Obama Fuzzed Up Reality in Speech
By David Swanson
Editor’s Note: There were some head-scratching moments in Barack Obama’s speech to the Muslim world, like when the President claimed that American blacks overcame slavery and segregation without the need for violence (there was, however, that event called the Civil War in which black regiments played an important part).
There was also the condemnation of small Hamas rockets threatening children in southern Israel, when he and various predecessors have fired remote-controlled missiles which have had far more deadly consequences for Afghan and other children. In this guest essay, David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org looks at other anomalies:
President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo probably did a world of good. It was packed with noble sentiments and some truth-telling. But imagine how much more good would be done if all the best parts of it corresponded to reality.
If we treated people around the world with "respect," would we continue occupying their nations against their adamant desires?
If we truly "seek no military bases" in Afghanistan, why are we building them on such massive scale?
And why are we locking up hundreds of people there whom Obama hopes to keep outside the rule of law and never bring to trial (or at least he's fighting for that power in court and recently declared that he possessed it), people who will not all die any time soon?
If we respect the Iraqi people, why must our president tell them they are better off now? Why not ask them whether they think they are better off?
If we have a "dual responsibility" to help Iraq and to leave Iraq, is it relevant that the people of Iraq reject that idea, and that we would reject it if imposed on our own nation by another?
If we "pursue no bases" in Iraq and will remove "combat brigades by next August" and will "remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July" and "remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012," why are we renaming troops "non-combat troops", why are we redrawing city boundaries to avoid withdrawing, why are we in fact creating exceptions in order to remain in cities?
And why do the Commander in Chief's immediate subordinates keep telling reporters that the United States will never leave Iraq?
If we were "respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law," would we occupy other nations, would we use preventive detention, would we decline to prosecute torturers, assassins, and war criminals, would we object to Iran's possible future nuclear power while refusing to acknowledge that of Israel?
If we do not "accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," why do we fund them, and why do we accept every existing one?
If we respected the people of Gaza, wouldn't our president accept an invitation to visit there and acknowledge the responsibility of having paid for the weapons that caused the destruction?
Imagine if we truly supported "governments that reflect the will of the people." Does the king of Saudi Arabia reflect the will of his people better than Hamas reflects the will of their people?
And what about here at home? If the will of the American people were at all relevant, we'd end the wars, end the super-militarism, close bases, fund schools and green energy, throw corporations out of government, create single-payer healthcare, pass the Employee Free Choice Act, and so forth.
I'm not blaming Obama for the Senate, but the idea that our own government reflects the basic will of its people is absurd.
The speech, of course, was better than I've made it sound. It's good for Obama to have said we don't want bases and that we'll leave.
That's better than had he not said those things. It's tremendous for him to have acknowledged our overthrow of Iran's democratically elected president. It's important that he acknowledged the good and the admirable in Muslim culture.
But I do wish his interfaith closing had not kicked sand in the teeth of those of us who are not religious, and I wish the best of what he said were being acted on rather than spoken about.
David Swanson is the author of the upcoming book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can pre-order it for a discount price at http://tinyurl.com/daybreakbook
Original article posted here.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Tide turning against Israel: EU may exert pressure on settlement
EU seeks to increase pressure on Israel for settlement freeze
The European Union is considering using its trade clout to bolster U.S. pressure for an Israeli freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank, diplomats said on Friday.
The EU is Israel's biggest trading partner and one option it may have is to crack down on fruit, vegetables, olive oil and other farm produce grown by settlers in the Palestinian territories.
Some European governments have long suspected such products are entering the EU at low import tariffs reserved for output labeled as coming from Israel proper.
Advertisement
Aside from the possibility of a concerted push to deny tariff concessions to settlement produce coming into the European Union, diplomats said EU nations also were looking at using economic and scientific research exchanges with Israel as an area where they could apply leverage on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In addition to being Israel's largest market for exports, the EU is its second largest source of imports after the United States.
But diplomats said Europe would follow Washington's lead. Concerted EU action will be difficult because of divisions within the bloc, so piecemeal steps are more likely, they added.
EU members have in recent months said that ties between the EU and Israel depend on the Israeli government's commitment to a two-state solution in the peace process with Palestinians.
Following the three-week-long Operation Cast Lead, diplomatic bodies in a number of European countries called for a freeze on upgrading relations with Israel, citing the pressure of domestic public opinion.
Original article posted here.
The European Union is considering using its trade clout to bolster U.S. pressure for an Israeli freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank, diplomats said on Friday.
The EU is Israel's biggest trading partner and one option it may have is to crack down on fruit, vegetables, olive oil and other farm produce grown by settlers in the Palestinian territories.
Some European governments have long suspected such products are entering the EU at low import tariffs reserved for output labeled as coming from Israel proper.
Advertisement
Aside from the possibility of a concerted push to deny tariff concessions to settlement produce coming into the European Union, diplomats said EU nations also were looking at using economic and scientific research exchanges with Israel as an area where they could apply leverage on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In addition to being Israel's largest market for exports, the EU is its second largest source of imports after the United States.
But diplomats said Europe would follow Washington's lead. Concerted EU action will be difficult because of divisions within the bloc, so piecemeal steps are more likely, they added.
EU members have in recent months said that ties between the EU and Israel depend on the Israeli government's commitment to a two-state solution in the peace process with Palestinians.
Following the three-week-long Operation Cast Lead, diplomatic bodies in a number of European countries called for a freeze on upgrading relations with Israel, citing the pressure of domestic public opinion.
Original article posted here.
Friday, November 14, 2008
The never-ending legal charade of 9/11 insider Jacob Kobi Alexander
Namibia: High Court Rules in Alexander's Favour
Government has complied with the High Court ruling, in effect concurring with fugitive Jacob Kobi Alexander's legal team, that a chief of Lower Court is a public ser-vant and not a magi-strate, hence a person occupying that office could not hear cases such as Alexander's extradition case.
Cabinet has now instructed the Ministry of Justice to delete the definition of the chief of Lower Court in the Magistrate Act and substitute it with the proper definition and expressions.
Alexander, wanted in the United States to face 33 criminal charges consisting mostly of counts of fraud, has been fighting extradition to the US since his arrest in Windhoek in September 2006.
Alexander's legal team has to date mounted a successful legal fight, that has been characterised by legal delaying tactics as well as a challenge that parts of the Extradition Act are not constitutional.
The biggest challenge, however, was when Alexander's legal team protested that the Chief of Lower Court, Petrus Unengu, could not hear the extradition case because he is a public ser-vant and not a magistrate. The legal team wanted the case to appear before Uaatjo Uanavi, the magistrate before whom the case was first heard and who granted the N$10 million bail to Alexander in October 2006.
The legal team argued that as a public servant, the chief of Lower Court could neither be nor regarded as independent. The case went before the High Court that ruled in favour of Alexander. The High Court ruled that the concept of judicial independence stands on two inseparable pillars of individual independence and institutional independence, which as such means complete liberty of individual judges and magistrates to hear and decide the cases that come before them.
At its 20th ordinary meeting on October 28, Cabinet, in principle, permitted the Ministry of Justice to make the required amendments. The amendments are "so as to delete the definition of chief of Lower Court to define the expression chief magistrate, to provide for the administrative head of the magistracy, to substitute the expression chief magistrate for the expression chief of Lower Court, wherever it occurs in certain legislation and to provide for incidental matters," a statement from Cabinet said.
It is alleged Alexander committed fraud while he was Chief Executive Officer of the New York-based Comverse Technology, a software and system company he co-founded in the 1980s. Alexander is alleged to have profited illegally through illegal stock option backdating schemes, earning himself nearly US$10 million in profits.
Original article posted here.
Government has complied with the High Court ruling, in effect concurring with fugitive Jacob Kobi Alexander's legal team, that a chief of Lower Court is a public ser-vant and not a magi-strate, hence a person occupying that office could not hear cases such as Alexander's extradition case.
Cabinet has now instructed the Ministry of Justice to delete the definition of the chief of Lower Court in the Magistrate Act and substitute it with the proper definition and expressions.
Alexander, wanted in the United States to face 33 criminal charges consisting mostly of counts of fraud, has been fighting extradition to the US since his arrest in Windhoek in September 2006.
Alexander's legal team has to date mounted a successful legal fight, that has been characterised by legal delaying tactics as well as a challenge that parts of the Extradition Act are not constitutional.
The biggest challenge, however, was when Alexander's legal team protested that the Chief of Lower Court, Petrus Unengu, could not hear the extradition case because he is a public ser-vant and not a magistrate. The legal team wanted the case to appear before Uaatjo Uanavi, the magistrate before whom the case was first heard and who granted the N$10 million bail to Alexander in October 2006.
The legal team argued that as a public servant, the chief of Lower Court could neither be nor regarded as independent. The case went before the High Court that ruled in favour of Alexander. The High Court ruled that the concept of judicial independence stands on two inseparable pillars of individual independence and institutional independence, which as such means complete liberty of individual judges and magistrates to hear and decide the cases that come before them.
At its 20th ordinary meeting on October 28, Cabinet, in principle, permitted the Ministry of Justice to make the required amendments. The amendments are "so as to delete the definition of chief of Lower Court to define the expression chief magistrate, to provide for the administrative head of the magistracy, to substitute the expression chief magistrate for the expression chief of Lower Court, wherever it occurs in certain legislation and to provide for incidental matters," a statement from Cabinet said.
It is alleged Alexander committed fraud while he was Chief Executive Officer of the New York-based Comverse Technology, a software and system company he co-founded in the 1980s. Alexander is alleged to have profited illegally through illegal stock option backdating schemes, earning himself nearly US$10 million in profits.
Original article posted here.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Paul Craig Roberts has REALLY come a long way towards brilliance from his days as a Reagonite
From Off-Shore Drilling to the Georgian War
The Moronic Party
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
“Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.”
-- John Stuart Mill
Many years ago, during the 1970s if memory serves, neoconservative Irving Kristol, echoing John Stuart Mill, called his conservative party, the Republican Party, “the stupid party.”
Kristol was referring to the Republican’s inability to compete on the policy front. Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan led the Republicans out of the wilderness, but now Republicans have reverted to the stupid party, or more precisely the moronic party.
Take a minute to examine the presidential campaign propaganda that Republicans send around the Internet, and you will see what I mean. For example, recently while Obama was traveling abroad, showing himself to the remnant of our allies, Republican political operatives blitzed the Internet with the suggestion that Obama might not be an American citizen. Doubt was cast on either of his parents being American citizens. The message went on to suggest that Obama refused to produce his birth certificate. All the while, Obama was traveling abroad on a US passport, a document that cannot be obtained without a US birth certificate.
Considering that the Republican candidate, John McCain, was born in the Panama Canal Zone, only the GOP would be dumb enough to make an issue over whether the Democrats’ candidate was born in one of the 50 states.
The innuendo and negativism with which the Republicans are conducting their presidential campaign are unprecedented. There is no sign of issues in McCain’s Karl Rovian campaign. Issues have been superseded by hate, lies, and war.
Republicans stand for war without end, a police state to make us “safe,” and “energy independence,” which means drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve and offshore of Florida’s Gulf Coast beaches.
What Republicans really mean by “energy independence” is prevailing over environmentalists. Republicans lump environmentalists in the same category with abortionists, gays, feminists, food stamp recipients, trade unionists and terrorists. To a Republican, saving America means prevailing over these people.
The notion that Americans can achieve energy independence by drilling offshore wells and in the arctic is absurd. A number of experts have pointed out that the best data do not support any such possibility.
For example, Robert Kaufman at Boston University, citing US government data, reports that the US might have 40 billion barrels of oil in undeveloped reserves which are not off limits. Another 19 billion might be in off limit offshore sites and in the Arctic National Wildlife preserve.
All of this oil cannot be brought up at once, and apparently none before 2017. Bringing it all into production would, experts think, increase US oil production by 1-4 percent. In other words, nothing. Currently the US uses 21 million barrels a day, and the entire world uses 86 million barrels a day. At best, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge could by 2017 produce 1 million barrels a day, about one-twentieth of current US use and one-eighty-sixth of current world use.
This is not energy independence, and it would have no material effect on price. Indeed, the offshoring by US corporations of US jobs has a much greater effect on the dollar price of oil by inflating the US trade deficit and driving down the exchange value of the US dollar. But, of course, here we are talking about facts, and facts are of no interest to Republicans.
Republicans are interested in prevailing over the “bad guys.” The fact that the bad guys are Bush, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, Perle, Billy Kristol, and other such is beyond the Republicans’ imagination. Bad guys are “towel heads” with beards and robes and are “over there” where they must be killed before the come “over here.” The extent of the Republican intellect boils down to “over here” vs. “over there.”
The other great bugaboo of Republicans is “the liberal media.” Fox “News” has Republicans convinced that “the liberal media” is endangering America by siding with terrorists.
Clearly, Republicans never look at “the liberal media.” It was Judith Miller at the “liberal” New York Times who served up as fact all the neocon disinformation about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda connections. Without the New York Times leading the way, the neocons could never have pulled off their illegal invasions.
On July 18, 2008, the New York Times allowed the Israeli historian Benny Morris to spew lies about Iran that he used to justify an attack on that country possibly even involving nuclear weapons. This is the same New York Times that the idiot conservatives believe is part of “the liberal media.”
It was ABC News that served up the neocon disinformation that the anthrax had been traced to Saddam Hussein. And, today, August 9, 2008, as I write, it is the “liberal” Washington Post that has written an editorial urging the US to go to war with Russia.
With its editorial, “Stopping Russia: the US and its allies must unite against Moscow’s war on Georgia,” the Washington Post has established a world record for the maximum number of lies in the minimum number of words.
Except for the Washington Post, the entire world knows that Georgia (the birthplace of Joseph Stalin, not Georgia USA) initiated the aggression that killed Russian peacekeepers and hundreds of civilians in South Ossetia, peacekeepers who were there with the blessing of Georgia and international agreements.
The true facts are available all over the world press. But the “liberal” Washington Post serves up the lie that Russia has attacked Georgia and conceivably plans to conquer all of Georgia. “This is a grave challenge to the United States and Europe,” thunders the Bush Regime’s mouthpiece, aka, “the liberal media.”
Thirsting for blood, the “liberal media” declares: “The United States and its NATO allies must together impose a price on Russia.”
Here we see the combination of idiocy and delusion in one sentence. The United States has proved that it is incapable of occupying Iraq, much less Afghanistan. Russia has a large trade surplus. America’s NATO allies are dependent on Russian natural gas. Yet the “liberal” Washington Post wants a bankrupt US and “its NATO allies” who are dependent on Russian energy “to impose a price on Russia” for defending its peacekeepers!
Seldom has the world seen such total insanity as the neoconservative Washington Post, a propaganda sheet as far from “liberal media” is it is possible to be.
Georgia was part of Old Russia and the Soviet Union for two centuries. After Soviet communism collapsed, the US taxpayer funded neoconservative National Endowment for Democracy broke every agreement that President Reagan had made with Gorbachev and began using US taxpayers’ money to rig and purchase elections in former constituent parts of the Russian/Soviet empire.
The Endowment for Democracy purchased Georgia as a US colony. The affront to Russia was extreme, but at the time Russia was weak. Oligarchs with outside money had grabbed control over Russian resources, and Russia was in dire straits and could not resist American imperialism.
Putin corrected the situation for Russia.
Now using American weapons Georgia for reasons yet to be revealed has violated its own agreement with Russia and attacked South Ossetia, killing in the process Russian peacekeepers. Vladimir Vasilyev, chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee for Security told the press: “The things that were happening in Kosovo, the things that were happening in Iraq – we are now following the same path. The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America.”
Yes, without America there would be no war in Ossetia and no war between Russia and its former constituent part.
Without America there would be no war in Afghanistan. No war in Iraq.
Without America there would not be 1.2 million dead Iraqis and 4 million displaced Iraqis. We have no idea of the toll on Afghan civilians, although women and children appear to be the prime targets of the US/NATO forces that are “bringing peace and freedom to Afghanistan.”
Recently, US Secretary of State Condi Rice said that the US government could not prevent an Israeli attack on Iran. Israel is an independent country, said the American Secretary of State. What an extraordinary lie.
Israel cannot exist without American weapons and money. Israel cannot attack Iran without overflying Iraq, which the US air force can easily prevent. It is clear as day that the Bush Regime has given the green light to Israel to attack Iran so that the Bush Regime can rush to “Israel’s defense.”
Meanwhile the “liberal” media is urging the US to get involved in a war between Russia and Georgia. The insanity will lead to the unloosening of nuclear weapons.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
More on the Israeli Georgia connection
Israeli Arms Sales to Georgia |
| by Peter Hirschberg |
| JERUSALEM - With the eruption of fighting between Russia and Georgia, Israel has found itself in an awkward position as a result of its arms sales to Georgia, caught between its friendly relations with Georgia and its fear that the continued sale of weaponry will spark Russian retribution in the form of increased arms sales to Iran and Syria. After fighting broke out late last week between Georgia and Russia over the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Israel's foreign ministry over the weekend recommended suspending the sale of all weapons and defense-related equipment to Georgia, the daily Ha'aretz newspaper reported. The paper quoted an unnamed senior official saying that Israel needed "to be very careful and sensitive these days. The Russians are selling many arms to Iran and Syria, and there is no need to offer them an excuse to sell even more advanced weapons." Israel's immediate concern is that Russia will proceed with the sale of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Iran, which would help it defend its nuclear installations from aerial attack. Israel, like the U.S., believes that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at developing a bomb, and Israeli leaders have refused to rule out the possibility of a preemptive strike aimed at derailing Iran's nuclear aspirations. Israel recently conducted a major aerial exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece that was widely viewed as a rehearsal for a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations. But with the U.S. and Europe resorting to diplomatic pressure in the form of sanctions to deter Iran, Israel is loathe to anger Russia, which until now has opposed harsher sanctions on Tehran. Israel's relations with Georgia have been close, partly because there is a large Georgian Jewish community in Israel. In recent years, ties have also taken on a military dimension, with military industries in Israel supplying Georgia with some $200 million worth of equipment since 2000. This has included remotely piloted planes, rockets, night-vision equipment, other electronic systems, and training by former senior Israeli officers. "Israel should be proud of its military, which trained Georgian soldiers," Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili, who is Jewish, told Israel's Army Radio in Hebrew shortly after the fighting erupted. Israel is not a major supplier of arms to Georgia, with the U.S. and France supplying Tbilisi with most of its weaponry. But the arms transfers have attracted media attention partly because of the role played by some high-profile Israeli figures, including former Tel Aviv mayor Roni Milo, who conducted business in Georgia on behalf of Israel Military Industries. According to media reports, Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsch, a senior commander in the 2006 Lebanon war who resigned after the release of a highly critical report on the way the war was conducted, served as an adviser to Georgian security forces. Further attention was drawn to the Israel-Georgia arms trade earlier this year when a Russian jet shot down an Israeli-made drone being operated by the Georgians. Even though weapons transfers were modest in scope, Russian diplomats began increasingly relaying to Israel their annoyance over its military aid to Georgia, including the special forces training provided by security experts. Israel decided about a year ago to limit military exports to defensive equipment and training. New contracts weren't approved as the arms sales were scaled back. Georgia's request for 200 advanced Israeli-made Merkava tanks, for example, was turned down. There were reports in Israel that the sale of the tanks didn't go through because of a disagreement over the commission that was to be paid as part of the deal. But Amos Yaron, the former director-general of the defense ministry, insisted it had to do with "security-diplomatic considerations" – a clear reference to the sensitivity of the arms sales to Georgia. Israel, Yaron added, didn't want "to harm Russian interests too much." Asked about the motivation to initially engage in the sale of weaponry to Georgia despite concerns it might anger Russia, Yaron replied: "We did see that there was potential for a conflagration in the region but Georgia is a friendly state, it's supported by the U.S., and so it was difficult to refuse." |
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
And with Israel in the mix, look for Russia to keep hitting hard
Israel 'has a hand in S. Ossetia war'
Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:39:36 GMT
Israel has provided Georgia with military assistance amid an ongoing armed conflict in the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
The Israeli web site Debkafiles which is believed to have close links with the regime's intelligence and military sources, reported that last year, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had commissioned from Israeli security firms up to 1,000 military advisers to train the country's armed forces.
According to the report, the Israeli advisors also helped Tbilisi with military intelligence and security operations. Georgia also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel.
The report added the Israeli advisers were deeply involved in the Georgian army's preparations to attack and capture the capital of South Ossetia on Friday.
The web site quoted "its military experts" as saying a project to pump Caspian oil and gas to the Turkish terminal of Ceyhan instead of the Russian pipeline network is in the interest of Tel Aviv.
The regime therefore has been negotiating with Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan to go ahead with the construction of pipelines to transfer oil to terminals in Ashkelon and Eilat.
The report added that Moscow had demanded Tel Aviv to halt its military assistance to Georgia and even warned the regime of a diplomatic row.
Israel, however, said that its military cooperation with Georgia had been “defensive.”
Georgia captured the capital of South Ossetia on Friday, triggering a response from Russia which has stationed its peacekeepers in the breakaway region since the 1990s conflicts.
Ties between the two former Soviet republics have been strained over several issues, including Georgia's NATO membership bid.
Original article posted here.
Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:39:36 GMT
 |
The Israeli web site Debkafiles which is believed to have close links with the regime's intelligence and military sources, reported that last year, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had commissioned from Israeli security firms up to 1,000 military advisers to train the country's armed forces.
According to the report, the Israeli advisors also helped Tbilisi with military intelligence and security operations. Georgia also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel.
The report added the Israeli advisers were deeply involved in the Georgian army's preparations to attack and capture the capital of South Ossetia on Friday.
The web site quoted "its military experts" as saying a project to pump Caspian oil and gas to the Turkish terminal of Ceyhan instead of the Russian pipeline network is in the interest of Tel Aviv.
The regime therefore has been negotiating with Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan to go ahead with the construction of pipelines to transfer oil to terminals in Ashkelon and Eilat.
The report added that Moscow had demanded Tel Aviv to halt its military assistance to Georgia and even warned the regime of a diplomatic row.
Israel, however, said that its military cooperation with Georgia had been “defensive.”
Georgia captured the capital of South Ossetia on Friday, triggering a response from Russia which has stationed its peacekeepers in the breakaway region since the 1990s conflicts.
Ties between the two former Soviet republics have been strained over several issues, including Georgia's NATO membership bid.
Original article posted here.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Good job, Israel. Fucking up your ally. Try peace next time.
War in Georgia: The Israeli connection
For past seven years, Israeli companies have been helping Gerogian army to preparer for war against Russia through arms deals, training of infantry units and security advice
Arie Egozi
The fighting which broke out over the weekend between Russia and Georgia has brought Israel's intensive involvement in the region into the limelight. This involvement includes the sale of advanced weapons to Georgia and the training of the Georgian army's infantry forces.
The Defense Ministry held a special meeting Sunday to discuss the various arms deals held by Israelis in Georgia, but no change in policy has been announced as of yet.
Advice
Foreign Ministry warns Israelis against traveling to Georgia / Roee Nahmias
Ministry ups travel warning due to ongoing military conflict with Russia, asks Israelis already in Georgia to contact embassy in Tbilsi or ministry's situation room in Israel.
"The subject is closely monitored," said sources in the Defense Ministry. "We are not operating in any way which may counter Israeli interests. We have turned down many requests involving arms sales to Georgia; and the ones which have been approves have been duly scrutinized. So far, we have placed no limitations on the sale of protective measures."
Israel began selling arms to Georgia about seven years ago following an initiative by Georgian citizens who immigrated to Israel and became businesspeople.
"They contacted defense industry officials and arms dealers and told them that Georgia had relatively large budgets and could be interested in purchasing Israeli weapons," says a source involved in arms exports.
The military cooperation between the countries developed swiftly. The fact that Georgia's defense minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew contributed to this cooperation.
"His door was always open to the Israelis who came and offered his country arms systems made in Israel," the source said. "Compared to countries in Eastern Europe, the deals in this country were conducted fast, mainly due to the defense minister's personal involvement."
Among the Israelis who took advantage of the opportunity and began doing business in Georgia were former Minister Roni Milo and his brother Shlomo, former director-general of the Military Industries, Brigadier-General (Res.) Gal Hirsch and Major-General (Res.) Yisrael Ziv.
Roni Milo conducted business in Georgia for Elbit Systems and the Military Industries, and with his help Israel's defense industries managed to sell to Georgia remote-piloted vehicles (RPVs), automatic turrets for armored vehicles, antiaircraft systems, communication systems, shells and rockets.
According to Israeli sources, Gal Hirsch gave the Georgian army advice on the establishment of elite units such as Sayeret Matkal and on rearmament, and gave various courses in the fields of combat intelligence and fighting in built-up areas.
'Don't anger the Russians'
The Israelis operating in Georgia attempted to convince the Israeli Aerospace Industries to sell various systems to the Georgian air force, but were turned down. The reason for the refusal was "special" relations created between the Aerospace Industries and Russia in terms of improving fighter jets produced in the former USSR and the fear that selling weapons to Georgia would anger the Russians and prompt them to cancel the deals.
Israelis' activity in Georgia and the deals they struck there were all authorized by the Defense Ministry. Israel viewed Georgia as a friendly state to which there is no reason not to sell arms systems similar to those Israel exports to other countries in the world.
As the tension between Russia and Georgia grew, however, increasing voices were heard in Israel – particularly in the Foreign Ministry – calling on the Defense Ministry to be more selective in the approval of the deals with Georgia for fear that they would anger Russia.
"It was clear that too many unmistakable Israeli systems in the possesion of the Georgian army would be like a red cloth in the face of a raging bull as far as Russia is concerned," explained a source in the defense establishment.
For inctance, the Russians viewed the operation of the Elbit System's RPVs as a real provocation.
"It was clear that the Russians were angry," says a defense establishment source, "and that the interception of three of these RPVs in the past three months was an expression of this anger. Not everyone in Israel understood the sensitive nerve Israel touched when it supplied such an advanced arms system to a country whose relations with Russia are highly tense."
In May it was eventually decide to approve future deals with Georgia only for the sale of non-offensive weapon systems, such as intelligence, communications and computer systems, and not to approve deals for the sale of rifles, aircraft, sells, etc.
A senior source in the Military Industry said Saturday that despite some reporters, the activity of Georgia's military industry was extremely limited.
"We conducted a small job for them several years ago," he said. "The rest of the deals remained on paper."
Dov Pikulin, one of the owners of the Authentico company specializing in trips and journeys to the area, says however that "the Israeli is the main investor in the Georgian economy. Everyone is there, directly or indirectly."
Georgian minister: Israel should be proud
"The Israelis should be proud of themselves for the Israeli training and education received by the Georgian soldiers," Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili said Saturday.
Yakobashvili is a Jew and is fluent in Hebrew. "We are now in a fight against the great Russia," he said, "and our hope is to receive assistance from the White House, because Georgia cannot survive on its own.
"It's important that the entire world understands that what is happening in Georgia now will affect the entire world order. It's not just Georgia's business, but the entire world's business."
One of the Georgian parliament members did not settle Saturday for the call for American aid, urging Israel to help stop the Russian offensive as well: "We need help from the UN and from our friends, headed by the United States and Israel. Today Georgia is in danger – tomorrow all the democratic countries in the region and in the entire world will be in danger too."
Original article posted here.
For past seven years, Israeli companies have been helping Gerogian army to preparer for war against Russia through arms deals, training of infantry units and security advice
Arie Egozi
The fighting which broke out over the weekend between Russia and Georgia has brought Israel's intensive involvement in the region into the limelight. This involvement includes the sale of advanced weapons to Georgia and the training of the Georgian army's infantry forces.
The Defense Ministry held a special meeting Sunday to discuss the various arms deals held by Israelis in Georgia, but no change in policy has been announced as of yet.
Advice
Foreign Ministry warns Israelis against traveling to Georgia / Roee Nahmias
Ministry ups travel warning due to ongoing military conflict with Russia, asks Israelis already in Georgia to contact embassy in Tbilsi or ministry's situation room in Israel.
"The subject is closely monitored," said sources in the Defense Ministry. "We are not operating in any way which may counter Israeli interests. We have turned down many requests involving arms sales to Georgia; and the ones which have been approves have been duly scrutinized. So far, we have placed no limitations on the sale of protective measures."
Israel began selling arms to Georgia about seven years ago following an initiative by Georgian citizens who immigrated to Israel and became businesspeople.
"They contacted defense industry officials and arms dealers and told them that Georgia had relatively large budgets and could be interested in purchasing Israeli weapons," says a source involved in arms exports.
The military cooperation between the countries developed swiftly. The fact that Georgia's defense minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew contributed to this cooperation.
"His door was always open to the Israelis who came and offered his country arms systems made in Israel," the source said. "Compared to countries in Eastern Europe, the deals in this country were conducted fast, mainly due to the defense minister's personal involvement."
Among the Israelis who took advantage of the opportunity and began doing business in Georgia were former Minister Roni Milo and his brother Shlomo, former director-general of the Military Industries, Brigadier-General (Res.) Gal Hirsch and Major-General (Res.) Yisrael Ziv.
Roni Milo conducted business in Georgia for Elbit Systems and the Military Industries, and with his help Israel's defense industries managed to sell to Georgia remote-piloted vehicles (RPVs), automatic turrets for armored vehicles, antiaircraft systems, communication systems, shells and rockets.
According to Israeli sources, Gal Hirsch gave the Georgian army advice on the establishment of elite units such as Sayeret Matkal and on rearmament, and gave various courses in the fields of combat intelligence and fighting in built-up areas.
'Don't anger the Russians'
The Israelis operating in Georgia attempted to convince the Israeli Aerospace Industries to sell various systems to the Georgian air force, but were turned down. The reason for the refusal was "special" relations created between the Aerospace Industries and Russia in terms of improving fighter jets produced in the former USSR and the fear that selling weapons to Georgia would anger the Russians and prompt them to cancel the deals.
Israelis' activity in Georgia and the deals they struck there were all authorized by the Defense Ministry. Israel viewed Georgia as a friendly state to which there is no reason not to sell arms systems similar to those Israel exports to other countries in the world.
As the tension between Russia and Georgia grew, however, increasing voices were heard in Israel – particularly in the Foreign Ministry – calling on the Defense Ministry to be more selective in the approval of the deals with Georgia for fear that they would anger Russia.
"It was clear that too many unmistakable Israeli systems in the possesion of the Georgian army would be like a red cloth in the face of a raging bull as far as Russia is concerned," explained a source in the defense establishment.
For inctance, the Russians viewed the operation of the Elbit System's RPVs as a real provocation.
"It was clear that the Russians were angry," says a defense establishment source, "and that the interception of three of these RPVs in the past three months was an expression of this anger. Not everyone in Israel understood the sensitive nerve Israel touched when it supplied such an advanced arms system to a country whose relations with Russia are highly tense."
In May it was eventually decide to approve future deals with Georgia only for the sale of non-offensive weapon systems, such as intelligence, communications and computer systems, and not to approve deals for the sale of rifles, aircraft, sells, etc.
A senior source in the Military Industry said Saturday that despite some reporters, the activity of Georgia's military industry was extremely limited.
"We conducted a small job for them several years ago," he said. "The rest of the deals remained on paper."
Dov Pikulin, one of the owners of the Authentico company specializing in trips and journeys to the area, says however that "the Israeli is the main investor in the Georgian economy. Everyone is there, directly or indirectly."
Georgian minister: Israel should be proud
"The Israelis should be proud of themselves for the Israeli training and education received by the Georgian soldiers," Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili said Saturday.
Yakobashvili is a Jew and is fluent in Hebrew. "We are now in a fight against the great Russia," he said, "and our hope is to receive assistance from the White House, because Georgia cannot survive on its own.
"It's important that the entire world understands that what is happening in Georgia now will affect the entire world order. It's not just Georgia's business, but the entire world's business."
One of the Georgian parliament members did not settle Saturday for the call for American aid, urging Israel to help stop the Russian offensive as well: "We need help from the UN and from our friends, headed by the United States and Israel. Today Georgia is in danger – tomorrow all the democratic countries in the region and in the entire world will be in danger too."
Original article posted here.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
The ongoing lies and propaganda by the Israelis
Racism and Genocide: Lies of Our Times
James Petras is a frequent contributor to Global Research.Original article posted here.
by Prof. James Petras
One of the hallmarks of totalitarian ideologues is the use of the big lie: a virulent attack on a defenseless group and then a categorical denial turning victims into executioners and executioners into victims.
Postnote: A declaration signed by over 200 Israeli academics and peace activists was released August 5, 2008 stating:
Zionist genocide promoter, Benny Morris practices the Big Lie1. He claims, "I have never supported the brutal expulsion of all Palestinians…I have said, repeatedly, that the expulsion of the Palestinians is immoral and impracticable."
In a recent interview in Israel, Morris states, "Under some circumstances, expulsion is not a war crime. I don’t think that the expulsions of 1948 (of nearly a million Palestinians) were war crimes. You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands. Moreover, if he (Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion) was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleaned the whole country – the whole land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he carried out a full expulsion – rather than a partial one – he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations." In its extremism, Morris’ promotion of Judeo-fascist ethnocide of Palestine/Jordan exceeds that of any expressed by a secular public Jewish figure in Israel.
Uprooting, massacring and driving 3 million Palestinians from their homes, land and communities, according to Morris, lessens suffering – for Jews – and promises a quieter life for Israeli Jews! This is the same rationale that Hitler pronounced in his project to ‘purify’ Nazi Germany.
Morris fabricates a tale about Israel’s peaceful role in the Middle East when in fact it has been the most aggressive, militarist, expansionist state in the entire Middle East. He writes, "I am completely unaware that Zionism ever aimed to ‘rule the Middle East’…Zionism simply wanted to establish and maintain a (miniscule) Jewish state in the Land of Israel/Palestine, the patrimony of the Jews…conquered by savage Muslim Arab invaders."
The history of the Israeli state tells us otherwise. Israel has expanded and colonized over three quarters of Palestine since the original partition in 1948. Israel has invaded Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and seized and occupies territory from three of the four countries. Israel is the only country in the Middle East, which has repeatedly invaded Lebanon, destroyed its infrastructure, slaughtered Palestinian refugees in camps and attempted to establish a puppet regime in South Lebanon. Israel is the only Middle Eastern country, which shot down a Libyan commercial airliner carrying pilgrims to Mecca killing all aboard.
Israel’s ‘lobby’ – the Zionist power configuration in the US – has secured over $120 billion dollars of US military aid and the most advanced military technology for Israel, to insure Israel’s ‘overwhelming military superiority’ in the region. The military superiority of Israel has served the Jewish state to threaten, pressure, destabilize and influence Arab states.
The biggest nuclear threat in the Middle East and the sole nuclear power (over 200 nuclear bombs) and the only country, which publicly threatens to attack with nuclear weapons – is Israel. Israel has engaged in cross border terrorist assassinations throughout the Middle East, training death squads in Northern Iraq (Kurdistan) to Colombia and recognizes no sovereign borders in pursuit of its hegemonic goals.
Morris’ style is as revelatory as the substance of his totalitarian beliefs. He claims, "Israel has been threatened by Iran with destruction and the Iranian nuclear project appears to have Israel as its target." Apart from a vague remark, which was grossly mistranslated, of Iranian President Ahmadinejad about Israel "Disappearing from the page of history" (a remark pointing to a political change of the ethnic nature of the state), the Iranian government has never threatened to nuke Israel. Morris, the prophet of Armageddon, with special powers to delve into the "self-sacrificing mindset of the mullahs who run Iran," knows that deterrence will not work. No evidence founded on action is presented. No history of Iranian foreign policy over the past 50 years is presented.
The key to understanding Benny Morris’ proposal for nuclear genocide is his totalitarian-racist view of Arabs, Muslims and Iranians. In an interview in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz (2004) regarding Israeli-Palestinian relations he asserted, "Something like a cage has to be built for them…There is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another." According to Morris, Palestinians are "barbarians who want to take our lives…At the moment that society is in the state of being a serial killer. It is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat individuals who are serial killers." To Morris, the dispossessed Palestinians are the killers while the Israeli colonial state, which dispossessed millions, tortured tens of thousands, jailed hundreds of thousands and killed thousands and is building a huge ghetto wall destroying the livelihood of 3 million, is a sane, healthy society. Dehumanizing the victims and the use of sub-human analogies is common practice of totalitarian ideologues. Considering Muslims as sub-human eases the way to incinerating them with nuclear weapons.
Benny Morris bases his argument for launching a nuclear attack against Iran on two boldface lies: (1) "Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared to making weapons, not to the peaceful application of nuclear power"; and (2) "Everyone knows that such measures (economic sanctions) have so far led nowhere and are unlikely to be applied." The sixteen leading US intelligence agencies released a National Intelligence Estimate in 2007 based on all available high tech sources and inside informants, stating that Iran was not preparing enriched uranium for weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has permanent on site inspectors and makes continuous visits to Iranian nuclear facilities over the past decade, has not found any evidence of a weapons program. Every country, except Israel and the Zionist-dominated US Congress and White House believe that negotiations should continue. China, Russia, the states of the Middle East have supported sanctions among other countries. Iran’s uranium enrichment program is legal and is practiced by dozens of countries around the world. Only Israel, the US and the EU have arbitrarily decided to exclude Iran from developing nuclear enrichment programs for peaceful uses. Morris and the Israelis equate Iran’s legitimate activity with nuclear weapon production and extrapolate the latter to an immediate threat against Israel’s very existence.
Morris’ most laughable assertion is his claim that he "never advocated a genocidal attack on Iran with the aim of killing 70 million Iranians." In his own words, just a few weeks earlier in a July 18 editorial in the New York Times he wrote, "Iran’s leaders would do well to re-think their gamble and suspend their nuclear program. Barring this, the best they could hope for is that Israel’s conventional air assault will destroy their nuclear facilities. To be sure, this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation. But the alternative is an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland."
By posing the question to Iran as one of ‘no choice’ but surrendering national sovereignty to an "Israeli nuclear threat’ Morris has pre-determined the result: Israel will have to engage in a genocidal nuclear assault on Iran. Morris’ double talk and utter confusion in claiming to oppose Iranian genocide while supporting ‘limited’ nuclear strikes against Iran revels his total ignorance of the most elementary consequences of the long-term, large-scale effects of radiation, contamination, economic devastation and widespread social trauma, not to mention the immediate effects of a thermonuclear attack on a populous nation. A nuclear strike against a country is genocidal in its effects on that nation – involving millions of human beings in Iran and throughout the entire region with widespread global contamination.
Benny Morris’ rant, in itself, is of no great concern were it limited to some Israeli version of a Munich beer hall. But the fact that ‘respectable’ capitalist print media, like the New York Times among others…publish and circulate blatant advocacy of nuclear genocide as ‘just another opinion’ is of prime political concern: It tells us how far imperial-militarism has infected Western political discourse; we have moved from a scratch to gangrene.
1 see NYT July 18, 2008
Postnote: A declaration signed by over 200 Israeli academics and peace activists was released August 5, 2008 stating:
There is no military, political or moral justification to initiate war with Iran. A constant flow of information bears witness to the fact that the Israeli government is seriously considering attacking Iran, in order to disrupt its nuclear plans. We do no disregard irresponsible actions by the Iranian government – we also oppose atomic weapons of mass destruction in the region. However, it is clear that the main source of the immediate danger of a new, widespread war stems from the policies of the Israeli government and the flow of threats from it, backed by provocative military maneuvers.
After serious consideration, we reiterate our position that all the arguments for such an attack are without any security, political or moral justification. Israel might get caught up in an act of adventurism that could endanger our very existence, and this without any serious effort to exhaust the political and diplomatic alternatives to armed conflict.
We are not certain that such an attack will occur. But the very fact that it is being weighed as a reasonable option makes it imperative that we warn and caution against the destructive results of an offensive strike against Iran.
(contact: reuven.kaminer@gmail.com)
Professor Petras is the author of Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the US (Clarity Press 2006).
James Petras is a frequent contributor to Global Research.Original article posted here.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Maybe a moment of honesty from Obama. Not the most fervent feeling of Hope
Israeli paper publishes Obama's stolen Western Wall prayer
Israel Herald
Saturday 26th July, 2008
(ANI)
New York, July 26 : Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama wrote a prayer in Jerusalem this week - and left it at Judaism's holiest of sites, the Western Wall. As Barack placed his prayer in the cracks of the Western Wall, someone came from behind and stole it.
That pilfered prayer has now been published in an Israeli newspaper, exposing to the world a personal plea for God to help him "guard against pride and despair."
Obama left the handwritten note during his trip to the 2,000-year-old solemn site in Jerusalem on Thursday, following a tradition of visitors to the wall leaving messages of prayer in its cracks.
But in a move that many said was unheard of, the note was stolen from the wall, reportedly by a Jewish seminary student and then published in the Israeli paper "Maariv".
"Lord - Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will," Obama wrote on the stationery from the King David Hotel, where he stayed.
Shmuel Rabinovitz, the rabbi in charge of the wall, has slammed Maariv for publishing the text, the New York Post reports.
He told Israeli Army Radio, "The notes placed between the stones of the Western Wall are between a person and his maker. It is forbidden to read them or make any use of them . . . [this] damages the Western Wall and damages the personal, deep part of every one of us that we keep to ourselves."
The site, the holiest in Judaism, is the only remaining piece of the outer wall of the second Jewish temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
The Obama campaign has declined to comment on the note.
Original article posted here.
That pilfered prayer has now been published in an Israeli newspaper, exposing to the world a personal plea for God to help him "guard against pride and despair."
Obama left the handwritten note during his trip to the 2,000-year-old solemn site in Jerusalem on Thursday, following a tradition of visitors to the wall leaving messages of prayer in its cracks.
But in a move that many said was unheard of, the note was stolen from the wall, reportedly by a Jewish seminary student and then published in the Israeli paper "Maariv".
"Lord - Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will," Obama wrote on the stationery from the King David Hotel, where he stayed.
Shmuel Rabinovitz, the rabbi in charge of the wall, has slammed Maariv for publishing the text, the New York Post reports.
He told Israeli Army Radio, "The notes placed between the stones of the Western Wall are between a person and his maker. It is forbidden to read them or make any use of them . . . [this] damages the Western Wall and damages the personal, deep part of every one of us that we keep to ourselves."
The site, the holiest in Judaism, is the only remaining piece of the outer wall of the second Jewish temple, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
The Obama campaign has declined to comment on the note.
Original article posted here.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
weazl lifts full blogger post: but weazl thinks that it is worth repeating. Barack has become a whore. Sorry.
Fuck You Obama! You Sell-Out Piece of Shit!
Posted by willyloman on July 23, 2008
by Scott Creighton
Go fuck yourself Barack! You know the game is rigged and it’s your turn to lose, so you play the game and keep your name in good standing for the next go round. And you are a piece of shit.
You are worse than the republicans, because at least they are standing by the positions of their constituent (however selfish and unAmerican they are). Whereas you are side stepping everything this party USED to stand for. Clinton rang in the end of the Democratic Party, and you and your corrupt staff of neo-liberal Clintonistas are turning out the lights, aren’t you?
All for your own personal agenda. You are a bastard.
And I give you the absolute last straw that I will tolerate. Your pandering cowardly speech today at Sderot was it for me. You allowed them to stage it in that fucking miserable yard where they keep the homemade rockets that are fired from Gaza. That fucking little yard where they bring people to prove how oppressed Israel has been by Gaza.
You are out of your fucking mind, you miserable little shit. How dare you stand, pandering to a nation that was just visited by member of the ANC that LIVED UNDER APARTHEID and they just recently said that what is going on in Gaza with the Palestinians is just as bad as what the South African White Regime did to them!?
Fuck you Obama! You fucking SELLOUT! Your speech three months back about racism and oppression WAS A FUCKING LIE, you bastard! You don’t give a shit about real oppression if you let these bastards use you like that. You’re a fucking tool. That’s your fucking legacy. That’s your historic nomination. You sold it out, you pathetic wimp. you sold it out, for a loss this go round and a promise for the future. You sold out CHEAP, for a little attention and some more book sales.
The reason those homemade rockets are there, you stupid little fuck, IS BECAUSE THEY DON’T BLOW UP, MORON! That’s why they don’t kill people unless they hit them in the head!
The Israelis have killed somewhere close to 100 Palestinians for every Israeli killed, shit for brains! Hell, they even kill Peace Activists who are there to help stop the ILLEGAL FUCKING INCURSIONS ONTO PALESTINIAN LAND, YOU BASTARD!
Here Barack, you wanna see a picture, motherfucker?
That’s Rachel Corrie. She was a decent human that got run over by an Israeli Bulldozer that wanted to tear down some Palestinians home. Would you “run out and settle that yourself” like you suggest you would if someone fired a “homemade rocket” at your house? Would you? What do you think about her parents, the Barack? You fucking piece of shit. Take a good look. This is what your “beacon of democracy” does, asshole.
Wanna see more?
Here’s your “democracy…”
Here’s what they think of themselves…
Here’s what your “beacon” does with kids in Gaza…
Here’s what they do to kids in Lebanon with cluster bombs (weapons of mass destruction)…
Here’s some settlers beating an old farmer with a baseball bat, just for not leaving his land when they told him to…
Here’s another picture for you Barack… that’s a Lebanese child from that “war” of 2006…
You know that prisoner exchange that just took place? All those stories about the 2 Israeli soldiers bodies that were returned? They made the Lebanese seem like monsters because they killed the two captive soldiers? Here is a picture of the other side of the exchange, you stupid bastard! 197 bodies returned to Lebanon of captives from the war the the Israelis killed. 197! Didn’t hear much about that one, did you?
Here’s a picture for you. it’s got REAL ROCKETS. The kind that blow up and kill kids! Here you go you bastard, get your picture taken with this, you sellout motherfucker!
Little Israeli girl sending a “Hello from Israel” to the children it will disfigure in Gaza or Lebanon.
So fuck you Obama! You go straight to hell. Fuck you Obama!
I will spend every hour that I can making sure that not only do you not win, but that every person I com into contact with knows exactly what kind of man you are. You are a bastard, and liar, a sellout, and a shill for the fascists that are corrupting this nation.
you go to hell you son of a bitch! and I mean that. i will do what I can to see that you lose your Senate seat in the future, since we all know you are just playing the game now…
you go to hell, Barack Obama. You turn you backs on the suffering of these people for a few votes, you don’t deserve to be president. asshole.
EDIT*** in response to a comment below, I am adding this in order to make it clearer exactly why I am so angry with Sen. Obama, that prick (sorry. i am still pissed)
I am Mad as Hell at Obama for letting the Israeli War Party use him as a tool of propaganda.
He has to have more sense than that. He is in line to be the damn PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and he is letting these warmongers of the Likud Party use him like this?
He should fire all of his aides, and apologise not only to the people of Gaza and the West Bank, but also to the millions of Israelis that don’t want to be portrayed in this fashion.
Original article posted here.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Hezbollah: Mission accomplished
Defying U.S., Hezbollah stronger than ever
| |
By Tom Perry - analysis
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hezbollah is set to achieve its long-held goal of winning the release of Lebanese prisoners held in Israel this week, emboldening the Iranian-backed group which has emerged even more powerful from recent conflicts.
Two years after standing its ground in a 34-day war with Israel, Hezbollah has reinforced its military wing and routed its U.S.-backed adversaries in Lebanon -- defying the United States, which sees it as a terrorist group and proxy of Tehran.
Hezbollah is now seeking reconciliation with its Lebanese rivals, hoping to cool sectarian tensions inflamed by its May takeover of Beirut. Those enmities could pose a threat to both the Shi'ite group and Lebanon if left unhealed.
"Hezbollah, far from being weakened in the 2006 war or in the subsequent political battles in Beirut, is stronger than ever," said Andrew Exum, a researcher on the group based at Kings College, London.
For Iran, the stature of a group established with the help of its Revolutionary Guards in 1982 is a great asset in its own confrontation with the United States and other powers over its nuclear ambitions and influence in the Middle East.
Hezbollah has replenished and expanded its arsenal since the 2006 war. Estimated to have received military and other aid worth several billion dollars from Iran, it is seen as one of the region's toughest fighting forces despite the February assassination of its commander, Imad Moughniyah.
Hezbollah brought some of its military power to bear on the streets of Beirut in May when it briefly took over Muslim areas of the city, effectively imposing its terms for an end to 18 months of political conflict with the governing coalition.
"Hezbollah is now certain that its position is guaranteed by the (Lebanese) military and the government," said Suleiman Taqieddin, a columnist with as-Safir newspaper, which is sympathetic to the opposition alliance led by Hezbollah.
A Qatari-mediated agreement after the street fighting met the main demands of Hezbollah and its allies -- a domestic triumph for a group which commands the loyalty of a majority of Lebanese Shi'ites, the country's biggest single community.
But the Doha settlement sidestepped many issues at the heart of conflict in Lebanon, including the fate of Hezbollah's arms. Having shaken off foreign and local pressure to disarm, nobody expects the group to give up its guns any time soon.
But with sectarian animosity at its worst since the 1975-90 civil war, Hezbollah's military clout is also a threat to the group's standing in the medium term, said Nabil Boumonsef, a columnist with the pro-governing coalition an-Nahar newspaper.
SEEKING RECONCILIATION
"In the same measure as Hezbollah is strengthened by its weapons, it is weakened internally because it inspires the fear of all. Weapons in Lebanon cause fear and will draw in more weapons," he said.
Seeking to ease tensions, Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has stressed the need for reconciliation with rivals, the most prominent of whom is Sunni politician Saad al-Hariri.
Nasrallah has tried to use the prisoner swap with Israel that is expected to take place on Wednesday as a platform for internal rapprochement, calling it "a national accomplishment".
Hezbollah is to exchange two Israeli soldiers for five Lebanese said by Nasrallah to be the last held by Israel. The soldiers -- believed dead although Hezbollah has not said so -- were seized in a cross-border raid which sparked the 2006 war.
"This occasion is a unifying, national occasion," Nasrallah has declared.
But full reconciliation needs the support of Hariri and his foreign backers, including Saudi Arabia. The Sunni-ruled kingdom, which has its own Shi'ite minority and is concerned about the spread of Iranian influence, may not see acquiescing in Lebanon's new power balance as in its interest.
Even though a national unity government was formed last week after weeks of wrangling, sectarian tensions still smolder.
"Hezbollah's early May actions inflamed the Sunni 'street' in Lebanon and contributed to a dramatic increase in sectarian tensions," said U.S. Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Donald Kerr.
"Lebanon has seen an upswing of rearmament among all factions during the last year or more and the events of early May will no doubt increase this trend," he said in a May 29 address to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
"The way ahead in Lebanon is uncertain."
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Israeli authorities predicting earthquake in Lebanon. Looks like Washington warmongering neo Cons are warming up HAARP
Israel authorities warn hospitals to prepare for earthquake
>
View larger image
A strong earthquake could soon rock Lebanon and parts of Israel, authorities said on Monday, urging health officials in northern Israel to make preparations for such an event.
>
View larger image
A strong earthquake could soon rock Lebanon and parts of Israel, authorities said on Monday, urging health officials in northern Israel to make preparations for such an event.
"The probability of an earthquake of a magnitude of up to six on the Richter scale, originating in Lebanon and being felt in Israel has increased," the health ministry said in a letter sent to medical officials in northern Israel.
Since February, abnormal seismic activity has been noted in southern Lebanon, which had suffered some 500 minor earthquakes in a three-month period, health ministry director-general Avi Yisraeli said in the letter.
"In May, the tremors have become more intense and were felt in northern Israel," he said adding that "should an earthquake of such magnitude hit northern Israel, it may cause substantial infrastructural damage in the area.
"All medical facilities and organisations must do everything they can to enhance the level of readiness," Yisraeli said in the letter published by the ministry on Monday.
Similar concern was issued by Lebanon's national scientific research centre.
The secretary general of the centre, Moueen Hamz, told AFP in Beirut that 800 tremors ranging in magnitude from 2.3-5.1 degrees on the Richter scale had shaken the south Lebanon regions of Tyre and Nabatiyeh since February 12.
"The tremors increased significantly in May and June," he said, urging the Lebanese authorities to take "serious prevention measures."
Experts in Lebanon expect a quake of between five and six degrees on the Richter scale to strike, like the tremor that shook Lebanon in 1956 killing 136 people and destroying 6,000 houses, Hamze said.
Some seismologists in Israel say that quakes have historically rocked the region every eight decades, and the last one was nearly 81 years ago.
About 300 people were killed in Jerusalem and nearby Jericho by the July 11, 1927 temblor.
A similar quake measuring seven on the Richter scale and with an epicentre in the Hula Valley, today in northern Israel, devastated the town of Safed and killed some 4,000 people in 1837.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
If you thought there was any doubt about "terrorism" being a fraud, look who the Bush criminals are paying now: AL CIAda
Former Mossad chief Shabtai Shavit. (Motti Kimche) | ||
| Former Israeli spymaster: We have year to hit Iran nukes Israel must destroy Iran's nuclear program within the next 12 months or risk being attacked with an atomic bomb itself, the former head of the Mossad told the British Sunday Telegraph. "As an intelligence officer working with the worst-case scenario, I can tell you we should be prepared," Shabtai Shavit, who served as Mossad chief from 1989 to 1996, told the British paper. "We should do whatever necessary on the defensive side, on the offensive side, on the public opinion side for the West, in case sanctions don't work. What's left is a military action."
Shavit added that a victory by Democratic nominee Barack Obama in the November presidential election would significantly lower the chances that the U.S. would approve of military action against Iran. "If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it," Shavit told the paper. "If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House." Shavit told the Telegraph, however, that Israel would not hesitate to go it alone, with or without U.S. support. "When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something," Shavit told the paper. "It's not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement," he said. Meanwhile, Iran's foreign minister said on Sunday he did not believe Israel was in a position to attack the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program. "They know full well what the consequences of such an act would be," Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki told reporters. Speculation about a possible attack on Iran because of its disputed nuclear ambitions has risen since a report this month said Israel had practiced such a strike, prompting increasingly tough talk of retaliation, if pushed, from Tehran. Mottaki said Israel was still dealing with the consequences of its 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and was also suffering a "crisis of deepening illegitimacy" in the Middle East region. "That's why we do not see the Zionist regime in a situation in which they would want to engage in such an adventurism," he said when asked about the possibility of an Israeli attack. U.S. reportedly escalating covert operations against Iran Meanwhile, U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday. The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centers around a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by U.S. law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees. "The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, andinvolved "working with opposition groups and passing money." Hersh has written previously about possible administration plans to go to war to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including an April 2006 article in the New Yorker that suggested regime change in Iran, whether by diplomatic or military means, was Bush's ultimate goal. Funding for the covert escalation, for which Bush requested up to $400 million, was approved by congressional leaders, according to the article, citing current and former military, intelligence and congressional sources. Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. U.S. Special Operations Forces have been conducting crossborder operations from southern Iraq since last year, the article said. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of "high-value targets" in Bush's war on terrorism, who may be captured or killed, according to the article. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which include the Central Intelligence Agency, have now been significantly expanded, the article said, citing current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature, it said. Among groups inside Iran benefiting from U.S. support is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People's Resistance Movement, according to former CIA officer Robert Baer. Council on Foreign Relations analyst Vali Nasr described it to Hersh as a vicious organization suspected of links to Al-Qieda. The article said U.S. support for the dissident groups could prompt a violent crackdown by Iran, which could give the Bush administration a reason to intervene. None of the Democratic leaders in Congress would comment on the finding, the article said. The White House, which has repeatedly denied preparing for military action against Iran, and the CIA also declined comment. The United States is leading international efforts to rein in Iran's suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons, although Washington concedes Iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian uses. Iran: If Israel attacks us, we'll respond with missiles Meanwhile, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards warned that if his country is attacked, Tehran would strike back by barraging Israel with missiles and controlling a key oil passageway in the Persian Gulf, according to a state newspaper report published on Saturday. The report in the conservative Jam-e-Jam comes after the disclosure of a recent Israeli military exercise over the Mediterranean Sea that was seen as sending a message to Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari told the Iranian paper that there were strong deterrents against striking Iran including the country's missile power, the vulnerability of Israeli and U.S. forces in the region and the low probability of a successful attack. Iran has spread its nuclear facilities over various parts of the large country and has built key portions underground to protect if from possible Israeli or American airstrikes. But Jafari warned that if attacked, Iran would strike back, including choking off the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow outlet for oil tankers leaving the Persian Gulf. "Naturally, any country coming under attack will use all of its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Given the main route for energy to exit the region, one of Iran's steps will definitely be to exercise control on the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," Jafari told Jam-e-Jam, which is affiliated with Iran's state-run radio and television network. In 2006, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, also threatened to disrupt the world's oil supply if the United States attacked Iran. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer, and about 60 percent of the world's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. "Should a confrontation erupt between us and the enemy, the scope will definitely reach the oil issue. ... Oil prices will dramatically increase. This is one of the factors deterring the enemy from taking military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran," Jafari was quoted as saying. Original article posted here. | ||
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Israel making threats and thrying to push the militarily broken and AIPAC enslaved US to do its dirtywork. Pathetic.
Israeli threats stiffen Iran's resolve
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Although it is manifestly clear that Israel runs major risks for minor gains by planning to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the tendency of Israeli politicians and pundits to underestimate the risks and the likelihood of success is growing by leaps and bounds.
Following the argument that Israel does not want to wait for a new administration in the United States, to paraphrase one of Israel's voices in the US, CBS consultant Michael Oren, Israel's increasingly bellicose attitude against Iran actually has the adverse effect: it sets barricades in the path of Iranian politicians who want to reach a compromise with the "Iran Six" over Tehran's nuclear program. Tehran is considering a package of proposals presented by the United States, France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany over its uranium-enrichment activities.
The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, received a positive initial response from Iran's politicians during a recent visit, emphasizing Tehran's preparedness to engage in serious negotiations.
But by escalating threats against Iran precisely at a time the EU is pushing the arch of diplomacy toward Iran, Israel has made it nearly impossible for Tehran to show a great deal of flexibility, since that would be widely interpreted as letting Israel bully Tehran. In terms of regional calculus and Iran's national prestige, this would compromise Iran's position in the Middle East and undermines its national security.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has penned an article in the International Herald Tribune, titled "Diplomacy must work", which paints a reasonable picture of "Iran Six" diplomacy but which alludes to the self-defeating and unreasonable Iranian approach.
Conspicuously missing in Miliband's piece, alluding to Iranian nationalism, is any understanding of the Iranian collective psychology and the operative logic of Iranian nationalism that, historically, does not respond well to external pressures or threats. [1]
An opinion poll conducted by the Tehran website www.tabnak.com shows that the majority of Iranian people are in favor of accepting the "incentive package" offered by the "Iran Six". The package, included civilian nuclear cooperation as well as wider trade in aircraft, energy, high technology and agriculture.
Based on interviews with 35,000 Iranians, the poll indicates that only 24% think Iran should reject the package, compared to 21% who favor accepting it completely and more than 50% who think the Iranian government should accept the package by modifying some aspects of it.
However, the drift of public opinion may turn sharply against any compromise should the threats and coercive actions, seen in the implementation of new EU sanctions targeting some key Iranian officials, the Melli Bank, and more Iranian companies, continue. Ali Larijani, the speaker of the parliament (Majlis) has warned against the "contradictory behavior" of the "Iran Six" as undermining the negotiation process. Similarly, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini has warned that the "politics of sticks and carrots has no effect with respect to Iran's legal rights".
It is a tremendous stretch to think that at this critical juncture nuclear diplomacy with Iran can succeed by upping the ante as the resort to threats of violence undermines the diplomatic track and reduces the chances of a breakthrough in the nuclear standoff.
What military option?
Admiral Michael Mull, chairman of the US Joint Chief of Staff, is in Israel this week to discuss Iran. It can be expected that the issue of a joint attack will be raised, as Israel would need the US's cruise missiles and strategic bombers if there were to be a carpet-bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.
The pertinent question is what can be achieved by this military option?
A short answer, reflected in Larijani's warning that threats against Iran will result in a "done deal", is that the exercise of the military option will have the opposite effect of putting Iran on the path of nuclear proliferation. This is because Iran would likely end its cooperation with the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and embark on clandestine nuclear proliferation in response to the military aggression.
Unless Israel is prepared to undertake a "permanent war" with Iran, implying constant attacks on Iran, its leaders must realize that their military option may damage some Iranian installations, but most likely Iran's nuclear program would survive and in all likelihood would restart without the benefit of outside supervision and scrutiny, fully geared to the goal of nuclear deterrence.
This is completely overlooked by pro-Israel US politicians, such as former US envoy to the United Nations, John Bolton, who is nowadays prodding the Israelis to launch their attack before the end of President George W Bush's presidency in a matter of months. Bolton seems not to address the "day after", that is, how Iranians will shed their stated aversion toward nuclear weapons and go full nuclear if they are subjected to an unprovoked warfare.
But Bolton and other US neo-conservatives have shown no qualms about "obliterating Iran" if need be to secure the state of Israel, irrespective of certain voices in Israel, such as a former head of the spy agency Mossad, who dare to tell the Israeli public that the Iran threat has been "exaggerated" or that there is a "mirage of a Shi'ite threat", to echo the heading of an article in the daily Ha'aretz by Zvi Bar'el.
Although the costs of a war on Iran would be prohibitively high, and Larijani has rightly asked the "Iran Six" to heed the warning of the IAEA's Mohammad ElBaradei that the region will be engulfed in a "ball of fire", Israel has nonetheless boxed itself in in its verbal commitment to prevent Iran from going nuclear, even though the evidence on that matter is seriously lacking.
Israel, which has 150 nuclear bombs, according to a recent statement by former US president Jimmy Carter, constantly projects onto Iran its own hegemonist predilections and, in the words of Shmvel Bar, who sits on Israel's National Security Council, exaggerates the consequences of a nuclear Iran by predicting: "It would become the hegemon of the region. It would dictate oil prices. It would lead the Muslim world." This is nuclear reductionism pure and simple.
First, a nuclear Iran would have no bearing whatsoever on the price of oil. Second, just as nuclear Pakistan has not been able to lead the Muslim world, so similarly a nuclear Iran would not be able to play such a role, in light of the Muslim world's Sunni majority and the Arab-dominated Middle East. Third, Iran has repeatedly offered the olive branch of collective security to its neighbors in the Persian Gulf and it is unclear how a nuclear Iran, that would spur Saudi Arabia's reacting by going nuclear too, would help Iran's regional policies or "ambitions"?
As for Iran's need to counter the US in the region, Iraq in particular will for the foreseeable future be a key theater in which US forces will be pinned down, not warranting any Iranian nuclear shield (dispensing here with the issue of a lack of second-strike capability and the US's dominant force). In sum, the Israeli discourse leaves a lot to be desired and is bottom-line defective.
Note
1. See Afrasiabi and Mojtahedzadeh, Threats are not the way to influence Tehran International Herald Tribune, July 2, 2004.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.
Orignal article posted here.
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Although it is manifestly clear that Israel runs major risks for minor gains by planning to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the tendency of Israeli politicians and pundits to underestimate the risks and the likelihood of success is growing by leaps and bounds.
Following the argument that Israel does not want to wait for a new administration in the United States, to paraphrase one of Israel's voices in the US, CBS consultant Michael Oren, Israel's increasingly bellicose attitude against Iran actually has the adverse effect: it sets barricades in the path of Iranian politicians who want to reach a compromise with the "Iran Six" over Tehran's nuclear program. Tehran is considering a package of proposals presented by the United States, France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany over its uranium-enrichment activities.
The European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, received a positive initial response from Iran's politicians during a recent visit, emphasizing Tehran's preparedness to engage in serious negotiations.
But by escalating threats against Iran precisely at a time the EU is pushing the arch of diplomacy toward Iran, Israel has made it nearly impossible for Tehran to show a great deal of flexibility, since that would be widely interpreted as letting Israel bully Tehran. In terms of regional calculus and Iran's national prestige, this would compromise Iran's position in the Middle East and undermines its national security.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has penned an article in the International Herald Tribune, titled "Diplomacy must work", which paints a reasonable picture of "Iran Six" diplomacy but which alludes to the self-defeating and unreasonable Iranian approach.
Conspicuously missing in Miliband's piece, alluding to Iranian nationalism, is any understanding of the Iranian collective psychology and the operative logic of Iranian nationalism that, historically, does not respond well to external pressures or threats. [1]
An opinion poll conducted by the Tehran website www.tabnak.com shows that the majority of Iranian people are in favor of accepting the "incentive package" offered by the "Iran Six". The package, included civilian nuclear cooperation as well as wider trade in aircraft, energy, high technology and agriculture.
Based on interviews with 35,000 Iranians, the poll indicates that only 24% think Iran should reject the package, compared to 21% who favor accepting it completely and more than 50% who think the Iranian government should accept the package by modifying some aspects of it.
However, the drift of public opinion may turn sharply against any compromise should the threats and coercive actions, seen in the implementation of new EU sanctions targeting some key Iranian officials, the Melli Bank, and more Iranian companies, continue. Ali Larijani, the speaker of the parliament (Majlis) has warned against the "contradictory behavior" of the "Iran Six" as undermining the negotiation process. Similarly, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini has warned that the "politics of sticks and carrots has no effect with respect to Iran's legal rights".
It is a tremendous stretch to think that at this critical juncture nuclear diplomacy with Iran can succeed by upping the ante as the resort to threats of violence undermines the diplomatic track and reduces the chances of a breakthrough in the nuclear standoff.
What military option?
Admiral Michael Mull, chairman of the US Joint Chief of Staff, is in Israel this week to discuss Iran. It can be expected that the issue of a joint attack will be raised, as Israel would need the US's cruise missiles and strategic bombers if there were to be a carpet-bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities.
The pertinent question is what can be achieved by this military option?
A short answer, reflected in Larijani's warning that threats against Iran will result in a "done deal", is that the exercise of the military option will have the opposite effect of putting Iran on the path of nuclear proliferation. This is because Iran would likely end its cooperation with the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and embark on clandestine nuclear proliferation in response to the military aggression.
Unless Israel is prepared to undertake a "permanent war" with Iran, implying constant attacks on Iran, its leaders must realize that their military option may damage some Iranian installations, but most likely Iran's nuclear program would survive and in all likelihood would restart without the benefit of outside supervision and scrutiny, fully geared to the goal of nuclear deterrence.
This is completely overlooked by pro-Israel US politicians, such as former US envoy to the United Nations, John Bolton, who is nowadays prodding the Israelis to launch their attack before the end of President George W Bush's presidency in a matter of months. Bolton seems not to address the "day after", that is, how Iranians will shed their stated aversion toward nuclear weapons and go full nuclear if they are subjected to an unprovoked warfare.
But Bolton and other US neo-conservatives have shown no qualms about "obliterating Iran" if need be to secure the state of Israel, irrespective of certain voices in Israel, such as a former head of the spy agency Mossad, who dare to tell the Israeli public that the Iran threat has been "exaggerated" or that there is a "mirage of a Shi'ite threat", to echo the heading of an article in the daily Ha'aretz by Zvi Bar'el.
Although the costs of a war on Iran would be prohibitively high, and Larijani has rightly asked the "Iran Six" to heed the warning of the IAEA's Mohammad ElBaradei that the region will be engulfed in a "ball of fire", Israel has nonetheless boxed itself in in its verbal commitment to prevent Iran from going nuclear, even though the evidence on that matter is seriously lacking.
Israel, which has 150 nuclear bombs, according to a recent statement by former US president Jimmy Carter, constantly projects onto Iran its own hegemonist predilections and, in the words of Shmvel Bar, who sits on Israel's National Security Council, exaggerates the consequences of a nuclear Iran by predicting: "It would become the hegemon of the region. It would dictate oil prices. It would lead the Muslim world." This is nuclear reductionism pure and simple.
First, a nuclear Iran would have no bearing whatsoever on the price of oil. Second, just as nuclear Pakistan has not been able to lead the Muslim world, so similarly a nuclear Iran would not be able to play such a role, in light of the Muslim world's Sunni majority and the Arab-dominated Middle East. Third, Iran has repeatedly offered the olive branch of collective security to its neighbors in the Persian Gulf and it is unclear how a nuclear Iran, that would spur Saudi Arabia's reacting by going nuclear too, would help Iran's regional policies or "ambitions"?
As for Iran's need to counter the US in the region, Iraq in particular will for the foreseeable future be a key theater in which US forces will be pinned down, not warranting any Iranian nuclear shield (dispensing here with the issue of a lack of second-strike capability and the US's dominant force). In sum, the Israeli discourse leaves a lot to be desired and is bottom-line defective.
Note
1. See Afrasiabi and Mojtahedzadeh, Threats are not the way to influence Tehran International Herald Tribune, July 2, 2004.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and co-author of "Negotiating Iran's Nuclear Populism", Brown Journal of World Affairs, Volume XII, Issue 2, Summer 2005, with Mustafa Kibaroglu. He also wrote "Keeping Iran's nuclear potential latent", Harvard International Review, and is author of Iran's Nuclear Program: Debating Facts Versus Fiction.
Orignal article posted here.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The cat is out of the bag about what Bush's Democratic Revolutions really mean
| |
| Explosively False Propaganda Bush's Middle East legacy |
| by Muhammad Sahimi |
| No part of the world, not even the United States, has been more deeply affected by George W. Bush's presidency than the Middle East. From the lofty goals of starting a "democratic revolution," making a "new Middle East," and helping the Palestinians to have their own independent state, to the bogus "war on terror," invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and meddling in Lebanon, Bush's Middle East policy has been simply one disaster after another. The reality is that the Middle East is of utmost strategic importance to the U.S. U.S. involvement in that region will not end after Bush leaves office in January 2009. Therefore, as the president's second term is coming to an end, it is important to consider the results of his Middle East policy, with the hope the next president will learn valuable lessons from Bush's many blunders and devise a more constructive Middle East policy. So let us consider his legacy. Iraq If there is one minor positive outcome of Bush's Middle East policy, it has to be the removal of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party from power. But at what price?
As if the price that the Iraqis have paid so far is not enough, the Bush-Cheney administration has demanded the following in secret "negotiations" with Iraq's government :
The last one the U.S. also demanded of Iran in the early 1960s, which sparked the June 5, 1963, uprising in Iran, which eventually led to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. As Ayatollah Khomeini said at that time: "Capitulation means if we kill the dogs that the Americans bring to Iran, we will be jailed, but if they kill us, our spouse, or our children, or destroy our homes, they will not be even prosecuted in Iran." Bush's Iraq legacy? A destroyed country, only nominally unified, and probably a quasi-colony of the U.S. for the foreseeable future. Afghanistan After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there was an ocean of good will toward the U.S., and great support for destroying al-Qaeda. What happened? Afghanistan was attacked, even though the U.S. knew that the al-Qaeda leadership had already escaped to the border region with Pakistan, and Donald Rumsfeld reportedly said that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan." The Taliban were overthrown. But where is Afghanistan now?
Bush's Afghanistan legacy? An economic basket case that needs vast amounts of international aid to barely survive and will not be a viable state for decades, if ever. Pakistan Since 9/11, the U.S. has given Pakistan $11 billion in aid, in addition to forgiving its previous debts. Eighty percent of this aid has gone to the military to supposedly fight al-Qaeda. What has happened?
Bush's Pakistan legacy? An unstable nuclear nation with a large number of radicals in its military intelligence (the ISI) who support the Taliban. Lebanon After the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister Rafik Hariri on Feb. 14, 2005, and the subsequent Cedar Revolution, Bush pushed for democratic elections in Lebanon. These were held in spring 2005, but the results were not to Bush's liking. Not only did Hezbollah receive a significant fraction of the votes and send 14 representative to the parliament, but its partners in the March 8 coalition also received significant votes, and Hezbollah joined the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora in July 2005. Condoleezza Rice's "directed democracy" project was a failure. But Bush did not stop meddling in Lebanon's affairs. He constantly provoked Siniora against Hezbollah and its allies, notably Michel Aoun, the Maronite ex-general. The result: Complete paralysis of the government. Then came the summer 2006 war between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah began the war, and was rightfully condemned by the world. But Hezbollah had carried out several such small operations in the past, and each time there was a quick cease-fire. Not this time. With strong support by Bush and Cheney, Israel started a full scale war. Meanwhile, the U.S. prevented the United Nations Security Council from reaching any consensus regarding a cease-fire, buying time for Israel to supposedly crush Hezbollah. Condi Rice promised a "new Middle East," one in which Hezbollah would be defeated and Iran would be attacked. Twelve hundred Lebanese (1,000 of them civilians) and over 150 Israelis (40 of them civilians) were killed, and the infrastructure of Lebanon was greatly damaged by Israel's bombing. Hezbollah, however, won the war. Although a U.S. official told Seymour Hersh that the Israelis viewed Lebanon as "a demo for Iran," the Pentagon had to revise its plans for attacking Iran. After seeing the types of weapons used by Hezbollah, Gen. John Abizaid, then the Centcom commander, said the Iranians "have given us a hint about things to come." Hezbollah remained intact, its popularity in the Arab world greater than ever before. This was the second time it had won a war with Israel. The first time was in 2000 when, after fighting with Israel for 15 years, Hezbollah forced Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon, which it had occupied since 1982. Bush, however, continued his meddling. He provoked Siniora to sack the security chief of Beirut's airport, allegedly a Hezbollah member, and shut down Hezbollah's optical communication network, which had played a crucial role in its victory over Israel. The result: Hezbollah swiftly took over West Beirut and routed forces loyal to Siniora. It demanded restoration of its communication network, giving the security chief his job back and veto power over all the government's decisions. Siniora had taken action against Hezbollah, counting on U. S. aid. The aid never came. Bush blinked. Siniora blinked. The result: Hezbollah got all of its demands and more. Michel Suleiman, a general with whom Hezbollah has good relations, is now the president. Hezbollah is more powerful than ever. Bush's Lebanon legacy? An organization that the U.S. has labeled as terrorist has won impressive strategic victories over both the U.S. and Israel and is in the driving seat. Iran Iran provided significant help to U.S. forces when it attacked Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. It opened its airspace to U.S. aircraft and provided intelligence on the Taliban forces. The opposition forces that it had been supporting for years, the Northern Alliance, were the first to reach Kabul and overthrow the Taliban government. Then, during the UN talks on the future of Afghanistan, after the Taliban's ouster, in Bonn, Germany, in December 2001, Iranian representative Mohammad Javad Zarif met daily with U.S. envoy James Dobbins, who praised Zarif for preventing the conference from collapsing because of last-minute demands by the Northern Alliance [.pdf]. Thus, the National Unity government led by Karzai could not have come to power without Iran's help. How was Iran rewarded? Two months later, President Bush made Iran a charter member of his imaginary "axis of evil." Then, in early May 2003 Iran made a comprehensive proposal to the U.S., offering to negotiate on all important issues, recognizing Israel within its pre-1967 war borders, and cutting off material support to Hamas and Hezbollah. The proposal was never taken seriously. What have been the results of Bush's belligerence toward Iran and his constant demonizing of that nation?
Bush's Iran legacy? A nation on the verge of achieving uranium enrichment and becoming a regional power. Palestine/Israel When Bill Clinton left the White House in 2001, the Israelis and the Palestinians were tantalizingly close to a peace agreement. Today, the probability of peace is practically nil. No other U.S. president has supported Israel as blindly and one-sidedly. He is also the first U.S. president who actually recognized Israel's policy of building and annexing settlements in the West Bank, giving Israel a secret letter committing the U.S. to such a policy. With Bush's support, Israel "evacuated" Gaza but created the largest jail on Earth: Gaza's land, sea, and air borders are all controlled by Israel. It attacks Gaza at will, and when it kills innocent women, children, and old men, what does Bush say? "Israel must defend itself." Bush and Rice pushed for democratic elections among Palestinians. The radicals actually wanted such elections too! What happened? The elections were held and certified as democratic by Jimmy Carter, but Hamas won. It received more votes than any other group, including Fatah, and took control of the Palestinian parliament. As usual, Rice was shocked. "Nobody saw it coming," she declared. (No secretary of state has made more trips to Israel and Palestine than Rice without having anything to show for it.) So what happened? Instead of trying to work with Hamas, which has never been a threat to the U.S., Bush began punishing the Palestinians by cutting off all aid and pressuring others to follow the U.S. lead. Hamas responded to this by routing the Fatah forces in Gaza, taking full control there. Bush has paid lip service to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. In his recent speech before the Knesset, Israel's parliament, Bush promised the Palestinians that they would have a state of their own "over the next 60 years." Some promise. Bush's Israel/Palestine legacy? Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is more farfetched than ever. The Middle East In addition to all the above, here is the rest of Bush's legacy in the Middle East:
Bush still refuses to face the realities of the mess that he has created in the Middle East. His overall Middle East legacy is EFP, explosively false propaganda, through which he still tries to sell his fantasies to the public. Yes, Mr. President, contrary to what you said recently, there is such a thing as "objective short-term history," and you have failed its test miserably. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)