I too liked the second article - Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are all great articles. The second one is about how The Saudi royal
family plays its part in the anti-Syrian government false flag drama.
Saudi Arabia is also a nation divided like Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria into
Shia and Sunni areas. The Saudis worry lest the eastern Shia province
should rise up and revolt since that is where their main oil wealth lies.
And, yes, the Saudis blatantly threatened to use its Chechen terrorists to
harm the Russian Winter Olympics if Putin did not back down from
protecting Syria.



 <http://www.intifada-palestine.com> Intifada Palestine


  _____


*       Syria Crisis: Cameron rules out military action after Commons defeat
*       “Bandar ibn Israel”
*       Greek Orthodox Archbishop Atallah Hanna: “We reject any aggression on
Syria”


 
<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/intifada-palestine/yTiY/~3/1sSD2_iS3p0/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>
Syria Crisis: Cameron rules out military action after Commons defeat

Posted: 29 Aug 2013 06:53 PM PDT

  
<http://i1.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/parliament.jpg?w=0>

 Syria Crisis: Cameron rules out military action after Commons defeat

 
<http://i0.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/hands-of-Syria.jpg>
Anti-war protesters outside Parliament during the debate

Anti-war protesters outside Parliament during the debate



By Douglas Carswell



Dozens of Conservative MPs refused to support the Prime Minister and sided
with Labour in opposing a Government motion which supported the principle
of military intervention. The motion backing the use of force “if
necessary” was rejected by 285 votes to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

It is the first time that a British Government has been blocked from
executing a military deployment and highlights the deep mistrust of
official intelligence in the wake of the Iraq war.

Within minutes of the embarrassing defeat, the Prime Minister said that he
understood that there was not support for British action against Syria and
indicated he would abandon any such plans. The decision came just hours
after Britain had sent fighter jets to the region.

Mr Cameron had hoped to join America in launching cruise missile strikes
against the Syrian regime as soon as this weekend after Assad was accused
of deploying chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus last week.

The Prime Minister had played a leading role in persuading President Obama
of the need for action against Syria – with Britain tabling a draft
United Nations resolution – and the Parliamentary vote may also
undermine Mr Cameron’s international reputation.

“I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of
chemical weapons but I also believe in respecting the will of this House
of Commons,” Mr Cameron said tonight.

“It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of
the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get
that and the Government will act accordingly.”

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, said that the Parliamentary vote
would be welcomed by the Syrian regime.

“I am disappointed,” he said. “We do believe that the use of
chemical weapons in this way needs a clear and strong response.”

“There is a deep well of suspicion about military involvement in the
middle east stemming largely from the experiences of Iraq.”

“I don’t think it is anything to do with the Prime Minister, I think
it is to do with the legacy of experience.”

It is the first time since the 1956 Suez crisis that an opposition has
failed to support Government plans for a deployment of the armed forces.

The Coalition’s motion – which had already been watered down earlier
in the week to allow for another Parliamentary vote before Britain took
part in direct military action – was defeated by a majority of 13 votes.

In a night of febrile scenes in the Commons, senior Cabinet ministers
openly accused those opposing the motion of giving “succour” to the
Assad regime. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, allegedly shouted at
Conservative rebels who he described as a “disgrace”.

Labour demanded an official inquiry into the activities of the Prime
Minister’s main spin doctor.

The Parliamentary vote may trigger a leadership crisis for Mr Cameron as
Conservative MPs openly criticised the Prime Minister’s decision to
recall Parliament and force a vote. He was accused of a massive
miscalculation with Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister,
describing the Prime Minister’s actions as “rushed” and
“cavalier”.

There were shouts of “resign” from the Labour benches as the results
of the Parliamentary vote were read out by John Bercow, the Commons
Speaker.

Mr Cameron has spent much of the week personally stressing the need for
military action against the Assad regime. In his speech to Parliament
today, the Prime Minister had insisted that Britain has a duty to “do
the right thing” and intervene in the “humanitarian catastrophe”
unfolding in Syria.

However, he also admitted that the intelligence assessment did not provide
“100 percent” certainty of the evidence against the regime.

The Prime Minister told an emergency sitting of Parliament that the
country should not be “paralysed” over its response to international
crises in the wake of mistakes made in the run-up to the Iraq war.

He had implored MPs to “force themselves” to watch harrowing videos of
small children suffering following a chemical weapons attack in Damascus
last week which killed hundreds of ordinary Syrians.

However, in a major blow to his authority, senior Conservative MPs spent
the day standing up during the eight-hour Parliamentary debate to
criticise the Government’s plans to intervene in the Syrian crisis.
Among those blocking the plans were David Davis, the former shadow Home
Secretary, and former ministers.

Nick de Bois, Secretary of the Tory 1922 Committee, voted against the
Government. He said it was an “extremely difficult decision”.

 
<http://i2.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Ed-Milband.jpg>
David Cameron has said he will respect the will of the House of Commons
after MPs rejected a government motion on military action in Syria.

Ed Miliband demanded “compelling evidence” against the Assad regime

Ed Miliband refused to support the Government’s Parliamentary motion
saying that he was, as yet, not fully convinced of the case against the
Assad regime. The decision sparked an angry backlash from Downing Street
who accused the Labour leader of “giving succour” to the Syrian
dictator. This was strongly denied by senior Labour sources who said that
the behaviour of Mr Cameron’s aides was “frankly insulting”.

Other developments today in the Syrian crisis saw:

• The publication of a British intelligence briefing which concluded
that it was “highly likely” that the Assad regime was responsible for
last week’s chemical weapons attack which killed more than 300
civilians.

• The release of the Attorney General’s legal advice which ruled that
British could legally participate in military strikes against Syria to
protect innocent civilians from further atrocities.

• The White House privately briefing senior figures in the US Senate and
Congress on secret intelligence on the Assad regime which could pave the
way for American action against Syria this weekend.

• President Assad pledge that Syria would “defend itself in the face
of any aggression”.

The experience of the Iraq war was repeatedly raised by MPs during the
debate – with several former Labour Cabinet ministers speaking and
describing the “scars” of the mistakes made by the Blair
administration.

“I am very clear about the fact that we have to learn the lessons of
Iraq,” the Labour leader said. “Of course we have got to learn those
lessons and one of the most important lessons was indeed about respect for
the United Nations.”

He added: “I do not rule out supporting the Prime Minister but I believe
he has to make a better case than he did today.”

During the course of the debate, a succession of senior Conservative and
Labour MPs also made speeches expressing doubt over the wisdom of British
action against Syria.

David Davis, the former shadow home secretary said that the intelligence
“might just be wrong”.

Mr Davis said that chemical weapons were used either by Assad’s regime,
by a rogue regime military unit, or by rebels “with the direct aim of
dragging the West into the war”.

Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, said “We all know – I have
the scars about this – how easy it is to get into military action and
how difficult it is to get out of it.”.

In a parallel debate in the House of Lords, Lord Hurd, the former foreign
secretary, said: “I cannot for the life of me see how dropping some
bombs or firing some missiles in the general direction of Syria, with
targets probably some way removed from the actual weapons we’ve been
criticising, I can’t see how that action is going to lessen the
suffering of Syrian people.

“I think it’s likely to increase and expand the civil war in Syria,
not likely to bring it to an end.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of his fears that Christians in Syria
would be targeted in the wake of any strike.

However, other senior Parliamentarians offered backing for the Prime
Minister. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the head of the Intelligence and Security
committee, said: “At this very moment, the Assad regime in Damascus are
watching very carefully as to whether they will get away with what they
have done.”

“If they get away with what they have done, if there is no significant
international response of any kind, then we can be absolutely certain that
the forces within Damascus will be successful in saying we must continue
to use these whenever there is a military rationale for doing so.

“There is no guarantee that a military strike against military targets
will work, but there is every certainty that if we don’t make that
effort to punish and deter, then these actions will indeed continue.”

Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said: “We are, I
think, living under the shadow, sadly, of Iraq. But this is not Iraq. We
are not putting boots on the ground, we are not invading, we are not
seeking to govern somebody else’s country and, above all, this is not
George W Bush, this is Barack Obama.

“And you only need to look at this American president and what he has
done to see how nervous, how hesitant, how cautious he is about action.”

Tonight, American reports suggested that President Obama was now drawing
up plans to intervene in Syria without international assistance.

This article was originally published at 
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10275158/Syria-crisis-No-to-war-blow-to-Cameron.html>
The Telegraph

The post 
<http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2013/08/syria-crisis-cameron-rules-military-action-commons-defeat/>
Syria Crisis: Cameron rules out military action after Commons defeat
appeared first on  <http://www.intifada-palestine.com> Intifada Palestine.

  
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/intifada-palestine/yTiY/~4/1sSD2_iS3p0?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>


 
<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/intifada-palestine/yTiY/~3/dmJHCPbHtzg/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>
“Bandar ibn Israel”

Posted: 29 Aug 2013 06:40 AM PDT

  
<http://i0.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bandar.sultan1.jpg?w=0>

“Bandar ibn Israel”

 
<http://i1.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Bandarr.jpg>
Bandarr

By Sharmine Narwani



The recent acts of political violence in the Middle East’s Levant are
not unrelated.

Car bombings in the predominantly Shia southern Beirut suburb of Dahiyeh;
twin bombings targeting Sunni mosques in the northern Lebanese city of
Tripoli; an alleged chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus
blamed on the Syrian government; a secret IDF operation across the
Lebanese border foiled by Hezbollah; rockets lobbed by an Al Qaeda-related
group into Israel; an IDF airstrike on a pro-Damascus Palestinian
resistance group base in Lebanon…

>From one perspective, the common thread is the crisis in Syria, where a
29-month conflict has cemented divisions in the rest of the region and
set the stage for an existential fight on multiple battlefields between
two highly competitive Mideast blocs.

>From another perspective, the common thread drawing these disparate
crimes scenes together is the “culprit” – one who has strong
political interest, material capabilities and the sense of urgency to
commit rash and violent actions on many different fronts.

In isolation, none of these acts are capable of producing a “result.”
But combined, they are able to instill fear in populations, stir
governments into action, and in the short term, to create the perception
of a shift in regional “balances.”

And no parties in the Mideast are more vested right now in urgently
“correcting” the regional balance of power than the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia and the state of Israel – both nations increasingly frustrated by
the inaction of their western allies and the incremental gains of their
regional rivals Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and now Iraq.

Worse yet, with every passing month the “noose of multilateralism”
tightens, as rising powers Russia, China and others offer protective
international cover for those foes. Israel and Saudi Arabia are keenly
aware that the age of American hegemony is fast declining, and with it,
their own regional primacy.

Common foes, common goals

 
<http://i0.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bush-and-bandar.jpg>
bush and bandarAt the helm of efforts to “correct” the imbalance is
Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, the US’s longtime
go-to man in Riyadh – whose 22-year reign as Saudi Arabia’s
ambassador to Washington provided him with excellent contacts throughout
the Israeli political and military establishment

Like Israel, Bandar has long been a vocal advocate of curtailing the
regional influences of Iran and Syria and forging a neocon-style “New
Middle East” – sometimes to his detriment.

When he all but disappeared from public view in 2008, one of the 
<http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/01/19/hugh-miles/the-missing-prince/#sthash.6V7ONbbC.dpuf>
reasons cited for Bandar’s “banishment” from the royal circle of
influence was that he had “meddled in Syrian affairs, trying to stir up
the tribes against the Assad regime, without the king’s approval.”

 
<http://i2.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1_887502_1_34.jpg>
1_887502_1_34The frustrated Bandar, who at the time officially headed
Saudi’s National Security Council, was also notably absent when Saudi
King Abdullah paid a highly visible visit to the Syrian president in late
2009 to renew relations after four years of bitter tensions.

All that changed with the Arab uprisings in early 2011. Regime-change in
Syria – according to an acquaintance who visited various prominent Saudi
ministers (all key royals) in 2012 – suddenly become a national priority
for the al-Saud family. According to this shocked source, the Saudis had
come to believe that if the battle for control over Syria “is lost,”
the kingdom would lose its Shia-dominated Eastern Province where its vast
oil reserves are concentrated.

That year marked Bandar’s return to influence in the kingdom, and within
short order he was promoted to head the powerful Saudi Intelligence
Agency, known for its myriad links into the underworld of global jihadis.

 
<http://i1.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bandar.sultan.jpg>
bandar.sultanBut the kingdom’s once-reliable western powerhouse ally,
the United States, appeared to be withdrawing from the region. Highly
sensitive to the fall-out over its aggressive interventions in
Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington was shying away from the kind of overt
leadership that the Saudis desperately needed to re-establish their
equilibrium in the region.

Which is where Bandar comes into the picture. The former ambassador to
Washington has the kind of relationships that go deep – no Saudi knows
how to twist American arms better than he. But to push western allies in
the desired direction, the Saudis were in need of an influential and
opportunistic ally that was also passionately fixated on the same set of
adversaries. That partner would be Israel.

Says a 2007  <http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/02/07RIYADH296.html>
Wikileaks cable from the US embassy in Riyadh:

“We have also picked up first hand accounts of intra-family tension over
policy towards Israel. Some princes, most notably National Security
Advisor Bandar Bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, are reportedly pushing for more
contact with Israel. Bandar now sees Iran as a greater threat than
Israel.”

Bandar’s ascendancy to his current position suggests more than ever that
the Saudis, at least for now, have put aside their reservations over
dealing with Israel. And Iran’s election of a moderate new President
Hassan Rouhani has brought urgency to the Saudi-Israeli relationship –
both fearing the possibility of a US-Iranian grand bargain that could sink
their fortunes further.

Putting wheels into motion

For Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Syria is the frontline battle from which they
seek to cripple the Iranians in the region. None have been as ferocious in
lobbying Washington on the issue of Syrian “chemical weapons use” and
“red lines” as this duo – perhaps even setting up 
<http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/mideast-shuffle/chemical-weapons-charade-syria>
false flag operations to force its hand. Since last Winter, says the 
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579024452583045962.html>
Wall Street Journal:

“The Saudis also started trying to convince Western governments that Mr.
Assad had crossed what President Barack Obama a year ago called a “red
line”: the use of chemical weapons. Arab diplomats say Saudi agents flew
an injured Syrian to Britain, where tests showed sarin gas exposure.
Prince Bandar’s spy service, which concluded in February that Mr. Assad
was using chemical weapons, relayed evidence to the US, which reached a
similar conclusion four months later.”

The following Spring, it was Israel’s turn. In an article entitled 
<http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/washington-embarrassed-over-israeli-declarations-on-syria.html#ixzz2d8npvIkg>
“Did Israel Ambush the United States on Syria,” Alon Ben David says:

“By stating that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical
weapons, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the director of Israel’s Military
Intelligence Research Department, cornered the Americans. Washington
finally — and very tentatively — admitted that such weapons had been
used. If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu planned to ambush the
Americans, it was a phenomenal success. From an Israeli standpoint, this
was a chance to test America’s supposed “red line.”

The Russians, however, have stood in the way of every effort to draw the
US into intervening directly in Syria. In the past year, the Saudis and
Israelis have tag-teamed Moscow, by turns cajoling, threatening and
dangling incentives to shift the Russians from their immovable position.

 
<http://i2.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/bandar_1-20130810-193914.jpg>
bandar_1-20130810-193914Just last month, Bandar beat a path to Moscow to
test Russian President Vladimir Putin’s appetite for compromise.
According to leading 
<http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/08/saudi-russia-putin-bandar-meeting-syria-egypt.html#ixzz2d2qLavl7>
Lebanese daily As-Safir, a private diplomatic report on the Saudi
prince’s visit claims that Bandar employed a “carrot-and-stick”
approach to wrest concessions from Putin on Syria and Iran.

In what has to be the most delusional statement I’ve heard in a while,
Bandar allegedly told the Russian president: “There are many common
values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against
terrorism and extremism all over the world.” He continued with a threat:

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city
of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the
security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the
Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups
do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they
will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

According to the report, Putin responded to Bandar thus: “We know that
you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that
support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely
incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that
you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations
according to clear and strong principles.”

Bandar ibn Israel: a terror Frankenstein

 
<http://i1.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Abu-Omar-Sheshani.jpg>
Abu Omar SheshaniChechen jihadis have, of course, turned up in Syria to
fight alongside their brethren from dozens of other countries against the
government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the past two years.

The Saudi links go beyond jihadis though. Seventeen months ago in Homs –
and barely a month after the battle over Baba Amr – 
<http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/homs-opposition-al-farouq-battalion-killing-us>
24 Syrian rebels groups sent an email to the externally-based Syrian
National Council, complaining about the rogue behavior of the Saudi-funded
Al Farouq Battalion. This is the group to which the infamous lung-eating
Syrian rebel once belonged.

Alleging that Al Farouq was responsible for killing at least five rebels
and fomenting violence against civilians and other fighters, the group
wrote:

“The basis of the crisis in the city today is groups receiving uneven
amounts of money from direct sources in Saudi Arabia some of whom are
urging the targeting of loyalist neighborhoods and sectarian escalation
while others are inciting against the SNC.
They are not national,
unifying sources of support. On the contrary, mature field leaders have
noted that receiving aid from them [Saudi Arabia] entails implicit
conditions like working in ways other than the desired direction.”

In a reprisal of his role in Afghanistan where he helped the CIA arm the
Mujahedeen – who later came to form the backbone of the Taliban and Al
Qaeda – Bandar is now throwing funding, weapons and training at the very
same kinds of Islamist militants who are establishing an extreme version
of Sharia law in territories they hold inside Syria.

Says an analyst at a Beirut-based think tank:

“These fighters, many of whom are ideologically aligned with Al Qaeda,
are much more pragmatic today. They are ready to take funding, facilities
and arms from the Saudis (who previously they targeted). There is no
concept of a main enemy – it could be the US, Russians, Iranians,
Saudis, Muslim Brotherhood. Their only priority is to use the new
situation of instability in the region to form a core territorial base.
They now think in Syria they have a real opportunity to regenerate Al
Qaeda that they didn’t have since their defeat in Iraq. In the Sinai
too. Through a central Syrian base they are ready to converge with other
regional actors from which they will move into Lebanon, Iraq and other
places.”

“Some of them know Bandar for a long time,” says the analyst. “There
have always been Saudi intelligence officers dedicated to oversee jihadist
groups in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir, Chechnya.”

Though the Saudis tell Washington that their goal is to keep extremists
out of power in Syria, elements in the US administration remain
uncomfortable about where this could end. Says the Wall Street Journal,
quoting a former official concerned about weapons flowing into jihadi
hands: “This has the potential to go badly” – an understatement, if
ever there was one.

Using Lebanon as a lever

Whereas western powers have sought to maintain stability on the Lebanese
front, the Saudis – who lost influence in the Levantine state when
Hezbollah and its allies forced the dissolution of a Riyadh-backed
government in early 2011 – are not as inclined to keep the peace.

Paramount for Bandar’s Syria plans is halting the battlefield assistance
Hezbollah has provided for the Syrian army in key border towns which had
become supply routes for rebels.

To punish Hezbollah and weaken its regional allies, the Saudis have used
their own alliances in Lebanon to hammer daily at the Shia resistance
group’s role in Syria. One easy route is to sow sectarian tensions in
multi-sect Lebanon – a tactic at which the conservative Wahhabi Saudis
excel. Pitting Sunni against Shia through a series of well-planned acts of
political violence is child’s play for Saudis who have decades of
expertise overseeing such acts – just look at the escalation of
sectarian bombings in Iraq today as example.

This does not necessarily mean that Riyadh is involved in planning these
operations though.

Says the Beirut analyst:

“The escalation may be Saudi-run, but not necessarily the deed itself.
(When they back these Islamist extremists in Lebanon), they know the
software of these people. They know they will attack Shia and moderate
Sunni, use rockets, car bombs, etc. They empower these groups being
conscious of the consequences. These guys are predictable. And the Saudis
also have some trusted men among these groups who will act in a way that
will conform to Saudi interests and projects.”

 
<http://i2.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/w460.jpg>
LEBANON-UNREST-BLAST-BEIRUT-HEZBOLLAHThe diplomatic report on the
Bandar’s Moscow visit concludes: “It is not unlikely that things
[will] take a dramatic turn in Lebanon, in both the political and
security senses, in light of the major Saudi decision to respond to
Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian crisis.”

Two bombings: one, targeting a Shia neighborhood, the second aimed at
Sunni residents. On another front, the IDF launches a secret mission
across the Lebanese border, swiftly thwarted by a Hezbollah counterattack.
Soon after, an Al Qaeda linked group called the Abdullah Azzam Brigades
(AAB), which last year acknowledged its fight against the Syrian state,
launches four rockets into Israeli territory. Israel does not retaliate
against this Salafist militia though. The IDF choses instead to strike at
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group that
supports the Resistance in Lebanon and Syria.

It appears that Israel, like the Saudis, has a message to relay to
Lebanon: Hezbollah should stay out of Syria or Lebanon will bear the
consequences.

The escalation of violence in the region – from Lebanon to Iraq – is
today very much a Bandar-Israel project. And the sudden escalation of
military threats by Washington against the Assad government is undoubtedly
a result of pressures and rewards dangled by this duo.

While Putin may have told Bandar to take a hike when the he offered to
purchase $15 billion in weapons in exchange for a compromise on Syria and
Iran, the British and French are beggars for this kind of business.
Washington too. With $65 billion in arms sales to the kingdom in process,
the Obama administration is prostituting Americans for cold, hard cash.

Let there be no mistake. Bandar ibn Israel is going for gold and will burn
the Middle East to get there.



This article was originally published  
<http://english.al-akhbar.com/blogs/sandbox/bandar-ibn-israel> Al Akhbar

All images courtesy  <http://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/>
uprootedpalestinian Blog

**********************

 
<http://i0.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Sharmine-Narwani.jpg>
Sharmine NarwaniSharmine Narwani is a commentary writer and political
analyst covering the Middle East, and a Senior Associate at St.
Antony’s College, Oxford University. She has a Master of International
Affairs degree from Columbia University’s School of International and
Public Affairs in both journalism and Mideast studies. Follow Sharmine on
twitter  <https://twitter.com/snarwani> @snarwani.





The post  <http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2013/08/bandar-ibn-israel/>
“Bandar ibn Israel” appeared first on 
<http://www.intifada-palestine.com> Intifada Palestine.

  
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/intifada-palestine/yTiY/~4/dmJHCPbHtzg?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>


 
<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/intifada-palestine/yTiY/~3/3iEfGnaArh4/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>
Greek Orthodox Archbishop Atallah Hanna: “We reject any aggression on
Syria”

Posted: 28 Aug 2013 11:29 PM PDT

  
<http://i1.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Atallah1.jpg?w=0>

Greek Orthodox Archbishop Atallah Hanna: “We reject any aggression on Syria

 
<http://i1.wp.com/www.intifada-palestine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Atallah.jpg>
Atallah



Occupied Jerusalem, (SANA) – Large number of Greek Orthodox Palestinian
Christians held a sit-in at the courtyard of the Church of the Holy
Sepulcher to express sympathy with Syria which is exposed to threats and
pressures targeting its stance and national role.

In a speech in front of the participants, Greek Orthodox Archbishop of
Sebastia, Atallah Hanna said that we call on all honest people to reject
the foreign intervention in Syria which is planned by western countries,
particularly the US.

Bishop Hanna added “we believe that the solution in Syria should be
politically through dialogue among the Syrians, pointing out that the
foreign intervention and the conspiracy are aiming at fragmenting and
weakening Syria.”

He called on all the world powers concerned in solving the crisis in Syria
to encourage the Syrians to sit around the dialogue table.



The post 
<http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2013/08/greek-orthodox-archbishop-atallah-hanna-reject-aggression-syria/>
Greek Orthodox Archbishop Atallah Hanna: “We reject any aggression on
Syria” appeared first on  <http://www.intifada-palestine.com> Intifada
Palestine.

  
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/intifada-palestine/yTiY/~4/3iEfGnaArh4?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email>




You are subscribed to email updates from Intifada Palestine
<http://www.intifada-palestine.com>
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now
<http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailunsubscribe?k=1R-jBk-XmACX9FinNKy4k7gpsuc>
.

Email delivery powered by Google


Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to