By Michael Snyder

October 22, 2015 “Information Clearing House” –  “End Of The American Dream” – We just got more evidence that the middle class in America is dying.  According to brand new numbers that were just released by the Social Security Administration, 51 percent of all workers in the United States make less than $30,000 a year.  Let that number sink in for a moment.  You can't support a middle class family in America today on just $2,500 a month – especially after taxes are taken out.  And yet more than half of all workers in this country make less than that each month.  In order to have a thriving middle class, you have got to have an economy that produces lots of middle class jobs, and that simply is not happening in America today.

You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here.  The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me…

-38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

-51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

-62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

-71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

That first number is truly staggering.  The federal poverty level for a family of five is $28,410, and yet almost 40 percent of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.

If you worked a full-time job at $10 an hour all year long with two weeks off, you would make approximately $20,000.  This should tell you something about the quality of the jobs that our economy is producing at this point.

And of course the numbers above are only for those that are actually working.  As I discussed just recently, there are 7.9 million working age Americans that are "officially unemployed" right now and another 94.7 million working age Americans that are considered to be "not in the labor force".  When you add those two numbers together, you get a grand total of 102.6 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.

So many people that I know are barely scraping by right now.  Many families have to fight tooth and nail just to make it from month to month, and there are lots of Americans that find themselves sinking deeper and deeper into debt.

If you can believe it, about a quarter of the country actually has a negative net worth right now.

What that means is that if you have no debt and you also have ten dollars in your pocket that gives you a greater net worth than about 25 percent of the entire country.  The following comes from a recent piece by Simon Black…

Credit Suisse estimates that 25% of Americans are in this situation of having a negative net-worth.

"If you've no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than 25% of Americans have collectively that is."

The thing is– not only did the government create the incentives, but they set the standard.

With a net worth of negative $60 trillion, US citizens are just following dutifully in the government's footsteps.

As a nation we are flat broke and most of us are living paycheck to paycheck.  It has been estimated that it takes approximately $50,000 a year to support a middle class lifestyle for a family of four in the U.S. today, and so the fact that 71 percent of all workers make less than that amount shows how difficult it is for families that try to get by with just a single breadwinner.

Needless to say, a tremendous squeeze has been put on the middle class.  In many families, both the husband and the wife are working as hard as they can, but it is still not enough.  With each passing day, more Americans are losing their spots in the middle class and this has pushed government dependence to an all-time high.  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 49 percent of all Americans now live in a home that receives money from the government each month.

Sadly, the trends that are destroying the middle class in America just continue to accelerate.

With a huge assist from the Republican leadership in Congress, Barack Obama recently completed negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.  Also known as Obamatrade, this insidious new treaty is going to cover nations that collectively account for 40 percent of global GDP.  Just like NAFTA, this treaty will result in the loss of thousands of businesses and millions of good paying American jobs.  Let us hope and pray that Congress somehow votes it down.

Another thing that is working against the middle class is the fact that technology is increasingly taking over our jobs.  With each passing year, it becomes cheaper and more efficient to have computers, robots and machines do things that humans once did.

Eventually, there will be very few things that humans will be able to do more cheaply and more efficiently than computers, robots and machines.  How will most of us make a living when that happens?…

The robopocalypse for workers may be inevitable. In this vision of the future, super-smart machines will best humans in pretty much every task. A few of us will own the machines, a few will work a bit… while the rest will live off a government-provided income… the most common job in most U.S. states probably will no longer be truck driver.

For decades, we have been training our young people to have the goal of "getting a job" once they get out into the real world.  But in America today there are not nearly enough good jobs to go around, and this crisis is only going to accelerate as we move into the future.

I do not believe that it is wise to pin your future on a corporation that could replace you with a foreign worker or a machine the moment that it becomes expedient to do so.  We need to start thinking differently, because the paradigms that worked in the past are fundamentally breaking down.

So what advice would you give to a young adult today that is looking toward the future?

Please feel free to join the discussion by posting a comment below…

Copyright © 2015 End Of The American Dream

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43219.htm

Defense Minister Ya'alon to visit U.S. next week.

By By Gili Cohen

October 22, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Haaretz” –  Israeli and American teams are putting together a plan to increase annual U.S. military aid to Israel by as much as $1 billion, on top of the current $3.1 billion, a source close to the military aid process said Wednesday.

Talks on military aid started recently, and are now being discussed by the professional staffs of the two countries' defense establishments. For now, Israeli defense officials are calling news of the large aid increase "rumors."

Israel refused to hold talks on the military aid framework and the "compensation package" it will receive because of the Iranian nuclear agreement, until that agreement was approved.

A senior defense official said that because the Iranian nuclear agreement would require the arming of various Arab countries, particularly the Gulf states, "an answer for preserving [Israel's] qualitative military edge was required — and everyone is aware of this."

The Israeli decision to wait until the final approval of the Iranian nuclear agreement was not well received in the Obama administration, which saw the postponing of the talks as a waste of time in improving Israel's defensive capabilities with the American aid.

The agreement on U.S. military aid to Israel allows Israel to purchase weapons as well as other equipment and supplies, such as fuel. Among the items included are F-35 airplanes. A significant increase in this aid would allow Israel to also buy V-22 tilt rotor aircraft, a deal agreed to last year but postponed due to shortage of funds. The V-22 deal is estimated at a cost of $1.3 billion.

U.S. military aid to Israel began in 1962, with the cumulative sum now standing at about $100 billion.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon is scheduled to visit the United States at the beginning of next week for what is described as a "work trip." He will meet with his U.S. counterpart Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. American military aid is expected to be a main topic of their meeting. Ya'alon's visit was scheduled a long time ago, but because of the present security situation it was cut short by two days.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43215.htm

By Vladimir Putin

Full Speech and Transcript

October 22, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club

Vladimir Putin took part in the final plenary session of the 12th annual meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. October 222, 2015

“Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. What’s the difference?” Putin told the forum.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

Allow me to greet you here at this regular meeting of the Valdai International Club.

It is true that for over 10 years now this has been a platform to discuss the most pressing issues and consider the directions and prospects for the development of Russia and the whole world. The participants change, of course, but overall, this discussion platform retains its core, so to speak – we have turned into a kind of mutually understanding environment.

We have an open discussion here; this is an open intellectual platform for an exchange of views, assessments and forecasts that are very important for us here in Russia. I would like to thank all the Russian and foreign politicians, experts, public figures and journalists taking part in the work of this club.

This year the discussion focusses on issues of war and peace. This topic has clearly been the concern of humanity throughout its history. Back in ancient times, in antiquity people argued about the nature, the causes of conflicts, about the fair and unfair use of force, of whether wars would always accompany the development of civilisation, broken only by ceasefires, or would the time come when arguments and conflicts are resolved without war.

I'm sure you recalled our great writer Leo Tolstoy here. In his great novel War and Peace, he wrote that war contradicted human reason and human nature, while peace in his opinion was good for people.

True, peace, a peaceful life have always been humanity's ideal. State figures, philosophers and lawyers have often come up with models for a peaceful interaction between nations. Various coalitions and alliances declared that their goal was to ensure strong, 'lasting' peace as they used to say. However, the problem was that they often turned to war as a way to resolve the accumulated contradictions, while war itself served as a means for establishing new post-war hierarchies in the world.

Meanwhile peace, as a state of world politics, has never been stable and did not come of itself. Periods of peace in both European and world history were always been based on securing and maintaining the existing balance of forces. This happened in the 17th century in the times of the se-called Peace of Westphalia, which put an end to the Thirty Years' War. Then in the 19th century, in the time of the Vienna Congress; and again 70 years ago in Yalta, when the victors over Nazism made the decision to set up the United Nations Organisation and lay down the principles of relations between states.

With the appearance of nuclear weapons, it became clear that there could be no winner in a global conflict. There can be only one end – guaranteed mutual destruction. It so happened that in its attempt to create ever more destructive weapons humanity has made any big war pointless.

Incidentally, the world leaders of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and even 1980s did treat the use of armed force as an exceptional measure. In this sense, they behaved responsibly, weighing all the circumstances and possible consequences.

The end of the Cold War put an end to ideological opposition, but the basis for arguments and geopolitical conflicts remained. All states have always had and will continue to have their own diverse interests, while the course of world history has always been accompanied by competition between nations and their alliances. In my view, this is absolutely natural.

The main thing is to ensure that this competition develops within the framework of fixed political, legal and moral norms and rules. Otherwise, competition and conflicts of interest may lead to acute crises and dramatic outbursts.

We have seen this happen many times in the past. Today, unfortunately, we have again come across similar situations. Attempts to promote a model of unilateral domination, as I have said on numerous occasions, have led to an imbalance in the system of international law and global regulation, which means there is a threat, and political, economic or military competition may get out of control.

What, for instance, could such uncontrolled competition mean for international security? A growing number of regional conflicts, especially in 'border' areas, where the interests of major nations or blocs meet. This can also lead to the probable downfall of the system of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (which I also consider to be very dangerous), which, in turn, would result in a new spiral of the arms race.

We have already seen the appearance of the concept of the so-called disarming first strike, including one with the use of high-precision long-range non-nuclear weapons comparable in their effect to nuclear weapons.

The use of the threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an excuse, as we know, has destroyed the fundamental basis of modern international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. Incidentally, today we have resolved the Iranian issue and there is no threat from Iran and never has been, just as we said.

The thing that seemed to have led our American partners to build an anti-missile defence system is gone. It would be reasonable to expect work to develop the US anti-missile defence system to come to an end as well. What is actually happening? Nothing of the kind, or actually the opposite – everything continues.

Recently the United States conducted the first test of the anti-missile defence system in Europe. What does this mean? It means we were right when we argued with our American partners. They were simply trying yet again to mislead us and the whole world. To put it plainly, they were lying. It was not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all: to their geopolitical competition and, I believe, to their allies as well. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful to all, including, in my opinion, to the United States.

The nuclear deterrent lost its value. Some probably even had the illusion that victory of one party in a world conflict was again possible – without irreversible, unacceptable, as experts say, consequences for the winner, if there ever is one.

In the past 25 years, the threshold for the use of force has gone down noticeably. The anti-war immunity we have acquired after two world wars, which we had on a subconscious, psychological level, has become weaker. The very perception of war has changed: for TV viewers it was becoming and has now become an entertaining media picture, as if nobody dies in combat, as if people do not suffer and cities and entire states are not destroyed.

Unfortunately, military terminology is becoming part of everyday life. Thus, trade and sanctions wars have become today's global economic reality – this has become a set phrase used by the media. The sanctions, meanwhile, are often used also as an instrument of unfair competition to put pressure on or completely 'throw' competition out of the market. As an example, I could take the outright epidemic of fines imposed on companies, including European ones, by the United States. Flimsy pretexts are being used, and all those who dare violate the unilateral American sanctions are severely punished.

You know, this may not be Russia's business, but this is a discussion club, therefore I will ask: Is that the way one treats allies? No, this is how one treats vassals who dare act as they wish – they are punished for misbehaving.

Last year a fine was imposed on a French bank to a total of almost $9 billion – $8.9 billion, I believe. Toyota paid $1.2 billion, while the German Commerzbank signed an agreement to pay $1.7 billion into the American budget, and so forth.

We also see the development of the process to create non-transparent economic blocs, which is done following practically all the rules of conspiracy. The goal is obvious – to reformat the world economy in a way that would make it possible to extract a greater profit from domination and the spread of economic, trade and technological regulation standards.

The creation of economic blocs by imposing their terms on the strongest players would clearly not make the world safer, but would only create time bombs, conditions for future conflicts.

The World Trade Organisation was once set up. True, the discussion there is not proceeding smoothly, and the Doha round of talks ended in a deadlock, possibly, but we should continue looking for ways out and for compromise, because only compromise can lead to the creation of a long-term system of relations in any sphere, including the economy. Meanwhile, if we dismiss that the concerns of certain countries – participants in economic communication, if we pretend that they can be bypassed, the contradictions will not go away, they will not be resolved, they will remain, which means that one day they will make themselves known.

As you know, our approach is different. While creating the Eurasian Economic Union we tried to develop relations with our partners, including relations within the Chinese Silk Road Economic Belt initiative. We are actively working on the basis of equality in BRICS, APEC and the G20.

The global information space is also shaken by wars today, in a manner of speaking. The 'only correct' viewpoint and interpretation of events is aggressively imposed on people, certain facts are either concealed or manipulated. We are all used to labelling and the creation of an enemy image.

The authorities in countries that seemed to have always appealed to such values as freedom of speech and the free dissemination of information – something we have heard about so often in the past – are now trying to prevent the spreading of objective information and any opinion that differs from their own; they declare it hostile propaganda that needs to be combatted, clearly using undemocratic means.

Unfortunately, we hear the words war and conflict ever more frequently when talking about relations between people of different cultures, religions and ethnicity. Today hundreds of thousands of migrants are trying to integrate into a different society without a profession and without any knowledge of the language, traditions and culture of the countries they are moving to. Meanwhile, the residents of those countries – and we should openly speak about this, without trying to polish things up – the residents are irritated by the dominance of strangers, rising crime rate, money spent on refugees from the budgets of their countries.

Many people sympathise with the refugees, of course, and would like to help them. The question is how to do it without infringing on the interests of the residents of the countries where the refugees are moving. Meanwhile, a massive uncontrolled shocking clash of different lifestyles can lead, and already is leading to growing nationalism and intolerance, to the emergence of a permanent conflict in society.

Colleagues, we must be realistic: military power is, of course, and will remain for a long time still an instrument of international politics. Good or bad, this is a fact of life. The question is, will it be used only when all other means have been exhausted? When we have to resist common threats, like, for instance, terrorism, and will it be used in compliance with the known rules laid down in international law. Or will we use force on any pretext, even just to remind the world who is boss here, without giving a thought about the legitimacy of the use of force and its consequences, without solving problems, but only multiplying them.

We see what is happening in the Middle East. For decades, maybe even centuries, inter-ethnic, religious and political conflicts and acute social issues have been accumulating here. In a word, a storm was brewing there, while attempts to forcefully rearrange the region became the match that lead to a real blast, to the destruction of statehood, an outbreak of terrorism and, finally, to growing global risks.

A terrorist organisation, the so-called Islamic State, took huge territories under control. Just think about it: if they occupied Damascus or Baghdad, the terrorist gangs could achieve the status of a practically official power, they would create a stronghold for global expansion. Is anyone considering this? It is time the entire international community realised what we are dealing with – it is, in fact, an enemy of civilisation and world culture that is bringing with it an ideology of hatred and barbarity, trampling upon morals and world religious values, including those of Islam, thereby compromising it.

We do not need wordplay here; we should not break down the terrorists into moderate and immoderate ones. It would be good to know the difference. Probably, in the opinion of certain experts, it is that the so-called moderate militants behead people in limited numbers or in some delicate fashion.

In actual fact, we now see a real mix of terrorist groups. True, at times militants from the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Nusra and other Al-Qaeda heirs and splinters fight each other, but they fight for money, for feeding grounds, this is what they are fighting for. They are not fighting for ideological reasons, while their essence and methods remain the same: terror, murder, turning people into a timid, frightened, obedient mass.

In the past years the situation has been deteriorating, the terrorists' infrastructure has been growing, along with their numbers, while the weapons provided to the so-called moderate opposition eventually ended up in the hands of terrorist organisations. Moreover, sometimes entire bands would go over to their side, marching in with flying colours, as they say.

Why is it that the efforts of, say, our American partners and their allies in their struggle against the Islamic State has not produced any tangible results? Obviously, this is not about any lack of military equipment or potential. Clearly, the United States has a huge potential, the biggest military potential in the world, only double crossing is never easy. You declare war on terrorists and simultaneously try to use some of them to arrange the figures on the Middle East board in your own interests, as you may think.

It is impossible to combat terrorism in general if some terrorists are used as a battering ram to overthrow the regimes that are not to one's liking. You cannot get rid of those terrorists, it is only an illusion to think you can get rid of them later, take power away from them or reach some agreement with them. The situation in Libya is the best example here.

Let us hope that the new government will manage to stabilise the situation, though this is not a fact yet. However, we need to assist in this stabilisation.

To be continued.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43220.htm

By Tyler Durden

October 22, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – Earlier this week, Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir had the following message for Tehran:

“We wish that Iran would change its policies and stop meddling in the affairs of other countries in the region, in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We will make sure that we confront Iran’s actions and shall use all our political, economic and military powers to defend our territory and people."

In short, Riyadh and its allies in Doha and the UAE are uneasy about the fact that the P5+1 nuclear deal is set to effectively remove Iran from the pariah state list just as Tehran is expanding its regional influence via its Shiite militiasin Iraq, the ground operation in Syria, and through the Houthis in Yemen.

Thanks to the fact that Tehran has more of an arm's length relationship with the Houthis than it does with Hezbollah and its proxy armies in Iraq, the Saudis have been able to effectively counter anti-Hadi forces in Yemen without risking a direct conflict with Iran, but make no mistake, Sana'a is not the prize here. Yemen is a side show. The real fight is for the political future of Syria and for control of Iraq once the US finally packs up and leaves for good. Iran is winning on both of those fronts.

Over the last several weeks, we and others have suggested that one should not simply expect Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha to go gently into that good night in Syria after years of providing support for the various Sunni extremist groups fighting to destabilize the regime. There's just too much at stake.

As noted on Tuesday, Assad’s ouster would have removed a key Iranian ally and cut off Tehran from Hezbollah. Not only would that outcome pave the way for deals like the Qatar-Turkey natural gas line, it would also cement Sunni control over the region on the way to dissuading Tehran at a time when the lifting of crippling economic sanctions is set to allow the Iranians to shed the pariah state label and return to the international stage not only in terms of energy exports, but in terms of diplomacy as well. Just about the last thing Riyadh wants to see ahead of Iran’s resurgence, is a powergrab on the doorstep of the Arabian peninsula.

Thanks to Washington's schizophrenic foreign policy, there's no effective way to counter Iran in Iraq but as Mustafa Alani, the Dubai-based director of National Security and Terrorism Studies at the Gulf Research Center told Bloomberg earlier this week, "The regional powers can give the Russians limited time to see if their intervention can lead to a political settlement — if not, there is going to be a proxy war."

That's not entirely accurate. There's already a proxy war and the dangerous thing about it is that thanks to the fact that Iran is now overtly orchestrating the ground operation, one side of the "SAA vs. rebels" proxy label has been removed. Now it's "Iran-Russia vs. rebels" which means we're just one degree of separation away from a direct confrontation between NATO's regional allies in Riyadh and Doha and the Russia-Iran "nexus." Here's Bloomberg with more on the Saudi's predicament:

Powerful Saudi clerics are calling for a response to the Russian move, even though the kingdom is already bogged down in another war in Yemen. Analysts say the Saudi government will probably speed up the flow of cash and weapons to its allies in the opposition fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, who's also supported by Saudi Arabia's main rival, Iran.

While the Saudis may seek to direct their aid to "moderate forces" in Syria, "the definition of this word is subject to much debate," said Theodore Karasik, a Dubai-based political analyst. Sending arms "is dangerous in the medium term because of how easily weapons can fall into the wrong hands," he said.

And let's not kid ourselves, there are no "wrong hands" as far as Riyadh and Doha are concerned. Sure, they'd rather not have ISIS running around inside their borders blowing up mosques but then again, those bombings simply provide more political cover for justifying an air campaign in Syria. Back to Bloomberg:

Extremist groups already hold sway over large parts of the country. The Saudis joined U.S.-led operations against Islamic State last year, and since then jihadist attacks in the kingdom have increased, many of them targeting minority Shiite Muslims in the oil-rich eastern province. Meanwhile, Assad accuses the Saudis and other Gulf states of arming rebel groups with ties to al-Qaeda.

Some Saudi thinkers advocate direct military engagement in Syria, just as the kingdom has done in Yemen. Nawaf Obaid, a visiting fellow at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, is one of them.

"The Saudis are going to be forced to lead a coalition of nations in an air campaign against the remnants of Syrian forces, Hezbollah and Iranian fighters to facilitate the collapse of the Assad regime and assist the entry of rebel forces into Damascus," Obaid wrote in an opinion piece published by CNN on Oct. 4.

And while some still see that outcome as far fetched not only because the Saudis are stretched thin thanks to falling crude prices and the war in Yemen, but because it would be an extraordinarily dangerous escalation, it looks as though Qatar is leaning in a similar direction. Here's Sputnik:

Qatar who has been a major sponsor of jihadist groups fighting in Syria for years, now is actively considering a direct military intervention in the country, according to its officials.

Throughout Syria's bloody civil war, the government of Qatar has been an active supporter of anti-government militants, providing arms and financial backing to so called “rebels.” Many of these, like the al-Nusra Front, were directly linked to al-Qaeda. That strategy has, of course, done little to put a dent in terrorist organizations in the region.

But as Russia enters its fourth week of anti-terror airstrikes, Qatar has indicated that it may launch a military campaign of its own.

“Anything that protects the Syrian people and Syria from partition, we will not spare any effort to carry it out with our Saudi and Turkish brothers, no matter what this is,” Qatar's Foreign Minister Khalid al-Attiyah told CNN on Wednesday, when asked if he supported Saudi Arabia's position of not ruling out a military option.

“If a military intervention will protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the regime, we will do it,” he added, according to Qatar's state news agency QNA.

Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad was fast to warn the Middle Eastern monarchy that such a move would be a disastrous mistake with serious consequences.

“If Qatar carries out its threat to militarily intervene in Syria, then we will consider this a direct aggression,” he said, according to al-Mayadeen television. “Our response will be very harsh.”

Let’s just be clear. If Saudi Arabia and Qatar start bombing Iranian forces from the airspace near Russia’s base at Latakia, this will spiral out of control.

Iran simply wouldn’t stand for it and if you think for a second that Moscow is going to let Saudi Arabia fly around in Western Syria and bomb the Iranians, you’ll be in for a big surprise. Of course the first time a Russian jet shoots down a Saudi warplane over Syria, Washington will have no choice but to go to war.

Finally, we’d be remiss if we didn’t point out the absurdity in what’s being suggested here. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are essentially saying that they may be willing to go to war with Russia and Iran on behalf of al-Qaeda if it means facilitating Assad’s ouster. The Western world’s conception of “good guys”/ “bad guys” has officially been turned on its head.

And meanwhile:

Russian President Vladimir Putin's public approval rating has reached a record 89.9 percent since he ordered his military to begin air strikes in support of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, according to a state-run polling center.

Copyright ©2009-2015 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD;

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43218.htm

Hashem Azzeh was the Israeli government's worst nightmare.

First, he was Palestinian. Second, he was educated, a medical doctor. Third, he was a leader in his community. Which brings us to his next offense, he was a peace activist. Finally, and perhaps most aggravating for the Israeli state, he adamantly refused to be forced from his home in Hebron's Old City – though the IDF and Israeli settlers, who lived in houses perched right above his, never tired of using intimidation and violence to try and push Hashem and his young family from their home.

IDF soldiers are a constant presence in the Old City, providing cover for the approximately 500 Israeli settlers who lord over and terrorize the tens of thousands of Palestinians who live in this part of Hebron.

Today, October 21, those soldiers killed Hashem Azzeh.

Hashem Azzeh with his young daughter (date unknown)

Hashem was not someone who could be cowed or silenced by fear. Even after being sentenced by the IDF to house arrest for several years, a punishment that caused him to lose his medical job with the UN, Hashem did not stop advocating for the liberation of his people.

He managed a psychological support group for members of his community, encouraging them to speak about the trauma that was a part of their daily lives. Together with his wife, Nisreen, he created a social enterprise for Hebron's young Palestinian women, helping them to learn skills and earn money to support themselves and their families.

Hashem Azzeh and his wife, Nisreen (date unknown)

When members of his community were in need of help, Hashem was there to support them. In July, we published an article about one of the people touched by Hashem's caring character: eighty-year-old Zahirah Eweidah Dandees. Known as "Um Mohammad," she is among the countless Palestinians in Hebron "who have been victims of the settler-state repression machine."

Recently, Um Mohammed was forced from her home by settlers, and refused re-entry by the IDF, who barred the front door of her house. Homeless and without any close family in the city, Um Mohammed found a friend in Hashem, who arranged for her to stay in a house across the street from her own, ensuring the elderly woman had a roof over her head. Hashem also helped Um Mohammed secure legal representation to undertake the lengthy court battle to try and get her house back.

Hashem Azzeh and Um Mohammad, Hebron's Old City, 2015 (Photo credit: Muftah)

In many ways, Hashem was Hebron's unofficial spokesperson. Only this past Saturday, October 17, he was quoted in a piece for the Middle East Eye, describing the impunity with which settlers in the Old City have been killing young Palestinians: "The settlers feel confident that they have a free pass to kill Palestinians here," he said. "We have asked the soldiers to help stop the settlers but they said it's not their role and that we should leave the city."

(Hashem Azzeh describing the violence he and his family experienced at the hands of Israeli settlers and the IDF)

Hashem would regularly give tours of the Old City to internationals, educating them about the Israeli occupation of Palestine, generally, and his city, more specifically. He was bold and would not shy away from standing a few feet from an armed IDF soldier and recounting, for tour participants, the Israeli government's litany of violations and crimes against the Palestinians.

Ravina Ishtiaq, one of Hashem's many friends (he was a man who made friends so easily) had this to say about his passing:

The heart is heavy tonight upon the news of Hashem Azzeh passing away little over 2 hours ago through tear gas inhalation fired upon him by the Israeli army.
He was a man who showed the world the courage and resistance of Palestine.
He stood for what he believed and that belief inspired a generation.
He rejected millions from the Israeli government to sell his land, his land was his pride and his pride was Palestine.
I remember him talking to us in his home in Hebron where his wife made us the most amazing food. He told us of his struggle, his battle to simply survive each day. Israeli settlers poisoned his trees, cut off the water supply, fired upon his home, they broke into his house and beat him and his wife, Nisreen, causing her to miscarry her baby on two separate occasions, I could go on.
But today his pain is gone forever but he left a legacy that will forever survive.
My heart bleeds for his family, I pray Allah protects them from the evil they have endured.
May you finally find your peace Hashem and may Allah grant you the highest of heavens.
Palestine will be free.

Another friend, Milla Katerina Tuominen said this:

It was just couple of months ago when I visited Hashem and his family at Tel Rumeida settlement in Hebron (al-Khalil). Today I heard that this old Palestinian man had been killed by tear gas from the Israeli army. He was a medical doctor who had founded a voluntary clinic in his neighborhood. He was famous for inviting everyone to his house regardless their religious or ethnic background and served as a perfect example of non-violent resistance despite having faced a lot of violence and hardship himself. Unfortunately his killers will never face any consequences for their actions. I want to convey my sincere condolences to his wife and four children.

Yet another friend, who asked to be identified as "Yasmin," said this about Hashem:

This is my friend Hashem Azzeh. A husband, a father and an inspiration to all. He was killed today by the Israeli Occupation Forces in Occupied Hebron. I feel so incredibly honoured to have known someone so courageous and so determined to free the people of Palestine and resist the oppressor. I cannot even begin to put into words how special he was; there's no doubt about it, he truly touched the heart of every individual he ever met. He's daily life was spent informing people about the struggle to live in an apartheid city where being Arab means you are constantly subject to violence and abuse by illegal armed settlers. Today is truly a loss for Palestine, but In the words of Hashem "we will win, we will be free"‫#‏الله‬يرحمه‪#‎freepalestine‬

In killing Hashem Azzeh, the Israeli government has undoubtedly removed a thorn from its side. But Hashem's work does not end with his life. There are tens of thousands of people in Palestine who will carry it forward. His legacy will remain vibrant and alive, through them, no matter how hard the Israeli government may try and eliminate the Hashem's of the world.

For those interesting in doing more, friends of Hashem Azzeh have created a Facebook page and started a GoFundMe fundraiser to support Hashem's wife and 4 young children.

Read more about Hashem's life and work, here and here.

Since this migration crisis began a few weeks ago, one question has been nagging me as to why all of a sudden many Syrians (and others) are headed to Europe. Why now? Did they all just get a mass email telling them to leave? It just seemed so strange. Well, we do have an answer now and it's something you haven't heard anywhere in the media.

Walid Shoebat interviewed a prominent Syrian analyst named Taleb Ibrahim. He's a Shiite Muslim and an Arab nationalist who loves his Syrian country, it's diverse people and his president, Bashar Al-Assad. He does not share the global Islamist aspirations of the Muslim Brotherhood Jihadis who are fighting in his country against Assad.

During the interview, Taleb Ibrahim explained how Erdogan is displacing the people in Syria. Erdogan is bringing thousands of Islamist Turks from other Turkish lands into Turkey, training them and then sending them into Syria to help fight Assad. He gives an example of a couple of Chinese villages that have recently cropped up inside Syria that he said both Erdogan and ISIS brought in to help fight Assad.

So basically he's saying that Erdogan is pushing these people out of Syria and into Europe as he changes the demographics of Syria from Arabs to Islamist Turks, all for the sake of reviving the Ottoman empire!

I've transcribed the part of the interview that pertains to this as Taleb is sometimes hard to understand. The top portion is important background so you understand Turkey's relationship to the other Turkish lands. He gives some very interesting information about it. The bottom part is the red meat:

Walid: What is the difference between Jaysh al-Islam and Jaysh al-Fatah? Is this the same thing?

Taleb: Jaysh al-Fatah is a military group that consists of Al-Nusra Front;  Ahrar ash-Sham, and other extremists – the army of Turkestan, which is a province in the west of China, and the army of Turkmenistan. All of those military groups are correlated to Al Qaeda.

Walid: Wait a minute here. Brother Taleb, are you telling me there are Turkmen, Turks fighting?

Taleb: Yes, yes, Turks fighting. You know the Uyghurs, which is a Muslim minority in the west of China, from Turkish origin? They are talking in the Turkish language. They are very close to Turkmen people in Turkmenistan and middle of Asia. The government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan brought thousands of those and they trained them inside Turkey, and they sent them as one of the groups that is fighting under the flag of Jaysh al-Fatah, the army of conquest .

The army of conquest, Jaysh al-Fatah includes Al-Nusra Front, the Khorasan Group….it includes the Turkestan groups, Turkmenistan groups, Ahrar ash-Sham, and other small fundamentalist and extremist groups, that are fighting in Idlib. Jaysh al-Fatah is fighting in Idlib to the north of Syria, by the Turkish border. And it is very much correlated to Turkish intelligence.

Jaysh al-Islam is linked and very much correlated to Saudi intelligence. It is a Wahhabi army, very extremist army, fighting to the edge of Damascus. And sometimes Erdogan is sending some brigades to help Al-Nusra front and to help other Al-Qaeda aligned groups in some places in Syria and in some situations they are quarreling, fighting each other for rebels.

Walid: Let's go a little bit to history here. Jaysh al-Fatah, does this correlate to Muhammad al-Fateh or things of the Ottomans and their desire to occupy Syria?

And the second question is, if it is an issue of a revolution to oust Bashar al-Assad…why is it we have foreign fighters from Turkmenistan, as you so eloquently explained, and from the Xinjiang region in China, Islamists from there – why are these groups coming together and they are not even Syrians and are trying to occupy Syria? What is the Ottoman connection with all of this, historically speaking?

Taleb: Of course Jaysh al-Fatah is coded, the name is coded from the early stages of Islam. When Muslim armies came to Syria, to Turkey – now it wasn't Turkey at that time. Turkey is a very young country in history. And it's a false country. It was the Eastern Christian Empire and the capital of the Eastern Christian Empire was at Antakya. Hatay province in Turkey, which we call in Syria the Iskenderun region.

So Turkish people, especially Recep Tayyip Erdogan, he has colonialist ambitions. He is trying to put his hands on some places in Syria. If you read their newspapers, if you listen to their TV channels, they consider Aleppo as a part of Turkey and they say that Syrian Arabs has stolen this area and so and so and so.

So yes, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which is a fascist and indeed a racist who wants only Turkish people to be in his border. He is bringing Turkish people from every place to fight President Assad to CHANGE the demographic structure of Syria.

And we have reliable information…that there was a kind of demographic replacement inside Syria nearby the city of Ar-Raqqa. There are two Chinese villages. The people, the Arab citizens from those villages were killed or displaced and Erdogan and ISIS brought Chinese Uyghurs to settle in those two villages. The Syrian people told me this story and they said we call it now the two Chinese villages.

Another issue. The Syrian migrators – you know what happened in Europe in the last few weeks? Those people were displaced by some people in the North of Syria. Erdogan brought hundreds, thousands of Turkmen minorities to settle in those villages to the North of Aleppo on the border strip.

Walid: Brother Taleb, are you telling me this wave of immigration coming from Turkey, Syria, all these, is all manufactured by Erdogan, that he's bringing those other foreign nationalities to Europe?

Taleb: Exactly! Exactly! This is the truth behind this wave of migration. It's a great demographic change.

So now you know why so many Syrians fled the region to head for Europe. It's a manufactured crisis by Erdogan as he attempts to control Syria and bring back the Ottoman Empire.

You should really watch the full interview as Taleb Ibrahim discusses much more about this in detail. He and Walid even discuss how the dragon from Revelation 12 issues a flood (of immigrants) against the church (Christendom)!

He also explains what Russia is really doing in Syria, bombing both ISIS and islamist groups fighting against Assad. Taleb points out that the Syrian people, like himself, love the fact that Russia is there and support it completely.

And there's much more in this very insightful interview. You won't hear any of this in the media.

Watch video here.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-cause-of-the-sudden-syrian-migrant-refugee-crisis-into-europe-the-role-of-turkey/5483642

Putin is committed to peace, stability, respect for nation-state sovereignty. The alternative is endless wars of aggression leading to a possible global confrontation involving nuclear weapons. The unthinkable is more threatening now than at any time in the post-WW II era – far more serious than during the 1962 missiles of October crisis.

Kennedy later explained he "never had the slightest intention of" attacking or invading Cuba. He wanted all US troops out of Vietnam. He called for ending the Cold War, abolishing nuclear weapons, a "general and complete disarmament," and Washington no longer using its might to force Pax Americana on other world nations.

His moral stand for peace and stability got him assassinated. Obama is no Jack Kennedy – waging naked aggression against multiple countries throughout his tenure. He's furious about Assad's "red carpet welcome" in Moscow, showing Putin's solidarity with Syria against the scourge of terrorism, as well as directly challenging Washington's imperial agenda.

Deputy White House press secretary Eric Schultz lied, accusing Assad of "us(ing) chemical weapons against his own people, and saying his "red carpet welcome" in Moscow is "at odds with the stated goal by the Russians for a political transition in Syria."

Fact: US-imported terrorists alone used sarin gas and other chemical weapons against Syrian civilians multiple times.

Fact: US special forces and other Pentagon operatives trained ISIS and other terrorist elements in chemical weapons use.

Fact: Putin, Sergey Lavrov and other Russian officials many times said Syrians alone may decide who'll lead them, never any foreign power. Interfering in the internal affairs of other countries flagrantly violates core international law.

Numerous times throughout the conflict, Assad said he'd step down if Syrians reject his leadership. In June 2014, they overwhelmingly reelected him in a process independent monitors called open, free and fair.

In an early October interview on Iran's Khabar TV, he explained "(f)rom the beginning, it was clear to us that there were foreign hands behind terrorism in Syria."

Washington, Israel and rogue partners want to "perpetuate the process of erosion in Syria and Iraq and later other countries of the region, so that we all remain weak for decades and maybe generations."

They're not fighting terrorism. They support it, using it to subjugate other nations, wanting them transformed into vassal states, their resources stolen and people exploited.

Syria's coalition with Russia, Iran and Iraq "must succeed," said Assad. "Otherwise, the whole region, not only one or two countries, will be destroyed."

Russia's goal is defeating terrorism, preventing its spread into more Middle East countries, Russia, Central Asia and elsewhere, preserving Syrian sovereignty, and challenging the scourge of US imperialism – the greatest threat to world peace and stability.

Assad's welcome in Moscow was an important show of solidarity against evil forces vital to defeat – Putin at the same time saying: "The decisive word, without any doubt, must belong to the Syrian people," a strong statement telling Washington and rogue partners to keep hands off.

Both leaders want ongoing conflict resolved politically, Syrians alone deciding who'll lead them. National sovereignty is inviolable, freedom impossible without it.

The New York Times-led media lying machine can't tolerate the notion of Russia, Syria and other nations allying against Washington's hegemonic agenda.

The latest Times Big Lie headlined"Assad Finds Chilly Embrace in Moscow Trip"– belying Putin's warm hospitality, what the White House called Assad's "red carpet welcome."

The usual disreputable Times sources were cited – unnamed "officials, diplomats and (so-called) analysts," imperial supporters, presenting one-sided views, Big Lies serving their interests, suppressing important hard truths.

Putin and Assad have a common goal – defeating terrorism, preventing its spread, preserving Syrian sovereignty, and challenging Washington's ruthless imperial agenda

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/moscows-stance-against-us-supported-terrorism-obama-versus-jfk/5483658

AP photo

In Iraq’s Anbar province, partly controlled by ISIS militants, another public execution took place.

Terrorists executed six Iraqi women, whose sons refused to fight with the radicals and joined the official army of Iraq.

|According to ABNA News, reports that some of the women were over 60 years old. The militants accused them of treason and shot them dead in public.

Prior to that, the militants had captured and executed four elderly men and several children, whose fathers had also joined the Iraqi army.

Also read: Horrific video: ISIS publicly execute woman for wearing red jacket

The Islamic State conducts public executions to both intimidate local people and recruit more followers.

In August, ISIS murdered 12 Christians, including a 12-year-old boy, three women and seven aid workers in Iraq for refusing to convert to Islam.

The Islamic State terrorist group has reportedly executed more than 10,000 civilians, including women and children, in Iraq and Syria since June 2014.

Pravda.Ru

Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/22-10-2015/132387-isis_execution_elderly_women-0/

Spokesman of Iraq's Kata'ib Hezbollah (Hezbollah Battalions) Jafar al-Hosseini underlined that his forces are planning to win back the city of Ramadi after expelling the American forces from Anbar province.

"Our forces have two operations underway; first seizing Ramadi from ISIL and second keeping away the American forces from Anbar province," al-Hosseini told FNA on Wednesday.

He underlined that preventing the US forces from getting close to Anbar province will expedite operations for winning back the province, specially after the military operations in Salahuddin province that led to the liberation of the city of Beiji.

The Ramadi city is now the scene of massive military operations of Iraq's joint forces against the ISIL militants.

Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, was attacked by the jihadists in 2014 before being captured in February, 2015. Government forces succeeded in liberating the city in March, but withdrew two months later.

Iraq's Western provinces have become a battlefield between Iraqi government forces and the ISIL fighters.

The Iraqi troops captured the refinery city of Beiji in the Western Salahuddin province on the second day of a fresh massive operation on Monday. Iraq's Armed Forces Command Center made an official announcement on the groundbreaking victory on Tuesday.

In July, Iraqi armed forces launched a large-scale operation to roll back ISIL insurgency in Anbar province, however, its capital is still controlled by the Takfiris.

The messages sent by the US and Russia to Iraq indicate that the Baghdad government is under pressure resulting from the rivalries between the US and Russia over increasing their regional presence.

Such pressures will continue until Baghdad takes a final and resolute stance on US or Russian support in fighting the ISIL in the Arab country.

Meantime, the present information indicates that the Iraqi government is more inclined to take up a bigger role in the quadrilateral coalition with Russia, Iran and Syria.

Washington has not replied to Baghdad's call for serious fight against the ISIL in action, while Moscow, Tehran and Damascus are still the most important supporters of Iraq in the fight against the ISIL; unlike Washington that is trying to weaken the Iraqi volunteer forces in their fight against the ISIL, the Russia, Iran and Syria reiterate strengthening the volunteer forces.

The US government in a message to Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi voiced Obama's dissatisfaction with Baghdad's inclination towards Tehran, Moscow and Damascus.

In the meantime, the Iraqi groups, specially the volunteer forces, believe he quadrilateral coalition has provided actual aid and backup to Iraq, while the US coalition did not, and this has resulted in Iraq's inclination towards Iran, Russia and Syria.

Iraq's Former National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie underlined the necessity for replacing Washington with Moscow for joint war on terrorist groups.

"The parliament fractions are calling on the Iraqi government to request Russian airstrikes and use it to attack the ISIL military bases and oil centers," Rubaie, who is now a senior legislator at the Iraqi parliament, told FNA on Tuesday.

"The US air force doesn't cooperate with Iraq's federal government and security and armed forces and refrains from providing any intelligence on ISIL's concentration and field camps," he added.

Rubaie complained that in every 10 flight missions conducted by the US-led coalition planes, ISIL positions come under attack in only two missions, while nothing special happens in the remaining 8 missions.

In relevant remarks on Monday, Iraqi security expert Hesham al-Hashemi said the Baghdad government would ask for Russia's direct military assistance in the fight against the ISIL in the coming days, adding that further military advances by Iraq's joint forces would be a great achievement for the quadrilateral coalition.

"If the Iraqi security forces achieve considerable advances in their fight against the ISIL in the Northern parts of Salahudin province, Iraq will surely ask for Russia's military aid to help them in the fight agaist the ISIL," Al-Hashemi told FNA.

The Iraqi security expert reiterated that the Iraqi air force desperately needed the Russian air force's help in the fight against the ISIL.

He pointed to a security agreement signed between Iraq and the US, and said, "The Baghdad-Washington agreement will not prevent Iraq from asking for further military aid in the ongoing fight against terrorism from any third country."

On Saturday, Russia's Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told reporters after the 6th Xiangshan Security Forum in Beijing that Moscow had not received a request for military assistance in fight against the outlawed ISIL terrorist group, and it is ready to consider it.

"What I can say now is that as of today we do not have a request from Iraq like the one we have from (Syria's President) Bashar Assad," he said.

"In case we receive a request, we shall consider it accordingly."

"As there are very many insinuations about Syria, I would like to stress we have a written request from Bashar Assad for a military and military-technical assistance in fighting IS(IL)," he said.

"We stress we are acting on a legal base and in compliance with the international law."

Peter Oborne

Peter Oborne: "No one who is loathed by the bankers, the BBC and Tony Blair all at once can be that bad.

Corbyn is the first genuinely original party leader to emerge in Britain since a certain Margaret Hilda Thatcher made her first speech to Conservative conference in 1975. Remember: the establishment hated her, too".

A Moseley reader sent this link to an article by Oborne, who – like Simon Jenkins and Peter Hitchens – writes with clarity and power. 

He opened by stating that every rich and powerful person in Britain hoped that Jeremy Corbyn would fall flat on his face at the Labour Party conference in Brighton:

• The bankers wanted him to fail,
• as did the businessmen who finance the modern Labour Party.
• The mass media are enemies.
• The BBC has abandoned its traditional neutrality over what it calls 'Left-wing Jeremy Corbyn' (why doesn't it refer to 'Right-wing David Cameron'?)
• Having failed to prevent his meteoric rise, Tony Blair, his supporters and their apologists in the London media establishment are now plotting his downfall.
• Britain's morally bankrupt security establishment — the very same that duped the Blair government into an insane war against Iraq — despises Corbyn.

Oborne says he will be wholeheartedly cheering on Corbyn, despite disagreeing with several policies, because he (Oborne) is "a passionate, lifelong believer in our superlative parliamentary democracy". He continues:

"In dictatorships such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, the penalty for challenging the political consensus is torture and death. In the United States, politics has become the plaything of billionaires. In Britain we have a very different tradition: red-blooded confrontation. Yet in recent decades we have turned our back on that superb inheritance".

In the 1990s the political process was captured by the 'modernisers'

"This happened first with Blairites in Labour, and later in David Cameron's Conservatives — with both men competing for the centre ground, and both loudly proclaiming their modernising credentials at the expense of their traditional supporters. The result was that the main parties looked and sounded identical. Between them they abolished real political debate. Anyone who disagreed with conventional opinion, for example over Europe or mass immigration, was labelled an 'extremist'.

"All three mainstream parties despised the views of ordinary voters. They produced identical leaders, in their mid-40s with no experience of the world. They viewed politics as being about technique rather than ideas. They viewed political argument as akin to advertising margarine or soap powder. . . 

"Blairite contempt for Labour's working-class supporters led directly to the rise of the Scottish National Party

"The triumph of the spin and focus group-obsessed modernisers led to the collapse in trust in politics, especially among the young.

That is why we should celebrate Jeremy Corbyn, the first authentic leader of a mainstream political party since Margaret Thatcher. It stands to reason that he should be hated and plotted against by the political establishment. Just like Maggie Thatcher 40 years ago, he despises everything they stand for. They despise him back.

"There is, furthermore, one substantive policy issue where I believe Jeremy Corbyn has many interesting things to say. This is foreign policy . . .

"Since the rise of the modernisers, there has been a very troubling consensus on foreign affairs. Tory and Labour have agreed that, come what may, Britain would never defy the will of the United States . . .

"Let's imagine, by contrast, that Jeremy Corbyn had been directing British foreign policy over the past 15 years. British troops would never have got involved in the Iraq debacle, and never have been dispatched on their doomed mission to Helmand province. British intelligence agents would not be facing allegations that they were complicit in torture.

"Hundreds of British troops who died in these Blairite adventures (which were endorsed by Cameron) would still be alive. Furthermore, the world would now be a safer place. Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq and David Cameron's attack on Libya have created huge ungoverned zones of anarchy across the Middle East and North Africa, in which terrorist groups fester and from which migrants flee.

"That is why Conservative claims that Jeremy Corbyn would jeopardise our national security are so wrong-headed. His foreign policy advice has often been wiser by far than the foreign policy establishment".

In fact many think it probable that British and global security would be greatly enhanced should Corbyn become prime minister.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/jeremy-corbyn-has-brought-a-wonderful-freshness-to-british-politics/5483629