Archive for April 27th, 2015
And what could be this Promised Land? And what is this Israel Dagger strategy?
Posted on: April 27, 2015
And what could be this Promised Land? And to whom?
Bishop Luke Khoury shared this story that Dayan (Israel defense minister) told the Indian reporter Karayanga in 1957 under the code name: Israel dagger.
Ben Gurion said: Israel need not build a mighty army. We will divide the States around us into smaller entities based on religious and ethnic enmities and clivage.
Moshe Dayan, in the footsteps of Ben Gurion, had a complete scenario of how Israel will expand and dominate the Middle East.
Even then, Israel planned to destroy Egypt’s fighter planes and its airport in the next preemptive war. The plan was executed in 1967.
Dayan saw that Iraq will be divided into three canton, Syria into 3 cantons, Egypt into 3 cantons, Sudan into 3 cantons, Lebanon in 2 cantons…
Dayan was not worried whether his statements will be published because:
“The Arab people don’t read what Israel publishes, if they read they won’t take us seriously, and if they comprehend the danger they won’t act, and if they act their actions are not sustained for any long period…”
35 years later, what Israel had planned has been carried out in Sudan and Lebanon. Iraq is fighting its war on this division scheme since 2003. Syria is valiantly doing its best in the last 5 years to avert its division.
The Saudi monarch Faisal begged President Lyndon Johnson in 1967 to give the green light for Israel to occupy Sinai, the Golan Heights, Jerusalem and the West Bank in order to give Saudi Arabia a reprieve from these progressive and anti-monarchist States such as Egypt and Syria.
The role is changing now:
1. The various Palestinian organizations and movements have been reading and translating Israeli books since 1970
2. Hezbollah in Lebanon is keeping up to date of Israel plans and statements
3. Iran is following closely Israeli positions
4. Syria is taking seriously Israeli programs
5. Israel has stopped reading and taking seriously what the States around it are saying and deciding.
The “Arabic” people and particularly the Syrian people in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine got it on the nail:
1. The Wahhabi Saudi monarchy is the real dagger in the body of the Arabic people. It is the source of Al Nousra and Daesh (ISIS)
2. Saudi Arabia is the main partner of Israel in the region and aiding Israel financially to expand its colonies in Palestine.
3. Saudi Arabia is the prime Zionist lobby in the USA and funding their lobbying campaigns at the highest levels
4. Saudi Arabia finally decided on a fatal action: getting directly involved militarily in Yemen and exciting its armed forces.
5. Take down this obscurantist monarchy, divide Saudi Arabia and this apartheid and expansionist Israel will cease to exist.
Note: Ironically, this is exactly what we call Greater Syria with northern borders extending further away to the Turkish Torus Mountain chains, including Cyprus.
This land is for the Syrian people who share the same culture, customs, tradition, language and myths in current States of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq.
كتاب خنجر اسرائيل و علاقته مع ما يحدث في البلاد العربية؟
قام صحفى هندى يدعى كاراينجا بنشر كتاب تحت اسم خنجر اسرائيل عام 1957 ونشر فى الكتاب حوار اجراه مع وزير ا…لحرب الاسرائيلى موشى ديان قال فى حواره أن اسرائيل ستدمر كل الطائرات المصريه فى موطنها وبذلك تصبح السماء لنا وبذلك تحسم الحرب (قبل حرب 67) وكشف الصحفى عن وثيقة سريه اسرائيليه لتقسيم ارض العرب الى أقامة دوله اسرائيل الكبرى من نهر النيل الى الفرات من خلال تقسيم : العراق الى 3 دول هى (سنية فى الوسط – شيعية فى الجنوب – كرديه فى الشمال ينضم اليها كل الاكراد من الدول المحيطة )
سوريا تقسم الى3 دول (سنيه- علويه- درزيه)
لبنان تقسم الى دولتين ( شيعية فى الجنوب ومارونيه فى الشمال)
السودان الى3 دول – مصر الى 3 دول
وعندما سأل الصحفى ديان عن كشفه لمثل هذا المخطط كان رده :
(أن العرب لا يقرأون واذا قرأوا لا يفهمون واذا فهموا لا يعملون واذا عملوا لايستمرون)
وبعد صدور الكتاب ب 35 عام اي فى عام 1991 بدأ تقسيم العراق بنفس الكيفية المذكورة وقبله فى عام 1990 قام الشريف حسن الهندى بنشر مقاله فى جريدة السودان فى نفس العام ليحذر من محاولات تقسيم السودان وتقاسمه مع الدول المجاورة وكان أول من لفت الانظار لذلك حتى قسمت السودان فى2010 الى دولتين شمال وجنوبا وبقي الجزء الثالث غربا لم ينفذ والان جاء الدور على مصر فهل يسمح الشعب المصرى بغرس خنجر اسرائيل فى أرضة .
هذا اهداء منى الى كل ساذج وخائن ينفى نظرية المؤامرة فمن لا يقبل التاريخ يسقط فى افخاخ العدو وعملائه …
When Money can buy everything, goods and people: Is the US drifting from a market economy to a market society?
Posted on: April 27, 2015
US drifting from a market economy to a market society?
Here’s a question we need to rethink together: What should be the role of money and markets in our societies?
Today, there are very few things that money can’t buy.
If you’re sentenced to a jail term in Santa Barbara, California, you should know that if you don’t like the standard accommodations, you can buy a prison cell upgrade. It’s true.
For how much, do you think? What would you guess? Five hundred dollars? It’s not the Ritz-Carlton. It’s a jail! $82 dollars a night. Eighty-two dollars a night.
If you go to an amusement park and don’t want to stand in the long lines for the popular rides, there is now a solution. In many theme parks, you can pay extra to jump to the head of the line. They call them Fast Track or VIP tickets.
1:14 And this isn’t only happening in amusement parks.
In Washington, D.C., long lines, queues sometimes form for important Congressional hearings. Now some people don’t like to wait in long queues, maybe overnight, even in the rain.
So now, for lobbyists and others who are very keen to attend these hearings but don’t like to wait, there are companies, line-standing companies, and you can go to them. You can pay them a certain amount of money, they hire homeless people and others who need a job to stand waiting in the line for as long as it takes, and the lobbyist, just before the hearing begins, can take his or her place at the head of the line and a seat in the front of the room. Paid line standing.
2:03 It’s happening, the recourse to market mechanisms and market thinking and market solutions, in bigger arenas.
Take the way we fight our wars. Did you know that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were more private military contractors on the ground than there were U.S. military troops? Now this isn’t because we had a public debate about whether we wanted to outsource war to private companies, but this is what has happened.
2:36 Over the past 3 decades, we have lived through a quiet revolution.
We’ve drifted almost without realizing it from having a market economy to becoming market societies.
The difference is this: A market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool, for organizing productive activity, but a market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale.
It’s a way of life, in which market thinking and market values begin to dominate every aspect of life: personal relations, family life, health, education, politics, law, civic life.
3:27 Now, why worry? Why worry about our becoming market societies?
For two reasons, I think.
One of them has to do with inequality. The more things money can buy, the more affluence, or the lack of it, matters. If the only thing that money determined was access to yachts or fancy vacations or BMWs, then inequality wouldn’t matter very much.
But when money comes increasingly to govern access to the essentials of the good life — decent health care, access to the best education, political voice and influence in campaigns — when money comes to govern all of those things, inequality matters a great deal. And so the marketization of everything sharpens the sting of inequality and its social and civic consequence. That’s one reason to worry.
The second reason apart from the worry about inequality, and it’s this: with some social goods and practices, when market thinking and market values enter, they may change the meaning of those practices and crowd out attitudes and norms worth caring about.
5:03 I’d like to take an example of a controversial use of a market mechanism, a cash incentive, and see what you think about it.
Many schools struggle with the challenge of motivating kids, especially kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, to study hard, to do well in school, to apply themselves.
Some economists have proposed a market solution: Offer cash incentives to kids for getting good grades or high test scores or for reading books. They’ve tried this, actually.
They’ve done some experiments in some major American cities. In New York, in Chicago, in Washington, D.C., they’ve tried this, offering 50 dollars for an A, 35 dollars for a B. In Dallas, Texas, they have a program that offers 8-year-olds two dollars for each book they read.
6:03 Some people are in favor, some people are opposed to this cash incentive to motivate achievement.
Let’s see what people here think about it. Imagine that you are the head of a major school system, and someone comes to you with this proposal. And let’s say it’s a foundation. They will provide the funds. You don’t have to take it out of your budget. How many would be in favor and how many would be opposed to giving it a try? Let’s see by a show of hands.
6:32 First, how many think it might at least be worth a try to see if it would work? Raise your hand.
6:39 And how many would be opposed?
6:42 So the majority here are opposed, but a sizable minority are in favor. Let’s have a discussion.
Let’s start with those of you who object, who would rule it out even before trying. What would be your reason? Who will get our discussion started? Yes?
7:01 Heike Moses: Hello everyone, I’m Heike, and I think it just kills the intrinsic motivation, so in the respect that children, if they would like to read, you just take this incentive away in just paying them, so it just changes behavior.
Michael Sandel: Takes the intrinsic incentive away.
7:20 What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation?
7:24 HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation should be to learn. To get to know the world. And then, if you stop paying them, what happens then? Then they stop reading?
7:35 MS: Now, let’s see if there’s someone who favors, who thinks it’s worth trying this.
7:40 Elizabeth Loftus: I’m Elizabeth Loftus, and you said worth a try, so why not try it and do the experiment and measure things?
MS: And measure. And what would you measure? You’d measure how many —
EL: How many books they read and how many books they continued to read after you stopped paying them.
8:01 MS: Oh, after you stopped paying. All right, what about that?
8:04 HM: To be frank, I just think this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way.
8:17 MS: All right. What’s emerged from this discussion is the following question:
Will the cash incentive drive out or corrupt or crowd out the higher motivation, the intrinsic lesson that we hope to convey, which is to learn to love to learn and to read for their own sakes?
And people disagree about what the effect will be, but that seems to be the question, that somehow a market mechanism or a cash incentive teaches the wrong lesson, and if it does, what will become of these children later?
8:57 I should tell you what’s happened with these experiments. The cash for good grades has had very mixed results, for the most part has not resulted in higher grades. The two dollars for each book did lead those kids to read more books. It also led them to read shorter books. (Street Smart lesson)
9:17 (Laughter)
9:21 But the real question is, what will become of these kids later? Will they have learned that reading is a chore, a form of piecework to be done for pay, that’s the worry, or may it lead them to read maybe for the wrong reason initially but then lead them to fall in love with reading for its own sake?
9:40 Now, what this, even this brief debate, brings out is something that many economists overlook.
Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not touch or taint the goods they exchange.
Market exchange, they assume, doesn’t change the meaning or value of the goods being exchanged.
This may be true enough if we’re talking about material goods. If you sell me a flat screen television or give me one as a gift, it will be the same good. It will work the same either way.
But the same may not be true if we’re talking about nonmaterial goods and social practices such as teaching and learning or engaging together in civic life.
In those domains, bringing market mechanisms and cash incentives may undermine or crowd out nonmarket values and attitudes worth caring about.
Once we see that markets and commerce, when extended beyond the material domain, can change the character of the goods themselves, can change the meaning of the social practices, as in the example of teaching and learning, we have to ask where markets belong and where they don’t, where they may actually undermine values and attitudes worth caring about.
But to have this debate, we have to do something we’re not very good at, and that is to reason together in public about the value and the meaning of the social practices we prize, from our bodies to family life to personal relations to health to teaching and learning to civic life.
11:42 Now these are controversial questions, and so we tend to shrink from them. In fact, during the past three decades, when market reasoning and market thinking have gathered force and gained prestige, our public discourse during this time has become hollowed out, empty of larger moral meaning.
For fear of disagreement, we shrink from these questions. But once we see that markets change the character of goods, we have to debate among ourselves these bigger questions about how to value goods.
12:24 One of the most corrosive effects of putting a price on everything is on commonality, the sense that we are all in it together.
Against the background of rising inequality, marketizing every aspect of life leads to a condition where those who are affluent and those who are of modest means increasingly live separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools.
13:04 This isn’t good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live, even for those of us who can afford to buy our way to the head of the line. Here’s why.
Democracy does not require perfect equality, but what it does require is that citizens share in a common life.
What matters is that people of different social backgrounds and different walks of life encounter one another, bump up against one another in the ordinary course of life, because this is what teaches us to negotiate and to abide our differences. And this is how we come to care for the common good.
13:52 And so, in the end, the question of markets is not mainly an economic question. It’s really a question of how we want to live together.
Do we want a society where everything is up for sale, or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy?
Still Not called ‘Genocide’? 1.5 million Armenian systematically massacred
Posted on: April 27, 2015
Still Not called ‘Genocide’? 1.5 million Armenian systematically massacred
ISTANBUL — On April 24, 1915, Turkish authorities of the Young Turks junta hauled off Daniel Varoujan, a leading Armenian poet of the time, along with over 200 other intellectuals in the capital Constantinople.
To the crumbling Ottoman Empire, the poets, painters, writers, booksellers and politicians at the beating heart of the Armenian community posed too much of a threat.
Sophia Jones @huffingtonpost.com this April 23, 2015
100 Years Ago
Soon, much of the empire’s Christian Armenian population would be targeted and nearly wiped out, accused of conspiring against the empire with the Russians.
Many Armenians say the genocide was collective punishment for the actions of a few. (As in any genocide when a major war starts)
In August, after a wave of deportations began that would force hundreds of thousands of Armenians on brutal death marches toward the Syrian desert, Varoujan was tortured to death, according to eyewitnesses at the time. Varoujan was just one of many men, women and children who lost their lives.
This week, Armenians from around the world are gathering in Istanbul to commemorate the deaths of nearly 1.5 million Armenians who died in what would later be known by many as genocide, but Not by Turkey, the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia… (Watch those head of states who preferred to attend the commemoration of Gallipoli battle instead of the commemoration in Armenia)
A century on, the killings are hardly a thing of the past, with sensitive geopolitics still fueling the controversy.
(Hitler wondered before committing his own genocide “Does any one remember the Armenian genocide?” Germany had planned the Armenian genocide)
Regardless of how it’s labeled, here are some figures that explain the size and scope of this tragedy:
Armenians killed by Ottoman Turks during the Armenian Genocide in 1915.
1.5 million
The number of Armenians believed to have been killed between 1915 and 1917.
“Rape and beating were commonplace,” wrote acclaimed historian David Fromkin in his Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the Ottoman Empire’s downfall, A Peace to End All Peace.
“Those who were not killed at once were driven through mountains and deserts without food, drink or shelter. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians eventually succumbed or were killed.”
An Armenian man in Istanbul, who as a schoolboy discovered his family was Armenian, told The WorldPost one story passed down to him by his parents:
His grandfather, too exhausted to walk any farther in the death march toward the Syrian desert (destination Deir al Zour), refused to go on. He would rather drown than walk another mile to his death, he told the Turkish Ottoman guards. And so, the man says, they held his grandfather under the water until he was dead.
250
The number of intellectuals reportedly rounded up by Ottoman Turks on April 24, 1915, in Constantinople (now Istanbul), kicking off what would become a massive wave of arrests, deportations and killings.
Many of these Armenians were later deported and in many cases killed. Armenians commemorate the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide every year on April 24.
“They took the intellectuals, the cream of the crop,” one Armenian book publisher who said his father, a baker, lived in Constantinople when the arrests took place, recently told The WorldPost. “They took the head and left the body.”
French Armenian Gerard Bodigoff (R) lights candle with his wife Jacqueline in the Armenian church on April 20 in Istanbul to pay tribute to his grandparents who were massacred and her mother who fled the Armenian genocide in 1915.
60,000
The number of dead bodies reportedly found in 1916 in a mass grave in Maskanah, a northern town in what is now modern day Syria, according to Jesse B. Jackson, U.S. consul in Aleppo. “As far as the eye can reach mounds are seen containing 200 to 300 corpses buried in the ground,” he said in a cable to Washington.
300,000
The number of Armenians who died during this period due to war and disease, according to Turkey, which vehemently denies the 1.5 million figure.
“According to independent researchers, 300,000 Armenians lost their lives because of the war and disease,” reads one Turkish state-provided textbook for high school students. “But during that time, Armenians killed 600,000 Turks and forced 500,000 Turks to leave their land.”
2,133,190
The number of Armenians living in the Ottoman empire before 1914, according to the University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies.
387,800
The number of Armenians still left in the Ottoman Empire in 1922.
(Wikimedia Commons.)
20
The number of nations that officially recognize the Armenian Genocide. The list does not include the United States, Israel and many others who on the centenary are grappling with labeling the killings a genocide. Germany is expected to finally do so on the anniversary.
The Armenian Genocide still remains one of the most bitterly contested events in history, especially for Turkey, fiercely defensive of its Ottoman past.
If President Obama decided to label the 1915 killings as genocide, already strained relations would likely only worsen with Turkey, where the United States has an important air base in the south, close to Syria.
Turkey and the U.S. government have butted heads over the Syrian crisis, with a U.S.-led coalition targeting solely Islamic State extremists, while Turkey insists military efforts must also focus on bringing down Syria’s Bashar Assad.
The United States has said Turkey, hosting over 1.7 million desperate Syrian refugees, has failed to do enough to counter extremists who often cross its border into Syria with ease.
The White House doesn’t want to use the fateful “g” word because it would anger the wrong people.
That’s essentially what officials said Tuesday when faced with increasing pressure to label the mass killings a genocide.
Citing “regional priorities” in its decision not to say the killings amounted to genocide, the U.S. government insisted it would urge “a full, frank, and just acknowledgment of the facts,” according to a White House statement.
The decision angered many Armenians in the United States and abroad who say they had hoped President Barack Obama would use the centennial as an opportunity to put things right, considering his track record of acknowledging the genocide prior to assuming the presidency.
A box that contains bones of Armenians who were killed in Syria during their exodus from persecutions by the Ottoman Empire in 1915 are displayed at the Vank Cathedral in the historic city of Isfahan, some 250 miles south of the capital, Tehran, on April 20.
There is real concern in Turkey that legal ramifications of calling the 1915 massacres a “genocide” could lead to costly reparations.
In a recent column in the Daily Sabah, a Turkish newspaper known for its staunchly pro-government rhetoric, one columnist wrote that the genocide claimed by Armenians is just a ruse by the Armenian diaspora and descendants in Turkey to tear apart the country and take over Turkish territory.
While Turkey in recent years has taken more conciliatory steps towards addressing the killings of Armenians, with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan making what was considered to be a groundbreaking speech last year in which he offered condolences to the descendants of those killed, tempers have recently flared.
With the lead-up to the 100-year anniversary, Turkey has furiously defended itself from genocide claims, lashing out at the Pope and the European Parliament for their views on what is widely seen as a systematic slaughter.
“Concealing or denying evil is like allowing a wound to keep bleeding without bandaging it,” Pope Francis said earlier this month after calling the killings the first genocide of the 20th century. Ankara then recalled its ambassador from the Vatican.
Turkey’s Erdogan dismissed the genocide debate, just as the European Parliament voted on April 15 to call the events of 1915 a genocide.
On Wednesday, Turkey said it was pulling its ambassador to Austria over the debate.
While Turkey acknowledges that some Armenians died — calling them casualties of war, disease and chaos of the time — the state says that since the deaths were not methodically planned to wipe out Armenians, it does not add up to genocide.
“It is out of the question for there to be a stain, a shadow called ‘genocide,’ on Turkey,” Erdogan said last week.”
Nick Wing in Washington, D.C., and Burak Sayin in Istanbul contributed reporting.
This story has been updated to clarify that while Germany does not currently call the Armenian massacres a genocide, it is expected to do so soon.
Adonis Diaries 