Last week I wrote about how Labor Friends of Israel (LFI) – a lobby group within Britain’s largest opposition party – appears to be breaking a law on political donations. I am happy to report that the UK’s Electoral Commission has now received a formal request to investigate the LFI and similar organizations affiliated to the country’s ruling coalition.
Jenny Tonge, a member of the House of Lords, has alerted the Commission to the lack of transparency over how Zionist support groups are funded.
Tonge’s letter draws attention to apparent omissions in the information that the “friends of Israel” groups within Labor and the senior government party, the Conservatives, have submitted to the Commission. Under legislation dating from 2001, all donations exceeding £7,500 ($11,600) to “member’s associations” within political parties have to be disclosed.
The LFI has reported spending nearly £77,000 on trips to the Middle East for members of Parliament between 2003 and 2009 and is known to have at least two full-time members of staff. The Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) have reported expenditure of more than £110,000 on travel since 2011, yet have indicated that they only received donations totalling £29,350 in that period.
Tonge wrote, “The Commission surely has an obligation to examine their finances, together with those of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, to ensure that they have not failed to declare any donations above the threshold, as it does seem remarkable to have this level of expenditure without significant donations from groups or individuals.”
Pounding the drumbeat of war
The LFI’s reticence over its funding is at odds with its determination to prove that it is shaping policy. Its 15 December newsletter gloated at how the first visit to Israel and the West Bank by Douglas Alexander, since his appointment as shadow foreign secretary in January, was hosted by the LFI. During the visit Alexander met Israel’s chief spindoctor Mark Regev, a man who has perfected the art of looking suave while telling lies. Alexander showed just how amenable he was to Israeli propaganda by going to see a high school in southern Israel — where, in his words “classrooms doubled up as bomb shelters.”
His itinerary did not include an excursion into the nearby Gaza Strip, where he could have inspected schools destroyed by the highly-equipped Israeli military during Operation Cast Lead three years ago. At least 353 Palestinian children were killed by Israel in that three-week offensive.
The same newsletter illustrates that LFI – like its beloved Regev – has a tenuous relationship with the truth. It brands Iran’s nuclear programme “illegal” and notes that the Labor hierarchy has pledged support for sanctions against the Tehran regime. Readers are not provided with any background details about how it was Israel, not Iran, that introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East and how it is Israel, not Iran, that has refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The newsletter proceeds to recommend an article by Alan Johnson from the Britain Israel Research Center (BICOM), who praised the British government’s determination “to end the diplomatic merry-go-round, to see Iran plain and to act, now and decisively, to confront it.”
If the “friends of Israel” are pounding the drumbeat of war against Iran, then it is vital that they be closely monitored.
NABLUS — Israeli occupation forces (IOF) blasted their way into the home of Palestinian journalist Amin Abu Warda at the entrance to Balata refugee camp east of Nablus city on Wednesday before taking him away.
The wife of the journalist said that the soldiers encircled the building before dawn and isolated all males, her husband and his brothers who are all living in the same building but in different apartments, and checked their IDs then took away Abu Warda.
Abu Warda, 46, was about to obtain a doctorate in electronic journalism from Malaysia and is considered one of the most prominent Palestinian bloggers. He worked for Quds Press as a correspondent for 15 years and owns a media office in Nablus.
Local sources said that IOF troops rounded up 16 other Palestinians citizens in a rabid arrest campaign on Wednesday including two minors in Al-Khalil province and four Jerusalemites from Alezariye village to the east of occupied Jerusalem.
Some 8,000 US troops have remained in Iraq despite Washington’s plan for the complete withdrawal of US forces by the turn of 2011, Press TV reports.
The troops, along with 14 warplanes, 125 helicopters and 28 drones, are mainly based in Iraq’s Kurdistan region in the north.
US troops have been stationed in Jordan and some Persian Gulf Arab countries as well as some new locations in Kuwait after leaving Iraq while a small number of them have returned to the United States, a Press TV correspondent reported.
The last US military base was handed over to Iraqi officials on December 16. However, Washington is reportedly seeking to pose threats against Iran by maintaining its troops’ presence in Iraq’s Kurdistan.
According to the report, a delegation of US military and security officials met with leaders of the anti-Iranian group of Komala at its headquarters in the northern Iraqi city of Sulaymaniyah. The delegation was headed by an American general working for the US Consulate in Kurdistan’s capital Arbil.
US military officials have also held meetings with leaders of Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorist group with the aim of stirring up violence and terrorist operations.
The PKK launched an armed campaign against Turkey in 1984 in a quest to force an independent Kurdish state in the southeast of the country.
Syria remains the region’s only independent secular state. Washington aims to replace its regime with a client one.
Libya’s model was replicated. Months of externally generated violence followed. So far it’s short of war. For how long is uncertain. Obama can’t wait to wage another one to keep ravaging the world one country at a time.
Months of violence, sanctions and isolation have taken a toll. Deaths mount. No one knows how many. Western media reported numbers come from opposition forces, not independent observers. Nothing they say is reliable.
Assad’s government says 2,000 security forces have been killed. “Terrorist gangs” are blamed. Whatever the actual number, they’ve been many. Heavily armed insurgents are responsible. Conflict resolution isn’t imminent.
Syria’s economy deteriorates steadily. In 2011, its GDP collapsed 30% – from around $55 billion to $37 billion. Its currency also plunged from 47 to 62 to the dollar. Basic goods and services are in short supply. Heating and cooking oil are scarce. Electricity is on and off.
Assad’s regime is weakening. National institutions are eroding. Opposition forces are locally organized. Neighborhood committees and armed groups were formed. At issue is usurping state power despite divisions of strategy, especially over peaceful or violent conflict resolution and pro or con advocacy for outside intervention.
After months of turmoil, heightened fear prevails. On December 23, Syrian state television reported two suicide car bombings, the first ones in Damascus since conflict began. Kfar Sousa district was targeted. It’s where state security and intelligence facilities are located. Heavy gunfire followed. Syria reported 40 or more killed and 100 wounded.
The attacks came a day after 60 Arab League observers arrived. They’re an advance monitoring team with hundreds more to come. Whether they’ll help or hurt is uncertain. More on that below.
Their mission will last a month unless renewed. It wants all security forces withdrawn from urban areas and detainees released. Nothing is said about heavily armed insurgent terrorists doing much of the killing. Conflict resolution depends on stopping all of it equitably.
Of concern is that monitors are a step short of occupation. It’s reminiscent of events preceding NATO’s 1999 Serbia/Kosovo war. In March 1999, Slobodon Milosovic got an unacceptable ultimatum, the so-called Rambouillet Agreement. It was a take-it-or-leave it deal no responsible leader would accept.
It involved surrendering Serbia’s sovereignty to NATO occupation with unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), including its airspace and territorial waters. Moreover, NATO demanded use of areas and facilities therein for its mission, irrespective of FRY laws.
It also required Milosevic’s full cooperation. It was an offer designed to reject. War, mass destruction and slaughter followed. Serbia’s sovereign Kosovo territory was lost. It’s now Washington/NATO occupied territory, run by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, an unindicted drug trafficker with known organized crime ties.
Washington, Israel, and key NATO partners have similar designs on Syria. War’s perhaps planned. Pro-Western Arab League despots supported NATO’s Libya war, mass slaughter and destruction. At the same time, they ignore ongoing atrocities in Bahrain, Yemen, Somalia, Palestine, elsewhere in the region, and internally.
Calls for military intervention are increasing. In late November on CNN’s State of the Union, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice accused Assad of “driving his country to the brink of civil war. (He’s) no friend of the United States.”
“Syria is the handmaiden of the Iranians throughout the region and so the fall of (Assad) would be a great thing not just for the Syrian people….but also for the policies of the United States and those who want a more peaceful Middle East.”
She also called for tough sanctions, isolation and intervention, adding that if Russia and China won’t agree, “then we (and allies) have to do it on our own.” Stopping short of suggesting war, the implication is striking.
A Syrian National Council (SNC) was established. It’s similar to Libya’s puppet Transitional National Council (TNC). Originally formed in 2005, it was revived on August 23, 2011 in Istanbul, Turkey. It represents Western-backed internal opposition elements against the rights and interests of most Syrians.
It called for a Libyan-style no-fly zone and foreign intervention. It supplies intelligence to Washington and other Western nations. If unconventional tactics fail, stepped up violence and war remain options.
Since early 2011, NATO countries used regional bases to provide anti-regime support. Saudi Arabia, Lebanon’s March 14 alliance, Turkey, Jordan and Israel are financing and arming insurgents.
So far, Russia and China blocked a Libyan-style “humanitarian intervention.” Washington, however, wants regime change. Huge challenges remain to stop it.
SNC members want the Security Council to establish “protected zone” cover in violent prone areas. Free Syrian Army (FSA) security force defectors and insurgents also want no-fly zone protection and foreign military involvement. Deferring so far from direct NATO action, Washington backs Turkey and Arab League partners intervening.
America’s Media War on Syria
A New York Times attack piece is typical. On December 22, its editorial headlined, “Get Tougher on Assad,” saying:
After months of conflict, Assad’s “still killing his people. And leaders in Russia, China and Arab states still haven’t done enough to pressure him to stop.” Claiming 5,000 unsubstantiated deaths, The Times blames “the brutal government crackdown in nine months of protests.”
Unmentioned was Washington’s long planned regime change, replicating the Libya model, replacing an independent regime with a client one, and using heavily armed insurgents to destabilize Syria violently.
Assad’s willingness to dialogue with opposition elements “seems like another ploy to buy time as he tries to beat Syrians into submission.”
Throughout the conflict, Assad made conciliatory offers. Opposition forces dismissed them out of hand, much like Libya’s TNC rejected Gaddafi’s overtures earlier.
On state television several times since last spring, Assad promised reforms. In June, he announced a 100-member panel to draft parliamentary election law changes, press freedoms, and a new constitution. He also said he’d prosecute those responsible for violence.
“There is little reason to believe Mr. Assad will allow (Arab League) observer(s) unrestricted access to all conflict areas (and be free to) make all of its findings public.”
“Meanwhile, Russia is still tying the… Security Council in knots and preventing it from doing what it should have done months ago (through) tough economic and trade sanctions,” condemnation, and more. Assad “left no doubt that he is willing to destroy his country to maintain his hold on power, which would be a disaster for the region.”
The Times stopped short of endorsing war. Expect it if NATO intervenes directly or indirectly. When Washington’s involved militarily, America’s media march supportively in lockstep without debate on who benefits and loses, rule of law issues, and other right and wrong considerations.
Throughout the AfPak, Iraq and Libyan conflicts, disputing their legitimacy was verboten.
Instead, Times and other major media opinion pieces suppress truths and manipulate public opinion to support Washington/NATO attacking nonbelligerent countries lawlessly. Perhaps Syria and Iran are next.
Matthew Kroenig titled his Foreign Affairs January/February 2012 article, “Time to Attack Iran.” Doing so let his advocacy pose as analysis.
Harvard International Affairs Professor Stephen Walt called his article “a textbook example of war-wongering disguised as analysis. It is a remarkably poor piece of advocacy… This is not fair-minded ‘analysis;’ it is simply a brief for war designed to reach a predetermined conclusion.”
In his article, Kroenig said waging war is “the least bad option. (For years), American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities.”
“Proponents (say) the only thing worse than military action (is) Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics” warn doing so won’t work and “would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis.
Iran’s not aggressive or imperial. It poses no regional threat. It hasn’t attacked another nation in over 200 years. It maintains a strong military for self-defense. It’s vital given repeated Washington and Israeli threats.
No evidence whatever suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program. US intelligence assessments through March 2011 found none.
During his December 1, 1997 – November 30, 2009 tenure as IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei concurred. Current head, Yukiya Amano, politicized IAEA policy for Western interests, mainly America’s.
Washington manipulated his appointment. He was enlisted to lie. He hasn’t disappoint. Ahead of his report suggesting an Iranian nuclear weapons program, he visited Washington for instructions.
“….(S)keptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran poses to US interests in the Middle East and beyond… The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.”
Kroenig’s a former Secretary of Defense Office strategist. He’s also a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow. CFR is an influential US organization. From its 1921 beginnings, it’s advocated one-world government run by dominant financial interests.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it a “front organization (for) the heart of the American establishment.” It meets privately and publishes only what it wishes the public to know. Since 1922, Foreign Affairs has been its flagship publication.
Its members represent imperial Washington’s interests, including its longstanding objective for unchallenged global dominance. Achieving it depends on replacing independent regimes with client ones and eliminating all military and economic rivals.
War’s a frequently used option. Waging it against Iran could embroil the entire region and threaten general war, possibly with nuclear weapons.
In his rage to attack nonbelligerent Iran lawlessly, Kroenig omitted the possibility and said nothing about Israel being nuclear armed and dangerous.
He represents imperial America’s quest for world dominance, even if destroying it happens in the process.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
Israeli navy attacks international observers, injures Palestinian, on monitoring boat in Gaza waters
At 10:55 am, an Israeli naval warship attacked the international observers and Palestinian captain of the Civil Peace Service Gaza (CPSGAZA) boat Oliva, injuring its captain in an apparent attempt to capsize it.
“The Israeli navy passed near us and the fishermen, and started to go around us, creating waves,” said Rosa Schiano, one of the international observers. “The fishermen escaped, but we couldn’t because of a problem with our engine. We couldn’t move, and they went around us very quickly. The Israelis saw that we couldn’t move, and that the captain was trying to fix the engine, but they didn’t stop. We told them, ‘Please stop! Please stop!’ But they didn’t.”
When the warship was two meters away from the Oliva, one of the waves it had created nearly capsized the small boat, filling it with water and causing the Palestinian captain to fall out, injuring his left leg.
“Their intentions were to do something very bad,” said international observer Daniela Riva. “Coming so close to us was very dangerous, and they obviously knew that.”
After more than twenty minutes, the warship retreated, and the Oliva was rescued by a small Palestinian fishing boat, or hasaka, which threw it a line and towed it toward the shore.
Restrictions on the fishing zone are of considerable significance to Palestinian livelihood. Initially 20 nautical miles, it is presently often enforced between 1.5 – 2 nautical miles (PCHR: 2010). The marine ‘buffer zone’ restricts Gazan fishermen from accessing 85% of Gaza’s fishing waters agreed to by Oslo.
During the Oslo Accords, specifically under the Gaza-Jericho Agreement of 1994, representatives of Palestine agreed to 20 nautical miles for fishing access. In 2002 the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan empowered Catherine Bertini to negotiate with Israel on key issues regarding the humanitarian crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and a 12 nautical mile fishing limit was agreed upon. In June 2006, following the capture of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit near the crossing of Kerem Abu Salem (Kerem Shalom), the navy imposed a complete sea blockade for several months. When the complete blockade was finally lifted, Palestinian fishermen found that a 6 nautical mile limit was being enforced. When Hamas gained political control of the Gaza Strip, the limit was reduced to 3 nautical miles. During the massive assault on the Strip in 2008-2009, a complete blockade was again declared. After Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli army began imposing a 1.5 – 2 nautical miles (PCHR: 2010).
The fishing community is often similarly targeted as the farmers in the ‘buffer zone’ and the fishing limit is enforced with comparable aggression, with boats shot at or rammed as near as 2nm to the Gazan coast by Israeli gunboats.
The fishermen have been devastated, directly affecting an estimated 65,000 people and reducing the catch by 90%. The coastal areas are now grossly over-fished and 2/3 of fishermen have left the industry since 2000 (PCHR: 2009). Recent statistics of the General Union of Fishing Workers indicate that the direct losses since the second Intifada in September 2000 were estimated at a million dollars and the indirect losses were estimated at 13.25 million dollars during the same period. The 2009 fishing catch amounted to a total of 1,525 metric tones, only 53 percent of the amount during 2008 (2,845 metric tones) and 41 percent of the amount in 1999 (3,650 metric tones), when the fishermen of Gaza could still fish up to ten nautical miles from the coast. Current figures indicate that during 2010 the decline in the fishing catch continues. This has caused an absurd arrangement to become standard practice. The fisherman sail out not to fish, but to buy fish off of Egyptian boats and then sell this fish in Gaza. According to the Fishermen’s Union, a monthly average of 105 tons of fish has been entering Gaza through the tunnels since the beginning of 2010 (PCHR 2009).
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR). “The Buffer Zone in the Gaza Strip.” Oct. 2010.
Palestinian Centre for Human Rights. “A report on: Israeli Attacks on Palestinian Fishers in the Gaza Strip.” August 2009.
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz marked the three-year anniversary of Operation Cast Lead on Tuesday by hailing it “an excellent operation that achieved deterrence for Israel vis-a-vis Hamas.” However, he warned, cracks have emerged in that deterrence over time, and a second round of fighting in the Gaza Strip is not a matter of choice for Israel.
Such a round must be initiated by Israel and must be “swift and painful,” he said, adding, “I do not advise Hamas to test our mettle.” [emphasis mine]
Since becoming Chief of Staff, Gantz has argued that Israel must respond to any rocket attacks with extreme force. He has also hinted that future Israeli actions will not be confined to airstrikes: “we shall in the end need to move to broader, more aggressive action in the Gaza Strip” he told Knesset members recently.
“The harder you hit them, the longer they stay quiet,” as a tsarist general once said. It’s hard to tell if Gantz is merely trying to cow Hamas, or if he is really intent on launching Cast Lead II in the near future.
Contrary to my expectations this summer, Israel did not use the Eilat attacks as an excuse to undertake a full-scale operation in Gaza, even though there were calls for regime change there among Israeli politicians and former military leaders. Ynet reported in November 2011 that that the Israeli military has been training its combat engineers for a possible resumption of hostilities in Gaza. Israel’s latest consigment of American-made bunker busters – ostensibly for a strike against Iran – could also be used against targets in Gaza, such as the smuggling tunnels between Gaza and Egypt that, according to the Israeli military, are a serving as conduits for a stream of stolen Libyan arms. And as war warning signs, neither the trainings nor the bunker busters raise new alarms.
For now, I think Gantz is saber-rattling. Israel is hoping to scare or wrong foot Hamas as it scores political successes through the prisoner exchanges, the electoral success of Egypt’s Islamist bloc, entry to the PLO and new unity talks with Fatah. A more conciliatory Hamas is not what Likud wants to deal with. The best way to undermine Hamas’s nonviolent political successes would be to put Hamas in an awkward position over the actions of Islamic Jihad (which Israel struck just this week) or another militant organization. Hamas’s leadership would be in the awkward position of having to manage feelings of militant nationalism that it has cultivated in order to secure potentially ephemeral political concessions. Its legitimacy would be at stake, but should it respond with violence, its survival would be in jeopardy.
Hamas will likely avoid the temptation to return to fighting. The Middle East is too politically fluid at the moment. But given the hawkishness of the “liberal” alternatives to Likud, as Dimi Reider points out, I am still convinced that the timing of Cast Lead II will be a question of when, not if. Israel would be more likely to use massive force against Gaza than Iran if it came down to an eleventh-hour choice for Defense Minister Barak. Israel’s leadership has no doubt been encouraged by Sec. Def. Leon Panetta and President Obama’s public backpedaling on their reluctance to attack Iran. The U.S. could deal with Iran (an “October surprise,” as some have suggested), leaving Israel a stronger hand to play against Hamas. The timing for any of these possible actions will greatly depend on how the 2012 U.S. presidential election progresses.
As for how the Israeli military will react to Hamas’s announced new focus on popular demonstrations, Gantz’s past comments about the Arab Spring offer some insight:
There is a focal player in the Middle East – the street – and it is clear to us that in the coming months we can find ourselves in broad popular demonstrations, which gain public resonance. The IDF is preparing for these demonstrations.
For this reason, we will act with great fire power and full force at the very beginning of the confrontation. Anything the camera can stand or could stand in the first three days of fighting – it will not be prepared to put up with thereafter.
Uploaded by tildedewandel on March 9, 2011
The story of 4 kids of the extended Samouni family in Gaza. By animated drawings they express what happened to them and their family during operation ‘Cast Lead’.
Admits “statistical studies can’t prove vote fraud” but US-funded Golos “data” corroborates conclusion
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), going to extraordinary lengths to prove a foreign election “fraudulent,” claims to have written a “computer program that downloaded 2,957 web pages posted on Russia’s Central Election Commission website.” They then claim they used another program to mine pages “for precinct-level data extracting outcomes for 95,228 precincts spread across 2,745 electoral commissions.” The Wall Street Journal then had “experts” in “election fraud and statistics” look at the data finding what they called, “the fingerprints of fraud.”
In Wall Street Journal’s article, “Russia’s Dubious Vote,” the authors admit that “the analysis doesn’t in itself prove fraud in Russia’s Dec. 4 parliamentary elections.” But the WSJ then cites “local and international observers,” that corroborate their findings of “fraud” with claims of ballot-box stuffing, vote falsification, and other violations. The only organization WSJ is able to cite by name, however, is US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded GOLOS.
In, “US Caught Meddling in Russian Elections,” GOLOS was noted as being the key “observer” cited across Western media in an attempt to portray the Russian elections as “stolen,” a similar ploy that has been used throughout color revolutions since the ’80s and in particular during the last year of US-backed destabilization also known as the “Arab Spring.” However, GOLOS owes its existence to the US government and in turn the banking oligarchs of Wall Street and London who have been trying in vain to dislodge Russia’s Vladimir Putin from power for years.
Indeed, something is “dubious” about Russia’s elections, namely the concerted, overeager campaign by the West to portray them as fraudulent, to lend ammunition to their stable of US-funded NGOs and opposition leaders now taking to the streets in Moscow, and the Wall Street Journal’s insistence that “local and international observers” back their recent “analysis” but failed to name any beyond a US-funded propaganda front, GOLOS.
That the WSJ disingenuously insisted that GOLOS was “Russia’s main independent election-monitoring group” despite receiving its funding from the US government — hardly independent by any stretch of the imagination — calls into question the alleged computer program they wrote to draw the conclusions they have presented.
A computer program can be written to render any result desired, as the recent “Climate Gate” hoax has proven. It is then only the integrity of those carrying out the analysis and presenting the results that determine the possible veracity of their conclusions. Since the Wall Street Journal makes such overt misrepresentations, such as GOLOS being “independent” when they are clearly, admittedly funded by the US government, indicates that the WSJ lacks such integrity. Instead, they are but the most recent corporate-media propaganda front to jump on the Wall Street-London battlewagon on its way to Moscow.
Wall Street Journal’s Conclusions are Fraudulent as are the Protest Leaders in Russia’s Streets
Meanwhile, Christmas Eve protests in Moscow were once again led by verified agents of Western sedition, namely Alexei Navalny, according to an AP report titled, “Alexei Navalny, Key Engine Behind Russian Protests.” Called a “corruption-fighting lawyer and popular blogger” by AP, who unlike Wall Street Journal, skipped feigned analysis and jumped right to labeling the elections as “shameless falsification,” Navalny is portrayed as a force of reform against a corrupt system.
And while Alexey Navalny is renowned for “exposing corruption,” at least when profitable, those researching his background begin unraveling his own insidious, compromised agenda. Alexey Navalny was a Yale World Fellow, and in his profile it states:
Navalny spearheads legal challenges on behalf of minority shareholders in large Russian companies, including Gazprom, Bank VTB, Sberbank, Rosneft, Transneft, and Surgutneftegaz, through the Union of Minority Shareholders. He has successfully forced companies to disclose more information to their shareholders and has sued individual managers at several major corporations for allegedly corrupt practices. Navalny is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement and was vice-chairman of the Moscow branch of the political party YABLOKO. In 2010, he launched RosPil, a public project funded by unprecedented fundraising in Russia. In 2011, Navalny started RosYama, which combats fraud in the road construction sector.
The Democratic Alternative, also written DA!, is indeed a National Endowment for Democracy fund recipient, meaning that Alexey Navalny is an agent of US-funded sedition and willfully hiding it from his followers. The US State Department itself reveals this as they list “youth movements” operating in Russia:
DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.”
Alexey was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government, and to this day has the very people who funded DA! defending him throughout Western media. (For more information, please see, “Wall Street Vs. Russia.”)
It becomes clear then, that the AP report has misidentified the real “engine” behind the Russian protests. It is not Navalny, but rather Wall Street and London via organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy. It is safe to say that yet again we are watching unfold a “revolution” created from whole cloth not by the aspirations of the Russian people, but by the disingenuous “democracy promoting” forces of Wall Street and London bent on destabilizing Russia, undermining the Kremlin, and either extracting concessions from Russia, especially regarding Syria, or even going as far as replacing entirely the Russian government for one more servile like that of Yelsin’s and the corrupt oligarchs that succeeded him.
Britain’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) has imposed a 100,000-pound fine on Press TV for what it calls the breach of the regulator’s rule.
Ofcom has also decided to remove the Iranian English-language news channel from the Sky platform under the pretext that Press TV made administrative errors in its application for a license in 2007.
Following is the response of Press TV’s CEO, Dr. Mohammad Sarafraz, to Ofcom:
This letter is written in response to your government-controlled organization’s decision to ban Press TV’s broadcast in a desperate effort to silence an alternative voice in the UK.
Your decision to remove Press TV from the Sky platform was made after confidential documents from the US Embassy in London about Washington and London’s concerted effort to block Press TV in Britain were leaked.
It is evident that the British government’s campaign against Press TV has its roots in the channel’s extensive coverage of the multiple crises created by London’s domestic and foreign policies.
Press TV broadcast live the Israeli regime’s attack against the people of Gaza and the military invasion of the Strip. The Channel also broadcast news about the military measures of the UK in Iraq and the massacre of innocent people. Deploying forces to Iraq based on a false report is a war crime, and those who issued the order for war are war criminals.
Press TV covered the 2011 Royal Wedding from a critical angle, which highlighted its extravagant costs at a time when many Britons are suffering from great economic hardship. The channel also provided in-depth coverage of the widespread protests and the ensuing unrest that gripped Britain after the intentional killing of a black man by police in August.
Press TV has also interviewed many critics of the stance adopted by the British government vis-à-vis the revolutions in the Muslim world. London clearly sided with dictators and monarchs, and even invited the king of Bahrain for official visits and provided his regime with military assistance. These moves came at a time when Bahrain’s Saudi-backed forces were torturing and killing peaceful protesters.
Britain also signed a scandalous multi-billion-dollar military deal with Saudi Arabia in 2006 to sell state-of-the-art military equipment to one of the world’s most corrupt monarchies.
The British government with its Royal establishment has a long history of wars of aggression and support for monarchies and autocratic rulers all over the world.
In the Middle East, London orchestrated Iran’s 1953 coup in collusion with Washington to reinstate the Western-backed Shah, who was eventually overthrown by the Islamic Revolution.
In Iraq, Britain joined the illegal US invasion and occupation of the country that led to the death and displacement of millions of people.
The British monarchy also obediently followed the US into Afghanistan in 2001-another war of aggression that has yet to end despite strong opposition from the British public. A senior Afghan official recently told Press TV that the British military has also played a significant role in the production and trafficking of narcotics in Afghanistan.
In Africa, Britain is still remembered as the brutal colonial power that crushed many local communities under the boots of its soldiers for decades. Remarkably, London is now mulling direct military intervention in Somalia, where people are already under intense pressure from natural disasters and US drone strikes.
In Asia, the Royal establishment killed as many people as it needed to in order to set up its power base in the Indian Subcontinent among other regions to further its colonial exploitation.
Thousands of miles away in Latin America, Britain is still trying to superimpose its will and is moving towards a potential military confrontation with Argentina over the Malvinas Islands three decades after fighting a deadly war with Buenos Aires over the UK-occupied archipelago.
Centuries of medieval aggression by British rulers has earned London global notoriety. The latest in a string of such practices is the Royal establishment’s current war on free speech.
London has spared no effort in its years-long battle against Press TV. And Ofcom, its designated tool to control the media, is now about to revoke the channel’s broadcast license, hoping this desperate measure will prevent the British from learning the truth.
However, what the British government fails to grasp is that the truth cannot be concealed forever, and those in the UK that want to hear Press TV’s alternative voice will inevitably find a way to watch the channel of their choice. History will be unforgiving of such futile efforts to suppress free speech.
This black stain will be recorded in history along with other acts of aggression of the British monarchy.
Press TV’s CEO
December 28, 2011