Tuesday, May 31, 2016

The story of Greens politician Lee Rhiannon..!!

(2) Advocating Limited Tenure but still in politics for 2 decades!!!

As Lee had clear vision that she cannot totally control the party until she gets rid of her main rival and historical champion of environmental movement Ian Cohen, she invented another campaign in the lead up to pre-selection campaign to select the lead candidate for 2003 NSW Election. She was desperate to get rid of Ian Cohen to have absolute monopoly on the party. This is why between 2001-2003 Lee campaigned very hard to convince the party to introduce another amendment to the party constitution to enforce “limited tenure” for its politicians.

If amendment adopted, Ian Cohen will be barred automatically from running for re-election.

The campaign was very vicious. It risked dividing the party. She wrote countless articles, organised forums and toured the state to convince party members to accept the amendments.

What she suggested was that politicians became corrupt with power. To solve the issue, the party should limit the time politicians can serve in parliament to one term in the senate (or LC) and two terms in the parliament (or LA). By limiting the time in office, politicians will not gain much influence and could not build empire using their title. They will also know that whatever they do, they cannot serve more than one time (maximum 8 years).

The campaign built momentum, but most of the party members were not ready to enforce historical figures (Bob Brown, Ian Cohen....) into early retirement. Few inside the party knew the real agenda behind the suggested amendment.

For me, it was fair. I supported it in principle. But actually later on I opposed the agenda behind it. Lee was using argument of the need to stop building empire to build her own empire. That was not right.

Despite her high profile campaign, many time with leaks to media and other parties’ rivals, she failed to introduce the amendments before the pre-selection process started. Ian Cohen, and despite the bruises of the campaign, was determined to run in the election. He and his faction realised Lee’s real agenda of empire building. And they were determined to abort it. They were besieged, as Lee started to use abusive and humiliating phrases by accusing Ian and his faction of being not ready to share power. At some stage she accused them of standing against progressive changes.

Despite all these attempts, Lee and her faction failed to introduce these constitutional changes before the due date for pre-selection process. Another round of failed attempts to sideline Ian Cohen and his environmental faction.

All party members were waiting to see how Lee will react after her failed attempt. They were waiting to see if she will pursue the campaign to introduce Limited Tenure principle after Ian’s survival.

To the surprise of all, Lee totally abandoned the idea after her failure to introduce amendments to bar Ian’s re-election. Many thoughts that she will honour her principle of limited tenure and will self-impose the idea on her career. Many thought that she will retire after the end of her term in parliament on 2007.

Lee, who fought very hard to arguing that long-time in politics corrupts politicians and so there is desperate need to impose limited tenure, she refused to honour this commitment. Instead of retiring after serving 8 years in politics, she still serves in the parliament for two decades. And still seeking re-election for another 6 years.

How can Australians trust such politician that lied about almost everything, including stabbing her own party’s politicians in the back?!!!

Will you support such politician?

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Memoirs of a victim of Wahhabi violence

1) When security agencies siding with extremists!!!

After my recent bad experience with AFP, who conspired with the Lebanese authorities to ban me from entering that country, memories of early bad experiences with security agencies came flashing back.

Australians need to understand where all this radicalisation came from. In the next few weeks I will highlight my experience of the possible reasons.

On 21 August 2012, upon receiving a message of my friend Khaldoun, I shared a link on Facebook. The link was about the first Australian who had died in Syria fighting alongside terrorists. At the same time his supporters here in Australia (all extremists) were spreading lies and hailing him as a hero aid worker.

Within minutes of me posting the link calling this man for what he really was, a terrorist, I started receiving hundreds of abusing and threatening messages. At that time, we were amid council election and I was running for a spot on Auburn council. The other major parties were running Lebanese background locals as leading candidates. Both originally from Al Minieh in the north of Lebanon.

Surprisingly, I was the only person who was receiving abusive and threatening messages. Khaldoun, a well-known active community member, never received similar threats.

Once the threats become serious I reported them to Auburn police station. I was sure the police would take such threats seriously especially the death threats and the threats to kidnap and rape my children.

All these threats came after I “dared” criticise a well-known radical extremist. This whole saga was about terrorism links and radicalisation in our society.

Instead, every time I attended Auburn police station to report such threats I was treated with utter contempt.

On 27 August 2012 while walking along a main commercial strip in Auburn, I was surrounded by a group of extremists who blocked my path outside Al Bukhari bookstore. These individuals started shouting, pushing me and threatened to kill me. I didn’t want to escalate matters by calling on friends and supporters to come and assist me, instead I opted to take refuge into Auburn police station which was situated less than 50 metres away from where this serious altercation was taking place.

Again the police took my statement.

I thought this time it would be different since now the threats and abusive language had progressed into physical attacks. I decided to escalate the matter to someone higher than the police.

I collated all the statements I had given to the police, I attached the recording of one of the threatening messages and I wrote a detailed account of what was going on. I sent everything in an email addressed to both the NSW Minister for Police and my local Labor MP and minister for Internal Affairs.

Given the seriousness of all that happened I was convinced that I would promptly receive some kind of communication from either one or both these offices. To the surprise of my family and friends I heard nothing!

I decided to follow up with a phone call to my local MP’s office Jason Clare and the office of the Minister for Police. Both staff members who answered the phone suggested I go to my local police station. The staff member at Jason Clare’s office even volunteered to give me the number of the police hotline.

Still dumbfounded by the lack of support from authorities I started contacting several journalists with whom I had worked together in the past. Again I was surprised by the lack of interest in such a story especially when it had been all over the media about the death of the Australian terrorist.

The only journalist who was interested was Dan Box from The Australian.

After The Australian published “Syrian conflict fires local Muslim strife” (30 August 2012), things moved very quickly.

On the same day, 30 August, I received a phone call from Auburn police station asking for a meeting to discuss things. I was so angry and disappointed from both police station and the minster that I refused to meet with them. A friend at the station called again and urged me to come to a meeting. I agreed to meet with them at around 2 pm.

At the meeting there were three people: agent of Anti-terrorism task force, commander of Flemington Area Command and community liaison officer.

The polite atmosphere did not last long. Surprisingly, the agent from Anti-terrorism taskforce accused me of provoking the extremists with my comments about Mustapha Al Majzoub and my referral to him as terrorist. Following is what was said in that room between myself and the taskforce agent.

Jamal: but he is a terrorist.

Agent: how do you know that he is terrorist?

Jamal: from the reports on your desk

Agent: what? How do you know?

Jamal: so you and your minister think that I am an amateur activist who has no information or networks?

At this stage, the language of the debate had changed.

Agent: but we are concerned about your safety

Jamal: good, my safety does not mean that I should be silenced or my democratic rights violated. I have the right to express my thoughts freely and enjoy the safety and respect. If others do not like my comments or articles, they can resort to legal system, not to bullying and assaults.

Agent: but we are dealing with organised criminal networks.

Jamal: this is your job to insure safety and security among our society. If I can’t express my opinion then I might as well move to Saudi Arabia or Qatar. If my migration was about improving my financial situation only, I will be better off working in Saudi Arabia.

The meeting was concluded with the promise of action to end the campaign of threats and bullying against me.

I was asked by the anti-terror taskforce agent not to leak to the media about the details of this meeting. I assured the agent that this will remain between us as long as they would help improve the situation.

The meeting was the first serious meeting with some officials to communicate my concerns.

Surprisingly, following the meeting, I ceased to receive threats. No more sms, minimal Facebook abusive comments, no further phone calls and no more confrontations in the streets. Even on Election Day, we did not experience any serious incident.

Relating to AFP saga of conspiring with foreign power against well-respected community active member, the lack of police actions against extremists’ threats, assaults and violence have very serious meaning.

I hate to conclude that our security agencies directly or indirectly, actively or subtly publicly or secretly were responsible somehow of radicalisation reaching this serious level never seen in Australian history.

No clever person can be convinced that within less than 5 years, radicalisation in this country could have reached this level without the help or inaction by our authorities.

Authorities need to come and tell my family why they ignored our suffering for years.

It is still vivid in my mind the day I was accused of “asking for it”. It was my fault that extremists were threatening to kill me only for expressing an opinion (which turned out to be true anyway).

Despite all that has happened to me and my family, despite our authorities conspiring against me siding with the extremist, despite been let down by our security agencies, despite all this, I am still proud to be in the frontline of fighting against radicals.

In the next article: when authorities recognise and award extremists for spreading extremism...

Thursday, May 26, 2016

I do not support Syrian “revolution” and I vote

Mid September 2014 the media was overwhelmingly reporting about Australian Border Force (ABF) detaining senior extreme preacher in Australia. There is no doubt that many of Australian terrorists currently fighting in Syria is a direct and indirect result of the work of this preacher. Despite this, his brief detention and interrogation at the airport was reported with a language of deep surprise and condemnation even from very conservative Murdoch media.

The media was also quick to report on the Sydney young man who is suing the government for being detained at Sydney airport and prevented from flying overseas.

But surprisingly, there was no media coverage of detaining me for around 2 hours and the subsequent farce of AFP conspiring with foreign authorities to ban me from entering other countries.

The media was very interested in the fact that Australian security agencies were doing their job (incompletely) by interrogating very extreme preacher, who was then allowed to travel freely to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. But it did not interest them that a very well-known anti-extremism campaigner was detained at Melbourne airport and interrogated for possible links to ISIS and then was banned from entering other country under request from AFP.

The media was very outspoken that security agencies suspected that Al Qaeda supporter was interrogated at airport for possible links to terrorist organisations. But media was deadly silent and did not react when security agencies detained and interrogated (and then conspired with foreign authorities to restrict movement) very well-known anti-extremism campaigner for possible links to ISIS.

Media until now is deadly silent after we provided them with documents indicate strongly that AFP conspired against community leader and very well respected anti-extremism campaigner!!!

Not only this. Until now, I cannot find a solicitor to act on my behalf to sue the government and enforce them to release full documents. So far, I contacted 5 different solicitors; many of them are very vocal against authorities “violating” rights of known extremists/possible terrorists under the slogan of “defending civil liberties”. None of them agreed to represent me against AFP.

It is very clear the reason for all this. I am proud that I was against the so-called Syrian revolution form the beginning. And this is the real reason behind all this.

Immediately after the authorities started to talk about local terrorism related to Syrian “revolution”, I was contacted by ABC journalist. Immediately she said “you were right on every word you said for the last 4 years”.

This admission did not change much of rhetoric on Syrian “revolution”. The ABC until now still thinks and promotes that what is happening in Syria is revolution and not regime-change conspiracy using terrorist organisations.

While I will write later more extensively about the Syrian “revolution” and how Australian authorities and media risked to compromise our national security supporting this terrorist phenomenon. I want to send simple message here: I totally oppose Syrian “revolution” and I vote.

Wait for our documentary on the issue... Soon...

#AFP_Disclose_Documents

Friday, May 20, 2016

The story of Greens politician Lee Rhiannon..!!

(1): Early start

Many progressive or disgruntled voters are thinking to vote for the Greens in the next federal election this coming July, as they are so dissatisfied with the two major parties. They intend to do so based on progressive rhetoric of the Greens party for the last few years, especially when it comes to refugees rights, Palestinian rights, anti-war and public services and assets. What they do not realise that the Greens, while talking nice on many of these issues, but are totally agree in actions with the two major parties on these issues. Not only this. The Greens party in fact has more destructive attitude and agendas than the two major parties, but try to hide them behind progressive rhetoric.

One of the most controversial Greens politicians is Lee Rhiannon. She built an image totally opposite to its real personality and commitments (or lack of commitments).

In the next few weeks, I will record my personal experience with this opportunist politician. I will mention facts, dates, events, discussion exchanges and my own observation and assessment. The rest will lie in your hands for final decision if this politician deserves your vote in the coming election.

I joined the Greens late 2000, after becoming very angry form Labor under Kim Beazley’s leadership that showed no real opposition to destructive conservative agendas of John Howard. I was new to this country, after migrating from Jordan 4 years earlier.

Attending Greens events and meetings, there was one constant face I was seeing. And this person was always vocal on issues of social justice and equality. No matter the subject was, you cannot disagree with her. This was Lee Rhiannon, the MLC in NSW then.

She was very good organiser: she is everywhere, at all events, record details of everything and follows up on previous conversations. This is why she was successful in her empire-building inside the Greens and could sideline many of her rivals.

Immediately after few months of being active in Greens politics, I noticed the heavy division inside the party. Despite the popularity of Lee Rhiannon inside the party, but she could not overcome her weaknesses. The major weakness she has was that she is not real Greens. She was never in environmentalists business.

Lee Rhiannon was member of Stalinist party and had close relations within the former Soviet notorious secret intelligence KGP (as later become much known).

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Lee and her family became not only politically orphaned. But they also lost the platform they fought for decades. They were lost. This is why she started looking for another platform and another career. And she found this within the Greens party.

When I joined the party in 2000, the party was so small that they were struggling to continue party registration every year. The membership was very little. So they were desperate for any political activists to join. This is why Lee was welcomed.

Soon, she was successful in building her own faction inside the Greens: faction of ex-Stalinists who lost platform after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The other powerful faction was the faction of true environmentalists lead by Ian Cohen in NSW (and Bob Brown federally and in Tasmania). Ian Cohen, conservative but deeply honest and environmental-principled activist, was the first Greens to win a seat in NSW Legislative Council. He was historical figure for Greens movement in NSW (and the country). He was unopposed leader of NSW Greens party, until Lee Rhiannon appeared and joined the party.

The other faction was faction of extreme Zionists based around Eastern suburbs in Sydney. They always advocated that the Greens should focus solely on environmental issues and avoid any action about other social justice issues.

Lee Rhiannon and upon her joining the Greens, and because of her lack of environmental credential and expertise, started immediately advocating social justice issues. She wanted to gain a spot in NSW Legislative Council. This is why she devised, adopted and advocated phenomena of “Affirmative Action” as form of positive discrimination action to increase the representation of “marginalised groups” in the society. And because she does not fit any true marginalised group, she convinced the party that the main marginalised group that is underrepresented in our decision making bodies are “the women”.

Her strategy was simple and clear. She is woman and she will be benefited from any positive discrimination act to promote women to the parliament. Her appeal was easy to convince the party. At the end of the day, it was a party with no deep understanding of any social justice issue. Party that focuses on environment, and lack any understanding of socio-economical inequalities and marginalisation.

As a champion of the newly introduced regulation in the constitution, Lee won nomination to lead the ticket of candidates for the 1999 NSW state election. And she won a seat in LC. Lee knows very well that despite the fact that she lead a campaign on social justice issues to win her nomination, she actually won her seat on environmental issues and she was elected by environmental voters. She won only around 2% of NSW voters.

Lee Rhiannon realised her weakness: Greens party was true environmental party with no commitments and no literature about social justice issues.

To survive this weakness and to build empire inside the party, she needed to destabilise the powerful environmental faction under the leadership of Ian Cohen. She could achieve small fraction of this by introducing to the party’s constitution the principle of “Affirmative Action”. That was tiny victory that did not affect the popularity of rival faction. On the contrary. The rival faction welcomed this amendment and embraced it quickly, especially that the women were already heavily represented inside the party at all level. The issue was just a platform for Lee to win prominence and exploit the amendment for her own agenda.

This is why she started to invent campaigns that mainly target rival factions within the Greens, instead of targeting the rival political parties.

Friday, May 13, 2016

Now they want to topple Albanese: do not be deceived by the Greens

I joined the Greens in late 2000, just before the 2001 Federal election, and in no time I surprisingly had become their spokesperson and delegate for national and state councils. I was also in charge of committees to draw policies.

I soon discovered the reason behind my super quick advancement in the party.

The Greens party was and still is at present day, the most racist party in Australia when it comes to internal multiculturalism. This is the reason why my career advanced so quickly, the Greens wanted to “use my face and name” so that they would be seen multicultural and at the same time cover their racist culture.

After years inside the Greens, I came to understand that all their official talk about progressiveness and commitments were just mere talks only to achieve one goal: power grab only.

The reason I joined the Greens was to achieve socio-economic structural changes to our society. I joined because I believed their slogans of “clean politics” and “alternative voice” which Greens held high at all their rallies, meetings and forums. Sadly, within a few years, I discovered the true nature of this party.

Many other genuine progressive activists who joined the Greens for the same reason I did, soon came to the same conclusion:

The party was saying something and practicing the opposite.

The party that was calling for the abolishment of mandatory detention system, has in reality no commitment towards the suffering of refugees. Up until 2004, ALL Greens politicians admitted to me they never met any asylum seeker who had come by boat. They never visited detention centres. Basically the Greens were commenting on high-profile matters without even having a clear understanding of the issue. All they knew was that by commenting on such matters they would get more media coverage and gain more votes.

During rallies and elections forums they voiced their opposition to Israeli occupation of Palestine. Yet up until 2005 they did not have an official policy on the matter. I was actually shocked when Senator Kerry Nettle admitted to me after her win in 2001 that she never heard about Palestine and knew nothing about the issue. She asked me to provide her with literature about the conflict to educate her and her staff about it.

On school funding the Greens official policy is to fund only public schools, however they quickly came to the defence and rather loudly demanded that the government continue the funding of a private Islamic extremist school. At the end of the day the Greens basically endorsed wasting our public money on private schools.

The Greens never had a policy on Multiculturalism prior to me working with them. After much pressure from my side the policy was adopted around 2005. But the Greens hierarchy refused to honour this policy and did not implement any item on its agenda. Until now, the non-English speaking representation in key positions is close to Nil.
My time with the Greens was very disappointing and disheartening by the end. It was actually a bit of a shock to discover that while the official talk was to work in achieving socio-economic changes, the reality instead was “how to win more votes”. There was at no time any real evaluation of what was or could have been achieved.

The Greens repeated attempts to make deals with the right-wing Liberal party controlled by neo-liberal elements was the final straw for me and in 2006 I resigned.
So much for all the talk on “clean politics” and being a progressive party!

Here we have a party that embraces and encourages democracy whilst at the same time makes deals with a right-wing government in order to suffocate that same democracy by changing the senate voting system.

The Greens are also negotiating intensively with the conservative Liberal party to swap preference. This will enable the current government to stay in power for another term and allow the same conservative agenda of attacking our Medicare, tertiary education, Welfare system and humanitarian intake.

“Actions speak louder than words” is the perfect quote for the Greens party.
The Greens have made a lot of noise on “clean politics”, “socio-economic changes”, “refugees rights”, “public money for public services” and “progressive politics”.
But in reality, the actions and achievements are completely the opposite.

In order to stay in power, they would rather see Tony Abbott as PM.
They also wish to see a continuation of “boat people” suffering, more cuts to our public education and health. All this for one reason: the Greens survive on the failures of others.
The Greens have never achieved any progressive change in our society even after years of been part of the government.

The Greens Don Quixotic approach wants to hide their failure in achieving any real progressive change by hiding behind more rhetoric. The attack on Anthony Albanese is a clear example. The Greens want to silence and get rid of one of the most progressive Labor politicians.

The Greens party is a power thirsty party with no commitment to any noble goal. This is why after 40 years in political life; they achieved very little. And this is why I left the Greens.

I cannot endorse voting for Labor, on moral grounds. But definitely, I want to see that Albanese stays in parliament fighting for socio-economic changes that his Greens opponents never fought for.

Sunday, May 08, 2016

Our government’s “war on radicalisation”: reality vs joke!!!

In the last two years (yes, only 2), our authorities declared war on “radicalisation and extremism”, or at least that’s what they wanted us to think.

What we’ve seen so far is lots of noise threatening to crack down on extremists and making a few arrests. Also more than $1 billion of extra funding has been given to security agencies and community programs but so far the only results we can see is that extremism has increased while civil liberties have been taken away from people who are fighting the very extremists the government says it’s fighting!

After two years our government and authorities should prove to us that they are serious in tackling terrorism by showing us beyond doubt what they have achieved so far.

Well, I can easily claim beyond doubt that our government was never serious in fighting extremism and radicalisation. This is very clear since there has been no degree of de-radicalisation.

A few arrests here and there of a few teenagers allegedly plotting some kind of terrorist activities is not what I call a result. Meanwhile extremism among some parts of the community is very high and extremist centres are still allowed to continue preaching hatred.

I need some answers to convince me that authorities are serious in fighting extremism and radicalisation. Below are some of my observations:
- Security agencies were actively engaging and consulting extremist who were at the very source of radicalisation (Muslim leaders and organisations), and totally ignoring the real anti-extremist in the community.
- Funding for community programs aimed to reduce radicalisation was granted mainly to extremist organisations. Instead organisations that had a solid track in fighting extremism were never successful in securing such funds. For example, our organisation known to be in the frontline of the fight against extremism since 2008, was refused $25,000 in funding.
Organisations such as LMA are instead granted millions of dollars every year when in reality they have been the very cause of extremism.
Proof of this is the revelation that the latest teenager who was plotting the next terror attack was actually in a de-radicalisation program.
- In Australia we have 4 Muftis (all of them have limited representation among Muslims), the authorities chose to recognise and promote the most extremist of all. The authorities were in fact sidelining the other more moderate ones.
- Authorities were actively sabotaging anti-terrorism initiatives related to Syria, while allowing so far around 400 Australian extremist to travel and fight in Syria alongside ISIS and other terrorist organisations.
We need to know how our authorities are failing so miserably in the fight against extremism. How is it possible that great numbers of extremists were able to leave Australia to join terror groups overseas while anti extremist activist who wanted to travel on peace missions were stopped. I for one was even banned from entering Lebanon thanks to forged documents sent by Australian authorities,
- The arrest and deportation of a known peace activists (NZ citizen Warren Marriner, as a clear example) while outrageously allowing free movement of extremists between Australia and Syria (authorities admitted that 60 Australian terrorists had returned to Australia after fighting in Syria).

What I mentioned above are not allegations or theories. They are facts and we are working on documenting them.
But even without these facts anyone can easily see that Australia has a big problem with high radicalisation and extremism.
All the facts outlined below are evidence that our authorities are not serious in fighting extremism and radicalisation:
- The constant interception of youth trying to travel to Syria to join terrorist.
- The incessant reports of radical violence in schools.
- The repeat attacks on anti-extremism campaigners.
- The ongoing fundraising events to support terrorist organisations.
- The re-appearance of radical groups such as Al Risalah bookstore for example.

With all the facts I have outlined, we can only come to one sad conclusion: our authorities are on the side of the extremists!
We cannot expect our levels of radicalisation and extremism to come down unless the following measures are taken:
1. Closing down dozen of mosques and religious centres run by extremist.
2. Start consultation with the real anti extremist members of the community and halt all talks with known extremist community/religious leaders.
3. Stop the funding from Gulf countries (mostly Saudi Arabia) to Australian Islamic schools and religious centres.

If these measures are not taken soon, the government and the security agencies will lose the trust of the Australian people.

We can send a strong message to our government with the upcoming elections.

“You will not get our votes until you act on radicalisation and restore public faith in our security agencies.”

Friday, May 06, 2016

Why AFP refused my FOI application...!!!

The AFP refusal to release a document they provided to the Australian embassy in Lebanon on 4 November 2015 about an AFP investigation which lead to my ban from entering Lebanon, raises very serious questions:

1- Why has the AFP chosen to convey this document to Lebanon only?
If I’m allegedly under investigation for serious matters, why did the AFP not notify other agencies such Interpol and asked other countries to refuse my entry? If I am too “dangerous” to enter Lebanon, would I not be “dangerous” entering Jordan or Egypt?
2- Why did the AFP let me leave Australia knowing very well that I would be stopped in Lebanon? Clearly my travel documents stated where I was going. If AFP already knew about the ban initiated by their agency, why make me go through the great effort in travelling all the way to that country to just get refused? This little petty game played by AFP caused me extensive financial losses.
3- I have never been subject to any AFP investigation. AFP is merely lying...
4- Was it an AFP initiative to provide false information to the Lebanese authorities or the request came from higher? Was AFP pressured by elements in our government? Could it be they acted upon request of some politicians who have been embarrassed by my work on radicalisation and Syrian crisis?
5- Why is the media deadly silent on this gross abuse of power by AFP who is targeting a respected member of society only because of his political view?

We will start a public campaign on “political targeting” using police state powers. We will make this an issue of public interest during this election’s campaign. In the meantime we are getting legal advice in Australia and we are also waiting on a deliberation from the Lebanese Supreme Court to release the document.

I contacted my local MP Jason Clare, who declined to help. I also contacted the PM office and the office of Craig Lundy, MP for Reid. All declined to meet me and help clarify this issue. I understand this is a result of their political views in support of the Syrian “revolution” that is in odd with my views on this “revolution”. Again this will be highlighted in our campaign in the next federal election. We will ask voters to vote away from these politicians who conspire with foreign powers against respected member of their local community.

I am deeply disappointed that the dozens of journalists who worked with me and my group for the last few years on the issues of radicalisation are now hesitant to cooperate with me on these highly important issues.

I am in the process of assessing our level of cooperation with these journalists in the future, especially now that we are expecting good news from Syria. This news will enable us to lead a major project in Syria that will have a great public impact in Australia. In light of the above, we are assessing and will decide which media outlet will get the right to cover our upcoming project.