Search Results

Keyword: ‘robert fisk’

Robert Fisk on Stones and Semantics in the Occupied Territories (Video)

20 November 2009 Little Alex Leave a comment

Today, at Strike the Root, I posted an article by Jonathan Cook at The Electronic Intifada of an Israeli judge’s “historic ruling… when he decided that an Arab teenager needed ‘protection’ from the justice system and ordered that he not be convicted despite being found guilty of throwing stones at a police car during a protest against Israel’s attack last winter on Gaza”. Judge Yuval Shadmi wrote in the verdict: “I will say that the state is not authorized to caress with one hand the Jewish ‘ideological’ felons, and flog with its other hand the Arab ‘ideological’ felons.” Robert Fisk, in a recent lecture, discussed the propaganda efforts in the West that refute the e-mails I’ve received from those outraged by the judge’s ruling (2:13):

Read more…

Robert Fisk: Obama’s ‘Weak, Impotent’, ‘Governments are About Power’ (Video)

19 November 2009 Editors Leave a comment

Robert Fisk discusses why he continues to cover the ‘great human tragedy’ of the Middle East from Beirut, the ‘irrelevance’ of Osama bin Laden, President Obama’s ‘impotence’ being worse for the Middle East than George W. Bush and his Nobel Peace Prize (5:25):

Read more…

Gold Hits Another Record-High, Dollar Hits New Low

13 October 2009 Little Alex 4 comments

This morning, gold hit a new high nearing $1,070/oz. showing the  U.S. dollar ‘reaching a breaking point’ as it hits another new 14-month low.

Read more…

Dollar Hits All-Time Low Facing Rational ‘Demise’

6 October 2009 Editors 6 comments

Weeks after Iran officially announced it would replace the U.S. dollar—its value heavily dependent on Middle East oil trading—with euros in its foreign exchange holdings, The Independent Middle East correspondent Robert Fisk’s article, “The Demise of the Dollar,” breaks the story that: “In a graphic illustration of the new world order, Arab states have launched secret moves with China, Russia and France to stop using the U.S. currency for oil trading” by 2018. I wrote of the alliance between Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) here in June.

Russia Today (RT) reports on Mr. Fisk’s exclusive (3:25):

Read more…

Daily Briefing — 21st June 2009

21 June 2009 Editors Leave a comment

Thousands of government stormtroopers confront protesters in Iran; Netanyahu’s Newspeak on “Meet the Press”; Foreign intervention in Lebanon’s recent elections; NAACP rallies for Troy Davis; Maureen Dowd wastes more space in the “paper of record. Read more…

Iran Election Recount (Video)

16 June 2009 Editors 1 comment

al Jazeera English’s (AJE) “Inside Story” takes a look at Iran’s controversial elections, the protests that have followed, and the potential recount. Read more…

An American President Acknowledging the ‘Occupation’ of ‘Palestine’ Is Not News

6 June 2009 Little Alex 4 comments

In 2002, then-president George W. Bush (like his father and many other presidents) tossed ‘brave rhetoric’ around while signing checks to Israel. His rhetoric was as fresh and promising as President Obama’s this week in Cairo,  in that it wasn’t. Read more…

‘Government’ is Main Threat to a Free Press (Video)

The price of a free press and what hinders it. Read more…

The Obama Deception (Video)

12 March 2009 Editors 4 comments

Alex Jones’ recent documentary on the banking cartel’s interests overriding the American people, blinded by Obama’s cult of personality. Read more…

Fisk: The Middle East is Not a Football Match

8 January 2009 Editors 2 comments

Israeli Newspeak Hits a New Low (Even for Them)

30 December 2008 Little Alex 1 comment


Daily Kos

(Follow-up to “The Politics of State Terror” posted yesterday.)

AntiWar.com – “Israel Military Declares Online Media ‘Another War Zone’”:

Across the world, mainstream journalists are expressing increasing disquiet at the way the Israeli government is trying to manage international coverage of its war on the Gaza Strip. Journalists have been barred not just from the strip itself, but the government is now prohibiting journalists from going to parts of Israel near the Gaza Strip.

The Foreign Press Association is petitioning the Israeli Supreme Court to overturn the ban, which is limiting the ability of media outlets to cover the attacks, and forces them to rely on second and third hand reports from Israeli military and Hamas spokesmen regarding the situation on the ground.

As the media struggles to get up-to-date information, television news coverage is narrow, and often relies on interviews with Israeli government officials explaining why the killings are righteous and legitimate expressions of democracy and freedom, more and more people are turning to online news sites (like Antiwar.com) for their war coverage.

The Israeli military has therefore announced that online media and the blogosphere are another warzone for the military to manage. To that end, the military is launching its own Youtube channel to bring the viewing public footage of “precision bombing operations” in the strip.

In ensuring that the only footage of their military operation is provided directly from them, the Israeli military is another step closer to completely managing public perception of the ongoing attacks. The military says the footage will allow the public to “know that people killed did not have peaceful intentions toward Israel,” which presumably means coverage of the killing of five children in their beds in a refugee camp last night, and the scores of other civilian deaths, will be carefully omitted from the official coverage.

To call Israel’s PR machine as exceedingly cynical isn’t irrational, as have those interpreting Israel’s actions as “electioneering with bombs.”

Even AP analysis says the attacks “seemed inevitable” and could “perhaps benefit leading politicians six weeks before a general election in Israel,” pro-Israel groups are lobbying the US Congress. More from Human Rights Watch via the AFP:

Human Rights Watch said that Israeli bombing of Gaza appeared to be “unlawful” and highlighted three incidents it said had resulted in the deaths of 18 civilians, including at least seven children.

“Additionally, Israel’s severe limitations on the movement of non-military goods and people into and out of Gaza, including fuel and medical supplies, constitutes collective punishment, also in violation of the laws of war,” the group said.

The fact is that people are dying and when people die, the first question should be concerning why they die on the simplest level followed by who caused their death and why their deaths were caused. This is a basic, conservative view of morality — conservative in the limited willingness to deviate from the standards presented. Amoral behavior can be argued as pragmatic in situations, but when human life is at stake, the utmost scrutiny is justified by people like us and crucial for institutions to legitimize their credibility. The moral relativism in foreign policy should be real and focused on holding yourself to the same standards to those you hold others and the Newspeak extends to the West in indoctrinating the American people every day to keep us in the ‘they have to follow the rules, but we don’t’ lock-step. In the effort to manipulate people, it should be no surprise that the State of Israel has resorted to bombing human rights offices.

As for the Newspeak mantra of ‘collateral damage’ and ‘these things happen in war’, Bibi Netanyahu actually does make an attempt at moral relativism with the “human shield” charge on Hamas — blaming Hamas for civilians being at Israel’s targets and that Hamas put the lives of innocent civilians at risk. Why is that supposed to be a valid argument, but once someone brings up the fact that Hamas rockets have killed 17 Israeli civilians in seven years and Israel has killed well over three times that number of Gazan civilians (not including police officers), the ‘these things happen in war’ crops up again and people presenting that statistic are clouded in ‘illegitmate arguments of proportionality’?

EXCERPT from ei – “Falling into the Moral Abyss” by Titus North – 30 Dec 08:

A state founded by Holocaust survivors should be a beacon of morality, not a black hole for it. Supporters of Israeli policy (and I distinguish between support for the Israeli people and support for its government’s policies) often justify their support by saying that Israel is the only democracy in the region. Leaving aside certain problematic aspects of that claim, I wonder if these people have ever thought of the implications of Israel, as a democracy, being engaged in continual violations of international law and human rights. Israelis, benefiting from a press that is far more open to the truth about government’s policies than the American media, know a great deal about what the leaders they elect are doing, yet they continue to elect them. Thus, the Israeli public has culpability for their government’s crimes that citizens under a dictatorship would not have.

Of course, the Israeli government could never have pursued these policies without the money, weapons, and diplomatic cover provided by the US, in particular the US Congress. After all, it is Congress’s powers over the “purse strings” rather than the President acting as commander-in-chief that has had a more direct bearing on the colonization of Palestinian territories by Jewish settlers. So many members of Congress have taken money from organizations effectively in exchange for supporting Israeli government interests. So many members of Congress have accepted all-expense paid junkets to Israel, ostensibly for educational purposes. With too few exceptions, they are fully complicit in Israeli government crimes, including war crimes.

What about the American public? I would say that the American public is largely in the dark about what is going on, thanks to a media which makes criticism of Israeli policy practically taboo. Of course, this gives the media a special culpability. Still, there are many Americans who do know the score and fail to speak out. This is particularly true with Gentiles. Let’s face it, although Jews make up only a few percent of the US population, the bulk of the outspoken critics of Israeli policy in this country seem to be Jewish-Americans. It may be that Gentiles are afraid to speak out for fear of being labeled “anti-Semitic,” but I say that as long as you are not anti-Semitic then you should not be afraid. In fact, if you are a true friend of the Israeli people then you should stand with those in their beleaguered peace movement. [read the full article]

Robert Fisk inspires the most valid argument against the Israeli Newspeak: let’s reverse the numbers and say Hamas dropped tons of bombs in extremely densely populated areas killing nearly 400 in Jerusalem in response to less than 20 civilians dead in Gaza. The West would condemn Hamas and call it for the terrorism it is.

Until then, Israel merely considers a cease-fire, which is a daily report that’s looking more like efforts to humor the global community calling for Israel to stop their attacks in Gaza.

Fisk: Arab Dictators Don’t Speak Up for Their People ‘and We Want it That Way in the West’ (Video)

30 December 2008 Sayyid 2 comments



As the Gazan death toll passes 375 with over 1,600 wounded, Robert Fisk schools the masses on Palestine-Israel, the Middle East, its dictators, diplomacy, and the West’s role in Middle Eastern conflict.

al Jazzera English – “Inside Story: Assault on Gaza Continues” with Robert Fisk, former Egyptian UN Ambassador Hassan Issa – 29 Dec 08 (22:31):

Israel has stepped up its attacks on Gaza for the third consecutive day on Monday. The Israeli raids have killed around 320 Gazans and wounded more than 1,400 so far. UNRWA has said that there are about 51 civilians among Gaza’s casualties including 17 women and some children. Meanwhile, Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni said that “in a war… civilians sometimes pay the price” in a sign that Israel will continue its attack until “all goals are achieved.” On Monday: We’ll discuss the Arab and international reactions to the current Israeli assault on Gaza, and what is the possible role that the Arab countries and the international community can play to end the current assault.

Part One (10:46):

Part Two (11:45):

For more on the Gaza Attacks, see our YouTube playlist.

Chomsky in 2006: Hamas Policies ‘Closer to the International Consensus on a Political Peaceful Settlement than those of Antagonists’

28 December 2008 Little Alex 1 comment


Daily Kos

After Pres.-elect Obama announced his ‘carrot/stick’ policy in regards to Iran, I noted:

… two concerns of Mr. Obama are [Iran's] funding of terrorist organizations [and] their threats against Israel are contrary to everything we believe in.

What Mr. Obama fails to mention is that:

From this angle, Iran’s nuclear compliance displays extraordinary restraint in a nuclear world. (Dare I say it!)

Given the recent sympathy for Israel’s attacks on Gaza, it’s impossible to not revisit this as the UN calls for violence to halt and an official calls the situation, “disastrous.”

Britain and US support for Israel’s attacks on Gaza is sold to the public as an attack on a terror group, Hamas, as public protests around the world from Yemen to Chicago rise up. Without sympathizing with the policies of Hamas and their violent tactics, were the tables turned and Israel were launching rockets on Gaza while Israelis are oppressed and the Palestinians in violation of international law regarding borders, which would be the ‘terror group’ in the media?

The question remains: why is Israel held to a different standard and why is this double standard accepted in life-death conditions? Why are people of a community attacked as if their State is an aggressor? Hamas is the influential party of the Palestinians in Gaza, but Fatah is still the ruling party of the nation and is condemning Hamas for not extending their truce with Israel.

I’m not grasping at straws of moral relativism here. This is the US legal definition of terrorism:

Section 2331. Definitions

As used in this chapter -

(1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that -
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State
;

(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion
; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
; and

Israel’s human rights violations and Hamas’ rocket attacks fit this definition. Considering that Israel is a State in the UN breaking international law, those afflicted would be justified to defend themselves, but attacking civilians also fits this definition, whether it’s Hamas rockets or Israeli air strikes.

On LBC TV (Lebanon), Prof. Noam Chomsky explores this double standard of classifying terrorism back in 2006 from our “Noam Chomsky on Palestine-Israel” playlist (10:38):

For more on the Palestine-Israel conflict, Lebanon, Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Middle East, Robert Fisk’s lecture “War, Geopolitics, History: Conflict in the Middle East” is highly recommended.

Robert Fisk, Hasan Abu Nimah, and Ali Abunimah on the UN Regarding Palestine-Israel

24 December 2008 Little Alex 1 comment



Hasan Abu Nimah and Ali Abunimah comment on UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1850, the UN’s first resolution regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict in nearly five years.

EXCERPT from The Electronic Intifada – “Security Council undermines justice and UN Charter”:

Before analyzing what is in the resolution, it is important to note what is not. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council’s primary responsibility is to act to maintain “international peace and security.” And yet the new resolution makes no mention of Israel’s 4 November ground and air attack on the Gaza Strip killing six Palestinians and leading to the collapse of the six-month-long truce Israel negotiated with Palestinian resistance factions. It does not mention the blockade Israel has imposed on Gaza deliberately reducing 1.5 million people to eating animal feed and scavenging garbage while dozens die for lack of medical care. It ignores the desperate warnings of a mounting humanitarian crisis by officials of [UN Relief and Works Agency], the UN agency for Palestine refugees, as they shut down food distribution to hundreds of thousands of persons because Israel would not allow supplies in to Gaza.

The resolution makes no mention of these unconscionable crimes even UN officials have termed “collective punishment” — a grave breach of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Conventions by which Israel is bound as the Occupying Power in the Gaza Strip (Israel’s so-called “disengagement” in 2005 does not absolve it of these responsibilities). If the Security Council were minimally abiding by its own responsibilities it would refer Israeli political and military leaders to the International Criminal Court for arrest and trial at The Hague for these crimes as well as their escalating threats against an occupied, colonized people who have few means of self-defense. Indeed, the resolution does not even mention the word “occupation.”For the Security Council to ignore Israel’s detention and expulsion of UN human rights envoy Richard Falk just a day before it passed the new resolution sends a clear message to other outlaw regimes that UN authority can be trampled on with impunity.

Instead, resolution 1850 is full of deceptive language. The world’s highest international body welcomes, for instance, the 9 November “statement from the Quartet,” and the “Israeli-Palestinian Joint Understanding” announced at the Annapolis summit a year earlier. The Security Council also “Declares its support for the negotiations initiated at Annapolis” and its “commitment” to their “irreversibility” — whatever that means.… [read the full article]

And the absolutely amazing sage, Robert Fisk of The Independent (left), comments that ‘no one in 1967 thought the Arab-Israeli conflict would still be in progress 41 years later’ because of UNSC Resolution 242.

EXCERPT from The Independent – “Robert Fisk’s World: One Missing Word Sowed the Seeds of Catastrophe”:

It was passed in November 1967, after Israel had occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and Golan, and it emphasises “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and calls for “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”.

Readers who know the problem here will be joined by those who will immediately pick it up. The Israelis say that they are not required to withdraw from all the territories – because the word “all” is missing and since the definite article “the” is missing before the word “territories”, its up to Israel to decide which bits of the occupied territories it gives up and which bits it keeps.

Hence Israel can say it gave up Sinai in accordance with 242 but is going to keep East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank for its settlers. Golan depends on negotiations with Syria. And Gaza? Well, 242 doesn’t say anything about imprisoning one and a half million civilians because they voted for the wrong people. No one in 1967 dreamed that the Israeli-Arab conflict would still be in ferocious progress 41 years later. And as an Independent reader pointed out a couple of years ago, the Security Council clearly never intended the absence of a definite article to give Israel an excuse to stay in the West Bank. Alas, our reader was wrong.… [read the full article]

- More of “Robert’s Fisk’s World” at The Independent

“War, Geopolitics, History” – lecture by Robert Fisk, introduced by Prof. Noam Chomsky

Robert Fisk: “Just Look at How We’ve Forgotten the CIA’s Secret Prisons in Afghanistan”

11 December 2008 Little Alex 1 comment



“Whenever I’m in Tajikistan, My Mobile Phone Says I’m in Dubai” by Robert Fisk, The Independent:

An oddly similar parallel has emerged since the election of Obama. During the campaign, President Ahmadinejad of Iran announced that the “Israeli regime” would be destroyed. That’s actually what he said in Farsi – not “Israel”, though the distinction might appear to be splitting hairs. Immediately, Mrs Hillary Clinton announced that if Tehran attacked Israel, she would “flatten Iran”. And now she is to be secretary of state, the Iranians are understandably a little bit angry. Was the new pussycat in the State Department going to take over from the previous pussycat by threatening violence against Iran when Obama supposedly wants “dialogue”?

And a kind of inverted hypocrisy immediately followed. Mrs Clinton, American “officials” let on, should not be taken too seriously because this was an election campaign. Indeed, Obama – putting distance between the mutual recriminations of both Democrat candidates a few months ago – this week blithely dismissed their own election speeches. What he meant was that they both told lies to get votes. Yet the crackpot president of Iran’s threat was still to be taken with the greatest seriousness. Not difficult to get the message, is it? The future secretary of state should not be believed when she threatens Iran – but Iran must be taken seriously when it threatens Israel. [read the full article]

Robert Fisk – “War, Geopolics, History: Conflict in the Middle East” (Video)

9 December 2008 Little Alex 3 comments


A public talk with Robert Fisk — introduced by Noam Chomsky.

Wikipedia- Robert Fisk:

Robert Fisk (born July 12, 1946 in Maidstone, Kent) is an award-winning British journalist and author. He is the Middle East correspondent of the UK newspaper The Independent, and has spent more than 30 years living in and reporting from the region. [1]

Fisk has been described in the New York Times as “probably the most famous foreign correspondent in Britain.” [2] He covered the Northern Ireland Troubles in the 1970s, the Portuguese Revolution in 1974, the 1975-1990 Lebanese Civil War, the 1979 Iranian revolution, the 1980-88 Iran–Iraq War, the 1991 Gulf War, and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. He has received numerous awards, including the British Press AwardsInternational Journalist of the Year award seven times. Fisk speaks vernacular Arabic, and is one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama bin Laden – three times between 1994 and 1997.[3] [4]

Fisk has said that journalism must “challenge authority — all authority — especially so when governments and politicians take us to war.” He has quoted with approval the Israeli journalist Amira Hass: “There is a misconception that journalists can be objective … What journalism is really about is to monitor power and the centres of power.” [5]

He has written at length on how much of contemporary conflict has, in his view, its origin in lines drawn on maps: “After the allied victory of 1918, at the end of my father’s war, the victors divided up the lands of their former enemies. In the space of just seventeen months, they created the borders of Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and most of the Middle East. And I have spent my entire career — in Belfast and Sarajevo, in Beirut and Baghdad — watching the people within those borders burn.” [6]

Robert Fisk discusses the Middle East after a lengthy topic preface from Prof. Noam Chomsky. Mr. Fisk and Prof. Chomsky take questions after Mr. Fisk’s lecture.

Mr. Fisk is an amazing storyteller with an extremely sharp mind and open heart, making him one of my favorite journalists and lecturers.

War, Geopolitics, History: Conflict in the Middle East” (1:41:44):