15 March 2015

Argentina: The Mystery Surrounding the death of Alberto Nisman's

Was Nisman's Case Against Iran Junk?

In 1994 a bomb exploded at the Jewish community centre of Amia, killing 85 people.  Immediately the finger was pointed at Iran, not least by Israel.  Whatever the truth of this accusation, we should bear in mind that when Argentinia’s neo-Nazi Junta (1976-83) tortured and murdered up to 3,000 Jewish people, Israel said not a word.  It was busy conducting a lucrative arms trade with the Generals.

Argentina’s Foreign Minister today, Hector Timerman, is the son of Jacobo Timerman, the Jewish & left-Zionist editor of La Opinion, a liberal newspaper.  He was imprisoned and savagely tortured by the Junta.  Because of his international reputation the Junta was forced to release him and he went to Israel as a hero – at least before he wrote ‘The Longest War’ a devastating criticism of Israel’s 1982 war in Lebanon.  Timerman returned  home and died in Argentina.

Alberto Nisman, the Argentinian special prosecutor in the bombing of the Jewish community centre either committed suicide or was murdered on 18th January in his flat.  The Opposition has claimed that the Argentinian President, Cristina Kirchner played a part in Nisman’s alleged murder.  It is widely believed that Nisman was killed because he had got near the truth of Iranian involvement in the bombing.

The article below suggests otherwise.

Tony Greenstein

Why Alberto Nisman Is No Hero for Argentina — or the Jews


Alberto Nisman
It was widely believed special prosecutor Alberto Nisman died because he was about to expose a criminal pact between Argentine President Cristina Kirchner and the Iranian government to cover up the latter’s responsibility in the 1994 bombing of Buenos Aires’s Jewish community center. It now appears when the U.S. and Israeli governments rejected an agreement between Argentina and Iran that might have lead to solving the case, Nisman set about sabotaging it.
Graciela Mochkofsky

Jewish Daily Forward March 13, 2015
  
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. A federal judge says Alberto Nisman’s charges against President Kirchner ‘lack all validity’.  United Nations Alliance of Civilizations
It is widely believed, particularly outside Argentina, that special prosecutor Alberto Nisman died because he was about to expose a criminal pact between President Cristina Kirchner and the Iranian government to cover up the latter’s responsibility in the 1994 bombing of Buenos Aires’s Jewish community center. According to this riveting version of events, powerful forces — most likely the government he was accusing, perhaps Iran — murdered Nisman to keep him silent.

If you are one of the many people watching that movie, I have to warn you: Judge Daniel Rafecas’s flat-out dismissal of Nisman’s accusation, released February 26, is going to be quite a spoiler.
Aftermath of bombing
I don’t know of anyone in Argentina who considered Nisman a hero before he was found dead in his apartment on January 18. He was part of a species born and bred in my country, a specimen of the politicized federal justice system — typically, someone who stretches the law, lives beyond his means and always stands close to power. Nisman was also known among his colleagues for his close ties to Argentina’s intelligence services. The services have long been involved in political espionage, financing of political campaigns, bribing of judges and lawmakers, and every dirty operation you can imagine.
Nisman
In 1997, when he first became involved in the case — known in Argentina by the JCC’s acronym, AMIA — Nisman was a young and ambitious prosecutor making a career in the newly inaugurated system of open trials.

His task was to make presentable the fabrication concocted by Judge Juan José Galeano. With forged evidence, Galeano and other authorities had accused a ring of corrupt police officers of being the “local connection” in the bombing.

The open trial began in 2001 and ended in disaster in 2004. The forgery was so apparent that it didn’t survive scrutiny. The policemen were exonerated. The judge, the prosecutors, the head of the intelligence service, a high-ranking police officer, former president Carlos Menem and the leader of the main political Jewish organization were eventually indicted for the cover-up (and are going to trial in a few months). Nisman somehow survived, and President Néstor Kirchner (Cristina Kirchner’s now late husband, who took office in 2007) appointed him as special prosecutor for the AMIA case. He had to rebuild it from scratch. In 2006, based mostly on foreign intelligence reports, Nisman accused the Iranians of sponsoring the attack, allegedly carried out by Hezbollah militants.
The Bombing
In the following years, the Kirchners firmly supported these allegations, accusing Iran in international forums. But in 2013, Cristina Kirchner and her foreign minister, Héctor Timerman, a prominent Argentine Jew and the son of Jacobo Timerman, a publisher revered by some as a human rights figure in the 1970s, signed a surprising memorandum of understanding with Iran.

The memorandum was intended to create an international commission of jurists to analyze the evidence provided by both countries on the AMIA case and to issue a nonbinding recommendation. Interpol had released international arrest warrants against five Iranian suspects, who remained in Iran. The main point for Argentina was that Iran would allow these suspects to be interrogated by Nisman and the new judge of the case, Rodolfo Canicoba Corral. This was considered a solution to the impasse the case had faced, because Argentine law requires that a suspect be interrogated before he can be indicted. Once the suspect is interrogated, even if he claims innocence, the judge has the power to indict and to send the case to trial. The 20th anniversary of the bombing was approaching on July 18, 2014, and the government wanted to show progress by that date.

When the agreement became public, Nisman broke ranks and repudiated it. By then he had found in the state department of the United States a more powerful ally. According to diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks in 2010, Nisman had sought the approval of America’s embassy in Buenos Aires before making any move in the case. When the Israeli and the American governments rejected the memorandum between Argentina and Iran, Nisman did, too.

Why not wait until recess was over? Because, according to numerous testimonies, he feared the government was going to remove him from his post, as part of a larger judicial reform. (Several of those reforms were introduced December 31, and that same day, Nisman changed his return ticket from Spain.)
The first judge who received Nisman’s accusation rejected it as baseless. The Jewish leadership refused to stand by him in parliament (they started supporting him post-mortem). The victim’s relatives’ associations rejected not only the accusation, but also Nisman himself: They had been asking for his removal from the case all along.

Then, on January 18, Nisman was found dead, shot in the head with a .22-caliber bullet inside the bathroom of his locked 13th-floor apartment in the posh Puerto Madero area of Buenos Aires.
With the country in shock — half the public thinking it was murder and 77% believing that the truth about his death would never be known, according to a national poll — Nisman’s 289-page accusation was made available online. His allegations of a cover-up, it turned out, were based on two weak journalistic reports and hundreds of hours of wiretapped phone conversations between peripheral political operators aligned with the government, a criminal who tried to pass as a secret agent and the leader of the Islamic community in Buenos Aires who is also an agent of Iranian interests in Argentina.

Several of the country’s most prominent jurists agreed that there was no evidence to prove that a crime of any kind had been committed. But with demonstrators in the streets paying homage to Nisman, federal prosecutor Gerardo Pollicita picked up the case and filed the accusation again.

On February 26, Rafecas demolished it.

His 63-page dismissal is devastating: Not only was there “not even circumstantial evidence” of the alleged cover-up or obstruction of justice in Nisman’s last document, the judge wrote, but the evidence gathered by Nisman himself openly contradicted his accusations. In essence, the judge offered three points. First, since the memorandum of understanding was never actually implemented — the Iranian Parliament had not approved it, and an Argentine court ruled it unconstitutional — the alleged crime never took place.

Second, Nisman had accused Timerman of trying to cancel Interpol’s international arrest warrants against the Iranian suspects. Rafecas proved with testimonies and documents from Interpol and the Argentine Foreign Ministry that the opposite is true: Timerman was adamant that the warrants, known as “red notices,” stayed in place before and after the agreement with Iran. They still are in place. “There is not a single piece of evidence, a single trace, that supports the prosecutor’s hypothesis…. that Héctor Timerman had ever planned or prepared an attempt of a cover-up,” Rafecas wrote. “If anything becomes apparent in the wiretapped conversations (among the Iranian agents and their Argentine counterparts), it is that [(Timerman)] was the enemy to be vanquished.”

Third, the wiretapped conversations, involving people who are not public officers, could have been, at best, hints of a plan that was also never put into action — that is, the alleged trade-off of impunity for oil. Rafecas showed that there’s no trace of any real link to the Argentine government, only a lot of boasting among small-time characters.

Nisman’s criminal hypothesis, the judge concluded, “lacks all validity.”

And it gets worse. Rafecas revealed that Nisman wrote contradictory submissions on the same month of his death: on one side, his explosive accusation; on the other, two documents, both with his signature and dated January 2015, in which he praised the government’s efforts to bring the Iranian suspects to justice, acknowledging that the only aim of Kirchner was to move forward with the investigation. The only thing he complained about was that, in its negotiations with Iran, the Argentine government was accepting some of Iran’s conditions instead of forcing the country to surrender the suspects. Nowhere in these two documents, which his clerks handed to Rafecas after Nisman’s death, did the prosecutor accuse the government of a cover-up.

Where does this all leave the bombing investigation? Does this mean that the Iranians are guilty or not guilty of planning or carrying out the attack? And why?

“We don’t know anything, anything, anything at all” about these questions, summed up Diana Malamud, leader of Memoria Activa, one of three organizations of AMIA’s victims’ relatives. In almost 21 years since the bombing, there have been so many hypothesis and fabrications, she added, that “if someone tells me today there was no bombing, I would consider it.”

[Graciela Mochkofsky is an Argentine journalist who is the author of an acclaimed biography of Jacobo Timerman. She is currently a Prins Foundation fellow at the Center for Jewish History, in New York.]

- See more at 

12 March 2015

Merkel’s Conservatives Are Better Politically on Palestine than Germany’s Green Party – Die Grunen

Green Politics and Utopian Capitalism - International Solidarity is the First Casualty

Poster portraying Netanyahu as a child murderer
To those who believe that you can judge Britain’s Green Party by what its conference passes when it has no power, the example of Germany’s Greens is a powerful example.
Beck and some dimwit
Volker-Beck, a Die Grunen MP who is described as the head of the German-Israel Parliamentary Group, attacked the Merkel administration because it would not define BDS as automatically anti-Semitic. 
The Bourgeois Beck
The cerebrally challenged Volker has determined that BDS is anti-Semitic because it ‘aims essentially against Jewish Israelis’.  In fact it is aimed ‘essentially’ at the Israeli economy, cultural, academic and similar institutions.  The fact that those affected are primarily Israeli Jews is as relevant as the fact that BDS against Apartheid South Africa mainly affected White people – it wasn’t therefore anti-White.  Or in a case nearer home the Jewish anti-Nazi  Boycott of the 1930’s affected mainly Germans, including bigots like Beck, but it wasn’t directed at them because they were German.
Merkel and Netanyahu
In a smaller way it is akin to when  Brighton PSC proposed, via an expelled Green Councillor Ben Duncan, a motion calling for Brighton to twin with a Palestinian city.  The Green Administration in Brighton was hostile and they hid behind a ruling from the Chief Executive that it should not be discussed.

Tony Greenstein

Germany says BDS is not anti-Semitic+

German lawmaker outraged: 'BDS aims essentially against Jewish Israelis and is therefore anti-Semitic'

Germany has rejected a definition of anti-Semitism that labels the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) as anti-Semitic, the Jerusalem Post reported Monday.

Responding to a legislative questionnaire released Thursday by leading Green Party MP Volker Beck, the Merkel administration wrote that “there does not exist a general academic definition” of anti-Semitism.

Beck, who heads the German- Israel parliamentary group in the Bundestag, sharply criticized the Merkel administration: “Here the federal government has cowered,” he said. “There is no doubt of the anti-Semitic motivation within the spectrum of the BDS campaign. BDS aims essentially against Jewish Israelis and is therefore anti-Semitic. Whoever aggressively boycotts Israeli goods and people, should also be viewed as anti-Semitic by the federal government.”

The German government said it defined anti-Semitism, as “political, social, racist and religious” hostility toward Jews.

Hebron - Israeli Military Attacks Palestinians and Western Observers

Israeli forces invade ISM apartment as part of a campaign of continual harassment against activists in Hebron


in HebronReportsVideo March 5, 2015

5th March 2015 | International Solidarity Movement, Khalil Team | Hebron, Occupied Palestine

To date, ISM volunteers in Al-Khalil (Hebron) have faced two attempted night raids, two invasions, and continual daily harassment from Israeli occupation forces. Other organizations in Hebron, including Youth Against Settlements and Christian Peacemaker Teams, have also faced harassment including raids, detentions, and arrests.
(photo by Christian Peacemaker Teams – Palestine https://www.facebook.com/cptpalestine)
On the night from the 18 to the 19 of February Israeli Military tried to raid the ISM apartment in Hebron. Four volunteers woke up to a loud banging on the front door at one a clock in the morning. Soldiers constantly banged on the front door, threatening to break it open, if the volunteers refused to open it. Repeated questions for whether they had a warrant to legally enter the apartment were negated and replied with comments such as “we don’t need a warrant” and “I am the law”. The soldiers also threatened the volunteers that if they don’t open the door “bad things will happen.” In order to stop internationals from documenting and getting an overview of the situation, the soldiers aimed green lasers mounted on their rifles through the apartment windows.
Soldiers in the morning on the stairs outside the ISM house
A few days before this incident the internationals were prevented from standing near a school were schoolchildren had to pass a group of soldiers. Israeli forces called the police, who detained ISM volunteers and took pictures of their passports. During the night raid volunteers recognized the voices of the soldiers who had detained them earlier. Soldiers also told them “we don’t need to see your passports, we already saw it.”

The following day ISMers were stopped in the street at every possibility and ID-checked. In the afternoon, on their way back to the apartment, Palestinians warned the ISMers that fifteen soldiers have been asking for them and were trying to arrest them. After about an hour the volunteers were able to come back to the apartment, as the soldiers went back to the military base.
ISM volunteers tried to document the break-in as soldiers searched the house; they were gathered into the kitchen and at one point  prohibited from making phone calls.
On the morning of the 25th of February, about twenty minutes after two out of the three volunteers left the apartment, soldiers were banging on the door of the apartment another time, demanding that it be opened. The soldiers claimed they were searching for Issa, a prominent member of the Palestinian activist group Youth Against Settlements, whose house was raided the same on the night of that same day. Issa was not present in the apartment at the time. Soldiers threatened the volunteer inside the house, saying that if they were not allowed to come inside, they would “come back at night, break the door and throw grenades into the house.” They threatened that the ISM volunteers “won’t be able to close an eye during night-time.” After more than an hour the dozen soldiers, who had been threatening to enter the house while stopping the other volunteers from going inside finally left.

Soldiers after invading YAS house (photo by Youth Against Settlements https://www.facebook.com/media.yas)
A small number of soldiers came to the apartment three times that evening, knocking on the door but leaving after only a few minutes.

The following night around 1:00 AM, the volunteers woke up to loud noises at the door, as soldiers started to force it open. The soldiers did not answer when ISM activists asked whether they had a warrant. After about 30 minutes the soldiers broke the door open and came into the apartment, aiming their guns at volunteers.
Soldiers forced ISM volunteers to stay in the kitchen of the apartment while they searched
The soldiers took a map from the wall of the apartment, claiming it was sufficient evidence for having the volunteers deported. They left after 30 minutes, threatening that within 24 hours the volunteers will be arrested by the immigration police. As the activists had expected, the threats were groundless; over a week later they continue to work in Al-Khalil.

The following night, when volunteers came back late at night around quarter to one, seven soldiers were just collecting the tools they used to break down the newly repaired door. Another three soldiers stopped the ISM volunteers from going back inside the apartment. After a few minutes, ISMers managed to reach the apartment and found the door destroyed and their personal belongings ransacked.

On the same night, Israeli forces also raided the house of Youth Against Settlements (YAS), also searching the house and taking only one poster off the wall. Soldiers raided the house on the eve of the Open Shuhada Street demonstration; they also arrested Issa Amro, the coordinator of YAS, about a week before.

The harassment did not stop after the Open Shuhada Street demonstration – where around 20 were injured, several activists including a 17-year-old and a female German activist were shot with live ammunition, and three were arrested.

A couple of days later Israeli border police detained and arrested two volunteers from Christian Peacemaker Teams, stopping them after they had been walking Palestinian kindergarteners home from school.

Soldiers continue to harass, threaten, and detain international solidarity volunteers. Just this morning two ISM and two CPT volunteers were detained for over an hour at a checkpoint, after monitoring the border police aggression toward schoolchildren that morning.

Palestinian female MK Haneen Zoabi physically attacked - again

Banned, Physically Attacked - Israeli Democracy in Action

Another example of the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’.  Haneen Zoabi, an articulate, forthright Palestinian member of the Knesset has been villified, suspended from the Knesset, barred from running (until the High Court overturned it) and now physically attacked during the election campaign by a range of Zionist parties.  The reactions of the Police and the authorities to this concerted attack?  Nothing.

Tony Greenstein



MK Haneen Zoabi attacked at political panel

Ha’aretz 3 March 2015

Far-right activists storm stage at Ramat Gan college event in which Zoabi, several other female MKs took part.

Right-wing activists disrupted a political convention on Tuesday and attacked several female MKs, prompting security guards to evacuate the politicians.

Participants at the event on women's issues at the College for Law and Business in Ramat Gan included MKs Haneen Zoabi (Joint List), Shuli Moalem (Habayit Hayehudi), Michal Biran (Zionist Union), Karin Elharar (Yesh Atid), Anat Berko (Likud) and Gabi Lasky (Meretz).

Witnesses said supporters of right-wing extremist Baruch Marzel stormed the stage and poured a drink on Zoabi. The Joint List's spokeswoman, Emily Moatti, was also assaulted, and was taken to Tel Aviv's Ichilov Hospital.

"The security guards tried to whisk us, especially Zoabi, out of there," said MK Biran, "and I was hit with an elbow to the gut." Biran added that people from both sides of the political divided riled things up. "Lieberman's people [from the Yisrael Beiteinu party] started it, but Marzel's people kept on going and Zoabi's supporters didn’t let things pass."
 
During the course of the event, activists associated with the Habayit Hayehudi party, with Yisrael Beiteinu and Yachad, also yelled at Zoabi, preventing the audience to hear her remarks. Several activists then approached the stage and one poured the drink on her.
 
For her part, however, Habayit Hayehudi MK Shuli Mualem denied taking part in the brawl, and denied that she had assaulted an Arab woman at the event. "A female student or a Zoabi supporter, stood on a table and unfurled a Palestinian flag," she said. "I called on her to stop and take it down, because there is no place to fly a Palestinian flag in the State of Israel. They tried to take the flag from her. At that stage, I left the hall."

 
 Biran said that when the first question was posed to Zoabi, Yisrael Beiteinu activists began singing the Israeli national anthem to silence her. "In my opinion, that shows disrespect for the anthem, singing it to silence someone else," she said. "Then Anat Berko from Likud got up to calm things down, but at some point, she said: 'I don't agree with Miss Marmara either, and that didn't help calm things too much." The reference was to Zoabi's presence on the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara, which was part of a flotilla that attempted to run the Israeli naval blockade of the Gaza Strip in 2010. Biran called the incident the low point of the campaign in the run-up to Knesset elections of March 17.

Before the event, Marzel – who is running on Eli Yishai's Yachad ticket – posted a call on Facebook to "protest the disgrace." "When I am in the Knesset," he wrote, "I will do everything to wipe the smile off Zoabi's face." After the incident Marzel posted an additional comment in which he said: "We promised – and kept our promise!" The post was later deleted. The party then issued a statement that said in part: "The Yachad movement condemns and opposes any incident involving the use of violence. It also directs its members and supporters accordingly. In addition, however, it is difficult to ignore Zoabi's provocations and her inciting conduct." The statement sarcastically added: "It's difficult to understand what she was looking for at the Ramat Gan conference when her potential supporters are in Gaza."

Last month, the High Court of Justice overturned the decision to disqualify both Zoabi and Marzel from running in Israel's election on March 17.

Aiman Odeh, the chairman of the Joint List, which includes Zoabi's Balad party, condemned the attacks on the women MKs, adding: "The wave of racism, exclusion and violence that has characterized the term of the current government continues in the current election campaign. It's sad to see that even at academic institutions, there is no long the possibility of conducting open discourse and presenting a range of views."

5 March 2015

EDL Decides Not to March in Brighton After All

Fascists Promise to Take Their Poisonous Hatred to Oxford

EDL Retreat Before the Battle!

Brighton's miserable EDL contingent

Only Sussex Friends of Israel seemed to love MFE/EDL


EDL Surrender Notice

Every inch was a struggle
On April 22nd 2012 a group called March for England, which contained a mixture of EDL, Infidels, Casuals and Gullibles, staged another of their St. George Day’s marches.  What happened was a mass mobilisation by the local Anti-Fascist Network and a spontaneous revulsion by local people on the day.  I did a report EDL/MFE - We Won the Day which has a very interesting video of the day on it.
Barely enough room for the protesters in 2012
Ring of  police protect MFE

Clearly they don't appreciate irony
Little did they know what was in store
The result was that the Police’s attempt to march MFE through the town was halted after barely a quarter of a mile as the fascists were shunted down a side street and given a ring of protection by the Police at their meeting point before being bundled off on the train.  Since then MFE have been given lousy sea-front routes, where their only audience were anti-fascists or the seagulls.  This year they called it a day and in their place the English Defence League announced a march.  Now the EDL have had second thoughts and decided that cowardice is the better part of valour!
A pictorial description of MFE's humiliation
Pushed down Church Street the fascists lost their appetite for the Brighton air
Church Street
Another local victory over fascism!

Tony Greenstein


2 March 2015

Why the Rise of Fascism is Again the Issue

The Lies of Imperialism Feed the Rise of Fascism

By John Pilger
 Activists of the far-right Ukrainian Svoboda party. 'In the recent elections [it] fell only 0.3% short of the required minimum of 5%' required to enter parliament. Photograph: Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty Images
February 27, 2015 "ICH" - The recent 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was a reminder of the great crime of fascism, whose Nazi iconography is embedded in our consciousness. Fascism is preserved as history, as flickering footage of goose-stepping blackshirts, their criminality terrible and clear. Yet in the same liberal societies, whose war-making elites urge us never to forget, the accelerating danger of a modern kind of fascism is suppressed; for it is their fascism.
Obama and friend
"To initiate a war of aggression...," said the Nuremberg Tribunal judges in 1946, "is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

Had the Nazis not invaded Europe, Auschwitz and the Holocaust would not have happened. Had the United States and its satellites not initiated their war of aggression in Iraq in 2003, almost a million people would be alive today; and Islamic State, or ISIS, would not have us in thrall to its savagery. They are the progeny of modern fascism, weaned by the bombs, bloodbaths and lies that are the surreal theatre known as news.
Andriy Biletsky, in black T-shirt, commander of Ukraine's Azov battalion (Tom Parfitt)
Like the fascism of the 1930s and 1940s, big lies are delivered with the precision of a metronome: thanks to an omnipresent, repetitive media and its virulent censorship by omission. Take the catastrophe in Libya.

In 2011, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that "most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten".
Fascist gang in Ukraine
The public sodomising of the Libyan president Muammar Gaddafi with a "rebel" bayonet was greeted by the then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, with the words: "We came, we saw, he died." His murder, like the destruction of his country, was justified with a familiar big lie; he was planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew... that if we waited one more day," said President Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
Fighters of the Azov battalion say farewell to their first comrade to die in the war against
Russia-backed rebels (Tom Parfitt)
This was the fabrication of Islamist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". Reported on March 14, 2011, the lie provided the first spark for Nato's inferno, described by David Cameron as a "humanitarian intervention".

Secretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS, many of the "rebels" would become ISIS, whose latest video offering shows the beheading of 21 Coptic Christian workers seized in Sirte, the city destroyed on their behalf by Nato bombers.
Phantom, 23, a fighter in the Azov battalion, outside its HQ in the Ukrainian seaside town of Urzuf Photo: Tom Parfitt
For Obama, Cameron and Hollande, Gaddafi's true crime was Libya's economic independence and his declared intention to stop selling Africa's greatest oil reserves in US dollars. The petrodollar is a pillar of American imperial power. Gaddafi audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would happen, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships".
The Azov battalion uses the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf''s Hook) symbol on its banner (Tom Parfitt)
Following Nato's attack under cover of a Security Council resolution, Obama, wrote Garikai Chengu, "confiscated $30 billion from Libya's Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of an African Central Bank and the African gold backed dinar currency".

The "humanitarian war" against Libya drew on a model close to western liberal hearts, especially in the media. In 1999, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sent Nato to bomb Serbia, because, they lied, the Serbs were committing "genocide" against ethnic Albanians in the secessionist province of Kosovo. David Scheffer, US ambassador-at-large for war crimes [sic], claimed that as many as "225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" might have been murdered. Both Clinton and Blair evoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War". The West's heroic allies were the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), whose criminal record was set aside. The British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told them to call him any time on his mobile phone.
 converted truck with steel shutters used by the Azov battalion and known to the fighters as 'the Lump of Iron' (Tom Parfitt)
With the Nato bombing over, and much of Serbia's infrastructure in ruins, along with schools, hospitals, monasteries and the national TV station, international forensic teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume evidence of the "holocaust". The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing "a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines". A year later, a United Nations tribunal on Yugoslavia announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide. The "holocaust" was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.

Behind the lie, there was serious purpose. Yugoslavia was a uniquely independent, multi-ethnic federation that had stood as a political and economic bridge in the Cold War. Most of its utilities and major manufacturing was publicly owned. This was not acceptable to the expanding European Community, especially newly united Germany, which had begun a drive east to capture its "natural market" in the Yugoslav provinces of Croatia and Slovenia. By the time the Europeans met at Maastricht in 1991 to lay their plans for the disastrous eurozone, a secret deal had been struck; Germany would recognise Croatia. Yugoslavia was doomed.

In Washington, the US saw that the struggling Yugoslav economy was denied World Bank loans. Nato, then an almost defunct Cold War relic, was reinvented as imperial enforcer. At a 1999 Kosovo "peace" conference in Rambouillet, in France, the Serbs were subjected to the enforcer's duplicitous tactics. The Rambouillet accord included a secret Annex B, which the US delegation inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia - a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation - and the implementation of a "free-market economy" and the privatisation of all government assets. No sovereign state could sign this. Punishment followed swiftly; Nato bombs fell on a defenceless country. It was the precursor to the catastrophes in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria and Libya, and Ukraine.

Since 1945, more than a third of the membership of the United Nations - 69 countries - have suffered some or all of the following at the hands of America's modern fascism. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted, their people bombed and their economies stripped of all protection, their societies subjected to a crippling siege known as "sanctions". The British historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. In every case, a big lie was deployed.

"Tonight, for the first time since 9/11, our combat mission in Afghanistan is over." These were opening words of Obama's 2015 State of the Union address. In fact, some 10,000 troops and 20,000 military contractors (mercenaries) remain in Afghanistan on indefinite assignment. "The longest war in American history is coming to a responsible conclusion," said Obama. In fact, more civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2014 than in any year since the UN took records. The majority have been killed - civilians and soldiers - during Obama's time as president.

The tragedy of Afghanistan rivals the epic crime in Indochina. In his lauded and much quoted book 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives', Zbigniew Brzezinski, the godfather of US policies from Afghanistan to the present day, writes that if America is to control Eurasia and dominate the world, it cannot sustain a popular democracy, because "the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion... Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilisation." He is right. As WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden have revealed, a surveillance and police state is usurping democracy. In 1976, Brzezinski, then President Carter's National Security Advisor, demonstrated his point by dealing a death blow to Afghanistan's first and only democracy. Who knows this vital history?

In the 1960s, a popular revolution swept Afghanistan, the poorest country on earth, eventually overthrowing the vestiges of the aristocratic regime in 1978. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) formed a government and declared a reform programme that included the abolition of feudalism, freedom for all religions, equal rights for women and social justice for the ethnic minorities. More than 13,000 political prisoners were freed and police files publicly burned.
The new government introduced free medical care for the poorest; peonage was abolished, a mass literacy programme was launched. For women, the gains were unheard of. By the late 1980s, half the university students were women, and women made up almost half of Afghanistan's doctors, a third of civil servants and the majority of teachers. "Every girl," recalled Saira Noorani, a female surgeon, "could go to high school and university. We could go where we wanted and wear what we liked. We used to go to cafes and the cinema to see the latest Indian film on a Friday and listen to the latest music. It all started to go wrong when the mujaheddin started winning. They used to kill teachers and burn schools. We were terrified. It was funny and sad to think these were the people the West supported."

The PDPA government was backed by the Soviet Union, even though, as former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance later admitted, "there was no evidence of any Soviet complicity [in the revolution]". Alarmed by the growing confidence of liberation movements throughout the world, Brzezinski decided that if Afghanistan was to succeed under the PDPA, its independence and progress would offer the "threat of a promising example".

On July 3, 1979, the White House secretly authorised support for tribal "fundamentalist" groups known as the mujaheddin, a program that grew to over $500 million a year in U.S. arms and other assistance. The aim was the overthrow of Afghanistan's first secular, reformist government. In August 1979, the US embassy in Kabul reported that "the United States' larger interests... would be served by the demise of [the PDPA government], despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan." The italics are mine.

The mujaheddin were the forebears of al-Qaeda and Islamic State. They included Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who received tens of millions of dollars in cash from the CIA. Hekmatyar's specialty was trafficking in opium and throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil. Invited to London, he was lauded by Prime Minister Thatcher as a "freedom fighter".

Such fanatics might have remained in their tribal world had Brzezinski not launched an international movement to promote Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asia and so undermine secular political liberation and "destabilise" the Soviet Union, creating, as he wrote in his autobiography, "a few stirred up Muslims". His grand plan coincided with the ambitions of the Pakistani dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, to dominate the region. In 1986, the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, began to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad. The Saudi multi-millionaire Osama bin Laden was one of them. Operatives who would eventually join the Taliban and al-Qaeda, were recruited at an Islamic college in Brooklyn, New York, and given paramilitary training at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called "Operation Cyclone". Its success was celebrated in 1996 when the last PDPA president of Afghanistan, Mohammed Najibullah - who had gone before the UN General Assembly to plead for help - was hanged from a streetlight by the Taliban.

The "blowback" of Operation Cyclone and its "few stirred up Muslims" was September 11, 2001. Operation Cyclone became the "war on terror", in which countless men, women and children would lose their lives across the Muslim world, from Afghanistan to Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. The enforcer's message was and remains: "You are with us or against us."

The common thread in fascism, past and present, is mass murder. The American invasion of Vietnam had its "free fire zones", "body counts" and "collatoral damage". In the province of Quang Ngai, where I reported from, many thousands of civilians ("gooks") were murdered by the US; yet only one massacre, at My Lai, is remembered. In Laos and Cambodia, the greatest aerial bombardment in history produced an epoch of terror marked today by the spectacle of joined-up bomb craters which, from the air, resemble monstrous necklaces. The bombing gave Cambodia its own ISIS, led by Pol Pot.

Today, the world's greatest single campaign of terror entails the execution of entire families, guests at weddings, mourners at funerals. These are Obama's victims. According to the New York Times, Obama makes his selection from a CIA "kill list" presented to him every Tuesday in the White House Situation Room. He then decides, without a shred of legal justification, who will live and who will die. His execution weapon is the Hellfire missile carried by a pilotless aircraft known as a drone; these roast their victims and festoon the area with their remains. Each "hit" is registered on a faraway console screen as a "bugsplat".

"For goose-steppers," wrote the historian Norman Pollock, "substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manque, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while."

Uniting fascism old and new is the cult of superiority. "I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being," said Obama, evoking declarations of national fetishism from the 1930s. As the historian Alfred W. McCoy has pointed out, it was the Hitler devotee, Carl Schmitt, who said, "The sovereign is he who decides the exception." This sums up Americanism, the world's dominant ideology. That it remains unrecognised as a predatory ideology is the achievement of an equally unrecognised brainwashing. Insidious, undeclared, presented wittily as enlightenment on the march, its conceit insinuates western culture. I grew up on a cinematic diet of American glory, almost all of it a distortion. I had no idea that it was the Red Army that had destroyed most of the Nazi war machine, at a cost of as many as 13 million soldiers. By contrast, US losses, including in the Pacific, were 400,000. Hollywood reversed this.

The difference now is that cinema audiences are invited to wring their hands at the "tragedy" of American psychopaths having to kill people in distant places - just as the President himself kills them. The embodiment of Hollywood's violence, the actor and director Clint Eastwood, was nominated for an Oscar this year for his movie, 'American Sniper', which is about a licensed murderer and nutcase. The New York Times described it as a "patriotic, pro-family picture which broke all attendance records in its opening days".

There are no heroic movies about America's embrace of fascism. During the Second World War, America (and Britain) went to war against Greeks who had fought heroically against Nazism and were resisting the rise of Greek fascism. In 1967, the CIA helped bring to power a fascist military junta in Athens - as it did in Brazil and most of Latin America. Germans and east Europeans who had colluded with Nazi aggression and crimes against humanity were given safe haven in the US; many were pampered and their talents rewarded. Wernher von Braun was the "father" of both the Nazi V-2 terror bomb and the US space programme.

In the 1990s, as former Soviet republics, eastern Europe and the Balkans became military outposts of Nato, the heirs to a Nazi movement in Ukraine were given their opportunity. Responsible for the deaths of thousands of Jews, Poles and Russians during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian fascism was rehabilitated and its "new wave" hailed by the enforcer as "nationalists".
This reached its apogee in 2014 when the Obama administration splashed out $5 billion on a coup against the elected government. The shock troops were neo-Nazis known as the Right Sector and Svoboda. Their leaders include Oleh Tyahnybok, who has called for a purge of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and "other scum", including gays, feminists and those on the political left.

These fascists are now integrated into the Kiev coup government. The first deputy speaker of the Ukrainian parliament, Andriy Parubiy, a leader of the governing party, is co-founder of Svoboda. On February 14, Parubiy announced he was flying to Washington get "the USA to give us highly precise modern weaponry". If he succeeds, it will be seen as an act of war by Russia.

No western leader has spoken up about the revival of fascism in the heart of Europe - with the exception of Vladimir Putin, whose people lost 22 million to a Nazi invasion that came through the borderland of Ukraine. At the recent Munich Security Conference, Obama's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, ranted abuse about European leaders for opposing the US arming of the Kiev regime. She referred to the German Defence Minister as "the minister for defeatism". It was Nuland who masterminded the coup in Kiev. The wife of Robert D. Kagan, a leading "neo-con" luminary and co-founder of the extreme right wing Project for a New American Century, she was foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney.

Nuland's coup did not go to plan. Nato was prevented from seizing Russia's historic, legitimate, warm-water naval base in Crimea. The mostly Russian population of Crimea - illegally annexed to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev in 1954 - voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia, as they had done in the 1990s. The referendum was voluntary, popular and internationally observed. There was no invasion.

At the same time, the Kiev regime turned on the ethnic Russian population in the east with the ferocity of ethnic cleaning. Deploying neo-Nazi militias in the manner of the Waffen-SS, they bombed and laid to siege cities and towns. They used mass starvation as a weapon, cutting off electricity, freezing bank accounts, stopping social security and pensions. More than a million refugees fled across the border into Russia. In the western media, they became unpeople escaping "the violence" caused by the "Russian invasion". The Nato commander, General Breedlove - whose name and actions might have been inspired by Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove - announced that 40,000 Russian troops were "massing". In the age of forensic satellite evidence, he offered none.

These Russian-speaking and bilingual people of Ukraine - a third of the population - have long sought a federation that reflects the country's ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are not "separatists" but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland and oppose the power grab in Kiev. Their revolt and establishment of autonomous "states" are a reaction to Kiev's attacks on them. Little of this has been explained to western audiences.

On May 2, 2014, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as "another bright day in our national history". In the American and British media, this was reported as a "murky tragedy" resulting from "clashes" between "nationalists" (neo-Nazis) and "separatists" (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine).

The New York Times buried the story, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington's new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims - "Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says". Obama congratulated the junta for its "restraint".

If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained "pariah" role in the West will justify the lie that Russia is invading Ukraine. On January 29, Ukraine's top military commander, General Viktor Muzhemko, almost inadvertently dismissed the very basis for US and EU sanctions on Russia when he told a news conference emphatically: "The Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian Army". There were "individual citizens" who were members of "illegal armed groups", but there was no Russian invasion. This was not news. Vadym Prystaiko, Kiev's Deputy Foreign Minister, has called for "full scale war" with nuclear-armed Russia.

On February 21, US Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, introduced a bill that would authorise American arms for the Kiev regime. In his Senate presentation, Inhofe used photographs he claimed were of Russian troops crossing into Ukraine, which have long been exposed as fakes. It was reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's fake pictures of a Soviet installation in Nicaragua, and Colin Powell's fake evidence to the UN of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The intensity of the smear campaign against Russia and the portrayal of its president as a pantomime villain is unlike anything I have known as a reporter. Robert Parry, one of America's most distinguished investigative journalists, who revealed the Iran-Contra scandal, wrote recently, "No European government, since Adolf Hitler's Germany, has seen fit to dispatch Nazi storm troopers to wage war on a domestic population, but the Kiev regime has and has done so knowingly. Yet across the West's media/political spectrum, there has been a studious effort to cover up this reality even to the point of ignoring facts that have been well established... If you wonder how the world could stumble into world war three - much as it did into world war one a century ago - all you need to do is look at the madness over Ukraine that has proved impervious to facts or reason."

In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "The use made by Nazi conspirators of psychological warfare is well known. Before each major aggression, with some few exceptions based on expediency, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack... In the propaganda system of the Hitler State it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons." In the Guardian on February 2, Timothy Garton-Ash called, in effect, for a world war. "Putin must be stopped," said the headline. "And sometimes only guns can stop guns." He conceded that the threat of war might "nourish a Russian paranoia of encirclement"; but that was fine. He name-checked the military equipment needed for the job and advised his readers that "America has the best kit".

In 2003, Garton-Ash, an Oxford professor, repeated the propaganda that led to the slaughter in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, he wrote, "has, as [Colin] Powell documented, stockpiled large quantities of horrifying chemical and biological weapons, and is hiding what remains of them. He is still trying to get nuclear ones." He lauded Blair as a "Gladstonian, Christian liberal interventionist". In 2006, he wrote, "Now we face the next big test of the West after Iraq: Iran."

The outbursts - or as Garton-Ash prefers, his "tortured liberal ambivalence" - are not untypical of those in the transatlantic liberal elite who have struck a Faustian deal. The war criminal Blair is their lost leader. The Guardian, in which Garton-Ash's piece appeared, published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the Lockheed Martin monster were the words: "The F-35. GREAT For Britain". This American "kit" will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered across the world. In tune with its advertiser, a Guardian editorial has demanded an increase in military spending.

Once again, there is serious purpose. The rulers of the world want Ukraine not only as a missile base; they want its economy. Kiev's new Finance Minister, Nataliwe Jaresko, is a former senior US State Department official in charge of US overseas "investment". She was hurriedly given Ukrainian citizenship. They want Ukraine for its abundant gas; Vice President Joe Biden's son is on the board of Ukraine's biggest oil, gas and fracking company. The manufacturers of GM seeds, companies such as the infamous Monsanto, want Ukraine's rich farming soil.

Above all, they want Ukraine's mighty neighbour, Russia. They want to Balkanise or dismember Russia and exploit the greatest source of natural gas on earth. As the Arctic ice melts, they want control of the Arctic Ocean and its energy riches, and Russia's long Arctic land border. Their man in Moscow used to be Boris Yeltsin, a drunk, who handed his country's economy to the West. His successor, Putin, has re-established Russia as a sovereign nation; that is his crime.


The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.