It is ethnic cleansing that is happening in Jerusalem. Bethlehem is a ghetto, an island, an open-air prison! When the gate in Beit Jala is done, it will completely isolate Bethlehem from her sister city Jerusalem which is only three miles away.

“Before Hamas won the elections there were 370 checkpoints. There are now 25% more. Because of the moral bankruptcy of the PA, Hamas won the elections and they should not be feared. They have an open mind and open heart and many of them say: ‘Fight them with love.’

My view from a rooftop in Aida Camp, Bethlehem

“The International community put conditions on Hamas, but it is not about Israel’s existence we are speaking of, it is the existence of Palestine and Human Rights that must be addressed! The world is unbalanced and the polarization just increases the violence. Civil society must become responsible.”

In 2006, Reverend Chris Ferguson, Representative for the World Council of Churches said:

“I go to Bethlehem because of the Biblical injunction to visit the prisoners. In 2001, the World Council of Churches, the Middle East Council of Churches and others decided that the world ecumenical community was not doing enough about this conflict. Now, we have joined hands and are working together globally to mobilize the international society to demand policy change. The absence of settlers does not mean there is freedom in Gaza.”

He spoke those words seven months after the “Disengagement” in Gaza, which was nothing more than redeployment, for Israel has maintained total control and all access to Gaza by land, sea and air.

During the “disengagement” 25 of over 150 settlements were dismantled, and 8,475 of over 436,000 settlers [less than 2% of settlers] were evacuated.

As of October 2005, 12,800 new settlers had moved into the West Bank, which are 50% more settlers than were evacuated! Gaza is less than 6% of the Occupied Territories and that leaves 94% of Palestinian territories under the boot of the IDF.

During my 2006 visit to the Little Town of Bethlehem which is Occupied Territory, I met four of the newly elected members of Hamas, and for the fourth time I met the Mayor of Bethlehem, Victor Batarseh.

Mayor Batarseh spoke about the dire need for tourists and pilgrims to sleep and eat in Bethlehem for unemployment was well over 50% and the Bethlehem Municipality was borrowing money to pay its own employees.

The first time I met Mayer Batarseh was when he traveled to Orlando Florida, to meet with Mayor Buddy Dyer, with the hope to re-ignite The Twinning Agreement that was signed in May 2001 by the then Mayors of Bethlehem and Orlando.

The Twinning Agreement is a sister-pact that affirmed Orlando and Bethlehem would encourage tourism to the other and promote a global community.

I followed up on Mayor Batarseh’s visit with my own visit to Mayor Buddy Dyer’s office one week after the Mayors had met and I informed the Orlando Mayor’s public relations representative about an opportunity to help the city of Bethlehem.  I was seeking the Mayors support in getting the word out about two events that were already scheduled and my involvement with Palestinian Children’s Welfare Fund which imported goods crafted by the artisans in Bethlehem that volunteers sold throughout the world and returned 100% of all proceeds back to the crafts people and helped support the children who endure in the refugee camps of the Holy Land.

Mayor Buddy Dyer did not even have the common courtesy to respond to any of my three follow up emails. I also informed The Orlando Sentinel about the opportunity for the Central Florida community to do something to make true the words of the Twinning Agreement without traveling all the way to the Little Town of Bethlehem in occupied territory. I got nowhere then, but I persist to be a voice of conscience.

During my March, 2006 trip to Bethlehem, Mayor Batarseh informed me:

“When the occupation is ended there will be peace. If the world boycotted Israel for six months they would comply with the UN Resolutions, which is all we want! There is state terrorism and Israel must be forced to recognize our right to exist. For the past ten years Hamas has worked with and helped the poorest of people, they have built schools and orphanages. The PA took the money but Hamas was providing the social services!

“Israel is a state built on religious beliefs. The US and EU and all the free world are against theocracies. But Israel has the right to do anything! The world needs to WAKE UP! If there is no peace in the Holy Land there can be no peace anywhere. End the occupation and there will be peace the very next day. All the terrorism in the world can be traced back to the Palestinian situation. All the money spent on weapons and war could eliminate world poverty.”

In 2006, I also met with four newly elected Hamas members but I still haven’t met any terrorists. Two had been elected to the Palestinian Parliament/PLC and two to the Municipality/local government. PLC Representative, Anwer M. Zboun, lives in the Abiet refugee camp and has a Masters Degree in Physics.

Zboun began with a smile and said, “We welcome you to our home and the Holy City of Bethlehem. We are suppose to be terrorists, are you afraid?

“We are a Palestinian resistance movement and we are not against any people. We are against the occupation. We want to rebuild what the occupation has destroyed. Hamas was born from the suffering of the Palestinian people and we belong to the global Muslim movement. It was on December 14, 1987 after an Israeli driver killed nine Palestinians that the first Intifada [uprising] began and the Islamic Resistance movement in Palestine was renamed Hamas.

“Hamas is a national liberation movement based on Sharia; Islamic Laws and Orders. Hamas is not against any religion. We are not a terrorist movement, but we resist the occupation. Christians voted for us for many reasons and they know we are faithful to this cause: that God knows better than we ourselves know what is for our benefit. We do not force anyone to believe as we do. The public and private schools both teach Islam and Christianity.

“In November 1988 Arafat issued a birth certificate for the Palestinian State and under religion he stated: ‘None.’ This is because we are a secular state. As Muslims and Christians we live together peacefully and our attitude is citizenship is for everyone. Everybody should have freedom of belief, traditions and a personal life. Hamas does not propose anything that contradicts Christianity.

“Our slogan is: Remove Suffering for everyone. The issue of Israel is about the occupation. We have no problems with religious beliefs; our problem is that Israel is illegally occupying our land. Since March 2005, we have honored a unilateral cease-fire. But Israel martyred 200 Palestinians, injured 1,200 and has detained 3,500. Many are under the age of sixteen. In the last two weeks Israel has killed twenty-five Palestinian and yet we have maintained the cease-fire. Israel does not recognize us and recognition takes both sides.

“Abbas has stated that we do recognize Israel, but there must be clear borders and Israel does not yet have them. The PA recognized Israel ten years ago but we Palestinians are detained in an open air prison. We resist the occupation, which is our right guaranteed under International Law. International Law demands Israel withdraw to the 1967 borders, release the prisoners, and stop the assassinations, illegal wall and home demolitions.

“Hamas defines terrorism as a violation of the rights of others and their property. Bush defined terrorism as evil. We are weak with resources and our voice is not heard in the West, only the voice of America and Israel gets press. America asked us to hold democratic elections and we did. We thank everyone who was involved in our transparent and democratic elections. We did what the USA asked and now they are punishing our people. Democracies are supposed to respect and not intervene in what others want.

“We had democratic and transparent elections and how are we rewarded? By the EU and the USA who have cut funds to the poorest of people who live under occupation. Hamas suggested that the International community monitor all the financial aid to assure that it went to the people and not to Hamas. We offered this suggestion to the world and we have been ignored.

“So now we look to the Arab and Muslim world to strengthen our local infrastructure and economy and hope to bring back investors. We know there are people in Europe and America who will not allow us to go hungry. We believe aid and support are in Gods hands and not governments.”

On 15 March 2006, I was in Nazareth and learned from Fuad Farah, Board member of Sabeel and the Chairman of the Orthodox National Council in Israel, that “90% of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, never even meet any Palestinian Christians!

“No Christians can live here anymore. They fled in ‘48 and their homes were destroyed in the ‘50’s for the settlers. Christians once were 20% of the total population of the Holy land, today we are less than 2% and maybe in thirty years there will be no Christians here if things do not change soon. There are more Christians in India and Syria than there are in the Holy Land!

“The reasons are many and include our low birth rate, migration due to lack of economic opportunities especially for the most highly educated, Muslim and Jewish fundamentalism, land confiscation and now Nazareth has become a retirement community because our young people all leave!”

I imagine if I were a young Palestinian with an opportunity to leave that troubled land; I would too and Palestinians all tell me that is exactly what the Israeli government hopes for!

In 2006, I also met BADIL [Arabic for Alternative] Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights.

The Founder, Muhammed Jaradat, grinned as he said, “I learned to speak English in prison, I was arrested first at 13 years old and spent a total of 5 ½ years in prison because I was a peace activist. I was arrested for winning a high school student union election in my village and charged with terrorism!”

“They said I was a gangster that I was against Israeli rights, but justice for Palestinians means justice for Israelis too! The issue of the right to return is the ultimate issue. The refugee issue is the core issue and since 1948, 800,000 Palestinians have been evicted from their homes and their families land.

“Two-thirds of Palestinian people are refugees. A democracy is supposed to be that the majority rules. But we have been told to SHUT UP about the refugee issue. If you really want to solve a problem you must attack the roots and that leads to the refugee issue.

“International Law, the Declaration of Human Rights and UN Resolutions all affirm the rights of refugees. For 57 years and 157 times the UN General Assembly has affirmed the right for refugees to return home, resettle with compensation or to choose a new country.

“The Israelis claim there is not enough room in the Holy Land but according to their own documentation in 2000, 86% of Israeli Jews live on 15% of Israel proper. 90% of state land is Palestinian land! The problem is not that there is not enough room, the problem is racism. I was born here but I am not a citizen of any country. They can revoke my residency at any moment.

“From 1989 to 1993 Israel absorbed 1.1 million new immigrants from the former Soviet Union who have illegally settled in the West Bank and Gaza. Historic Palestine is 26,000 square kilometers, about the size of Texas. The separation mentality has been at work since the 1930’s. Uniting this country with universal and basic human rights is the only way to success in the future. Israel has built the facts on the ground to not have two states. We are not stupid, we live under the harshest of conditions and we have survived. We have been divided into 28 different countries but we are united on the goal to achieve our human rights.

“The future depends on what happens to Palestinians and we are the legal owners of this land and Israel needs to get its nose down and realize they are living in the Arab world. Christian Zionists are the most destructive group of all and they want Israel to use their bomb. Who will they destroy? They will destroy themselves. The Dimona reactor is leaking and will cost more to remove than it did to build.” [3]

But that is another story that I told in BEYOND NUCLEAR: Mordechai Vanunu’s FREEDOM of SPEECH Trial and My Life as a Muckraker: 2005-2010

Medical Care in Gaza Under Siege (Part II)

NOVANEWS

by Stephen Lendman

On March 25, 2008, Time magazine writer Tim McGirk headlined “Israelis Blocking Medical Care in Gaza,” saying:

“Since Gaza is denied (most everything under siege), many complicated surgeries are no longer done there.” Those permitted abroad for them, like Bassam al-Wahedi, endure a gauntlet through Israel’s “security maze.”

Entering Egypt through Erez Crossing, “(h)e fumbled along tunnels, steel doors that opened and slammed as he passed along, entered a strange cylinder that fired a whoosh of air at him before he finally reached a large hall with an Israeli soldier sitting inside a bulletproof glass booth.”

He showed his permit for scheduled surgery that afternoon. “(T)hree plainclothed Israelis with pistols and walkie-talkies led him past cages with growling dogs to a room where he was strip searched and interrogated by a man who identified himself as a” Shin Bet captain.

He pressured al-Wahedi to spy for Israel, saying his permit would be cancelled if he refused. “He wanted me to go back to Gaza and collaborate for two weeks,” al-Wahedi explained, “and if they liked what I did, I could come to Israel and have my eye operation with the best doctor in Tel Aviv.”

Angry and frustrated, he refused. “Contacted by Time, Shin Bet denied approaching (him) to collaborate, (saying he was sent back) because of his involvement in ‘activities dangerous to the state.’ ”

Physicians for Human Rights – Israel (PHR – I) believes everyone “has the right to health in its widest possible sense, as defined by the principles of human rights, social justice and medical ethics.”

As a occupying power, international law obligates Israel to provide and/or do nothing to obstruct it. PHR-I explained at the time that Shin Bet denied dozens of other patients vital care for refusing to collaborate. One with severe heart trouble, in fact, was told to “go back and die in Gaza.” It’s common practice, but Israel denies it.

PHR-I petitioned Israel’s High Court of Justice for redress to no avail, its director Miri Weingarten saying, “What we’re seeing is that (it’s) willing to intervene less and less in (alleged) security cases.”

PHR-I’s earlier report titled, “Obstacles Facing Gaza Patients in Need of Medical Care” explains what they endure, accessed through the following link:

http://www.phr.org.il/uploaded/HolimAzaEng_a.pdf

Under siege, Gazans struggle daily to survive, especially when needing medical care that may or may not be available. For Israelis, it’s simple. “Schedule an appointment. See a doctor. Get treated.”

Gazans, however, face numerous obstacles, including forcing them “to opt out of treatment altogether” because hospitals or other medical facilities can’t provide it.

PHR-I helps about 100 patients a month get vital care otherwise not accessible, but never easily given the impediments Israel imposes. In fact, its repressive occupation undermines the health and welfare of all Palestinians, especially isolated Gazans under siege.

Referral for Treatment Abroad

Gazan doctors unable to provide treatment refer patients abroad. The medical unit head and hospital director must then authorize it. Unavailable care is especially lacking in oncology, cardiology, orthopedics, and ophthalmology, as well as for any severe health problem for lack of proper equipment, drugs or trained staff.

Palestinian Bureaucracy Required by Israel

A Gaza medical committee must first approve referrals abroad, as explained above. It’s first sent to the Ramallah Palestinian Ministry of Health for financial coverage approval. Patients must then submit proper papers to the Gaza Palestinian Ministry of Health to schedule an appointment in an Israeli or Palestinian hospital. On average, the process takes 7 – 10 days without hitches.

Submitting an Entry Permit Application

Comprised of an authorized referral, financial coverage approval, and scheduled exam date, patients must submit entry requests to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee – the Palestinian Health Coordinator appointed by the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Coordinating between Palestine and Israel, everything pertaining to healthcare must go through him or her with exclusive authority to handle all applications for Gazans. “In his absence, patients encounter great difficulties, often missing appointments and access to timely medical treatment.”

Israel Decides Who Exits and Who Doesn’t Regardless of Need

Palestine’s Health Coordinator submits patient entry permit applications to the District Coordination Office (DCO), a division of Israel’s military. After reviewing them, DCO sends them to General Security Service (GSS) authorities for security clearance. Some get permission. Others don’t, but the process takes time, too much, in fact, in emergency situations.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Gazans submitting permit applications are interrogated at Erez Crossing, as explained above. However, the process is so degrading, intimidating, and unacceptable that some don’t show up, losing their right to vital care.

Pressure, Threats, and Extortion of Patients During Interrogations

After arriving as scheduled, hours can pass before interrogations begin. As explained above, Gazans are pressured to cooperate for treatment, though some, in fact, refuse and get it anyway. Many, however, must either collaborate and risk their lives at home, or refuse and be denied vital care.

Resubmitting Applications

When interrogations are scheduled after appointment dates, the process starts over, requiring weeks more waiting even when urgent treatment is needed.

Erez Crossing Security Examinations

Gazans approved for passage are assigned an exit date. Even those weak or extremely ill must walk about a kilometer on their own inside Erez, then pass through an additional security exam and more. They still must receive final approval. Even critically ill patients must wait hours to pass.

In 2009, 7,534 Gazans applied for permit permission to cross Erez. Applications for 5,211 (69%) were approved, the other 2,300 (31%) denied or delayed, causing patients to miss appointments. From January – March 2010, 3,089 applied for entry. Applications for 2,392 (77%) were approved, the other 697 (23%) denied or delayed.

However, for those approved, the process just began, followed by a lengthy, time-consuming gauntlet of hardships, denying care for many for not spying on for Israel as the price for vital treatment.

Saudi Arabia: The Movement for Change

NOVANEWS

King Abdullah and President Obama Image credit: Opinion Maker

The Saudi Arabian Moment In The Movement for Change

The Saudis have shown their frustration with Washington in a number of dramatic ways recently.

By Dr. Lawrence Davidson

What happens if the Saudis decide that the time really has come to exercise their immense economic power? Saudi Arabia’s power, is truly international and represents well founded, mass economic power.

Part I – Saudi Power

The Saudis do not like President Barak Obama and his administration. The reason is straightforward. They do not like the what the administration says to them. They say things that Riyadh does not want to hear and, in their ears, sound downright dangerous. For instance, the Obama administration has advised the Saudis, and the rest of the rulers in the Arab world, to get out ahead of the region’s growing protest movements and make democratic reforms. The Saudis have no tradition of democracy beyond the tribal advisory council. Before they were kings and princes, they were desert sheiks. Obama’s advice sounds like an erstwhile ally telling them to surrender. In the Bedouin tradition strong leaders do not surrender without a struggle.

Saudi Support for Bahrain’s Monarchy Image: Press TV

The Saudis have shown their frustration with Washington in a number of dramatic ways. One was their coming to the rescue of the Bahraini monarchy (more sheikhs now calling themselves kings) and supporting the outright fascist reaction that regime has been practicing on its majority Shi’ite citizens. The Saudi’s are Wahhabi Sunnis, the most conservative of Muslims, and they do not care what happens to the Shi’ites. They view them as heretics and suspect that the ones in Bahrain are acting as the pawns of Iran (who they fear as a rising Shi’ite regional power). So the Bahraini terror seems a good and necessary thing in Riyadh. This writer finds the Saudi attitude in relation to Bahrain despicable.

The second way the Saudis have shown their frustration is by pointing a finger at U.S. hypocrisy. This was done in a sharp, no-nonsense op-ed by Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal in the Washington Post of 10 June 2011. Turki has strong credentials. He has been the Saudi ambassador to both the U.S. and the U.K. He has been his country’s chief of intelligence. And while he presently holds no government office (which is probably why he was the one who authored this op-ed) his sentiments undoubtedly reflect those of the Saudi government. So what did the prince say?

1. Referring to President Obama’s speech on events in the Middle East, Turki noted that “President Obama…admonished Arab governments to embrace democracy” while he “conspicuously failed to demand the same rights to self-determination for Palestinians–despite the occupation of their territory by the region’s strongest military power.”

2. Turki found equally depressing “the sight of Congress applauding the denial of basic human rights to the Palestinian people” when recently addressed by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

3. Taken together, the denial of such rights to the Palestinians, while calling for them for the rest of the Arab world was, in the Saudi view, a clear indicator that “any peace plans co-authored by the United States and Israel would be untenable and that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain intractable as long as U.S. policy is unduly beholden to Israel.”

4. Thus, “in the absence of productive negotiations, the time has come for Palestinians to bypass the United States and Israel and to seek direct international endorsement of statehood at the United Nations. They will be fully supported in doing so by Saudi Arabia.

If the Saudis have it all wrong in Bahrain, they have it all right on Palestine. But the message does not stop here. Turki proceeds to throw down the gauntlet, so to speak.

5. “American leaders have long called Israel an ‘indispensable’ ally. They will soon learn that there are other players in the region…who are as, if not more, ‘indispensable.’ The game of favoritism toward Israel has not proven wise for Washington, and soon it will be shown to be an even greater folly….There will be disastrous consequences for U.S.-Saudi relations if the United States vetoes U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state.”

It should be noted that there is no legal basis for such a veto in the UN General Assembly, but the Obama administration could make things very difficult simply by twisting arms so as to get nations dependent on Washington to vote no on Palestinian recognition. That, by the way, is what the Truman administration did in 1948 in order to get the necessary yes votes for Israel’s recognition as a state (the vote was a close thing). It would be sadly ironic if the Obama administration tried the same tactic to defeat the Palestinian effort.

6. Turki concludes, “We Arabs used to say no to peace, and we got our comeuppance in 1967. In 2002 King Abdullah offered what has become the Arab Peace Initiative….it calls for an end to the conflict based on land for peace….Now, it is the Israelis who are saying no. I’d hate to be around when they face their comeuppance.”

It would be dangerous to consider this a bluff. Turki is quite right when he says that there are others in the Middle East region who are more indispensable to the United States and the West in general than Israel. For instance, any and all of the oil producers of the area. To demonstrate this the Saudis do not have to repeat the oil embargo of 1973. All they have to do is cut back on production a little bit at a time and pressure the other Arab producers to do so as well. If they do that President Obama will be campaigning in 2012 with gasoline at above $5 a gallon. Nor will the price come down just because he loses to Mitt Romney or some other candidate in an elephant costume. It is unlikely to come down until the Palestinians have a just peace.

Part II – Israeli Power

Against this reference to very real Saudi power we have Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s latest bit of legerdemain. In a Rome press conference the Prime Minister, backed up by the smiling approval of his Italian counterpart, Silvio Berlusconi, told the world that “the problem is not the settlements; the root of the conflict is the fact that the Palestinians refuse to recognize the existence of the Jewish state.” Later on Netanyahu elaborated, “This is an insoluble conflict because it is not about territory….Until the Palestinians agree to accept Israel – not just as a country, but as a Jewish state – it will be impossible to move forward.”

All Israeli leaders seem to have possessed this power to create illusions. Here Netanyahu manifests this by moving the peace process goalpost simply by the spoken word. This magic act seems to be underpinned by the spectators complete lack of historical memory and perspective. So, Netanyahu is able to say historically incorrect things and get away with it. Here is what he left out:

1. In 1993 the Palestine Liberation Organization, then led by Yasir Arafat, formally recognized the state of Israel . At the time it was clearly understood what the “state of Israel” meant. No one was trying to play fast and loose by leaving out a descriptive term like “Jewish.” Arafat himself later told the Guardian newspaper that it was “clear and obvious” both that Israel was and will be Jewish and the refugee problem has to be solved in a way that maintained that Jewish character.

2. Then there is the information revealed by the leaked Palestine Papers (January 2011). What they showed was that Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) and his follows had offered the Israelis just about every thing they wanted. As I noted at that time, Abbas and his colleagues “were willing to accept the Bantustans, to give up almost all of Jerusalem, to turn their backs on 99% of the Palestinian refugees, to look the other way as the people of Gaza were slaughtered and to even serve as an ally of the Israeli occupation forces on the West Bank. By the time they were done there was nothing left that was worth fighting for. As the PNA’s chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat told U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, they had done everything but “convert to Zionism.” And yet, the Israelis scorned the Palestinian compromises.”

Now, one can say that Netanyahu is so narrow minded and under-informed that he does not remember 1993 or Arafat’s subsequent clarification to the Guardian. But he must remember the capitulation described in the Palestine Papers. After all, it happened partly on his own watch. So, what is it with him and his “Jewish state”demand? The only logical conclusion is that Prime Minister Netanyahu is a “confidence artist” and he thinks of the rest of us, particularly the U.S. Congress, as his “marks.” Behind this illusion is the reality: the Israeli leadership is not interested in peace. Indeed, peace is to be avoided because it would necessarily stop their absorption of Palestinian land. This is really why it is “impossible to move forward.”

Part III – And The Winner Would Be….

What happens if the Saudis decide that the time really has come to exercise their immense economic power for the sake of the Palestinians? Can the power of the Israeli con artists successfully compete? Well here are some things to consider:

1. Zionist power outside of Palestine is confined to a small number of locales. That does not mean it is not real, but it does mean that its basis is shallow. For instance, its twin pillars are holocaust guilt and lobby influence. The latter, at least in the U.S., comes in the form of political payoffs. The Zionists also have media leverage but that influence is not as ubiquitous as it use to be. It is unclear just how long it would hold up in the face of serious economic counterweights.

2. Saudi Arabia’s power, on the other hand, is truly international and represents well founded, mass economic power. If the price of energy starts going higher and higher because the Saudis and other Arab oil producers cut back on production, the Zionists can’t do a thing about it. And what is Washington and the Europeans going to do? Invade Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, et. al.? That sort of thing happens in suspense novels and will only be advocated by fringe extremists of the John Bolton type. It is not likely to happen in the real world.

No. In this kind of confrontation the Zionists can not win. They are just not as indispensable as affordable energy. It is interesting that not much is being said about this in the U.S. media. Maybe the Zionists and their friends think that if they ignore the Saudis, they will just go away. Maybe they are praying for fusion power before September. Maybe they think it is all bluff.
Personally, I think it might just be Saudi Arabia’s moment. That it is Saudi power that can force a just peace on Washington and Tel Aviv. Let us hope so. For Palestine I’m ready to pay per gallon whatever it costs.

A Zionist’s Response to “What’s the Difference Between Zionism and Racism?

NOVANEWS

 

Beneath The Spin*Eric L. Wattree


A

Zionist’s Response to “What’s the Difference Between Zionism and Racism?”

I recently posted an article entitled “President Obama: What’s the Difference Between Zionism and Racism?” In response I received several comments from a gentlemen who posts under the name of Tim 2. His comments were so reflective of the typical Zionist reaction to this debate that I thought it would be enlightening to present it as an article under its own name.

Tim 2
June 18, 2011 – 4:26 pm

Eric – You obviously believe the Jewish State of Israel has no right to exist and should not exist. As a result, everything else that comes from you is just hot air and noise. If the majority of Palestinians and other Arabs/Muslims believe as you do, then there will be no peace. And, more importantly, if the goal of Arabs/Muslims is your goal, to destroy Israel, then your criticism of Israel is worthless and empty and hypocritical and non-substantive and arrogant and duplicitous and, of course, self-serving.
.
Also, for you to believe that you are not anti-Semitic (all stupid word games aside) is atrocious and flagrant self-deception at best and purposeful and callous malevolence at worst.
.
Eric L. Wattree
June 19, 2011 – 8:17 am
.
Tim 2,
.
I have a philosophy that I’ve developed over the years about ALL ideologues regardless to their ideology, and it is the following: Efficient thinkers give truth priority over ideology, while ideologues give ideology priority over truth.
.
Your comment just validated that philosophy. Like most ideologues, you seem to see things in black and white, and you also tend to make unwarranted assumptions. What evidence do you have that I don’t think Israel has a right to exist? I was very clear in the article that I don’t like the way the United States came into being either, but that doesn’t mean that I’m advocating the overthrow of the United States. So what made you leap to the conclusion that I was advocating the destruction of Israel? The fact is, I’d settle for the outrageous compromise of agreeing that Israel stop stealing land under the pretext of national defense, and exist as a true egalitarian democracy. That would work for me, how about you?
.
Tim 2
June 19, 2011 – 12:56 pm
.
Explain to me what you mean by an “egalitarian democracy” first. A dollar will get you a hundred that your solution is the destruction of the nation-state of the Jews (ie, as Israel exists now).
.
The truth is Eric, you and everyone like you deny not only the history of the Jewish people (probably the most severe type of anti-Semitism) but believe you are clever enough to formulate your hate and motivations in such a way that they become opaque or even mis-understood.
.
When you can accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, then I’ll listen. Otherwise, you’re just whistling dixie.
.
Eric L. Wattree
June 19, 2011 – 5:05
.
Tim 2,
.
I think that egalitarian democracy is self-explanatory – a one man, one vote democracy where every person has equal rights. You knew exactly what it meant, but you want a state that has a legal right to discriminate against all non Jews. There’s a word for that – bigotry. Thus you’re arguing for the legal right to do to others what you’re always whining about being done to you. That seems kind of hypocritical to me.
.
And Tim, your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is anti Semitic is not only arrogant, but it’s getting very old. The world used to give Zionists a pass on that argument, but the world is gradually waking up to the fact that the cruelty and the loss of life that’s taking place in the Middle East as a direct result of our catering to Israel is resulting in yet another Holocaust, but this this time it’s being carried out by Israelis. So you’ve just about played the sympathy card out.
.
So spare us the guilt trip, because it ain’t working anymore. I’m not buying into the send-your-sons-to-die-to- prove-that-you-don’t-hate-Jews bit. So if you want to accuse me of being anti Semitic, knock yourself out. Your Zionist gravy train is about over. We’re tired of dying so you can live in privilege.
.
Tim 2
June 19, 2011 – 5:23 pm
.
Eric –
.
I don’t want a pass from you or your kind. Nor do I expect you or your kind to admit you’re anti-Semitic, so I certainly don’t expect you to feel “guilty” about any of your horrific ideas and thoughts presented here.
.
And just because I disagree with you, doesn’t make me conclude you’re anti-Semitic. It’s just that you are. And you are one of the worst kind of anti-Semites.
.
I only want one thing and that’s for you to know you’re fooling no-one, not even yourself.
.
Eric L. Wattree
June 19, 2011 – 9:23 pm
.
Tim 2,
.
Hmmm, let’s see. You said,
.
“And just because I disagree with you, doesn’t make me conclude you’re anti-Semitic. It’s just that you are. And you are one of the worst kind of anti-Semites.”
.
Wait a minute. I think I get it. You don’t conclude that I’m anti semitic just because YOU disagree with me. You think I’m the worst kind of anti Semite because I disagree with YOU. Oddly enough, that kind of makes sense to me. Anyone who thinks that everyone should have equal rights in Israel hates Jews. I think I’ve got it.
.
No wonder there’s so much turmoil over there. Your philosophy is, anyone who disagrees with you is the enemy. That kind of thinking is not only dangerous, but absolutely psychotic.
.
Tim 2
June 19, 2011 – 7:01 pm
.
Eric –
.
I don’t want a pass from you or your kind. Nor do I expect you or your kind to admit you’re anti-Semitic, so I certainly don’t expect you to feel “guilty” about any of your horrific ideas and thoughts presented here.
.
And just because I disagree with you, doesn’t make me conclude you’re anti-Semitic. It’s just that you are. And you are one of the worst kind of anti-Semites.
.
I only want one thing and that’s for you to know you’re fooling no-one, not even yourself.
.
Eric L. Wattree
June 20, 2011 – 7:20 am
.
Tim 2,
.
There are many Jews who take the exact same position that I do with respect to Zionism. Are they anti Semitic? Then what makes me any different from them? You’ve presented absolutely no evidence that I’m anti Semitic. Thus, the only basis that you have for coming to that conclusion – at least, the only basis that you’ve stated in this discussion – is that I’m a non Jew who disagrees with your belief that Zionist should be given the right to discriminate against non Jews. That represents the epitome of intolerance – Hitlerian intolerance. So I think I’m on solid ground in suggesting that Zionism represents the Nazi wing of Judaism.
.
Tim 2
June 20, 2011 – 8:14 am
.
Eric,
.
You mean I haven’t given you my rationale for why I believe you are an anti-Semite. You have never asked me for that, choosing instead to project your own rationale upon me.
.
Here is my rationale:
.
1)Your article denies the history of the Jewish people ( I did state this in an earlier comment and added that this is perhaps the most sever e type of anti-Semitism). This is exhibited most clearly by statements, “Far be it from me, however, to say who’s a Jew and who’s not, but I think we can all agree that European Jews are not the same Jews that were spoken of in the Bible,” and “Think about it– as bad as the Germans and Russians treated the Jews over the years, you’d think the Jews would have been given part of one of those countries,” and ““Granted, when someone invades your home you do have a right to retaliate against them, but Europeans have about as much right to call Israel their home as I’d have of tearing off a part of China simply because I converted to Buddhism.”
.
2)You accuse Jews of being racists and of ethnic cleansing if not of outright genocide claiming in your article, “How can you go into your neighbor’s home and kill his family, then call him the aggressor? And now they’re talking about invading Iran! It’s all about racism and greed,” and “So the Israeli claim that their slaughter of the Arab people is simply an attempt to defend themselves is nothing but a farce. “
.
3)You accuse Israel as being the source of all mid-east and even worldwide problems and conflicts and, more importantly, of costing US citizens’ and soldiers’ lives saying, “This is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed, because due to our failure to do so, American troops are dying, the United States treasury is being looted, and the entire world is being placed at risk.“
.
4)You compare Zionism to Nazism saying in your last comment to me, “So I think I’m on solid ground in saying that Zionism represents the Nazi wing of Judaism.”
.
Your comments are the quintessential comments of an anti-Semite. They revise or fabricate history and fact to libel, demean and defame an entire people.
.
Eric L. Wattree
June 20, 2011 – 10:06 am
.
Tim 2,
.
First, when you accuse someone of being anti semitic, or anything else, for that matter, they shouldn’t have to ask you for your rationale. A fundamental rule of 7th grade English is when you make an assertion you should start substantiating that assertion in the very next sentence.
.
And regarding the other issues that you bring up, that’s not proof that I’m anti Semitic. Those are the facts as I see them, and many non Zionist Jews take some of the very same positions. Just because I person disagrees with you doesn’t mean that they hate you. I disagreed with my late wife all of the time, but I loved her dearly. I currently disagree with my children on many issues, but I also love them dearly. And I have a growing number of disagreements with Barack Obama, yet, unless he does something incredibly stupid, I intend to vote for him in the next election. So we’ve come full circle, back to your very dangerous belief than anyone who disagrees with your distorted belief system is the enemy, and I repeat, you and Adolph Hitler would be in full agreement in that regard.
.
And finally, you’ve now accused me of defaming “an entire people.” That’s a flat-out lie. I’m not criticizing Jews, any more than I would criticize all White people of being Nazis, or all Black people of being hip hop artists. I’m critizing the criminal malevolence of Zionism. Period. But the fact is, you find it convenient to conflate Zionism with Judaism in an attempt to generate sympathy for your bigoted philosophy.
.
Texas Vet
June 20, 2011 – 8:24 am
.
I’m sorry Eric that you had to listen to Tim 2 blabber on. He can’t help it if his head is screwed on backwards. But, you handled him well and with compassion. Thanks. As a fellow human, he deserves that much, though he seems unwilling to respond in kind.
.
Keep writing Tim 2. But think clearly. Just remember, you’re tangling with serious intellects in Wattree and some of the rest of us on this site.
.
Texas Vet. First Cav
.
Eric L. Wattree
June 20, 2011 – 10:44 am
.
Thank you, Tom.
.
Based on this guy’s philosophy we should be bitter enemies instead of best friends. After all, I’m a progressive and you’re a staunch conservative. We disagree on many things, so naturally, you must hate Black people.
.
Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
.
Religious bigotry: It’s not that I hate everyone who doesn’t look, think, and act like me – it’s just that God does.

Korea: Buried Toxic Herbicides Threaten

NOVANEWS

 

Veterans-For-Change Requests Congress Hold Hearings on Toxic Herbicides Buried by US Army in Korea

by Jim Davis

As you may have heard or seen in recent news articles from both U.S. and South Korean News Departments, major reports have been reported about toxic herbicides being buried throughout Korea by U.S Army personnel.

Searching on the Internet with Google, delivered 58,400 hits under the key words of ‘toxic herbicides being buried throughout Korea by U.S Army personnel,’ including an interesting article at the Korea Times website,

In addition, some documents and testimony has been made public which indicates the deployment of the Dioxin contaminated herbicides Agent Orange, Agent Blue and Monuron covered a much wider date range than has historically been reported by the Departments of the Army and Defense at hearings in Congress. For those who have never heard the terminology of Monuron, Monuron is a herbicide “recommended for use in non-crop areas for total control of weeds, and it would be released to the environment as a result of this use.

Monuron’s registration with EPA for use as a herbicide was cancelled in 1977, and therefore if it is still manufactured, it would be manufactured for export.

In soil, monuron is transformed to its metabolites primarily by biodegradation.

Additionally, a document from the Appeals Management Center of the Department of Veterans Affairs — clearly states that the areas where these toxic herbicides were deployed is far greater than reported – in fact into areas far to the south of the DMZ, Demilitarized Zone.

Veterans-For-Change, respectfully request that both Houses of Congress hold hearings immediately to call the Department of Defense, Department of the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs to explain the following:

  1. Why was this information, which clearly existed in the files center for Unit Records Research, were not previously reported so that affected former service members would know what is causing their serious health problems today?; and

  2. Why have the records of this deployment of toxic herbicides and the Unit Histories suddenly become unavailable to former Service Members since the cited document was revealed by the Board of Veterans Appeals?; and

  3. How many more Veterans of Korean Service and Korean Civilians must suffer and die from the many diseases associated with and proven to be a result of poisoning carried out by the U.S. Departments of the Army and Defense before the U. S. Government reveals the complete truth?; and finally

  4. Why has this Appeal Case Decision not been posted in the Board of Veterans Appeal on-line files despite the fact that ruling was issued in late 2009?

The time has arrived for a thorough investigation of the items listed above, along with a thorough investigation/hearings to make the Department of Defense, Department of the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs accountable to all effected parties, including our Veterans.

As your constituent, Veterans-For-Change expects actions among the leaders in calling for this hearing. It is time for our United States Congress to be accountable about the issues concerning the United States of America and our military and not dwell so much about the actions, morals, or lack of morals from our representatives.

History of Vaccines Not Pretty

NOVANEWS

Part one of two

by Tom Valentine

(This story is from Tom Valentines archives circa 1996; Vaccines remain one of the most contentious issues today, with a determined anti-advocacy continuing to battle fascist monopoly medicine.)

The idea of vaccinations to protect an individual against disease-causing germs was actually invented and practiced before mankind knew anything about germs. That’s right, it started early in the 1700’s when somebody got the idea (theory) that mixing the blood of a smallpox or plague survivor with an untested person might somehow pass along protection. They would make incisions in the hands or arms and much like we’ve seen “blood brothers” made in the movies, they would press the wounds together.

History says Edward Jenner conceived of vaccinating people against the dread smallpox (a viral infection), by pricking them with a cowpox tainted instrument back in 1796, yet mankind didn’t have the germ theory of disease, let alone know anything about viruses, until the time of Bechamp and Pasteur almost a century later. Koch’s postulate (the basis of the germ theory diagnostics by Robert Koch) wasn’t put forth until 1882.

So, Jenner developed a vaccination theory before we knew anything about the immune system and infectious pathogens. And, until the invention of the electron microscope in the 1930’s scientists knew virtually nothing about viruses.

Roger Bacon is credited for pointing out that “man can do much more than he knows.” The “cowpox” inoculations against smallpox first conceived by Jenner is a good example of doing without knowing. If the truth be told, we are still “doing” a lot more than we “know” when it comes to immunization programs today.

However, we certainly know more than they did back in Jenner’s time, or Pasteur’s time, or even the times of Jonas Salk in the 1950’s when polio was allegedly eradicated by vaccines. And after reading this article, you will know a lot more about the history of vaccines than you ever imagined.

Today there are two polarized camps—the established medicine, public health policy pro-vaccination camp and the anti-vaccination, freedom of choice camp.

The vast majority of Americans would automatically assume that “science” is on the side of the medical point of view. If this assumption were true, there would be far less controversy. Medical science, even in our modern era of high tech, is anything but “absolute.” And, the medicrats responsible for the programs, are not truthful. (consider recent lies about flu vaccine and miscarriage.)

So, what can we believe?

We shall strive to deal with this issue rationally.

First, does experience validate the theory? Let’s look at the record.

Our entrenched medical establishment points to the smallpox record as convincing. We are told that up until Benjamin Rubin invented the “bifurcated vaccination needle” in the 1960’s, a device allowing vaccinations in primitive areas of the world, the record indicated at least two million people died of smallpox every year worldwide. By 1980, the World Health Organization proclaimed that smallpox had been “eradicated.” This appears very impressive, but does not consider all the variables involved.

For example, we find in the book “Vaccination; the Silent Killer” by Ida Honoroff and Eleanor McBean, the following:

“In 1796 Edward Jenner started his cowpox vaccination craze, which increased the smallpox epidemics to such an extent that the disease became endemic, and in 1837 to 1839 there was the sweeping epidemic which killed 22,081 people. In spite of this absolute proof of the deadly effects of vaccination, the vaccine promoters managed to get a compulsory vaccination law passed in England in 1853. The epidemics then increased to such an extent that by 1870 to 1872 there was the worst smallpox epidemic of all time, which killed 44,480 people. The English people fought the vaccination promoters until they were able to abolish compulsory vaccination in England in 1948. They have had no epidemics since then.”

Isn’t that a fascinating story of medical history? Not only was man doing more than he knew by vaccinating himself against viral organisms that he didn’t know existed, but he also introduced “vaccination promoters” and “compulsory laws” into the equation way back then.

Is it any wonder that some have said our human behavior is capable of boggling even the Angels?

The late Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, “The People’s Doctor” provided this look at the historical record regarding smallpox, which, we are told with a great deal of media hype, is a disease that has been utterly eradicated:

“Did you know that several years after the first smallpox vaccine was introduced into the Philippines (it was first given in 1910) and after 95 percent of the population—8 million people—had been given 24,500,000 doses of vaccine, the Philippines experienced its worst smallpox epidemic in history?”

To add another wrinkle of dark humor to this tale of human folly, a letter to the editor in a recent issue of The Lancet (September 28, 1996) featured a photograph of a grave headstone dating back to 1788. The letter and photo were headlined: “An old malpractice claim.” The tombstone read as follows: “In Memory of Peleg, son of Thomas & Mary Conklin, who died of the smallpox by inoculation Jan. 27th, 1788; aged 17 years.”

Not only is the date of the contention, 1788, interesting in that it precedes Jenner by eight years, the letter-writer in The Lancet pointed out that “medical malpractice claims are not new in the New World.” Neither are claims that vaccination caused an untimely death of a youngster.

Apparently, the facts about disease eradication have been misrepresented and twisted.

The story of the lessening of specific diseases is not cut and dry at all; there are variables and multiple factors—not merely vaccinations—to take into account when analyzing the record.

Part two will outline the incredible history of the polio vaccine.

Major Afghan Drawndown Unlikely

NOVANEWS

 

Obama Not Likely to Call for Major Afghan Drawdown

by Sherwood Ross

 

Four cheers for the U.S. Conference of Mayors! It has just voted up a resolution calling on Washington to transfer $126-billion in annual spending from its Middle East wars to America’s cities! This vote represents an historic, antiwar breakthrough, one perhaps analogous to CBS anchor Walter Cronkite’s commentary on February 27, 1968, that the U.S. could get no better than a stalemate in Viet Nam. As Cronkite put it,“…it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could.”

We might hope Americans today will not have to endure further long years of losses in blood and treasure as did this nation in the Sixties and into the Seventies because Presidents Johnson and Nixon refused to withdraw even though the objective Cronkite rightly diagnosed the conflict as win-less and futile. Unfortunately, President Obama is not apt to listen to the mayors, either.

He is expected to deliver a speech tomorrow(June 22nd) calling for a mere token withdrawal from Afghanistan, where the cruel war drags on into its tenth year, making it the longest contest in U.S. history. That’s despite a Bloomburg poll, one of many, that shows the American public by an overwhelming margin of 63% to 30% want “complete withdrawal.” U.S. taxpayers are not only funding about 100,000 uniformed troops in Afghanistan but a like figure of civilian “contractors,” who may be considered irregular regulars.

According to the Agence France-Presse dispatch of June 20, Obama “has to weigh rising popular discontent over the war with military and strategic considerations and may want to showcase faster withdrawals when he runs for a second term next year.”

And Monday’s Washington Post reported, “Senior Democrats in Congress, and many Republicans, have questioned the major troop deployments, called the costs unsustainable and urged a rapid withdrawal. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) has suggested that Obama withdraw 15,000 troops by the end of the year.”

Support for the war is ebbing fast on Capitol Hill, even among Republicans. As the Post remarked, “In a debate last week, seven Republicans contesting the party’s 2012 presidential primaries were divided about how to proceed, with most calling for the troops to come home.” (Italics added.)

However, 200,000 take away 10,000 or 15,000 is not exactly what the American public is hoping for—particularly those who have loved ones stationed in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama will get to meet some of those who have served there on Thursday when he visits the Tenth Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y. Many of these troops have done two or more tours in the Middle East and maybe the President should do less talking and more listening. These are men and women who have seen the ghastly face of war.

Obama—a president whose background check reveals he was a CIA employee and who follows the CIA’s hawkish line in foreign policy—is not apt to listen to Senator Levin, the nation’s mayors or the American people. The polls have long shown the American public is disgusted with the wars in the Middle East and is beginning to make the connection between the slowdown in the economy, and the terrible nation-wide cuts in public services on one hand with Pentagon spending on the other, spending that tops $1-trillion a year, sucking up 52 cents out of every tax dollar and leaving the civilian sector to fight over the scraps.

Outside of the White House, is it possible to find an American anywhere who believes that the presence of U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan is essential to our national security—-particularly when we have some 800 bases around the world ready to deploy troops at the drop of a bomb?

Wrongfully Banishing Professor David Protess

NOVANEWS
by Stephen Lendman


 

On March 18, Chicago Tribune writers Matthew Walberg and Dan Hinkel headlined, “Northwestern at odds with star professor,” saying:

“Cook County prosecutors sparked a media firestorm nearly two years ago when they subpoenaed notes, recordings, and even grades of (his) students (because of their work proving) Anthony McKinney had wrongly been convicted of a 1978 murder.”

The battle sparked a feud between Northwestern and Protess, whose Medill Innocence Project uncovered numerous wrongful murder convictions, culminating when former Illinois Gov. George Ryan declared a moratorium on capital punishment in 2000 after 13 prisoners were found innocent and released.

On January 11, 2003, two days before leaving office, he then cleared death row, commuting sentences for 163 men and four women to life imprisonment. He also declared a moratorium on future executions, now banned after Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation last March, saying it’s impossible “to create a perfect, mistake-free death penalty system.”

Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism’s Protess, also Medill Innocence Project Director, was “a superstar (investigative) professor, leading teams of students (to uncover 13) wrongful death penalty convictions….One was just hours from execution.”

Medill Dean John Lavine, however, suspended him by email, with no further comment about his future. In fact, he was effectively fired, Lavine privately suggesting he wouldn’t be welcomed back.

It was a textbook case of academic lynching, affecting a distinguished professor deserving high honors, not denigration and banishment.

Northwestern’s statement said in part:

“There have been recent media reports regarding the conduct of David Protess (and his) Medill Innocence Project….Northwestern has been conducting its own review of (his) actions and practices….It served as the basis for Northwestern’s response to subpoenas issued by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office.” Despite his laudable work, his “Innocence Project (goal) would not justify any improper actions,” despite no legitimate evidence proving any.

On March 18, The Daily Northwestern’s Brian Rosenthal headlined, “Updated: NU removes David Protess as professor of Investigative Journalism in spring,” saying:

His removal “leave(s) the future of the class unclear. In an interview, Protess said he will continue to serve as director of the Innocence Project, but he doesn’t know if the project will continue to be involved with the class….”

At the time, he also said he’s “committed to continuing our investigations in these cases. Innocent prisoners should not be punished for the dean’s decision….The innocent prisoners in jail transcend anything going on at Northwestern. I’m not going to neglect the cause.”

In addition, he expressed disappointment “because last quarter’s class was the best group of students I’ve taught in years.”

The eight undergraduates in his spring class petitioned Medill’s Senior Director of Undergraduate Education Michele Mitoun saying:

“If removing Protess is part of an effort by the University to discipline him for defending the integrity of the Innocence Project to which he and decades of students have given so much, please know that you are not punishing Prof. Protess half as much as you are his students, and the two men still sitting behind bars.”

Dozens of alumni also petitioned Northwestern and Medill, saying:

“We are writing to request a public explanation of the facts surrounding the apparent removal of Professor Protess. In particular, we would like to know the reasons for (his) removal, and your explanation of why this action was necessary and is in the best interests of Medill and Northwestern.”

Former students like Evan Benn, now a St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter called Protess’ class “life-changing.” Another, Maurice Possley, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, said he was “incredibly professional.” Paul Ciolino added:

“If you look at this thing 30 to 40 years from now, Protess will be a beloved figure that they’ll be building statues about.”

The Northwestern Faculty Senate passed a motion expressing “deep concern” over the way Protess was treated.

Former Medill Dean (1989 – 1996), now Columbia University Journalism Professor, Michael Janeway said he zealously pursued a cause, one “you could not question.”

On June 19, New York Times writers David Carr and John Schwartz headlined, “A Watchdog Professor, Now Defending Himself,” saying:

Renown Journalism Professor Protess “spent three decades fighting to prove the innocence of others has been locked in a battle to do the same for himself. It hasn’t gone as well.”

In fact, spurious practices he’s accused of include deceptive tactics, cooperating with defense lawyers (that “negates a journalist’s legal privilege to resist subpoenas”), “whether he altered an email to cover up that cooperation,” and giving his students better grades for uncovering evidence that, in fact, was their job to do in wrongful conviction cases.

In addition, his students are bogusly charged with allegedly paying off a witness and misrepresenting themselves.

They and Protess vigorously deny all accusations, calling them a malicious smear campaign by the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. Dean Lavine became party to it by claiming, without justification, that Protess “knowingly misrepresented the facts and his actions,” compromising his own character and academic freedom by saying so.

In mid-June, Protess “retired from Northwestern altogether (effective August 31),” while continuing to run the Innocence Project, saying:

“I have spent three decades exposing wrongful convictions only to find myself in the cross hairs of others who are wrongfully accusing me.”

He also believes he’s been criticized and denigrated for defending his students and occasional lapses of memory, the latter, of course, affecting everyone without facing accusations of wrongdoing.

On June 13, Protess said he’s now President of the Chicago Innocence Project, continuing his investigative work non-profit.

According to George Washington University Professor Mark Feldstein:

Protess “is in the hall of fame of investigative journalists in the 20th century. Using cheap (very willing) student labor, he has targeted a very specific issue. That work has reopened cases, changed laws, and saved lives.”

Protess said Dean Lavine initially supported him, but now knows it was a charade, saying:

It was “an attempt to seem as if he were fighting for the First Amendment when, in fact, he was undermining the Innocence Project at every turn,” no doubt for an ulterior motive perhaps benefitting himself at the expense of truth, justice and integrity.

On May 11, Daily Northwestern writer Brian Rosenthal headlined, “In Focus: ‘Dismantling of a legacy:’ The rise and fall of David Protess,” saying:

Barely a decade after founding the Medill Innocence Project, he’s now “barred from teaching his trademark class, publicly vilified by his dean,” and forced to “take a ‘leave of absence’ that few realistically think will ever end.” He’s also “reportedly (barred from) enter(ing) the building.”

Medill Professor Michele Weldon said:

“I think everything about the situation is tragic. It is tragic for David, the students, the faculty, the schools, the alums, all the people who are affected by the Innocence Project and individuals who hope to be recipients of the work” it performs.

As a result, he made enemies in high places, especially state and local prosecutors, unhappy to have their wrongful convictions exposed and overturned.

In fact, they’re a national cancer, mostly affecting innocent Blacks and Latinos, wrongfully sentenced to death and murdered by authorities who know it and don’t care. Others are imprisoned for life when officials won’t admit errors and release them because America’s corrupted prison industrial complex thrives on adding inmates, justice be damned to do it.

Author Michelle Alexander calls it “The New Jim Crow” in her book by that title, calling mass incarceration a modern-day caste system created by elitist racists who embrace colorblindness. As a result, imprisonment became a politically charged social control instrument, unrelated to crime.

Exposing it by combining investigative journalism and advocacy for justice earned Protess the distinction he deserves. Denigrating him is contemptible and shameless. It also taints Northwestern, Medill and Dean Lavine for compromising inviolable academic and speech freedoms.

The Innocence Project (IC)

Full information on it can be found through the following link, now continued by Protess’ Chicago Innocence Project (CIP):

http://www.medillinnocenceproject.org/

Founded in 1999, IC’s mission statement says it “engages undergraduate journalism students….in investigative reporting of miscarriages of justice, with priority given to murder cases that resulted in sentences of death or life without parole. Our goal is to expose wrongdoing in the criminal justice system.”

Until his wrongful banishment, Protess helped free innocent prisoners, saved from lethal injections or other ways to murder them. He’ll now continue that heroic mission as President of his newly opened Chicago Innocence Project, an initiative vitally important to continue, especially by someone of his distinction and commitment.

Polio Vaccine Spreads Cancer

NOVANEWS

Part two Vaccine History

by Tom Valentine

Paralytic polio was a scourge prior to the 1950’s (polio vaccine first arrived in 1955) and probably everyone in my generation can remember the March of Dimes campaigns with Eleanor Roosevelt leading the way. Well, today the scourge of “natural paralytic polio” has “vanished” due tounknown factors, but perhaps due to what molecular biologists today call “mutations due to gene drift” in the virus.

Epidemiological studies show that polio mortality declined by 82% prior to 1956 in England and Wales. The same pattern emerged in France. The vaccine had nothing to do with any of it. After 10 years of polio vaccine availability (1966), the overall statistics indicated that polio had returned to where it had been in the 1920’s. And today, it is argued that the only source of paralytic polio are the polio vaccines.

Regardless of why polio is no longer seen as a major threat, the history of the polio vaccines is one of horrific consequences that few Americans know anything about.

In his fascinating book “Mary, Ferrie and The Monkey Virus,” investigator-author Edward Haslam relates the dawning of the polio vaccine succinctly. With permission I reprinted his brief description:

Today, many Americans do not remember what a terrible curse “the polio epidemic” was upon the land. At its crest in the early 1950’s more than 33,000 Americans fell crippled or died slow, terrible deaths from polio each year. Most were children. The word ‘polio’ struck fear into the hearts of parents across America. It was a casually transmitted virus that first infected the lining of the intestines, then the blood stream, and finally the nervous system where it destroyed the victim’s brain stem. The difference between crippled and dead was determined by the extent of the damage to the brain stem.

Cavernous hospital wards full of hideous looking machines called ‘iron lungs’ awaited patients who became too weak to breathe for themselves. President Franklin Roosevelt himself was crippled by polio before he entered the White House. The search for a polio vaccine became a national scientific effort supported by the most powerful political forces in the land. The problem was this: Polio was caused by a virus, not a bacterium, and viruses do not respond to antibiotics. So despite the spectacular success of antibiotics introduced to the American clinical scene in 1942, the medical community was powerless to stop this virus from crippling and killing.

A New York City lawyer close to President Roosevelt organized the March of Dimes and collected millions of dollars in coins from grade school children across the country to finance the research effort. The progress was encouraging. By the early 1950’s, American scientist Jonas Salk came forward with a brave new idea to eliminate all three strains of polio at once: Grow the polio viruses in the lab, kill them, then inject healthy children with the dead viruses. The dead viruses would not be able to reproduce, so they would not harm the children, but their immune systems would detect the presence of the invading viruses and would rally to defend the body, producing a hefty supply of antibodies in the process. Then the children’s fully armed immune systems would be ready to repel any live poliovirus that attacked them in the future. His trials in 1953 and 1954 were successful. Optimism about Salk’s vaccine reached its peak.

Five laboratories began producing the vaccine from a procedure Salk designed and accumulated a large enough supply for a mass inoculation, which was scheduled as a celebration for Franklin Roosevelt’s birthday. The results of years of research, millions of dollars of investment, and the fate of thousands of crippled children were ready for the most publicized and anticipated event in the history of medicine.

At the 11th hour, a bacteriologist at NIH was told to safety-test the new polio vaccine. Her name was Bernice Eddy. When she injected the vaccine into her monkeys, they fell paralyzed in their cages. Eddy realized that the virus in the vaccine was not dead as promised, but still alive and ready to multiply. It was time to sound the alarm. She sent pictures of the paralyzed monkeys to NIH’s management and warned them of the upcoming tragedy. A debate erupted in the corridors of power. Was the polio vaccine really ready? Should the mass inoculation proceed on schedule?

A handful of prominent doctors across the country stepped into the fray to throw the weight of their reputations on the side of the vaccine. One of these doctors was Mary Sherman’s boss, Dr. Alton Ochsner. (Editor’s note: Mary Sherman is the Mary in the book title and Alton Ochsner was one of the most prominent doctors in New Orleans where the secret monkey virus lab exposed by this book was located.) To demonstrate his conviction that the vaccine was really ready, Dr. Ochsner inoculated his own grandchildren with it.

The mass inoculation proceeded on schedule. Within days, children fell sick from polio, some were crippled, some died. Estimates vary dramatically. (The truth will never be known—TV) Ochsner’s grandson died. His granddaughter contracted polio but survived. An enormous lawsuit erupted. Heads rolled everywhere. The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (Oveta Hobby) stepped down. The Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH), Dr. William Sebrell, resigned. It was the biggest fiasco in medical history. A second, safer vaccine developed by Albert Sabin was deployed. It used a weakened live virus instead of a dead virus. It worked. Polio was history; the future was safe—or so it seemed.

Before continuing with this historic information, let’s glance at a part of the factual aftermath of the polio vaccine debacle.

As a testimony to what is not known, lawyers have made big money representing victims of polio vaccine, and we have witnessed the two great names in polio vaccine—Salk and Sabin—pointing fingers at one another. First Dr. Sabin attacked the Salk vaccine, then later the son of Jonas Salk, Dr. Darrell Salk, testified on behalf of a man in Wichita, Kansas who won a jury award of $10 million back in 1982 because the Sabin oral vaccine Orimune, manufactured by Lederle Laboratories caused his paralytic polio.

In case you didn’t know about this, the father of an infant daughter, who was immunized with Sabin’s oral vaccine, contracted “irreversible bulbar poliomyelitis” paralyzing his lungs 10-12 days after the infant’s immunization. Lederle was found negligent in not pointing out that non-immunized people faced an increased risk of contracting polio by coming into contact with anyone receiving the oral vaccine.

Most of this information was played down and few Americans know the story of the polio vaccine debacle. Instead, the public has been brainwashed to believe that the Salk and Sabin vaccines were, indeed, wonder drugs of the modern era.

Our history of vaccines does not end with polio, however. Thanks to Haslam’s investigative work into the secret “monkey virus labs” operated by the U.S. Government, there is much more vaccine history unfolding.

In the aftermath of the debacle, Bernice Eddy was taken off of polio research and transferred to the influenza section by the thankless NIH management. She shared her frustrations with a small group of women scientists who ate brown-bag lunches on the steps of one of the big labs. There Eddy met a tenacious woman scientist named Sarah Stewart who was waging her own battle against the official paradigms of bureaucratic medicine. Bernice Eddy and Sarah Stewart became close friends.

Sarah Stewart’s name remains virtually unknown today despite her huge contribution to modern medicine. Not only did she prove that some cancers were caused by viruses, but subsequent research on the virus she discovered led to the discovery of DNA recombination, which is one of the most powerful tools in medical research today.

Raised in the fertile Rio Grande valley on the Mexican border, Stewart’s educational odyssey ranged from the New Mexico Agricultural College in 1927 to getting a PhD in bacteriology from the University of Chicago in 1939. Next, Stewart went to work for the National Institute of Health as a bacteriologist for five years. Believing that having a PhD instead of an MD was holding back her career advancement, she entered Georgetown Medical School and earned her medical degree in 1947. Then she joined the National Cancer Institute and until re-assigned to the U.S. Public Health Service in 1960.

From the beginning, Sarah Stewart promoted the idea that cancer was caused by viruses. Due to this, she was not well accepted by the NIH or NCI staffs, who described her as ‘an eccentric lady’ determined to prove her theory was right. ‘No one believed her.’ Finally, she was given access to an NCI laboratory in Bethesda where she could try to prove her theories. In 1953, she almost succeeded, but her work was not accepted by the ruling crowd at NIH. They found her methods sloppy and objected to the fact that she did not culture her viruses. So, in 1956 her lunch partner Bernice Eddy showed Sarah Stewart how to grow her viruses in a culture of mouse cells. She now had all the ingredients she needed and began a series of experiments which are called ‘classic’ by modern NIH researchers.

As her work progressed, she realized she stood on the edge of an extremely important discovery and became very protective of her techniques. In staff presentations, she would bewilder NIH pathologists by showing them slides of things they had never seen before. Then, when they asked how she produced her results, she would giggle and say ‘it’s a secret.’ To quote her supervisor Alan Rabson: ‘She drove everybody crazy.’ One of her procedural anomalies was that she never did control groups, saying ‘they only confuse you.’

In 1957 Stewart and Eddy discovered the polyoma virus, which produced several types of cancer in a variety of small mammals. Polyoma proved that some cancers were indeed caused by viruses. Her discovery officially threw open the doors of cancer virology. As Rabson phrased it: ‘Suddenly the whole place exploded just after Sarah found polyoma.’ It was the beginning of a new era of hope. But, it raised some dark questions about earlier deeds. Before long, Yale’s laboratory discovered that the polyoma virus that had produced the cancer in Stewart’s mice and hamsters turned out to be virtually identical to Simian Virus #40 (SV-40) a monkey virus that caused cancer.

In June 1959, Bernice Eddy, who was still officially assigned to the flu vaccine project, began thinking about the polio virus again. This time she was worried about something much deeper than polio. The vaccine’s manufacturers had grown their polio viruses on the kidneys of monkeys. And when they removed the polio virus from the monkeys’ kidneys, they also removed an unknown number of other monkey viruses. The more they looked, the more they found. The medical science of the day knew little about the behavior or consequences of these monkey viruses. But times were changing. Confronted with mounting evidence that some monkey viruses caused cancer, Eddy grew suspicious of the polio vaccine and asked the excruciating question: Had they inoculated an entire generation of Americans with cancer-causing monkey viruses? She conducted her research quietly, without alerting her NIH supervisors.

In October 1960, Eddy gave a talk to the Cancer Society in New York and without warning NIH in advance announced she had examined cells from the monkey kidneys in which the polio virus was grown and had found they were infected with cancer-causing viruses. Her inference was clear: There were cancer-causing monkey viruses in the polio vaccine! This was tantamount to forecasting an epidemic of cancer in America. When the word got back to her NIH bosses, they exploded in anger. When the cussing stopped, they crushed Bernice Eddy professionally. Any mention of cancer-causing viruses in the polio vaccine was not welcomed by NIH. They took away her lab, destroyed her animals, put her under a gag order, prevented her from attending professional meetings and delayed the publication of her scientific papers. In the words of Edward Shorter, author of ‘The Health Century’: “Her treatment became a scandal within the scientific community.” Later it became the subject of a Congressional inquiry…

A viral specialist named Laura McClelland, working for vaccine developer Maurice Hilleman in Philadelphia, found similar problems in the polio vaccine. The essence of the problem was that SV-40 did not cause cancer in its natural host, an Asian monkey. But what would it do in another primate that had never been exposed to it? One whose immune system had not been sensitized to SV-40? Like Stewart and Eddy, Hilleman knew the population of laboratory animals was hopelessly cross-infected with all sorts of viruses. Monkeys from different continents were frequently caged together. It would be impossible to guarantee that any monkey in the American laboratory population had not been exposed to SV-40 at some point in the past. Hilleman needed clean monkeys caught in the wild. To avoid any last minute contamination, he completely bypassed the commercial animal-importing network. He arranged to have a group of Green monkeys caught in Africa and sent to Philadelphia via Madrid, an airport that normally did not handle any animal traffic. His own drivers picked up the clean monkeys at the Philadelphia airport and brought them directly to the lab.

When injected with SV-40, these clean African Green monkeys developed cancer. Hilleman announced these findings at a medical conference in Copenhagen. But it was not news to the NIH staffers in the audience. The insiders already knew there was a cancer causing virus in the polio vaccine, but they had not announced it. It was the public that did not know. Should the public have been told?

It is difficult for us who have seen the enormous press coverage of AIDS in the 1990’s to understand the indolent response of the 1960’s press on this subject. Was it really their job to prevent public panic? Did they cower in the face of scientific authority? Were they lazy? Or stupid? Or arrogant? Or, were they told not to run the story by political and economic forces? It is hard to say, but there is evidence the word leaked out anyway.

In the Spring of 1961, one of Eddy’s co-workers published a medical article which said there was live SV-40 in the polio vaccine. Eddy herself confirmed that the SV-40 monkey virus was causing cancer in hamsters as well as monkeys, proving that it was capable of crossing the zoonotic species barrier. But she was not allowed to release the information until a year later. NIH notified the U.S. Surgeon General that ‘future polio vaccines would be free of SV-40.’ On July 26, 1961, the New York Times reported two vaccine manufacturers were withdrawing their polio vaccines ‘until they can eliminate a monkey virus.’ The article ran on page 33 with no mention of cancer. Seven months later, a second article in the Times mentioned the possibility of cancer in the polio vaccine. That article ran on page 27. The story died there, and the specter of an approaching epidemic of cancer silently rose on the horizon.

On the heels of the polio fiasco, the medical hierarchy feared the judgment of the masses. Their ability to destroy a painstakingly constructed scientific career overnight had been clearly proven. Another spate of news might shatter the public’s confidence in vaccines altogether. Where would we be then? Where would the public health establishment be then? As SV-40 discoverer Maurice Hilleman put it, the government kept the contamination of the polio vaccine secret to ‘avoid public hysteria.’

We are reminded of the scene in Frankenstein when a crowd of superstitious villagers gathered at the castle gate, angrily waving their pitchforks and torches in the air, demanding to know what evil was going on inside the doctor’s laboratory. To quote the words of polio vaccine developer Albert Sabin: ‘I think to release certain information prematurely is not a public service. There’s too much scaring the public unnecessarily. Oh, your children were injected with a cancer virus and all that. That’s not very good.’

‘Prematurely?’ Hadn’t the mass inoculations already taken place? Hadn’t several top scientists, using carefully controlled experiments, established that the problem was real?

Hadn’t they announced the results to their peers? ‘Unnecessarily?’ Wasn’t there still time to try to do something about it? Shouldn’t someone at least try? Sabin might as well have said: ‘I prefer my tombstone read ‘The vanquisher of polio, and not ‘the father of the great cancer epidemic.” His attempt to hide behind the apron of ‘public service’ is no more than an attempt to avoid both responsibility and the unpleasant experience of facing the angry public. We would all prefer not to be held accountable for our mistakes.

The more important question is: Was Eddy’s prediction of a cancer epidemic accurate. Did the epidemic happen?

Haslam follows that query with his own answer, and I concur—we have had an epidemic of cancer, especially “soft tissue” cancers in the past 35 years. We have lost the war on cancer and are continuing to see the numbers of cancer deaths go up by more than 10,000 victims every year.

If you Google the names Bernice Eddy, Sarah Stewart or the others you will find biiographic facts and a statement about polyoma virus and cancer and virtually nothing about the huge controversies; one of the links to “polio vaccine” plagiarizes some of Haslams expose without citing him.

This is a sad legacy for the compulsory vaccine propaganda machine and you won’t be hearing a lot about it. My point is this: the next time you hear that vaccines have wiped out disease, at least ask them to prove it.

Saudi Arabia: Honey, We’ve Got to Talk

NOVANEWS


I truly believed I’d likely end my CIA career as an undercover operative, especially since I was choosing love over career and love to a foreign dignitary at that!  I took my vows of cover seriously.  Even while Abdullah and I began to plan a life together I never indicated that I had been anything else but a ‘regular diplomat.’  He was already working in the United States at the Saudi Embassy in Washington when I joined him from New Delhi, India as his wife.  During those first weeks of marriage he understood that I was still “out-processing” from my job and finishing up administrative paperwork.  One of those “administrative” issues included a briefing and instructions from the ‘Central Cover Staff’ which were responsible for helping to build and protect the cover of employees.

I went to the meeting expecting to sign a continued declaration of secrecy and oath of cover.  Wrong!  Instead I was informed that since I was leaving the CIA I was “being brought out from under cover.”  For various legalities, I would no longer be an undercover operative and instead my record indicated my true employer.  I was shocked.  I had become so accustomed to living under a cover that blanketed me.  I made sure that the department was aware I had married a foreign official and that he had no indication or hint of who I had worked for.  I was politely but firmly told that was my issue to deal with.

Actually after going through the initial shock and feeling of nakedness without a cover, I began to realize there were more benefits and opportunities without a cover story to worry about.  But I still had to get through the challenge and fear of telling my new husband that there were some (big) things he may not have known about me.  My concern wasn’t as much about his reaction but I did not want any retribution to fall upon my husband because of choices I had made.

My cover was unraveled at the same time Abdullah and I were purchasing our home in Virginia.  Central Cover Staff advised me that the mortgage application had to reflect my CIA employment since the record changes had gone into immediate effect.  Plus, a mortgage required a lot of legal documentation that had to be correct and truthful.  I had a window of about 14 hours to share my revelations with him.

As a newly married couple we were shy, loving and always warm around each other.  I loved how he would enter our home, put his briefcase in the foyer, open his arms wide and holler “Honey, I’m home!”  I’d always come running and fling myself in his arms.  It didn’t matter we were not teenagers although our love for each other radiated like innocent children.  One of the first things he asked the day he knew I had some “resignation meetings” was how did they go?  Without any further ado I took his hand and led him to the couch.  Sitting down and holding his hand I told him, “Honey, we’ve got to talk.”

Abdullah squeezed my hand in assurance and simply looked in to my eyes waiting for me to speak.  His face held no expression.  I began by apologizing that there were things I had not shared and had never thought I’d share.  Things that would never affect my love, honor or desire for him.  Then I just pretty much blurted it out and told him that I had never been a real diplomat.  I had actually been an undercover operative, an intelligence officer, a spy for the past 20 years.  He was amazing.  He looked at me, kissed my forehead and simply said, “Carol Ann Fleming, I married YOU; not your career or former career.  I am proud to learn how you served your country.”

Abdullah never wanted details about my career with the CIA.  While we did not hide my true employment when necessary it was not something that was brought up as a topic of conversation either.  We chose to maintain with our diverse friends and contacts from around the world that I also had served in the diplomatic corps.  There were no reasons to state otherwise.  Whether Abdullah had to report the identity of my true (former) employer I do not know.  When it came to career issues, we always respected each other’s privacy.

Individuals and officials from both countries and third countries often times seemed to not know how to take Abdullah and I.  We came from such very different backgrounds and cultures yet fit together like two peas in a pod.  The girl who came from where oil was first discovered finally met her Prince whose Kingdom reigns over OPEC.  We learned our roots, values and goals in life were the best foundation to build new roots and beginnings together.

REPORT FROM TRIPOLI: More NATO "Humanitarian Intervention:" The Bombing of Al Fateh University, Campus B

NOVANEWS
by Cynthia McKinney

Since coming to Tripoli to see first hand the consequences of the NATO military operations,

it has become clear to me that despite the ongoing silence of the international press on the

ground here in Libya, there is clear evidence that civilian targets have been hit and Libyan

civilians injured and killed.

This Tuesday morning I was taken from my hotel across the city through its bustling traffic

to the Al Fateh University. On 9 June, Dean Ali Mansur was outside in the parking lot.

The sky was blue like Carolina blue.  The clouds were white–no chemtrails in sight.

Puffy and white.

Dean Mansur was visibly upset.  It seems that some of the young men at Al Fateh University,
Campus B were fighting over girls.  He explained to me that Libyans arehot blooded.  With a
gleam in his eye, he whispered to me that girls are important to young men.
Yes, that was clearly evident today as I approached the campus of Al Fateh University, Campus B,
formerly known as Nasser University.  Under the trees, throughout the lawn as we approached the
campus gates, I could see young men and women talking to each other, talking on cell phones,
walking to and fro, assembled, probably talking about the latest campus news–whatever that might
be. Today, on the Al Fateh campus, life was teeming.  Student life seemed vibrant. This feel and
ambiance of this university was not
unlike the hundreds of other universities that I have visited in the US and around the world.
Libyan boys and girls are like ours. My son would easily fit into the life of this university.

 




The campus seemed vibrant, too.  Cranes everywhere indicated a healthy building program, adding new buildings to enhance the student learning environment.  Despite the students’ fracas, Dean Mansur had everything to be happy about as he saw his university becoming bigger, better, and stronger.  Her told me that they had even signed an agreement with a British university to begin programs in the English language.  Not English studies, Dean Mansur emphasized, but an entire curriculum of study taught in the English language!  Of course, he entoned, that’s all disappointingly ended now.
Al Fateh University, Campus B consists of about 10,000 undergraduates, 800 masters degree candidates, and 18 Ph.D. students; 220 staff, 150 ad hoc professors, 120 employees.  It has eight auditoriums, 19 classrooms, 4 extra large classrooms. It also has a rural campus at Al Azizia where 700 students are taught and are a part of the university system.  Dean Mansur compares himself to a mayor because he has so many responsibilities presiding over a large community of students engaging in a rich and vibrant academic life.
Dean Mansur told me that life at the university and, for him personally, changed forever on the afternoon of Thursday 9 June, 2011.
He recalled that the university opened as usual around 8:00 am and was to close later that evening at about 8:00 pm.
Thursday, 9 June, he thought, was going to be just like any other day, except for the fracas over the girls that had cleared the campus of many of the students who didn’t want to have any part in the fighting.  So, outside in the campus parking lot, Dr. Mansur told me he was preoccupied  thinking how he would deal with the disciplinary issue before him.
Then, out of nowhere and all of a sudden, he heard something loud up in the sky.
He said it began out of no where, a loud roar.  Then a frightful high pitched the hissing sound.  He said he looked up into the sky and couldn’t hardly believe his eyes:  something shiny up in the sky appeared dancing in front of him. He said it moved about like an atari game or something. It danced and zig-zagged all over the sky.  He said he was transfixed on the object for what seemed like minutes but in truth must have only been seconds.
Up and down and sideways it raced in the sky and then, without warning, it just came crashing down into the ground nearby.  It was a NATO missile.
Tragically it had found its target:  Al Fateh University, Campus B.
Dean Mansur said he saw one missile, lots of fire, lots of different colors all around it, and then a huge plume of smoke.  He saw one missile, but heard what seemed like many explosions. He said he now can’t honestly say how many.
Dr. Mansur said the force and shock of the blast held him frozen  in his place.  He said his heart stopped for a moment.  He wasn’t afraid, just frozen.  He didn’t run away; he didn’t cower; he said he just stood stupefied.
The force of the blast cracked thickened concrete wells, shattered hundreds of windows and brought numerous ceilings down in lecture halls.
Whether it was a wayward Tomahawk Cruise Missile or a misdirected laser guided bomb, no one knows.
His immediate thoughts were for the thousands of his students in the university and for his own three children who study there.
After about 30 minutes, the Libyan press came to see what had happened.  the University President and other officials of the school all came.  But to Dr. Mansur’s surprise not the international press.
And what did they see?
The media saw the widespread structural damage to many of the buildings, all of the windows blown out in every one of the eight auditoriums.  Doors blown off their hinges.  Library in a shambles.  Books and debris everywhere.  The campus mosque was damaged.  Glass heaped up in piles.  Some efforts at cleaning up had begun.
Dr Mansur says that they have kept the university, wherever practicable, in much the same condition as it was on the day of the attack. Except that the main classroom area that students work in has been cleaned and will be renamed the Seif Al-Arab auditorium complex in memory of Muammar Qaddafi’s son murdered on April 30, 2011 in his home by NATO bombs.
On Thursday, NATO missiles.  Friday and Saturday are considered the weekend here.  Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, the students are back to school undaunted by the bombing.  In many of the classrooms I saw today, students were taking final exams amid the debris.  As I walked around the campus, one male voice shouted out and spoke to me in Arabic:  “Where’s Obama?”
Good question I thought.
I’ve always wondered if the politicians who regularly send our young men and women away to war and who regularly bomb the poor peoples of the world have ever, themselves, been on the receiving end of a Cruise Missile attack or placed themselves and their family at the mercy of a laser guided depleted uranium bomb. Maybe, just maybe I thought, that if they had experienced first hand the horror of a NATO attack on a civilian target they might just stop and question for a minute the need to dispatch our armed forces to attack the people of Libya.
I didn’t want to disturb the students taking exams so I found some students standing outside not taking exams to talk to.  I asked them if they had anything to say to President Obama.  One professor, a woman, spoke up readily and said, “We are working under fire:  physical and psychological.”  One student spoke up and said that President Obama should “Free Palestine and leave Libya alone.”  He continued, “We are one family.”
More on that later, but briefly, every Libyan is a member of a tribe and every tribe governs itself and selects its leaders; those leaders from all of the tribes then select their leaders, and so on until there is only one leader of all of the tribes of Libya.  I met that one tribal leader yesterday in another part of Tripoli and I am told he is the real leader of this country. He presides over the Tribal Council which constitutes Libya’s real policymakers.  So when the young man said “We are one family,” that is actually the truth.
Dr. Mansur, trained in the United States and spoke fondly of his time in the US and the many friends he made there.  He is proud of his students and the richness of his university’s community life.  He was just like any University Dean in the United States.
In my view God intervened on Thursday 9 June, 2011.
On the day that the missile struck, not one student was killed.  It could so easily have been different.  It could have been a catastrophe taking the lives of hundreds of teenagers.
I am told that in the surrounding area immediately outside the university others were not so fortunate.
Reports are that there were deaths in the nearby houses.
It’s a funny thing about war. Those  who cause war become oblivious and removed from its consequences; they seem happy to inflict harm on others and become numb to its ill effects while war’s victims find a way to normalize the abnormal and live with the constant threat of death and destruction.
After visiting Tripoli,  I remain as opposed to war as ever before.
The students at Al Fateh University continue their studies despite the siege that their country is under.
And oh, that second group of students that I randomly spoke to?  I asked them how much they pay for tuition.  They looked at me with puzzled faces even after the translation.  I asked them how much they pay for their books.  Again, the same puzzled face.  Tuition at Al Fateh University is 16 dinars per year–about $9.  And due to the NATO embargo on gasoline imports, the school now has started 10 free bus lines to its surrounding areas in order to make sure that the students can get to school, free of charge.
I told them that I was about to enter a Ph.D. program in the US myself and that I needed tuition and book money costing tens of thousands of dollars.  I continued that my cousin is in debt $100,000 because she went to the schools of her choice and received a Master’s degree.
They said to me, “We thank Muammar Qaddafi.  Because of Muammar Qaddafi we have free education.  Allah, Muammar, Libya obes!”
Well as for NATO, they still cling to the chimera that their strikes are against military targets only and that theirs is a “humanitarian intervention.”
I’m still waiting to find evidence somewhere in the world that bombing poor civilian populations of the Third World from the air is good for their voting rights, democracy, medical care, education, welfare, national debt, and enhancing personal income and wealth distribution.  It seems clear to me that complex life issues require more complex intervention than a Cruise Missile could ever deliver.

MOVEMENT FOR ONE DEMOCRATIC STATE (ODS)-A NEW WEB SITE

NOVANEWS


 

A message from Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo:

Dear Friends,

I am happy to introduce you to the new site of the  in Palestine.: www.onedemocraticstate.org Please visit the site and get acquainted with its sections. Our aim is to create a premier functional site to promote the ideals of one democratic state in historic Palestine for all its citizens including
all those who live there and all those who were expelled over the past century and their descendants.

The Movement for One Democratic State invites all individuals and organizations to join us and be involved with us in this effort. Your ideas, comments, activities, and contributions to this effort are welcomed and greatly appreciated. Please provide us with relevant articles,documents, book reviews, photos, etc. for publication. Also, help us plan and coordinate activities to further the ideals of the Movement and the cause of Palestine!

Finally, I encourage you to read the Declaration of the Movement for One Democratic State in Palestine. Please spread the news about this. Movement and the Declaration to your friends and on your social networks.

I look forward to receive your feedback and continued involvement!

In Solidarity,

Dr. Samir Abed-Rabbo