Gilad Atzmon
Gilad Atzmon's Blog

Despite relentless underhand efforts by Israeli operators in the UK and their close allies within the Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ network to block a panel event discussing ‘Jewishness, Zionism and Israel’ , the debate went ahead as scheduled yesterday.

It was a tremendous success. Speaking to a full hall, Alan Hart, Karl Sabbagh, Sameh Habeeb and myself elaborated on the meaning of ‘Jewishness’ and the essence of Zionism.

But we also tried to understand once and for all; why is it that some of the Jews who claim to be the most sincere ‘supporters of Palestine’ -- are always amongst the first to stifle debate on such crucial issues?

Six years ago, I was shocked to learn about the destructive impact of elements within the UK Jewish ‘anti Zionist’ network: at the time they were intent on burying ‘Deir Yassin Remembered’ (DYR), probably the most significant Nakba memorial group in the history of the Palestinian Solidarity Movement. Unfortunately, they succeeded-by putting into action the most repulsive Zionist tactics, the Jewish ‘anti Zionists’ did eventually manage to bring down DYR.

But in doing so, they also inflicted some serious damage on themselves. They were exposed for what they are -- a bunch of crypto Zionists. They smeared and defamed other activists; they lied, and they mounted pressure on Palestinian officials. They exposed the ugliest possible form of Zionist politics. I did not like what I saw and published a satirical exposé of their tactics which I titled “The Protocols of the Elders of London”.

Needless to say that my criticism was not welcome amongst UK Jewish ‘progressive’ leaders.

More »

John Pilger
New Statesman

Of all the recent revolts across the world, the most exciting is the insurrection of knowledge sparked by WikiLeaks. But even the liberal press is turning its back on Julian Assange.

As the United States and Britain look for an excuse to invade another oil-rich Arab country, the hypocrisy is familiar.

Colonel Gadaffi is "delusional" and "blood-drenched," while the authors of an invasion that killed a million Iraqis who have kidnapped and tortured in our name are entirely sane, never blood-drenched and once again the arbiters of "stability."

But something has changed.

Reality is no longer what the powerful say it is.

Of all the spectacular revolts across the world, the most exciting is the insurrection of knowledge sparked by WikiLeaks.

This is not a new idea.

In 1792 the revolutionary Tom Paine warned his readers in England that their government believed that "people must be hoodwinked and held in superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other."

Paine's The Rights Of Man was considered such a threat to elite control that a secret grand jury was ordered to charge him with "a dangerous and treasonable conspiracy."

Wisely, he sought refuge in France.

The ordeal and courage of Paine is cited by the Sydney Peace Foundation in its award of Australia's human rights Gold Medal to Julian Assange.

Like Paine, Assange is a maverick who serves no system and is threatened by a secret grand jury - a malicious device long abandoned in England but not in the United States.

If extradited to the US Assange is likely to disappear into the Kafkaesque world that produced the Guantanamo Bay nightmare, and now accuses Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks' alleged whistleblower, of a capital crime.

More »

Patrick O’Connor
WSWS

[The Prime Minister Julia Gillard travelled to Tarin Kowt in Uruzgan province in southern Afghanistan to visit Australian soldiers based there. (AdelaideNow, October 04, 2010)]

The Australian Labor government has seized on the death of Osama bin Laden on Sunday to again emphasise its commitment to the indefinite occupation of Afghanistan.

Having previously stated her intention to keep Australian troops fighting in the neo-colonial war for the next ten years, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has now declared that the “one message we should take from all of this [i.e., bin Laden’s killing] is persistence pays.”

Like their American counterparts, senior figures in the Australian political and media establishment have rushed to glorify the US military, while voicing their enthusiasm for the killing of the Al Qaeda leader.

The Labor government’s response was marked by an open contempt for any consideration of basic precepts of international law. Gillard was interviewed on ABC Radio yesterday and casually referred to bin Laden being “executed.”

While admitting that she was not privy to the details of the US operation, the prime minister condemned bin Laden for using his wife as a “human shield”—an allegation the White House has since admitted was false. “As I understand the report, it is said someone used a woman as a human shield,” Gillard declared. “Whoever did it is, obviously, what a huge moral wrong and what a despicable act.”

Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd was asked if the world was “now a safer place” and replied: “I think the core question is fulfilling our legal responsibilities, to bring to justice those who have committed acts of mass murder ... we have, therefore, together with our friends, partners and allies around the world, a legal obligation to bring such individuals to justice and his [bin Laden’s] case has taken nearly a decade.”

In reality, the Al Qaeda leader’s killing has nothing to do with “legal responsibilities” or delivering “justice” for the victims of his criminal activities. The US operation in Pakistan was a direct violation of international law—it is clear that the US special forces sent into bin Laden’s compound were on what has been described as a “kill mission.” The terrorist was not even armed when he was shot dead.

More »

David North
WSWS

Of all the images that have emerged from the morally unclean events of Sunday night, the most politically significant and, one has reason to believe, enduring will prove to be the official photograph, released by the White House, of President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and other high officials of the United States government seated together in the situation room as they witnessed the killing of Osama bin Laden and several other human beings, including one woman.

Normally, the witnesses to an execution are not photographed. But the White House clearly wanted this “historic moment” captured for posterity. The eyes of all the participants in this ghoulish tableau—with the exception of a military officer who is working his computer—are apparently focused on a television screen. Obama, leaning forward, is stone faced as he stares ahead. Gates wears the sour expression of a man who is too well acquainted with such operations. Hillary Clinton’s right hand is raised over her mouth, a gesture that betrays the horror of what is unfolding before her eyes.

After bin Laden had been liquidated, the White House and the media moved quickly to orchestrate the celebration of what was, in fact, an extra-legal state killing. The president chose the East Room to inform the nation, late Sunday night, of bin Laden’s death.

Obama, so desperately anxious to associate himself with the killing, no doubt believes that this is the “defining” event of his presidency. But what does this conception—so enthusiastically endorsed by the media—say about the political and moral condition of the government of the United States?

More »

Stephen Lendman

[This image may be a US government forgery.]

Corporate media manipulators love a big story they can hype, distort and falsify to attract large audiences, unaware they're getting managed news, not truth.

Moreover, the bigger the event, the worse the reporting, and no matter how often they're fooled, madding crowds rely on proved unreliable sources like US cable and broadcast TV, as well as corporate broadsheets and popular magazines publishing rubbish not fit to print.

After Obama's May day announcement, round-the-clock coverage now features "story one" ad nauseam, cheerleading the death of a dead man with no one allowed on to refute it. A previous article did, accessed through this link.

Separating fact from fiction, it explained:

(1) Significant facts from David Ray Griffin's important book titled, "Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?" In it, he provided objective and testimonial evidence of his December 2001 death, likely from kidney failure, not a special forces hit squad getting their man then or now.
(2) Forensic evidence that post-9/11 videos and audios were fake.
(3) Bin Laden's role as a CIA asset, as well as called "Enemy Number One," using him advantageously both ways.
(4) Also, reports of his 2001 hospitalizations in Pakistan and Dubai where (in July) the emirate's CIA station chief visited him in his hospital room. Why not if he was a valued asset, his likely status until his natural, not violent, death.

Nonetheless, Western politicians and media, notably America's, never miss a chance to report fiction, not fact, especially on headline news like bin Laden's death, a decade after it happened.

More »

Andrew Jeromski
The Fifth Dentist

We have seen the darkest of days.

We have seen our brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers poisoned by the very air they breathe. We have watched the rivers and lakes turn stagnant. We have seen the earth rise up beneath us and swallow our cities whole. We have run from the churning seas when they would wash us away like grains of sand. We have stood both as victims and as accomplices; we have shared the same fate as those who bear the greatest blame for the state of our world. We have all finally become equal.

If there ever was such a being as “God,” he has long since abandoned us to our fate.

My father used to say: “There is no glory in banging your head against the wall. You’ll find that your skull will always yield first.”

He was right.

At first, as people started to grasp what was happening, there was a great uproar.

“They are destroying the environment for the sake of greed,” was a commonly heard term on network news shows. “They,” of course, being big business.

There were oil spills, nuclear meltdowns and documented cases of companies brazenly dumping volatile chemicals into water supplies. There were cancer clusters, workers with more toxic chemicals in their bloodstream than would be found in a year’s supply of 10W-30 motor oil and the ever-present slick black marine life, covered in petroleum, desperately trying to survive in a world that humans were killing at an increasingly rapid pace.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Winston Churchill rightly explained that "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." He said it perhaps before television. For sure before 24-hour cable TV and modern technology instantly communicating globally.

It applies to Obama's latest lie, announced at 11:35PM EDT on bin Laden, saying:

"Tonight, I can report to the American people and to the world that the United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, and a terrorist who's responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent men, women, and children."

Highlighting 9/11, he painstakingly discussed everything but the truth. America's media repeated it. Celebratory crowds in front of the White House, in Times Square, and at "ground zero" cheered it past midnight, mindlessly believing a lie. More on that below.

On May 1, New York Times writers Peter Baker, Helene Cooper and Mark Mazzetti headlined, "Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama says", continuing calling him

"the mastermind of the most devastating attack on American soil in modern times and the most hunted man in the world," Obama announced his death Sunday night, declaring "justice has been done."

Cheerleading, not reporting, Baker, Cooper and Mazzetti called his demise

"a defining moment in the American-led fight against terrorism, a symbolic stroke affirming the relentlessness of the pursuit of those who attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001."

New Year's eve arrived early in America, celebrating a lie, the "bewildered herd" again seduced by presidential deception.

More »

Stephen Lendman

In 1980, pioneer trends strategist Gerald Celente founded The Trends Research Institute. He also authored Trends 2000 and publishes quarterly Trends Journal updates, providing timely, comprehensive, accurate business, economic, political, social, technology, and other forecasts on "over 300 different trend categories."

His "1st Great War of the 21st Century" was just released, a comprehensive analysis discussed below, including facts like "(o)nly 45.4 percent of Americans had jobs in 2010, the lowest rate since 1983 and down from a 49.3 percent in 2000. Last year, just 66.8 percent of American men had jobs, the lowest on record."

Because of high unemployment and rising prices, especially affecting food, energy and healthcare, "the natives were more than just restless, they were in revolt." No longer believing rosy scenarios, "they took to the streets and manned the barricades," more abroad than at home.

It fulfilled the beginning of a Trends Journal prediction: "Off With Their Heads 2.0," saying:

"As long as economies decline, unemployment rises, taxes are raised while services are cut, and those at the top get richer and ever more powerful, what happened in Tunisia" will spread globally.

Years from now, this tiny MENA nation (Middle East/North Africa) fired "the first real shot of 'The 1st Great War of the 21st Century' " over poverty and democratic reform, not religion. Except for an insurgency/now imperial war in Libya, popular uprisings then engulfed the entire region.

In fact, however, in 2010, public outrage erupted earlier in, and continued sporadically in Greece, France, Britain, Iceland, and elsewhere over bread and butter issues, the same ones affecting billions.

However, the common "recipe for social upheaval" exists globally, including poverty, unemployment, rising prices, high-level corruption, and unresponsive governance has billions around the world near the breaking point, even in America and Western democracies.

More »

Vitaly Bilan
New Eastern Outlook

We can, of course, find our own objective social and economic causes for any given process. Various analysts have already identified a great number for the so-called “Arab revolutions.” However, if we view the situation from a global standpoint, we see that the further things progress the clearer their anti-China bent becomes.

A new “Great Game”

Let’s start with a little history. The 20th century was an era of competition between the British and Russian Empires for control of Central Asia. Western historians know it as the Great Game. Tournament of Shadows was the term of choice in Russia under the light hand of the then Foreign Minister Count Nesselrode because matters never reached the point of direct military confrontation.

“Great Game” was popularized by the British author Richard Kipling in his novel Kim: “Now I shall go far and far into the North, playing the Great Game.” Times have now changed, however. If Kipling were alive today, he would probably say “East” instead of “North,” because the Anglo-Saxons’ chief geopolitical rival is China now, not Russia.

After all, in their enthusiasm for combating the Soviet Union and then in delight at their victory in the 1990s, the Americans missed China’s sprint from the Third World to superpowerdom. According to some forecasts, China could become the world leader in industrial production by 2015. Even before that—by 2012—the Chinese stock market will outstrip Wall Street and take the top spot in the world.

Incidentally, Beijing is also progressing ideologically. China currently is actually developing its own brand of “Eurasian” ideology that is gradually squeezing out communism, which is increasingly at odds with reality.

More »

Nil Nikandrov

As of today, Libyan security service seems successful at keeping M. Gadhafi safe amidst the West's air raids. Targeting him, NATO drones dropped “point strikes” which left schools, hospitals, and shopping malls in ruins, but Libya's defiant leader remained unharmed. The Libyan security service also manages to shield Gadhafi from the death squads sent by the CIA, MI6, Mossad, and BND which are literally rivaling over his head.

Following a series of consultations, Pentagon chief R. Gates and UK Secretary of State for Defence L. Fox synchronously expressed the view that any shelters from which Gadhafi might be exercising control over his army are legitimate targets. British Foreign Secretary William Hague supplied the underlying political philosophy of the hunt for Libya's leader by pledging to pursue it until Gadhafi bows to the Western coalition's demands. The message to be heard is: if he does not capitulate, there is going to be no mercy. By the way, Commander of Operation Unified Protector, Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard from Canada faced a media quiz with less determination: he maintained that the coalition was not trying to kill Gadhafi but simply bombed the destinations from which his orders to open fire on civilians might be coming. Gen. Bouchard did not elaborate any further, essentially limiting his statement to something like: war is war, and Gadhafi may be unlucky to get hit like anybody else.

More »

James Cogan
WSWS

Government officials and members of the media gather at the site
of a Nato missile strike that killed Gaddafi's youngest son and
three grandchildren and wounded friends and relatives. (Tripoli,
Libya on Saturday, April 30, 2011.) (AP)

The killing of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s youngest son and three grandchildren are political murders for which British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and US President Barack Obama are directly responsible. They sanctioned the missile attack on a private residence in Tripoli at which Gaddafi and members of his family had gathered on Saturday night. Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, 29, was the Libyan leader’s youngest son and a man who was not considered a member of the Libyan government. Gaddafi family friends have reported that the slain children were aged between 12 months and four-years-old.

Following the missile strike, the British commander of NATO’s military operation in Libya, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, issued a statement that was as perfunctory as it was deceitful: “We regret all loss of life, especially the innocent civilians being harmed as a result of the ongoing conflict.”

In an equally mendacious statement, Cameron sought to maintain the political fiction that the attack on the one-storey residence was permissible under the terms of UN Resolution 1973. The missile strike, he claimed, was aimed at “preventing a loss of life by targeting Gaddafi’s war-making machine. That is obviously tanks and guns and rocket launchers, but also command-and-control as well.”

Cameron, on the advice of his lawyers, referred to the private residence as a “command-and-control” centre in order to evade the charge that Muammar Gaddafi had been targeted by the missile strike. The targeting of a specific individual is an assassination and, even in war, may be defined as a criminal act. The attempt to kill Gaddafi, however, is taking place without either a declaration of war by the US and European powers against Libya, or even the invocation of the provisions of the War Powers Act by the Obama administration.

It is 35 years since the US Church Report disavowed assassination and revived the long-held position of the United States government, stretching back to the American Revolution, that it was not only a criminal and barbaric policy, but a reckless one that would legitimise every government seeking to assassinate the political leadership of rival states. After close to two decades of near continuous war to offset the economic and political decline of US imperialism, all such restraints and reservations have been repudiated.

More »

Stephen Lendman

A previous article discussed Al Jazeera's war on Gaddafi, accessed through this link.

Discussing its recent programming, it explained how compromised it's become. For example on Libya, it's been largely Western/Qatari propaganda, not legitimate news, information, and analysis.

It's Syria coverage has been similar, providing its host country regime friendly reporting. Qatar is part of the Washington-led NATO anti-Gaddafi coalition. Shamelessly, Al Jazeera News channel (JNC) is on board supporting it.

Like America's media and BBC, JNC's biased reporting got one of its prominent journalists to resign in late April - its Beirut chief and host of the popular Hiwar Muftuh (open dialogue) program, Ghassan Bin Jiddo.

According to the Lebanon newspaper, As-Safir, it was to protest its recent coverage of Arab uprisings, saying the broadcaster

"has abandoned professionalism and objectivity, turning from a media source into an operation room that incites and mobilizes. Ghassan Ben Jeddo believes JNC no longer pursues....independent and unbiased policies, and quite conversely, is in pursuit of a certain type of (policy) regarding the brewing uprisings in the region."

Professor AbuKhalil's Angry Arab News Service also expresses sharp criticism of Al Jazeera's less than credible reporting. He said Bin Jiddo resigned for the above reasons and because of the broadcaster's

"recent radical shift....in alliance with the Saudi-Israeli alliance in the Middle East....Ghassan belongs to the Arab nationalist mold and is a fierce supporter of resistance to Israel."

He had great influence at JNC, nearly became director-general before Waddah Khanfar got the job, so his resignation "will bring further embarrassment to the network."

AbuKhalil also said he's heard directly from others at Al Jazeera Arabic and English that "the majority are quite irate" about network coverage, especially on Bahrain, but also on Libya, Syria, and elsewhere, making all of its reporting suspect.

More »

Stephen Lendman

The Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations is a Beirut, Lebanon-based organization engaged in "strategic and futuristic studies on the Arab and Muslim worlds, (highlighting) the Palestinian issue."

In spring 2010, it published a Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group (BPAPPG) study, including the widespread detention of Palestinian children titled, "Under Occupation: A Report on the West Bank," discussed below.

Under military occupation, Palestinian children are treated like adults. Each year, about 700 are arrested, brutally interrogated, and prosecuted in military courts, denying them justice.

Since 2000 alone, over 7,000 have been brutalized. On January 31, 2011, 222 Palestinian children were imprisoned, 34 aged 12 - 15. Some at times are 10 or younger. At age 16, they're considered adults in violation of international law.

Israel, in fact, brazenly repudiates children's rights and welfare, treating them like adults, in violation of the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child, its Principle 1 saying:

"Every child, without exception whatsoever, shall be entitled to (fundamental human and civil) rights, without distinction or discrimination on account of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, whether of himself or of his family."

They're entitled to special protections and opportunities to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually, and socially in a healthy normal way under conditions of freedom and dignity - including their right to life, an adequate standard of living, healthcare, education, leisure, safety and peace, what Israel denied them for over four decades.

Instead, they're taken to military detention centers, harshly interrogated for days without access to lawyers or family members. In fact, parents and siblings rarely know where they're held or whether they're alive or dead.

Moreover, they're mistreated, beaten, terrorized, usually tortured, hooded, denied food and water for prolonged periods as well as access to toilets and washing facilities, exposed to extreme heat and cold, painfully shackled, and deprived of sleep for several days, often in the shabeh position.

It consists of hands and legs bound to a small chair, at times from behind to a pipe affixed to the wall, painfully slanted forward, hooded with a filthy sack, and played loud music nonstop through loudspeakers.

More »

Vera Macht
Gilad Atzmon's Blog

It always seems impossible until it's done ~ Nelson Mandela

Thursday evening I got the call. From Inge, my ISM colleague, who is still in Gaza. "Nasser's house was bombed," she just said. "The paramedics are evacuating the family now. I'll keep you updated.” It took about an hour before I knew that all are alive. One hour, in which the images were passing behind my eyes, the days we spent purchasing all vital things for the family, the bright eyes of the children, when they saw their new stuff, the hope we were able to give all of them. We, and all of you who have donated. The hope that Nasser's family equally gave to all of us. Hope that also at a place like Gaza, a place where misery is found everywhere you turn, that also there there is something you can make okay. "I have never seen them so happy", Inge had told me in our last conversation, when I asked her about the children. "They played outside, and looked forward to the new house. "Gaza is not the place for happy endings", I was once told by a friend from Gaza. Gaza is no place for happy endings, I had this sentence in my ears when I got the terrible news. Nasser's house was bombed. Four times. Four whole times. Everyone has survived, Inge told me after an eternal seeming hour, but little Maisa, 5 years old, and Ala, 10 years, had been buried under the rubble of the house. And with them everything we all had worked for for the past few months. For psychological support, the processing of the death of the mother, a stable livelihood, and above all – for a feeling of security. A little bit of childhood and joy amidst this hostile place. "Maisa was brave", said Inge. The small Maisa is always brave, and in her 5 years she has been through things you can’t get through at any age. Ala was in shock. Four bombs on a family house that is well known to the Israeli military. Such a blatant cruelty turns any sense of right and wrong in pain. Gaza is no place for a happy ending.

But all survived. Traumatized all over again, with a destroyed house, destroyed belongings, but all survived. And that means to look forward, over and over again. Gaza is not the place for a happy ending, we cannot and we aren’t allowed to give in to that. The psychological care will continue. We will build a new house, as planned. We will create a little happy end, also and especially in Gaza.

More »

Stephen Lendman

A previous article on Syria quoted Middle East analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, explaining Washington's longstanding plan to "creat(e) an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan."

He explained it also includes redrawing the Eurasian map, balkanizing or reconfiguring countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, perhaps Baltic states, the entire Persian Gulf, Syria, Lebanon, and, of course, Libya to assure Western control of its valued resources, besides already having created three Iraqs. The strategy involves "divid(ing) and conquer(ing to serve) Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region."

Currently it's playing out violently in Libya, addressed in numerous previous articles as Western intervention heads closer to invasion, knowing air strikes alone can't topple Gaddafi unless a "lucky" one kills him. It's a key administration goal despite official denials, while defending the right to bomb his compound having no other purpose than assassination.

Notably on April 26, Los Angeles Times writer David Cloud headlined, "NATO widens air war in Libya, targeting key sites in Tripoli," saying:

Predator drones are being used "to strike directly at the pillars of the regime, including (Gaddafi), in the heart of Tripoli," according to a senior NATO officer, explaining:

a shift, absolutely. We're picking up attacks on these command-and-control facilities. If (Gaddafi) happens to be in one of those buildings, all the better," stopping short of saying he, in fact, is the target.

More »

Ellen Brown
Web of Debt

“You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
Vice President Dick Cheney to former Treasury Secretary
Paul O’Neill, (A. Entous, Reuters, on AOL News 1/11/04)

“Deficit terrorists” are gutting governments and forcing the privatization of public assets, all in the name of “deficit reduction.” But deficits aren’t actually a bad thing. In today’s monetary scheme, in which most money comes from debt, debt and deficits are actually necessary to have a stable money supply. The public debt is the people’s money.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney famously said, "Deficits don't matter." A staunch Republican, he was arguing against raising taxes on the rich; but today Republicans seem to have forgotten this maxim. They are bent on stripping social programs, privatizing public assets, and gutting unions, all in the name of "deficit reduction."

Worse, Standard & Poor’s has now taken up the hatchet. Some bloggers are calling it blackmail. This private, for-profit rating agency, with a dubious track record of its own, is dictating government policy, threatening to downgrade the government’s long-held triple AAA credit rating if Congress fails to deal with its deficit in sufficiently draconian fashion. The threat is a real one, as we’ve seen with the devastating effects of downgrades in Greece, Ireland and other struggling countries. Lowered credit ratings force up interest rates and cripple national budgets.

The biggest threat to the dollar’s credit rating, however, may be the game of chicken being played with the federal debt ceiling. Nearly 70 percent of Americans are said to be in favor of a freeze on May 16, when the ceiling is due to be raised; and Tea Party-oriented politicians could go along with this scheme to please their constituents.

More »