Mediaboss Marketing

This article originally appeared on AlterNet

TheNew York Times Tim Arango took what could have been an interesting topic for war journalism Irans increased role in Iraq and morphed it into a cynical revisionist history of American and Saudi involvement in the Middle East. In doing so, Arango paints the U.S. as a noble, freedom-loving nation on a mission to improve the lives of average Iraqis, and Iran as a sinister imperial force working to expand its sphere of influence across the region.

Arango sets the table by citing examples of Iranian influence in Iraq, framing the disparate motives at work. He suggests that the U.S. invaded Iraq for pro-democratic purposes, while Irans response to this unilateral invasion (which its government, of course,vehemently opposed) is portrayed as sinister and plotting:

When the United States invaded Iraq 14 years ago to topple Saddam Hussein, it saw Iraq as a potential cornerstone of a democratic and Western-facing Middle East, and vast amounts of blood and treasure about 4,500 American lives lost, more than $1 trillion spent were poured into the cause.

From Day 1, Iran saw something else: a chance to make a client state of Iraq, a former enemy against which it fought a war in the 1980s so brutal, with chemical weapons and trench warfare, that historians look to World War I for analogies. If it succeeded, Iraq would never again pose a threat, and it could serve as a jumping-off point to spread Iranian influence around the region.

Theres so much unmitigated ideology at work in these two passages, we need to take a minute to break it down. Lets begin with the controversial assertion that the [U.S.] saw Iraq as a potential cornerstone of a democratic and Western-facing Middle East.

This was the public relations talking point the U.S. gave for invading Iraq, but was it true? Does Arango provide any evidence or link to an analysis that shows it to be true? For some reason, Arango thinks the same administration that repeatedly lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and Saddams links to al Qaeda was on the up-and-up about the pro-democracy motives behind its devastating invasion.

If one wants to know what role democracy played in Bush administration officials decision, perhaps Arango could have asked Condoleezza Rice, Bushs national security advisor, secretary of state and key architect of the war. In an interview withABC in 2011, Rice was crystal clear that we didnt go to Iraq to bring democracy to the Iraqis. And I try in the book to really explain that that wasnt the purpose.

So, did the U.S. see Iraq as a potential cornerstone of a democratic and Western-facing Middle East? Or did it really not care either way?

As Inoted in FAIR last month, nominally down-the-middle reporters are allowed to mind-read U.S. policy makers motives so long as they conclude that those motives were noble and in good faith. Never are reporters allowed to ascribe sinister motives to U.S. officialsthis is only permissible when covering Americas enemies which Arango does in the next paragraph, insisting that from Day 1, Iran saw something else: a chance to make a client state of Iraq.

Note that the U.S. did not seek to make Iraq a client state, but rather a democracy. Big bad Iran however (which not only had nothing to do with the invasion but openly opposed it), was plotting all along to exploit the U.S. invasion to establish a puppet regime. Its a masterful work of 180-degree reality inversion.

The second thing wrong with the opening frame is that Arango mentions the 4,500 American lives lost and the $1 trillion spent but makes no mention of the 500,000 to 1 million Iraqis killed. He mentions the use of chemical weapons but doesnt say who used them it was Iraq, not Iran. He also omits the country that supplied them to Saddam: the United States.

Throughout the piece, Arango couches subjective opinions on Irans sinister motives as something analysts say or believe. Yet the only analyst he actually interviews, Ali Vaez, works at theU.S-government-fundedInternational Crisis Group and provides a vague quote about the Iran-Iraq war shaping Irans leadership.

Everything Iran does is painted as proactive, sinister aggression and everything the U.S. and Sunni monarchies do is done in reaction to this aggression. Take this dubious passage: [Iran]s dominance over Iraq has heightened sectarian tensions around the region, with Sunni states, and American allies, like Saudi Arabia mobilizing to oppose Iranian expansionism.

So here we have Sunni states, and American allies, like Saudi Arabia mobilizing to oppose Iranian expansionism. There is no Sunni expansionism or American expansionism or Saudi expansionismexpansionism (whatever that means) is the purview of Iranian aggressors. Saudi Arabia floodingSalafist fightersinto post-invasion Iraq is never mentioned.SaudiandQataribacking of Salafist militias in Syria since at the very least 2011 is never mentioned. The U.S. invasion is not framed as expansionism. Iran always draws first blood, while Gulf monarchies, painted as the besieged victims of the Shia empire, are always reacting, mobilizing to oppose Iran expansionism.

TheTimesflubbed analysis has to be seen within the wider context of American designs in the region. Arangos article serves primarily to advance the Shia crescent concept pushed by Gulf monarchies, neocons, Israel, and liberal foreign policy hawks. This narrative conjures a specter of Iranian influence from Tehran to Beirut, with total regional domination on the horizon. Stopping this sinister plot is the primary pretext for increased military involvement of the U.S. in eastern Syria, where American special forces have set up a de facto base and attacked Syrian and Iranian military assets. Its also Israels justification for its stepped-up military activity in Syria, where it has beenbackinganti-Hezbollah, anti-government rebels in Southern Syria. TheTimesarticle, whether by accident or intent, props up the entire moral and political framework for increased U.S. militarism in Syria and Iraq as territorial ISIS faces its final months.

The problem with Arangos analysis is not that Irans increased role in Iraq isnt a story; it certainly is. Its the revisionist notion that Iran had hatched a devious plot from day one of the U.S. invasion rather than react to shifting forces on the ground from an instinct to survive especially after watching its two neighbors get invaded by the U.S. and its arch regional enemy, Saudi Arabia, fund and arm Salafist mercenaries throughout the Middle East. Throw in the absurd, debunked notion the U.S. was motivated by a desire to spread democracy and what you have is a deeply cynical piece of pro-Pentagon myth-making, instead of an informative look at Irans increased regional influence.

More:
NYT rewrites history of Iraq War, painting US as democracy-lover, Iran as sinister imperialist - Salon

**Since March, MSF teams have treated over 450 severely malnourished children in its hospital in Qayyarah, 60 kilometres south of Mosul. Manuel Lannaud, head of mission in Iraq, explains the different causes and aspects of malnutrition.

Who in the region is affected by malnutrition?**

We began treating severely malnourished children in our hospital in Qayyarah in March. Most are under the age of one and 60 per cent arent even six months old. Some of the mothers arrive from Mosul itself but most live in camps.

Over the past couple of weeks weve seen an increase in the number of malnourished children needing treatment. With bed occupancy often equal to or over 200 per cent, we are about to open a 30-bed unit where we can provide care to children suffering from severe malnutrition. Starting in July, mothers and their babies who, up until now have been accommodated in a 12-bed tent, will be cared for in the new extension.

Whats causing malnutrition in the region around Mosul?

It isnt a problem of access to food. The malnutrition we see here is primarily due to the scarcity of infant formula. Obviously, adults and children in the besieged part of Mosul suffer from lack of food and, indeed, we see a lot of extremely underweight people arriving in the camps. But once theyre out of the city, the adults soon gain weight, but not the babies.

Many Iraqi mothers dont breastfeed and the ones who do usually stop after two to three months. Conditions in the camps combined with stress and exhaustion make breastfeeding even harder.

Theres a political barrier too. International organisations like UNICEF and the World Health Organization (WHO) promote breastfeeding not only in Iraq and provide infant formula, but only on prescription.

We believe distributing infant formula in a conflict situation like Iraq is the only way to avoid children having to be hospitalised for malnutrition. MSF provides infant formula to children when theyre discharged from the hospital and during their follow-up care. We also encourage mothers and tell them how important breastfeeding is, but if they need formula, we give it to them. We also have to ensure that water in the camps is up to standard and we inform mothers this is something they need to be aware of because it can pose a problem.

What can be done to treat malnutrition?

Children whove been hospitalised require close medical supervision. The number of readmissions to Qayyarah hospital is still relatively high. Mothers often want to leave the nutritional feeding centre to get back to looking after their other children, but treating malnutrition takes time, sometimes as much as two or three weeks. Some mothers go against medical advice and then its hard for them to come back to the hospital for lots of reasons, one of them transportation.

At the beginning of July, a preventive feeding programme that includes follow-up care and malnutrition screening for children will be opened in one of the camps. More humanitarian aid agencies must get involved in this type of screening thats so critical to the process of preventing and managing malnutrition.

More here:
Iraq: Babies most affected by malnutrition around Mosul - ReliefWeb

The moon lights up a statue of Virgin Mary in Erbil, Iraq (Getty Images)

A French Catholic group has sent the new statues from Lourdes to Erbil, where they will be carried through the streets in procession

A Catholic charity has sent 15 statues of the Virgin Mary to the Middle East to replace ones destroyed by ISIS.

The group uvre dOrient, a French association dedicated to helping persecuted Christians, has sent the statues from Lourdes to Ankawa, a suburb of the city of Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan, which has a majority Catholic population.

Aleteia reports that once they arrive, they will be carried in procession through the town by Chaldean and Syriac Catholics, before being blessed and sent to their parishes.

uvre dOrient say the processions will be a testament to Jeremiah 31:17: And here is hope for thy last end, saith the Lord: and the children shall return to their own borders.

In March, a senior aid worker described the Chaldean Catholic population in northern Iraq as on the verge of extinction, warning that the West must help.

Stephen Rasche, legal counsel and head of resettlement programmes for the Chaldean Archdiocese of Erbil, said: The future really does hang in the balance, adding: History could look back on this and say in their time of greatest need, they didnt get the support and the community disappeared. That could happen. We need to be honest about that.

Christian families were forced to flee the Nineveh Plains when ISIS took control of the region in 2014, mainly finding refuge in Erbil. Although the terror group is slowly losing territory, many thousands of Christians remain in the city as IDPs (internally displaced persons).

Since 2003, Iraqs Christian population has collapsed from 1.4 million to 275,000.

Go here to see the original:
Catholic group sends 15 Virgin Mary statues to Iraq to replace ones destroyed by ISIS - Catholic Herald Online

Benghazi - The prime minister of Libya's internationally-recognised government has decried a religious edict issued by clerics affiliated with a rival government that bans the Ibadi, a Muslim sect to which hundreds of thousands of Libya's Amazigh adhere.

Fayez Serraj warned of "endangering social safety" and said on Friday that such edicts, or fatwas, could create discord.

A week ago, a religious committee under the government based in eastern Libya targeted Ibadi followers, describing them as a "misguided and aberrant group."

The Human Rights Watch criticised the fatwa.

Eric Goldstein, HRW's deputy director for Mideast and North Africa, said "religious authorities in Libya should stop pandering to extremists by castigating minorities in incendiary language."

Amazigh advocates say there're around 400 000 Ibadi Muslims in Libya, which has a population of 6 million.

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

Originally posted here:
Libyan PM decries edict by clerics loyal to rival govt - News24

A hotel can be seen behind the abandoned Dar Bishi synagogue in Tripoli, Libya, Sept. 28, 2011. (Joseph Eid/AFP/Getty Images)

(JTA) Gina Waldman was forced to flee her native Libya in 1967 as anti-Jewish mobs took to the streets of Tripoli, burning down her fathers warehouse.

Waldman, like thousands of other Libyan Jews who left the country amid public and state-sponsored anti-Semitism in the 20th century, was forced to leave behind both personal belongings she was only allowed to bring a single suitcase with her and a rich cultural heritage that testified to over 2,000 years of Jewish presence in the North African country. Today no Jews remain in Libya.

That heritage including synagogues, cemeteries and ritual objects has long been under threat. But now an additional obstacle is coming from an unlikely place, said Waldman, president and co-founder of the group Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa, or JIMENA.

The threat stems from a memorandum of understanding request by the Libyan government currently under consideration by the State Department that would prohibit artifacts dated 1911 and earlier, including Jewish ritual objects, from being brought into the United States from Libya.

That would mean that anyone attempting to bring in antique Torah scrolls, tombstones, books and other ritual objects would be stopped at the U.S. border, and the objects would be confiscated and sent back to Libya.

Waldman, who lives in San Francisco, called the measure very, very offensive to the Jewish community. She said the memorandum would block people from removing Jewish artifacts when the very government itself has destroyed every single synagogue, every single [Jewish] cemetery.

Waldman said she is not aware of anyone having attempted to take Jewish artifacts out of Libya, or of any plans to do so. But she worries that the memorandum would affect any future efforts to recover those materials.

The State Departments Cultural Property Advisory Committee convened this week to discuss and consider the request, which Libya submitted in June. It has not announced a decision. The State Department, replying to a JTA request for comment, said it could not respond before deadline.

Libya claims that the request is necessary for curbing black market sales of artifacts from the country.

Libyas patrimony is now under severe and continuing threat of pillage due to ongoing conflict and the rise of violent extremist groups, according to a State Department summary of the request. (The original request is not available publicly.)

In addition to mentioning threats to Islamic and Berber materials, the summary specifically refers to Jewish sites being pillaged.

Many of the old Jewish cemeteries and sites are being looted for antiquities to export where there is an active transit or ultimate market for these objects, it says, later adding that some Jewish materials are sold in Israel.

Critics say the request is illegitimate and allows for Libya to claim ownership of various artifacts, including those that belong to its exiled Jewish community.

Kate Fitz Gibbon, a lawyer who served on theCultural Property Advisory Committeein 2002-03, spoke harshly of the memorandum.

I was terrifically offended at this idea that a Middle Eastern country that has forcibly expelled all of its Jewish population should have whatever is left, she told JTA. This is the opposite of Holocaust repatriation. This is telling the survivors that they should give whats left back to the oppressors.

Fitz Gibbon added that there was no proof in the State Department summary that Jewish artifacts were in fact being taken out of Libya.

On Wednesday, she spoke in opposition to the memorandum on behalf oftheAntique Tribal Art Dealers Association at a public open session organized by the State Department.

In addition to sharing objections on behalf of Jewish critics, Fitz Gibbon also said that Libya was not capable of properly preserving artifacts. The country, which has been in disarray following the 2011 fighting that toppled dictator Moammar Ghadafi, is currently under the rule of a provisional government and violent clashes continue to break out.

Libya, which has no museums they have 24 museums, they are all closed no tourism, has never done cultural exchange, and in this actual request said were not going to do any cultural exchange because we dont have the money or time of the ability, there is no question that Libya doesnt even meet one of these criteria for an MOU, Fitz Gibbon said.

Libyas request is not unprecedented. The U.S. has similar agreements with 17 countries, including one reached recently with Egypt. Congress also has passed emergency laws restricting artifacts from Iraq and Syria from entering the country. Such laws draw ona 1970 UNESCO convention thatallows for the placing of import and export restrictions in cases where a countrys patrimony is under threat of pillaging and its artifacts in danger of entering the black market.

A similar battle is playing out with an Iraqi Jewish archive uncovered by U.S. troops in 2003 in Baghdad. The artifacts were on tour in the U.S. in 2014 and were supposed to be returned to Iraq, but Jewish groups objected, saying they should bein the custody of the Iraqi Jewish community, which is living outside of the country after being driven out. The case of those artifacts remains unresolved.

Marc Lubin, a lawyerassisting Waldmans group, said efforts to keep Jewish artifacts in Libya or Iraq do not guarantee the preservation of the objects.

As was the case with the Iraqi Jewish artifacts, the Libyan MOU legitimizes Libyas confiscation of the property of fleeing Jews by recognizing the Libyan governments legal claim to that property, Lubin told JTA in an email. It gives a green light to future desecration by prohibiting the removal of sacred items from Libya for safe-keeping. It requires Libyan Jewrys heritage remain in place as a target for fanatics, all in the name of preservation.

Critics say Libyan-Jewish artifacts arent the only thing at stake.Granting the memorandum could set a precedent.

JIMENA is fighting this MOU because it sets a precedent to all of the Muslim, mostly Arab countries who have desecrated and impounded all of our antiquities, all of our heritage, Waldman said.

Fitz Gibbon echoed Waldmans concerns.

There was recently an MOU granted for Egypt, and the past pattern for MOUs has been that one nation, then two nations, then all nations within a specific region were covered, Fitz Gibbon said.

Waldman said that JIMENA is not concerned with the artifacts monetary value but rather with establishing the fact that the objects belong to the exiled Jewish community.

Theyve already taken private property, and now they are going after community property and our heritage, she said. It isnt money value that we are fighting for, but it is the right to know we are the rightful owners they are not.

Read the rest here:
Why Jews from Libya are worried about the fate of the country's ... - Jewish Telegraphic Agency