IDF uses stun grenades, tear gas to disperse rally in support of Palestinian hunger strikers


IDF uses stun grenades, tear gas to disperse rally in support of Palestinian hunger strikers (VIDEO)
The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) used stun grenades and fired tear gas to disperse a rally in support of hunger striking Palestinian inmates in Israeli prisons, which was taking place in the city of Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank on Friday.

The march began at the al-Azza refugee camp where the Palestinians set up a solidarity tent in support of the hunger strikers.

The protesters, carrying Palestinian national flags and chanting anti-Israeli government slogans, had made all their way to the northern entrance of Bethlehem City when the IDF intervened.

The security forces employed stunt grenades and tear gas to disperse the crowd, with the Palestinians replying by pelting stones at the troops.

One Palestinian was reportedly detained, while several people suffered from severe tear gas inhalation, Palestinian news agency WAFA reported.

An IDF spokesman said he was unaware of the arrest and suffocations among the protesters, promising to look into the reports.

READ MORE: Right-wing Israelis stage BBQ outside prison to taunt Palestinian hunger strikers

The hunger strike across Israeli prisons began Monday as Palestinian inmates protested against their conditions of incarceration.

The hunger strikers are demanding to be moved to prisons inside the occupied territories to make it easier for families to visit, for restrictions on family visits to be lifted, for improved access to medical care and for the restoration of educational facilities, among other things.

READ MORE: ‘Terrorists getting what they deserve’: Israel refuses to negotiate with Palestinian hunger strikers

According to the Times of Israel, the number of Palestinian inmates on hunger strike in Israeli prisons had reached between 1,200 and 1,300 people by Friday.

US blames Iran for Mideast instability, while ‘conflicts rest at Washington doorstep’

US blames Iran for Mideast instability, while ‘conflicts rest at Washington doorstep’
Iran said it had to go into Iraq and Syria because it is facing a direct threat from terrorism, and prevent radicals from hitting the country. The US said the same thing before invading Iraq and Afghanistan, former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told RT.

The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Wednesday slammed the nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration with Iran.

He said that although Iran has met its obligations under the agreement, it is still threatening US interests, the region, and the entire world.

Tillerson said, “Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terror, through many platforms and methods.”

His statement came shortly after Defense Secretary James Mattis said Iran was playing a destabilizing role in the region. He added that the US needs to overcome Tehran’s influence to reach a solution to the conflict in Yemen.

BREAKING: poses ‘many threats,’ US needs policy to address them all –

‘An unchecked has the potential to travel the same path as ‒ and take the world along with it’

View image on Twitter

“Everywhere you look if there is trouble in the region, you find Iran,” he told reporters in Riyadh after meeting senior Saudi officials, Reuters cited.

RT:  The US admits Iran is complying with its nuclear obligations. What is Washington actually worried about here?

Michael Maloof: Trump during the campaign said it was the worst deal that was ever negotiated. Other than that, the administration is required to give about an every 90-day update to the Congress, particularly on whether or not it is going got relief of sanctions. This report was expected, and Mr. Tillerson said Iran is compliant. The question then comes around: do they ultimately relieve sanctions and of course the agreements that sanctions would be relieved. This is something Congress and the administration are going have to deal with. I doubt that the administration ultimately after these 90 days review, that the President has called for, will ultimately just discard that agreement.

Tillerson says Iran complies with nuke deal but remains a leading state sponsor of terror 

Photo published for ‘Iran complies with nuclear deal but sponsors terrorism’ – Tillerson on Trump’s review order — RT...

‘Iran complies with nuclear deal but sponsors terrorism’ – Tillerson on Trump’s review order — RT…

President Trump has ordered a review of the Iranian nuclear deal, Rex Tillerson says. Writing in a letter that while Tehran was complying with its part of the deal, Tillerson questioned the lifting…

You’ve got five other countries from the UN Security Council that agreed to it. It is also in Iran’s benefit to adhere to it, and it has. It is a good sign. In terms of what it does ultimately in the future – hopefully, relations can improve over time; and Iran, even though it has a legitimate right to re-enrich it has never gone up to the level of 90 percent enrichment is required for a nuclear weapon.

RT:  James Mattis said, “wherever there’s trouble in the Middle East, you find Iran.” Is it fair to blame Iran for all the conflicts and instability in the region?

MM: The conflicts ultimately rest at the doorstep of Washington. If it weren’t for going into Iraq back in 2003, it wouldn’t have created the conditions that laid bare for the creation of ISIS. Then you had Saudi Arabia that has been the chief sponsor and financier of Jihadi Salafism and they continue to do it through their Mosques and preach it through their Mosques even now. Iran has an interesting perspective, just as the US and George Bush said they were going to go into Iraq and also Afghanistan to stop terrorism, so it doesn’t come to the US. Iran has basically said the same thing: that they had to go into Iraq, Syria, even Lebanon to prevent ISIS and even Al-Qaeda from hitting Iran. That is a very serious threat since there is a threat to their country directly, as opposed to the US, which is oceans apart. So when you look at it from their perspective…it is not necessarily that Iran was to create a Shia Crescent per se. But it has influence in the Middle East, and it has had it for centuries. And for Saudi Arabia, which is only 200 years old, to say otherwise is ridiculous.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Why is US media ignoring all dissenting expert voices on the Khan Sheikhoun attack?

Danielle Ryan
Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website
Why is US media ignoring all dissenting expert voices on the Khan Sheikhoun attack?
Nothing prompts abdication of journalistic responsibility on American TV more swiftly than “beautiful” images of bombs crashing down on Syria.

It must be assumed that while busy fawning over Donald Trump’s various military escapades, journalists simply haven’t had the time to give dissenting voices an opportunity to be heard.

Because when it comes to airing opinions on Trump’s bombing of a Syrian airbase two weeks ago, in response to an alleged chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun, it seems that only experts who agree with the White House may apply.

This is a highly ironic turn of events because before Trump learned the dangerous lesson that bombing was the key to unlocking his popularity among both liberals and conservatives, the media was jumping at any opportunity to make him look like a buffoon who should be impeached and thrown out of office.

Media blackout

Let’s take a look at some of the voices you won’t have heard on US news channels in the aftermath of the chemical incident and Trump’s subsequent attack on the Shayrat airbase:

1. Theodore Postol, chemical weapons expert and professor emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Postol has authored a detailed 14-page report which calls into question claims made in the Trump administration’s declassified 4-page report which was used as ‘evidence’ that Bashar Assad was behind the chemical incident on April 4.

The US report “contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity,” Postol wrote. What’s more, Postol’s own analysis of the incident in Idlib “indicates that the munition was almost certainly placed on the ground with an external detonating explosive on top of it.

Postol went so far as to tell The Nation he believes the White House “fabricated” its evidence and “certainly did not follow the procedures it claimed to employ” in reaching the conclusion that Assad was responsible for dropping chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun. In his opinion, that 4-page report was a “clumsy” attempt to cover up the fact that Trump attacked Assad’s air base with no real evidence.

He told The Nation that White House staff may be worried about this leaking and the bad optics of “a reckless president acting without regard to the nation’s security, risking an inadvertent escalation and confrontation with Russia.

Postol was cited by the New York Times in 2013 as a “leading weapons expert,” but the newspaper has ignored his 2017 report entirely.

White House claims on Syria chemical attack ‘obviously false’ – MIT professor 

2. Jerry Smith led the UN-backed operation to remove Syria’s chemical weapons in 2013

Smith has appeared in UK media urging caution over the rush to judgment on the latest chemical incident. “We need to be very conscious of all playbooks that are being put out there at the moment. I think it’s very premature if we start dismissing one accusation or another,” he told Channel 4’s, Jon Snow.

When Snow asked if it was plausible that Syrian rebel groups had been storing chemical weapons, Smith said it was “not beyond the realms of possibility” particularly for some of the most extreme rebel groups.

Smith also poured cold water on suggestions made by others that sarin gas would have been entirely consumed and destroyed (making it impossible to spread) in the case of a conventional bomb being dropped on a chemical stockpile.

If that was the case, he said, “there is every possibility that those munitions were not consumed and that in fact the sarin liquid was ejected and could well have affected the outstanding population.

3. Peter Ford, former British ambassador to Syria

Ford has appeared on the BBC calling for a proper investigation into the chemical incident, and, like Smith, has urged that the media not jump to conclusions without sufficient evidence.

There are two possibilities for what happened. One is the American version that Assad dropped chemical weapons on this locality. The other version is that an ordinary bomb was dropped and it hit a munitions dump, that jihadis were storing chemical weapons. We don’t know which of these two possibilities is the correct one,” he said.

Ford also recalled the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. At that time, he said “the experts, the intelligence agencies, the politicians were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They produced reams of evidence; photographs, diagrams. It was all wrong — and it’s possible that they’re wrong in this instance, as well”.

Later in the interview, when asked pointedly by the BBC interviewer, why he was a “relatively lone voice” straying from the mainstream narrative, Ford said: “We cannot take at face value what the so-called intelligence experts tell us, not when they have an agenda.”

Ford also took aim at the “gullible media” and argued that Trump has given jihadis “a thousand reasons” to now stage false flag attacks with chemical weapons in order to prompt more US military action.

Questioning the widely held assumption that Assad would use chemical weapons at this point in the war, Ford said Assad “may be cruel and brutal, but he’s not mad. It defies belief that he would bring this all on his head for no military advantage.”

4. Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer

Giraldi is another skeptical voice who has been almost entirely ignored by US media. The former CIA officer claims his sources in the region are telling him the narrative the Trump administration used to sell his decision to bomb the Syrian air base is “a sham.”

He said his contacts were shocked at how the story was being spun by the Trump administration and media.

In a radio interview with Scott Horton, he said: “The intelligence confirms pretty much the account that the Russians have been giving…which is that they [Syrian forces] hit a warehouse where the rebels – now these are rebels that are, of course, connected with Al-Qaeda – where the rebels were storing chemicals of their own, and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently, the intelligence on this is very clear.”

Why not all chemical attacks worthy of Western media attention (Op-Edge) 

Selling war

It’s abundantly clear based on the above comments and expert analysis that responsibility for the deaths at Khan Sheikhoun has not been determined. Despite this, media reports continue to state as fact that blame lies with Assad.

The US media has opted, unquestioningly, to trust unverified information that has come from the same intelligence agencies that led them into the war in Iraq based on lies. They have chosen to swallow, hook, line and sinker, information supplied by Al-Qaeda-linked rebel factions who possess the clear motivation to lie in an effort to prompt the kind of shock and awe Western military intervention they’ve been after for years.

What’s really amazing, though, is that journalists continue to follow this narrative despite evidence anti-Assad rebels have already been implicated — by a UN report — in staging a false chemical attack to pin the blame on the Assad government.

But none of that matters when you’ve got a war to sell. So, in their rush to support new military action, the American mainstream media opts to give voice only to those who will echo their own narrative.

One man, they have been keen to listen to is Dr. Shajul Islam. In 2012, Islam was arrested in the UK and charged with kidnapping journalists in Syria. The case against him fell apart, and the charges dropped because the witnesses were unable to testify. John Cantlie, one of the journalists, is still in captivity.

Islam is now back in Idlib, an Al-Qaeda stronghold in Syria, and is a go-to source on the Khan Sheikhoun incident for Western media. To make this all the more strange, the media has also ignored reports that Islam’s brother Razul is believed to have entered Syria to fight as a volunteer for ISIS.

None of this is to say that Postol, Smith, Ford, Giraldi and others are necessarily correct in their assessments either. Nor is the point to ‘absolve’ Assad of all blame for civilian deaths in Syria — a common insult lobbed at anyone who questions the mainstream narratives of this war.

The simple truth is that the facts have not been fully determined. US journalists, in an effort to promote their own version of events, have completely relinquished their responsibility to offer the full spectrum of analysis and expert opinion needed for viewers to make informed judgments on their country’s latest military action.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s