The world Prophecy of Majeshi Leon

Dated: Sunday, 24 July 2011. 15:11hrs The Journal Inyangenews.com interviewed MAJESHI Leon about his Prophecy which will be published in ...
Read More

Amabanga y’Ikuzimu mu karere k’Ibiyaga bigari.

Uyu muryango washinzwe nabanyafurika bakundaga umugabane wabo w'Africa, ariko uyu muryango wageze mu mabako yabayobozi bo mu karere k'ibiyaga bigari ...
Read More
Afurika Izahombera mw’Isibaniro by’Ibihangange ku Butaka Bwayo

Afurika Izahombera mw’Isibaniro by’Ibihangange ku Butaka Bwayo

Inkambi y’impunzi ya Kakuma muri Kenya Perezidansi ya Leta Zunze Ubumwe z’Amerika ejo yatangaje ko inyungu z’igihugu, zaba iza politiki, umutekano cyangwa mu bukungu, zigomba kuza mbere muri gahunda y’ubutwererane n’umugabane w’Afurika. More »

Umutima w’umuntu wibagiriwe mu ndege watumye isiba urugendo

Umutima w’umuntu wibagiriwe mu ndege watumye isiba urugendo

Indege yo muri Amerika yarivuye Seattle igiye Dallas vyabaye ngombwa ko isubira inyuma yarimaze amasaha ihagurutse kuberako hari umutima w’umuntu wibagiriwe muriyo. More »

 

Beyond the Failed “Two-State Solution” by Guy Millière

  • “No one should be telling Israel that it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away… When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one… There is no moral equivalency. Israel does not name public squares after terrorists.” — Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump, March 21, 2016.

  • Many Western leaders behave as if they genuinely want the destruction of Israel and the murder of Israeli Jews. They have Jewish blood on their hands and many skeletons in their closet.
  • In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO leader, said bluntly that the Palestinian people were invented for political purposes.
  • During the British Mandate (1922-1948) the Arabs never used the word “Palestine,” and called the area a “province of Damascus”.
  • For 19 years (1948-1967), the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt, and Judea and Samaria were occupied by Jordan. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never said that Egypt and Jordan were “occupying powers,” and never described the Gaza Strip and Judea-Samaria as “Palestinian”.
  • The failed two-state model could be replaced by alternative solutions requiring the dismantling of Palestinian Authority and its replacement by something infinitely better for Israel and the Arab population of the area.

The “peace conference” held in Paris on January 15, 2017 was supposed to be a continuation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (voted on December 23, 2016), and John Kerry’s speech five days later. It was supposed to isolate Israel even further and provide a new step towards the declaration of a “Palestinian State”. It was a total washout. The final declaration, prepared in advance, was not ratified, and the resolution published at the end was so watered down it was meaningless. The United Kingdom’s representatives refused to sign it. US Secretary of State John Kerry chose to remain silent. French President François Hollande delivered a speech full of empty words, praising resolution 2334 and desperately stressing the need to “save the two-state solution”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the conference as the “death throes of yesterday’s world”. He may be right.

The Obama years are gone. The Trump years will be different. US President Donald J. Trump stated on March 21, 2016:

“No one should be telling Israel that it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away… When I become president, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will end on day one… There is no moral equivalency. Israel does not name public squares after terrorists.”

The Republican Party platform adopted on July 12, 2016 went in the same direction, clearly stated an opposition to “any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms”, and called for “the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so”. It added that the Republican Party is “proud to stand with Israel now and always”. It did not refer to the “two-state solution”.

One of Donald Trump’s first decisions was the appointment of David Friedman as US Ambassador to Israel. Friedman has said often that he wanted the US Embassy in Israel to be located in Jerusalem, and regarded the two-state solution as a “dangerous illusion.”

The two-state solution is much worse than a dangerous illusion. It places on the same level a democratic state and a rogue entity that glorifies terrorism and uses its media and schoolbooks to incite hatred and the murder of Jews. The two-state solution does not demand that the Palestinian Authority (PA) change its behavior; it therefore endorses what the PA does.

The two-state solution is also based on falsehood. It claims the rights of a “Palestinian people” that does not exist. In 1977, Zuheir Mohsen, a PLO leader, said bluntly that the Palestinian people were invented for political purposes. More recently, Mahmoud Abbas described Jordanian and Palestinian Arabs as “one people living in two states.”

The two-state solution invokes “Palestinian territories” that also do not exist. There has never been an Arab or Muslim “Palestinian State.” Palestine is a name the Romans gave to Judea in the land of Israel in the Second Century AD, after they crushed a Jewish revolt and were already then trying to negate a Jewish presence. Since then, the region has never enjoyed any autonomy. During the British Mandate (1922-1948), the Arabs never used the word “Palestine” and called the area Balad esh-Sham (province of Damascus). For 19 years (1948-1967), the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt, and Judea and Samaria were occupied by Jordan. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) never said that Egypt and Jordan were “occupying powers,” and never described the Gaza Strip and Judea-Samaria as “Palestinian”.

Israel ceded to international pressure by agreeing to recognize the PLO as an interlocutor and, at the time of the Oslo Accords, entering into a hollow “peace process.” The “two-state solution” became the basis for subsequent negotiations.

The price paid by Israel and the Israeli people quickly became extremely high. After the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority launched a far greater number of bloody attacks against Israel.

Only the construction of the security barrier (2003-5) ended the carnage. About 500 suicide bombings and other assaults took place between 1994 and 2002. More than one thousand Israelis lost their lives. Many more were wounded or maimed.

The PA obstinately refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, which means it never recognized Israel. It never gave up demanding the return of “refugees”: 500,000 people who left Israel in 1948, when the Arab countries launched a war of extermination against the Jewish state, most of them with no roots in the Israeli land. They became the only refugees in the world who are denied the right of resettlement. A few thousand are still alive, but most of today’s so-called “Palestinian refugees” were not born on Israeli soil, have never set foot in Israel and know nothing about the country to which they are supposed to want to “return”, despite what Palestinian propaganda told them. They now number more than six million. It is not hard to guess what their “return” would mean.

All peace proposals made by Israeli leaders were rejected by Palestinian leaders, without even a counter-offer.

Anyone who pays attention to the Palestinian media knows why: when speaking Arabic, Palestinian leaders say that “Palestine” will go from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea. Israel does not exist either on Palestinian maps or on the Palestinian Authority logo. The PA is supposedly non-religious, but Palestinian TV teaches jihad to children, and encourage them to “shoot Jews” because it is pleasing to Allah. Palestinian imams at public events explain that the Palestinian “war with the descendants of the apes and pigs [i.e., Jews] is a war of religion and faith,” and add that all “Palestine” is a part of dar al-islam and is to remain “under Islamic dominion forever.” Denial of Jewish history in Jerusalem and in the land of Israel has always been a central component of PA propaganda.

Many Israelis desperately continue to believe that peace with Palestinian Authority is possible. But more than half the Israeli population no longer entertains that illusion.

For decades, many Western leaders have relentlessly demanded more concessions from Israel, and have spoken and acted as if they did not know what the Palestinian Authority really is and what Palestinian leaders really want. They have been accomplices and liars. They behave as if they genuinely want the destruction of Israel and the murder of Israeli Jews. They have Jewish blood on their hands and many skeletons in their closet. They continue to finance Palestinian propaganda, Palestinian terrorists, and international and Palestinian NGOs that support the genocidal Palestinian agenda. They even gave money that was used to reward the murderers of Jews. Some of them seem to long for what Giulio Meotti calls a “new Shoah,” and seem disappointed that it has not yet occurred.

The Obama years were particularly horrendous. In his June 2009 Cairo speech, Barack Obama compared Israel, the only open and truly pluralistic county in the Middle East, to South Africa in the apartheid years and to the American South at the time of slavery. He repeatedly called for Israel’s return to “pre-1967 borders”, but never said that they were not borders, but merely the 1949 armistice lines. He used the term “resistance” to speak about Palestinian terrorism. He described settlements as the main obstacle to peace, thereby endorsing the Palestinian Authority’s desire for the ethnic cleansing of Jews. When he spoke of attacks on Israelis, he never explicitly condemned the attackers and never said they were Palestinians.

In his June 4, 2009, speech in Cairo, Barack Obama compared Israel, the only open and truly pluralistic county in the Middle East, to South Africa in the apartheid years. (Image source: White House)

The European Union and most European countries supported all the positions taken by Barack Obama.

Furious after the results of the January 15 conference, President François Hollande said he had to “send a warning” to the Trump Administration. Fortunately, a warning sent by a failed president in a country where nearly six hundred areas are no-go zones under the control Islamic “enforcers” control does not matter much.

On January 20, 2017, a new era began.

The acceptance of the Palestinian glorification of terrorism, the incitement to hatred and murder of Jews, the acceptance by Western leaders of the falsifications of history on which the Palestinian cause rests may also end.

In the early days of his term, still only in its third week, President Trump decided to halt U.S. funding to UN agencies and other international bodies that grant the Palestinian Authority full membership. He added that any organization “controlled or substantially influenced by any state that sponsors terrorism” will lose US aid. U.S. funding to the PA will certainly be curtailed soon. In a much-discussed statement, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, said that the construction of new settlements “may not be helpful”, but added immediately that the Trump administration “don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace”.

A “Trump effect” could lead to political change in Europe. More and more Europeans are tired of policies of appeasement and submission to Islam. Pro-Jewish and pro-Israel sentiments are rising in most European countries.

Sunni Arab countries still verbally support the Palestinian cause, but the rise of Iran in the Middle East and the stated ambitions of Tehran’s mullahs concern them more. If the United States becomes energy-independent, all oil-producing Muslim countries will also have other concerns than the Palestinian leaders’ demands.

In a recent article describing the “eight great powers of 2017”, Walter Russell Mead and Sean Keeley wrote: “Israel is a rising power with a growing impact on world affairs.” Israel is increasingly unwilling to submissively accept arbitrary decisions and pressures.

The recent solution offered by Daniel Pipes, “Israel wins, Palestinians lose”, could take shape.

The period of “the two-state solution” as the only solution is probably over. The period when the two-state solution could be imposed on Israel from outside also probably belongs to the past.

The failed two-state model could be replaced by alternative solutions requiring the dismantling of Palestinian Authority and its replacement by something infinitely better for Israel and the Arab population of the area.

“Terrorism is successful,” wrote Alan Dershowitz in 2003, ” when the international community gives in to the demands of terrorists.”

The leaders of the Palestinian Authority might learn the hard way that the time when terrorism works is over.

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

Bernie Sanders: Knave or Fool? by Alan M. Dershowitz

  • It is clear that if Corbyn were anti-black, anti-women, anti-Muslim or anti-gay, Sanders would not have campaigned for him…. Yet he is comfortable campaigning for Jeremy Corbyn who has made a career out of condemning Zionists by which he means Jews.

  • Those who consider themselves “progressives” – but who are actually repressives – tolerate anti-Semitism as long as it comes from those who espouse other views they approve of. This form of “identity politics” has forced artificial coalitions between causes that have nothing to do with each other except a hatred for those who are “privileged” because they are white, heterosexual, male and especially Jewish.
  • Sanders then had the “chutzpah” to condemn political groups on the right for being “intolerant” and “authoritarian,” without condemning the equally intolerant, authoritarian and often anti-Semitic, tendencies of the hard Left.

Shame on Bernie Sanders. He campaigned for the British anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn, who received millions of votes from British citizens who care more about their pocketbooks than about combatting anti-Semitism. As exit polls trickled in, Sanders tweeted: “I am delighted to see Labour do so well. I congratulate @jeremycorbyn for running a very effective campaign.” There is no doubt that Corbyn and his Labour Party are at the very least tolerant of anti-Semitic rhetoric, if not peddlers of it. (See my recent op-ed on the British Labour Party and Corbyn’s association with some of the most rancid anti-Semites.)

Sanders’s support for this anti-Jewish bigot reminds me of the Jews who supported Stalin despite his overt anti-Semitism because they supported his communist agenda. Those who tolerate anti-Semitism argue that it is a question of priorities but even so, history proves that Sanders has his priorities wrong. No decent person should ever, under any circumstances, campaign for an anti-Semite.

There are two reasons why Sanders would campaign for an anti-Semite: 1) he has allowed Corbyn’s socialism to blind him to his anti-Semitism; 2) he doesn’t care about Corbyn’s anti-Semitism because it is not important enough to him. This means that he is either a fool or a knave.

It is clear that if Corbyn were anti-black, anti-women, anti-Muslim or anti-gay, Sanders would not have campaigned for him. Does this make him a self-hating Jew? Or does he just not care about anti-Semitism? The answer to that question requires us to look broadly to trends among the hard left of which Sanders is a leader.

Increasingly, the “progressive wing” of the Democratic Party and other self-identifying “progressives,” subscribe to the pseudo-academic theory of intersectionality, which holds that all forms of social oppression are inexorably linked. This type of “ideological packaging” has become code for anti-American, anti-Western, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bigotry. Indeed, those who consider themselves “progressives” – but who are actually repressives – tolerate anti-Semitism as long as it comes from those who espouse other views they approve of. This form of “identity politics” has forced artificial coalitions between causes that have nothing to do with each other except a hatred for those who are “privileged” because they are white, heterosexual, male and especially Jewish.

It is against this backdrop that Sanders’s cozying up to bigots such as Corbyn can be understood. Throughout the presidential campaign and in its aftermath, Sanders has given a free pass to those who are anti-Israel – which is often a euphemism for anti-Jewish. Consider, for example Sanders’s appointments to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Platform Committee last summer. Seeking to satisfy his radical “Bernie or Bust” support base, Sanders appointed James Zogby and Cornell West – both of whom have peddled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories throughout their careers. Professor Cornell West – who was a Sanders surrogate on the campaign trail – has said that the crimes of the genocidal terrorist group Hamas “pale in the face of the US-supported Israeli slaughters of innocent civilians,” and is a strong advocate of trying to eradicate Israel through the vehicle a campaign of Boycott Divestment and Sanctions.

He has also repeatedly accused Israel of killing Palestinian babies – an allegation that echoes historic attacks on Jews for “blood libel.”

Mr. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute once described the motivations behind Israel’s interventions in Gaza as “putting the natives back in their place,” and has compared the “plight of Palestinians” to the experience of Jews during the Holocaust.

Moreover, Sanders’s endorsement for DNC Chair of Keith Ellison — who himself has a sordid history with anti-Semitism, stemming from his association with Louis Farrakhan, who publicly boasted about his own Jew-hatred – is yet another reflection of Sanders’s complicity in, and encouragement of, the oldest form of bigotry.

Finally, consider Sanders’s ardent support for Black Lives Matter, an organization that, while worthily “working for the validity of Black life” also, unfortunately, that has promoted anti-Semitism by singling out one country for condemnation in its “platform”: calling the Nation State of the Jewish People an “apartheid” and “genocidal” regime.

It is clear that Bernie Sanders does not care about anti-Semitism. Whatever his motivation may be – political, ideological or otherwise – it is never acceptable to support or campaign for an anti-Semite.

Sanders has also shown himself to be an ignoramus when it comes to understanding the Middle East, and has displayed his strong bias against Israel. This may be because he has surrounded himself with foreign policy “experts” who often (incorrectly) describe Israel as an apartheid state, and have (also incorrectly) repeatedly accused the IDF of committing war crimes. Sanders has clearly absorbed some of this rhetoric, as demonstrated in a series of infamous interviews during the campaign, in which he grossly overstated the number of Palestinian civilian deaths in Operation Protective Edge, and (again, incorrectly) accused Israel of using “disproportionate” force in response to Hamas’ rocket attacks.

Meanwhile, in a recent video marking the anniversary of the Six-Day War, Sanders said: “We are now in the 50th year of Israel’s occupation, an occupation which denies basic Palestinian rights while failing to deliver Israel real security.”

He then went on to decry the rise of worldwide political movements, which he described as “racist, intolerant and authoritarian in nature.” The irony is staggering. Sanders wandered into the morass of Mideast politics only to satisfy his hard-left supporters who think in absurdly counterfactual packages. He then had the “chutzpah” to condemn political groups on the right for being “intolerant” and “authoritarian,” without condemning the equally intolerant, authoritarian and often anti-Semitic, tendencies of the hard left. Sanders’s hypocrisy in this instance reflects a dangerous trend in our politics: a willingness to tolerate anti-Semitism and bigotry when it comes from one’s preferred side of the political spectrum.

This type of radical “intersectional” thinking was on full display in a bizarre column written by Roger Cohen for the New York Times:

“Elections take place in the real world; they often involve unpleasant choices. I dislike Corbyn’s anti-Americanism, his long flirtation with Hamas, his coterie’s clueless leftover Marxism and anti-Zionism, his NATO bashing, his unworkable tax-and-spend promises. He’s of that awful Cold War left that actually believed Soviet Moscow was probably not as bad as Washington.

Still, Corbyn would not do May’s shameful Trump-love thing. He would not succumb to the jingoistic anti-immigration talk of the Tories. After the terrorist attacks, he said ‘difficult conversations’ were needed with Saudi Arabia: Hallelujah! He would tackle rising inequality. He would seek a soft departure from the European Union keeping Britain as close to Europe as possible. His victory — still improbable — would constitute punishment of the Tories for the disaster of Brexit. Seldom would a political comeuppance be so merited.

That’s enough for me, just.”

Clearly this reasoning of “that’s enough for me” resonates with Bernie Sanders as well. Sanders was willing to campaign in the UK for the ostensibly unelectable Corbyn – who has called Hamas and Hezbollah “my friends” and has associated with Holocaust deniers and peddlers of blood libels against Jews – because he shares Corbyn’s socialist agenda.

Addressing Corbyn supporters at a campaign event, Sanders drew on parallels between their similar political agendas:

“What has impressed me – and there is a real similarity between what he has done and what I have done – he has taken on the establishment of the Labour party and gone to the grassroots. And he has tried to transform that party and take on a lot of establishment opposition. That is exactly what’s taking place in the United States and what I’m trying to do with the Democratic Party.

“So I applaud Corbyn for raising those issues, which I think are important for my country, for the UK and for every major country on earth.”

Like Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders positions himself as the socialist, anti-establishment warrior. It is difficult to imagine Bernie Sanders, however, campaigning for a socialist who did not like black people or who was against gay marriage. Yet he is comfortable campaigning for Jeremy Corbyn who has made a career out of condemning Zionists by which he means Jews.

Let’s be clear: Sanders’s attempt to downplay, ignore or deny that many of his supporters or associates are really anti-Semites should be disqualifying. Going forward, he will have to explain why a Jew is helping to elect a bigot with the views Corbyn holds about the Jewish people and their nation state. It can be assumed that either Sanders shares some of these views, or is indifferent to them. Shame on Bernie Sanders!

Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.”

Ben Rhodes’s Fiction Behind the “Iran Deal” by A.J. Caschetta

  • Rhodes even acknowledges that there is nothing “moderate” about Rouhani, Zarif or Khamenei.
  • The dates and facts conflicted with the narrative, so they were finessed, rewritten and sold to the public with different plot-lines and different themes. Outside Washington, D.C. this behavior is sometimes called lying.

  • At best Ben Rhodes is the author of a Pyrrhic victory, ensuring that the next president will face the same choice Obama faced but against an Iran armed with nuclear bombs.
  • This is what happens to foreign policy when it is entrusted to the unqualified and undereducated.

That the Obama administration’s Iran deal is a work of fiction has been known all along, but now Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, is taking credit as its author. In a long interview with New York Times reporter David Samuels on Sunday, the world learned that Rhodes is “the master shaper and retailer of Obama’s foreign policy narratives” who “strategized and ran the successful Iran-deal messaging campaign.” Samuels lauds Rhodes as “a storyteller who uses a writer’s tools to advance an agenda packaged as politics.”

Welcome to the post-modern techno-presidency where everything is a text, easily manipulated by skilled writers and disseminated in 140 or fewer characters. Don’t like the facts? Change the narrative. What really counts is “the optics.”

In the midst of his fawning profile, Samuels exposes a number of lies behind the Iran narrative, or rather quotes Rhodes himself doing so. For instance, the first outreach to Iran came 2012, not in 2013. I’d bet it came even earlier. Rhodes even acknowledges that there is nothing “moderate” about Iranian leaders Rouhani, Zarif or Khamenei. But these dates and facts conflicted with the narrative, so they were finessed, rewritten and sold to the public with different plot-lines and different themes. Outside Washington, D.C. this behavior is sometimes called lying.

The Rhodes narrative, at its core, is a simple tale in which a hero, armed with special skills and weapons, goes on a quest that requires a fight against the forces of evil. It incorporates elements of the ancient epic, the medieval romance and the eighteenth-century novel, with elements of drama splashed in here and there.

The hero, of course, is Rhodes’s real-life hero, Barack Obama (with whom he “mind melds,” as he apparently tells anyone who will listen). The hero’s special weapon is diplomacy — in the case of Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a.k.a., “Iran Deal.” But Rhodes himself is also the hero of his tale. As he tells Samuels in one particularly dewy-eyed moment: “I don’t know anymore where I begin and Obama ends.”

Barack Obama works on a speech with Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications. (Image source: Pete Souza/White House)

In his tale, Iran is recast into a moderate regime through the magic of fiction, while the new villains are all who oppose the JCPOA, recast into warmongers: Benjamin Netanyahu, Ted Cruz, the majority of Americans. As Samuels puts it: “Framing the deal as a choice between peace and war was Rhodes’s go-to move — and proved to be a winning argument.”

But it was not really a winning argument. Neither the American public nor Congress was persuaded, which is why Obama did not submit it as a treaty for Senate ratification. At best, Ben Rhodes is the author of a Pyrrhic victory ensuring that the 45th or 46th president will face the same choice Obama faced, but against an Iran armed with nuclear bombs. At worst, Rhodes is the author of a tragedy he does not understand.

Rhodes’s narrative is not even particularly good fiction. Mistaken identities, fudged timelines, villains in disguise, and a two-dimensional hero are clichés. But the quality of fiction does not matter as long as consumers line up to buy it. And this is where Rhodes truly excels, as a relatively shallow thinker, adroit mostly at influencing even shallower thinkers and hoodwinking people too busy to bother learning.

Rhodes is proud of the way he manipulates a gullible and hungry media comprised mostly of repeaters pretending to be reporters. From his White House “war room,” he and his assistant, Ned Price, reach out to their media “compadres” who are waiting by their iPhones, ready to transform the daily storytelling sessions into facts for the uninformed. Boasting that he “created an echo chamber,” and unable to conceal his contempt for the minions who amplify his fiction, Rhodes calls them “27 year olds who literally know nothing.” Enter the storyteller who provides them with lines. Samuels shows us he is in on the joke too, by pointing out that “Rhodes has become adept at ventriloquizing many people at once.”

In his daily conversation, Samuels tells us, Rhodes lumps together nearly everyone who came before Obama (Kissinger, Clinton, Bush, Gates, Panetta) as “the Blob” — the establishment that damaged the world so badly that only a magical hero can repair it. Rhodes tells Samuels that the “complete lack of governance in huge swaths of the Middle East, that is the project of the American establishment.” This is what happens to foreign policy when it is entrusted to the unqualified and undereducated.

In eight months, Ben Rhodes can get back to his former life — as he puts it, “drinking and smoking pot and hanging out in Central Park.” And presumably writing more fiction — this time perhaps the honest kind that does not pretend to be non-fiction. The entire world, except perhaps the world of fiction, will be better for it.

A.J. Caschetta is a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum.

BATATU (3) BAGOMBAGA KWICWA NA FPR KUGIRANGO IZARAMBE KU NGOMA.

Nkuko tubicyesha ikinyamakuru inyangenews.com,mubushakashakatsi iki kinyamakuru cyakoze,amakuru iki kinyamakuru gifite afite gihamya,n’uko fpr yagombaga kwica abantu batatu kugirango izarambe kubutegetsi.Umuhanuzi mukuru,Umuhanuzi,ikinege mu bana (5) ikabona intsinzi yo kuramba kubutegetsi.


Ariko uyu mugambi warabihishe kuko mu gihe bagombaga kwica aba bantu (3) nabo bari bamaze gukuramo ake karenge,fpr isigara irira mu myutsi,igihugu cy’Urwagasabo gitangukanye nibindi bihugu,ntabwo ar’igihugu cya demokarasi nk’uko ibindi bihugu bimeze,kubera ko icyo gihugu nyuma yuko abari ubwoko bahinduye nkaho batakiri ubwoko,Uwiteka Imana yahindukuriye abana b’inshoreke maze ibahindura ubwoko bwayo.

Ikaba ibafiteho umugambi udasanzwe,kuburyo nabari batar’ubwoko bazahinduka ubwoko kubwo kubana nabakiranutsi,niyompamvu mubuhanuzi havuga yuko abatari ubwoko bazahinduka ubwoko,mu gihe abari ubwoko bazacibwa imanzi mu kiganza kugirango barusheho kuba ubwoko nyabwo.

Amakuru avuga yuko muri 2002-2003 mbere yuko habaho amatora mu Rwanda,fpr yashakishije umwe mubavandimwe b’umwami-kazi Gicanda wishwe na Gen.Gatsinzi Marceli kumabwiriza ya perezida Paul Kagame waruyoboye ingabo zahoze ar’iza fpr nkotanyi,kuko bari baziranye mu mahugurwa ya CIA muri America aho bahuriye bagiye mu mahugurwa y’ubutasi,amakuru avuga yuko Gen.Gatsinzi nawe yahaye amabwiriza cpt.ufungiye Arusha kugirango yice Gicanda umwamikazi w’Urwanda,iyo ikaba imwe mu mpamvu Gatsinzi atigeze akurikiranwa n’inkiko kuko yakoze genocide ariko agakingirwa ikibaba kubw’inyungu za fpr.

Uyu mudamu mwene wabo n’umwamikazi gicanda yashakishijwe na fpr,kugirango atange amwe mu mabanga y’ubwami bw’Urwanda kuko yari yarerejwe abazimu b’Urwanda kugirango ababwire uko ibintu byifashe nikigomba gukorwa kugirango bahashye burundu ubwami bw’Urwanda butazasubira kungoma,ibyo byabereye murusengero rwayoborwaga na pastor Mugabo Juste ubu ukora muri RRA umurimo wogutwara imodoka aho batwaye uwo mudamu warurwaye abazimu nyuma yokwicwa kwa nyirabuja umwami-kazi Gicanda Rudahigwa.

Aba pastor bahamagawe kwirukana abo bazimu,bananiwe kumukiza kugirango abashe gutanga amakuru fpr yari ikineye,bari bamwemereye kumuha inzu,imodoka,namafaranga,akeneye ariko agatanga amakuru bakeneye yose,hamwe nubwo yararwaye abo bazimu,yabashije kubabwira ko igihe cyose bazaba batarica abantu(3) ubutegetsi bwabo butazaramba ahubwo ko bazabwamburwa bukabanyura mumyanya y’intoki.

Mu makuru mace fpr yabashije kumenya ni uko bagomgombaga kwica (1) Umuhanuzi mukuru,(2) Umuhanuzi,(3) umwana wavutse asa n’ikinege mu bana (5),

Uwo mwana yavukiye hanze y’Urwanda,akaba yaragiye guhwana na Nyina,ariko akaza kurusimbuka,ntapfe,fpr yashakishije abo bantu,dushingiye kumakuru duhabwa nabari bahari uwo mudamu werejwe abazimu uko yabitubwiye,kandi nyine abo bantu ngo bakomoka mu muryango wabakiranutsi uko niko abazimu bavugaga,bisobanura abarokore,niyompamvu leta ya fpr yikomye abarokore cyane ishakisha abo bantu batatu ariko ntibyabahira kuko Imana yahise ibakuru mu gihugu cy’Urwanda batwarwa mu mahanga,ndetse umwana w’Ikinege we,ubu amakuru atugeraho ari mubutayu aho arikwigishwa n’Uwiteka Imana uburyo azayobora igihugu nyuma yo gutahuka k’Umwami w’Urwanda uzacyura ubwami n’Umwami ubu bari mu mahanga,uwo mwana w’ikinege mu bana (5),akaba ariwe uzaba umwami nyuma y’uzasimbura umwami Kigeli wa V Ndahindurwa,uwo akazaba Umwami wa lll,akaba ariwe uzategekana n’Uwiteka Imana kugirango Imana isohoze amasezerano yabakiranutsi,usibye ko azategeka amasezerano yarasohoye ariko Atari muburyo buziguye.

Icyo gihe hazavuka abana bibigina,ndetse icyo gihe abana babakiranutsi bazahabwa ubwenge budasanzwe kuko ubwenge burangiye mu isi,bazahabwa ubwenge,ubuhanga,ubumenyi,ubukorikori,n’umwuka woguhanga,nagyo ng’uko uko niko ibintu bigiye kugenda,tukaba twiringiye yuko amasezerano y’Imana atazabura gusohora kubakiranutsi mwirinde rero kugirango ayo masezerano azabashe kubasohoraho kandi muzabashe kuyinjiramo.

Barasaba gusubizwa mu bihugu baturutsemo.

Amakuru aturuka mu mpunzi zo mukarere k’ibiyaga bigari,ziganjemo abakongoman bavuga ururimi rw’ikinyarwanda,hamwe nabanyarwanda by’umwihariko bo mu bwoko bw’Abatutsi,aravuga yuko nyuma yaho bakuriwe mu murwa mukuru wa Nairobi mu gihugu cya Kenya,bagatwarwa ahitwa Daabu,biravugwa ko,ubuzima bwabo butameze neza kuburyo abayandikishije nk’Abakongo ubu barimo basaba umuryango wabibumbye ishami rya HCR ko basubizwa mu gihugu baturutsemo cya Congo.


Ikinyamakuru inyangenewss.com cyifuje kumenya impamvu abanyarwanda bo mu bwoko bw’Abahutu bo batatwawe Iddaabu,umwe mubaduhaye amakuru utarashatse ko amazina ye ashyirwa ahagaragara kubera impamvu z’umutekano we,yatubwiye ko,abahutu bahunze cyera bo basigaye mu murwa wa Nairobi kuko bafatwa nk’Abene gihugu.

Twibutse yuko izo mpunzi zigizwe n’Abarundi, Abanyarwanda , Abacongoman yaba abavuga ikinyarwanda biyita abanyamurenge,ndetse nabakongo nyirizina,ikintu kibabaje kandi giteye agahinda,ubwo umuhanuzi Majeshi Leon yageraga mu gihugu cya Kenya.Yakiriwe nabacongomani bavuga ururimi rw’ikinyarwanda biyita abanyamurenge yabahanuriye yuko Uwiteka Imana avuze yuko,kubera bimakaje umuco w’ikinyoma muri 2014 ukuboko k’Uwiteka kuzaaremerera kubera kwijandika mubikorwa by’ubutasi aho bagambanira inzira karengane ziba zahunze ibihugu byazo.

Ubu buhanuzi twabushyize ahagaragara ariko ntabwo babyizeye kugeza ubwo byabasohoyeho,kubera kutumvira Imana ndetse no kugira inda nini ivanze n’ubusambo ndetse badatinya no kumena amaraso yabakiranutsi.Igihe cyaje kugera nyuma y’umwaka umwe ubuhanuzi busohotse iby’Uwiteka yavugiye mukanwa k’Umuhanuzi bibasohoraho.

Byabaye kubera gukururana kwa leta ya Kenya n’umuryango wabibumbye aho leta ya Kenya yashinjaga impunzi yuko zaba zifite uruhare kubikorwa by’iterabwoba bikomeje guteza umutekano mucye muri iyco gihugu,ariko na none bias nibyabaye uruhurirane rw’ibibazo kuko na leta y’uRwanda yari yasabye leta ya Kenya ko,impunzi zakwirukanwa mu murwa mukuru wa Nairobi kugirango abo yabuze izabashe kubabonera munkambi z’impunzi.

Nk’uko rero amakuru dufite abivuga,izo mpunzi zikomeje guhura nibibazo bikomeye aho baribwa n’amasazi yo mu bwoko bwa tsetse iki kikaba kimwe mubihano Uwiteka Imana ahanishije impunzi zo mukarere kubera kutumvira Imana nyamara birirwa basenga bavuga ko bakorera Imana.

Ubusabe bwabo kugez’ubu bikaba bitaramenyekana ko bizemerwa cyangwa butazemerwa,gusa uwashobora yakuramo ake karenge usibye bikigoranye kuko barinzwe n’ingabo zicyo gihugu bitoroshye kuva munkambi ngo bajye hanze yayo,nibahame hamwe bihane basenge Imana nyuma yokwihana no kwezwa wenda Uwiteka namara gucururuka azabagirira imbabazi yumve gusenga kwabo.

Tuboneyeho gusaba impunzi z’Abanyarwanda kwitandukanya nibikorwa bibi bidahesha Uwiteka icyubahiro cyane cyane ibikorwa byokugambanira bagenzi babo,mumenye neza ko,ni mukomeza ibyo bikorwa bigayitse muzagwa mubuhungiro kuko Uwiteka adashobora kwihanganira abiyitirira izina rye kandi ngo bongere bakore ibikorwa byo kugambanira bene data muri kristo Yesu.

inyangenewseditor@gmail.com

Page 375 of 403
1 373 374 375 376 377 403
Skip to toolbar