Analysts of Raheb’s Israel-bashing would demur. A supporter of Palestinian Liberation Theology, he peddles theories discredited by DNA analysis and scholarly research that modern Jews have no ancestry in the Jews described in the Old and New Testaments. He posits that Palestinian Arabs like him have greater ancestry from Jews like King David than Israeli Jews like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, supposed descendants from European Jewish converts.
In 1972, I had a breakfast with then-KGB chairman Yury Andropov in Moscow. The Kremlin, he told me, had decided to transform Arab anti-Semitism into an anti-American doctrine for the whole Muslim world. The idea was to portray the United States as a war-mongering, Zionist country financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious “Council of the Elders of Zion” (the KGB’s derisive epithet for the U.S. Congress) intent on transforming the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. Andropov made the point that one billion adversaries could cause far greater damage than could a mere 150 million. Even Muhammad, he said, had not limited his religion to Arab countries.The KGB boss described the Muslim world as a waiting petri dish
Ion Mihai Pacepa’s comments are, of course, historical as are the impressions made by the nonfiction works in the “Russian Section” of BackChannel’s in-house library, including the 2013 volume detailing the KGB “framing” of Pope Pius XII: Pacepa, Ion Mihai and Rychlak, Ronald J. Disinformation. Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2013.
This election will determine whether we are a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged. This is reality, you know it, they know it, I know it, and pretty much the whole world knows it. The establishment and their media enablers will control over this nation through means that are very well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe, and morally deformed.
For context and for the record: BackChannels has been supported by curiosity, editorial and entrepreneurial zeal (it hasn’t raised a dime but it’s been rewarding nonetheless), and semi-retired time (its ageing editor is not done with striving in his arts). America’s “Fourth Estate” — The Media — represents a still broad and independent multitude of national and international voices. Some, as noted in these virtual pages, may be partisan and inclined toward steep slants propped up by disingenuous observations and worse, but most observe from the same world and comment on its various facets.
Today: is there a global intelligentsia? Yes — and I’m certain BackChannels is not unique receiving viewers from more than 140 nations, including North Korea and Vatican City (once). 🙂
Note that for those PhDs employed in their fields, they are paid to contest one another in the advancement of knowledge. As regards influence, attach each to academic and research institutions or to consultancies to known figures in power.
Are there global business, financial, and political “elites” as defined by their proprietary clout and wealth? Yes — and you may look them up and read about them in Forbes (Forbes Billionaires)and the Wall Street Journal (“WSJ, billionaires” – search result).
Such powerhouses have names.
Add the titular but still present kings and queens of Europe, the still formidable same elsewhere in the world, then presidents and prime ministers and, perhaps, their “inner circles” and closest advisors.
Some, like Paul Manafort, may be shadowy figures, but none are themselves shadows.
A lede appearing today in FrontPage Magazine (online) stepped off this way:
WikiLeaks released an August 2014 e-mail from Hillary Clinton to John Podesta, who currently serves as her campaign chairman, stating that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” Evidently President Obama has not heeded Hillary’s concern, or chose to ignore it.
Now check out that link and test it against the claim, “. . . that the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region” —
>> 2. It is important that once we engage ISIL, as we have now >> done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are >> driven back suffering a tangible defeat. Anything short of this will be >> seen by other fighters in the region, Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, as >> an American defeat. However, if we provide advisors and planners, as well >> as increased close air support for the Peshmerga, these soldiers can defeat >> ISIL. They will give the new Iraqi Government a chance to organize itself, >> and restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria, moving the center of power >> toward moderate forces like the Free Syrian Army (FSA). In addition to air >> support, the Peshmerga also need artillery and armored vehicles to deal >> with the tanks and other heavy equipment captured from the Iraqi army by >> ISIL.
Unless “Leaks” changes — too late now!? — the claim made about the URL doesn’t jive.
There’s more than one explanation, including simply having provided the wrong URL. However, BackChannels has no inclination to chase the potential “red herring” of a WikiLeaks URL that fits the lede.
The failure of the Oslo peace process (initiated in 1993) exemplified what Ya’alon rejected as “wishful thinking,” given that the “Middle East is a tough neighborhood.” He said that the slogan “Land for peace” no longer appeals in Israeli politics, following a “move from what they call left to right; I call it right or wrong.” After all, he asked, what did the late Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon get for his 2005 Israeli Gaza Strip withdrawal – “peace and stability, or a rocket launch pad?”
I would expect Americans to vote their judgment of character and their ideals, and neither candidate has appeal in character. That may be a function of this election’s relentless negative campaigning.
Think about it a moment.
The campaigners are the kind of people who would go microscopically digging in the past to scrape up a few moments of locker room braggadocio with which to scuttle a presidential contender’s campaign.
Vote Donald J. Trump!
But then . . . what does one do with Trump’s bankruptcies, “tax freedom” (one might call it), and the near routine stiffing of vendors who have delivered their work and then have had to sue to hold Trump’s side to its contract obligations?!
Vote Hillary Clinton!
Then li’l ol’ me goes dredging up — I’m a humble blogger, lowest of the low in journalism, a bum, so I’m allowed to go dredging (or is it “Drudging”?) — something out of Bill’s past, and there’s the Moscow connection.
Vote Donald J. Trump!
But Trump had the temerity or naivete to hire Paul Manafort, consultant to the world’s bloodiest dictators and political mafia, including Viktor Yanukovych whom Ukrainians ousted from power, so disgusted were they with the corruption associated with the regime. Yanukovych went crying to Moscow; Moscow sent in the “Little Green Men” and annexed Crimea against old agreements to leave Ukraine independent . . . .
Vote Hillary Clinton!
Feeling screwed either way?
Many of my fellow Americans may feel the same way.
On the 2016 American Elections, BackChannels has striven to either stay out of it or stay balanced, and it has possibly succeeded at both.
Come the day, many voters may feel they’re not voting for Clinton or Trump but rather voting against one or the other, i.e., blocking a perceived threat to America’s “domestic tranquility” — perhaps the entire election should be perceived as and rendered unconstitutional! — and its independent foreign affairs policies and practices.
While the surface may look calm — and in the above video positively modern and multicultural — here’s additional reference to what appears to lie beneath.
The president of Chechnya emerged from afternoon prayers at a mosque and with chilling composure explained why seven young women who had been shot in the head deserved to die.
Ramzan Kadyrov said the women, whose bodies were found dumped by the roadside, had “loose morals” and were rightfully shot by male relatives in honor killings.
Earlier this month, the leader of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, informed his more than one million followers on social networks that he had become “the happiest man in this land.” Something had come to pass that he never could have dreamed of, he said. He had had a transfusion, he said, from a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed, so now he has the Prophet’s blood flowing through his veins.
RAMZAN KADYROV has few inhibitions. Last week, just before the first anniversary of the murder of Boris Nemtsov, a liberal Russian opposition leader, by a member of Mr Kadyrov’s security services, the Chechen strongman posted a video on his Instagram page. It depicted Mikhail Kasyanov, a former prime minister, in the crosshairs of a sniper rifle. “Kasyanov is in Strasbourg to get money for the opposition,” Mr Kadyrov commented under the video, in a clear warning to opposition politicians. “Whoever still doesn’t get it, will.”
Vladimir Putin said when he first ran for president in 2000 that his “historic mission” was to resolve the situation in the North Caucasus. To do so, he oversaw a second war in Chechnya, already devastated by Russia’s failed attempt to subdue the republic in 1994-1996.
Instead of solving the North Caucasus issue, however, Putin created a monster. To end the fighting, he cut a deal with Chechnya’s rebel Kadyrov clan: In exchange for loyalty to the Kremlin, they received power and reconstruction aid.
This was a medieval deal that made Akhmad Kadyrov, a rebel commander and Sufi mufti, Putin’s feudal liege. The aim was to co-opt the more religiously moderate Sufis among Chechnya’s rebel fighters, marginalize the Salafist jihadists who appear to have fascinated the Boston bombers, and enable the Russian military to declare victory and draw down.
This subject is complicated by “Hizb ut-Tahrir”, a Tatar organization supportive of the Chechen rebels (presumably against affiliates of warlord Kadyrov) but not active itself with terrorism and, apparently, acting in the open.
The Pentagon has identified eight staging areas in Russia where large numbers of military forces appear to be preparing for incursions into Ukraine, according to U.S. defense officials.
As many as 40,000 Russian troops, including tanks, armored vehicles, and air force units, are now arrayed along Ukraine’s eastern border with Russia.
One could research and read through the many themes, but I like Ben Judah’s comment best regarding the compact between Putin and Kadyrov: “This was a medieval deal that made Akhmad Kadyrov, a rebel commander and Sufi mufti, Putin’s feudal liege. The aim was to co-opt the more religiously moderate Sufis among Chechnya’s rebel fighters, marginalize the Salafist jihadists who appear to have fascinated the Boston bombers, and enable the Russian military to declare victory and draw down.”
BackChannels has been singing medieval about “Putin, Assad, and Khamenei (and Baghdadi)” for ages, but the observation now begs another question: how modern is the west?
If we call what we have been witnessing in Syria a “New Medievalism”, we may well ask where is NATO on the timeline of political conventions?
BackChannels hopes there is such a thing as “Modern” in governance and that it is supported by the bravery in arms, integrity in character, and the honest research of the thoughtful.
BackChannels 