THE CONCLUSIVE
CLOSE

Additionally, this question: Is there no limit to the incessant "fund raising" for OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) that billionaires Arlene (Director) and Harold Schnitzer (now deceased) insert into their Public Broadcasting daily programming, programming which coincides with a collateral damaging, as it were, collateral reduction in timely "Hard News", conspicuously led by the absence of the threat to Middle East peace exemplified by Netanyahu & Lieberman's Israel?!?! In actuality, OPB under the Schnitzers has degenerated into OPPB, Oregon Public Propaganda Broadcasting, on a track developed in our age by Roger Ailes (who originated 'FOX' broadcasting) and his protege' Rush Limbaugh. Shameful.

What is often forgotten is that the notorious Schnitzer family of Oregon [which is responsible for the desecration of OPB (Oregon "Public" Broadcasting)] invited the war monger Benjamin Netanyahu to Portland, Oregon in July of 2002 to campaign for Republican Senator Gordon Smith (for whom the phrase "empty suit" was coined), i.e. Democrats for Smith, whose sub rosa supporters surely included Senator Ron Wyden. Netanyahu, whose Israeli acolyte Yigal Amir assassinated the genuine Soldier/Statesman Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November of 1995, this Netanyahu, through the notorious Israeli political apparatus, became the Israeli prime minister 1996-99! And it is this Netanyahu who the Schnitzers invited to Oregon to campaign for Gordon Smith. In all of this there exists (moreso today) , a fanatic, frenetic thread of sordid madness, a true threat to world peace as Netanyahu has demonstrated in the Middle East, and a diminishing informed American public here at home, as the Schnitzers are demonstrating with Oregon Public Broadcasting. We should have known. Netanyahu and the Schnitzers are COUSINS!, and on 7/19/10 Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow informed our ignorance, again.

"A newly revealed tape shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once openly discussed his intent to attack the Palestinian government, undermine the Oslo peace accords, and manipulate the United States to ensure its approval. The 2001 recording shows Netanyahu meeting with Israeli SETTLERS in the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu was then out of government after serving his first stint in office. Apparently unaware he was being recorded, Netanyahu talks openly of a 'broad attack' on the Palestinian government, saying, 'The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne.'

"Netanyahu also outlines how he would undermine the 1993 Oslo accords, he said, which established the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, by declaring any West Bank land that Israel wants to retain as 'military' and 'security zones.' Addressing potential US opposition to Israeli expansionism, Netanyahu says, 'I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. THEY WON’T GET IN THE WAY.'" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/19/10

 

THE CONCLUSIVE
CLOSE II

* The self-proclaimed, inimitable Margaret Warner, once again:

MARGARET WARNER: The Jordanian monarch himself has faced demands for change since the onset of the Arab spring last year. These protesters in Amman last spring were demanding political reform and more economic growth.

King Abdullah met the demands by increasing government subsidies, firing his cabinet and amending the constitution in some respects. At the same time, the king has been trying to deal with the Middle East's other major challenge, the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

He updated President Obama on talks he hosted this month between negotiators for the two sides.

KING ABDULLAH II, Jordan: Although this is still in the very early stages, we have to keep our fingers crossed and hope that we can bring the Israelis and the Palestinians out of the impasse that we're facing.

MARGARET WARNER: The king has a keen interest in ending that impasse. Half of Jordan's population of 6.5 million people is Palestinian, and the country is one of only two Arab nations to sign a peace treaty with Israel.

For now, though, the violence in Syria is perhaps the most urgent topic on Jordan's agenda. The Arab League meets Sunday to decide whether to extend the monitors' mission for another month, or take stronger action.

MARGARET WARNER: I spoke with King Abdullah about all this today at his hotel in Washington.

Your Majesty, thank you for joining us.

The Arab League is about to wind up its mission, in fact, today, in Syria. What do you think has been accomplished, if anything?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I think it's given Arab countries a better insight of what is going on inside of Syria.

It's been an interesting mission, and I think we have had some gains and some losses on that. And I think what it will do is it will help develop a Pan-Arab strategy on how to deal with Syria. Obviously, we have been in discussions with the Syrians for many, many months on what is going on internally.

I think all our countries are very concerned of what is happening. And I will have to see what the next stage, what the outcome will be from Arab League decisions. Obviously, we in Jordan will abide by the Arab League and we will work together with them, whatever the advice is going to be.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, President Assad last week, though, gave a very, very tough speech in which he said he was going to continue to go after the terrorists with an iron fist. He was quite insulting about the Arab League and the mission.

Do you think it's had any effect in moderating, even, the killing?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, this has been going on -- the exchanges between the Arab League and Syria have been going on for a while. And we've had some very heated discussions in Cairo. We have had delegations go to Syria.

I do wish that the Syrian regime would take the Arab League a bit more seriously, because, at the end, a unified Arab position is something that they have to consider very seriously. The next couple of weeks are going to be very critical. How does the Arab League deal with Syria and with President Assad?

MARGARET WARNER: The emir of Qatar this weekend on "60 Minutes" said that, in fact, the killing was so horrific, that Arab troops should be sent in to stop the killing.

Would you ever support something like that?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, again, I'll fall back to say that we are with Arab consensus. And we will have to see what the Arab League comes up with.

I'm just very wary that, once you start military operations in any country, it's very difficult to predict what the outcome is. We're hoping that dialogue, continued pressure on Syria will have an effect.

Understanding it from my point of view that, unfortunately, what you are seeing in Syria, you'll see pretty much of the same thing for a while to come. When Syria. . .

MARGARET WARNER: You mean you think the killing really is going to continue at this pace?

KING ABDULLAH II: I don't know at this pace, but I think the disturbances and the loss of life will continue, unfortunately.

The problem with Syria -- and we've been here in Washington for a few days talking to our colleagues here. And I've been in interaction with my colleagues around the world and the Middle East -- nobody has an answer for Syria. And that is the most disturbing thing.

We don't really know what to do. It's different than Iraq. It's different than Libya. There are so many different sub-societies inside of Syria. But once things are taken to a next level, so to speak, as you are alluding to, it could be anybody's guess what is going to happen. And I think that is what concerns everybody.

MARGARET WARNER: You have known Bashar Assad a long time. The two of you are almost the same age. You came to power almost at the same time, both the sons of powerful rulers in your respective countries.

I'm also told that you actually told the Obama administration you thought he was a reform-minded young leader that they could work with. What happened? What went wrong? What did he do wrong?

KING ABDULLAH II: Look, you know, I do know President Bashar very well. I also know his wife and his children, and my family knows them very well.

And I believe that, in his blood, he does have reform, he does have the vision. And what I keep trying to explain to people is I think that the system doesn't allow for that in Syria. So, whether the intentions are there, the way the political system is, the party, the sect, I don't think allows for reform to happen, because once they start to open that door, then I think everything falls apart.

So I think he is hijacked by his position, by the system that he is in charge of.

MARGARET WARNER: Are you suggesting that he would like to compromise, to open the door to sharing power, but somehow has been precluded from it?

KING ABDULLAH II: No.

I think if -- I'm going back on my experiences of Bashar. He's always tried to implement reforms. Just, I think the system didn't allow for it. And in an atmosphere of the Arab Spring, where there has been conflict between the regime and the people, and now that there's, as you see, the bloodshed is ongoing, I think he's hostage to the regime.

So, even if he wanted to, I don't think that he could change the way that he does business. And people say well, you know, if Bashar is replaced -- my feeling from looking at Syria, even if he is replaced, the person that comes in his place, would he have the ability to reach out in actual dialogue, as we did in Jordan and other countries?

I don't think the system allows for that. So it's not so much the issue of the individual, is what I'm trying to point out. It's the system that won't allow for what's happening in Syria to change in the near time.

MARGARET WARNER: And what do you mean by the system?

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, it's a political party based on a sect.

MARGARET WARNER: The Alawites.

KING ABDULLAH II: The Alawites.

So, unlike, you could say, in Iraq, where it was the Baath Party, it was a political party, this is based on an ethnic group, if you say, or a sect of people. And if they start to relinquish power, then I don't think there's a middle ground. Everything will go.

So I have the sense that sometimes, when they talk to each other, it's sort of a do-or-die attitude. They don't have much choice. And I think, if you look at Syria from that point of view, you'll understand the way that they are taking on the opposition in their country.

And, you know, from my point of view, I don't see this ending up as a good story. I mean, it's going to turn out badly no matter what. When is anybody's guess.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you think that the U.N. Security Council should impose sanctions or a sanctions regime? They seem to be waiting to hear a recommendation from the Arab League.

What would your inclination be in that regard, whether to encourage the U.N. Security Council to do some sanctions?

KING ABDULLAH II: I think that is where the dialogue is going. And, again, if you looked at what happened in Libya, it was, I think, bold action taken by the Arab League that allowed U.N., NATO and others to firm up their position.

And so, if I can predict what will be happening over the near future, again, the relationship between the Arab League and the U.N. on how to take it to the next step, understanding from our experience last year that, when the Arab League comes together as a bloc and makes a decision, it's much more easier for the international community to then move to the next phase.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, you are, of course, in a region that's seen a lot of unrest, as we just referred to. And you've had protests and demonstrations in your country for almost a year -- for a year. How secure do you feel?

KING ABDULLAH II: I think very secure.

I mean, I think you have to be confident in what you are trying to achieve. We've had, as you said, demonstrations for actually just over a year. And I think we're the only country definitely in the region -- and when you look across the world, we're the only country in 2011, with all the demonstrations that we've had, that there was no single loss of life.

And that, I think, talks about the attitude of how we are moving with the reform process, tremendous pride I have with the security services that really took a lot of hard hits to make sure that citizens are protected. And, today, we have a road map. We will have elections, municipal and national this year.

There was a lot of requests by those in opposition to change the way that Jordan does business. They wanted to change the constitution. And, actually, a third of the constitution has been ratified. The most -- two important things are constitutional accord, and for the election process and for, I think, the democratic process of political parties, an independent commission for elections that then allows the government to step way back and have nothing to do with elections.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the activists, the -- some of your opponents say, though, that your security forces have continued and have used brutal tactics against protesters, demonstrators, opposition parties.

KING ABDULLAH II: Well, I think -- well, I think certain opposition members in any country will continue to take that line, no matter what you do.

But the proof in the pudding is that in a year of demonstrations, not one loss of life. And in actual fact, if you want to look at how many people have been in hospital, there's a far greater proportion of policemen that have ended up being injured, some of them brutally stabbed with swords and knives over a couple of -- very nasty conflict with a crowd.

And they have taken those hits to make sure that the civilians have been protected. So, actually, I'm amazed at what the police have been able to do, and I think the complete opposite to the impression that some people are trying to give about Jordan.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, finally, you have embarked on this attempt to get the Israelis and Palestinians to at least talk about talking with one another. How does that fit in the context of the Arab Spring?

KING ABDULLAH II: What our friends in the West must understand is that whatever is happening in the Arab Spring, whatever any country is going through, the core issue in the minds of all Arabs and Muslims is that of the Palestinians.

And so it is very dangerous to maneuver in the Arab Spring without paying any attention to the Israeli-Palestinian process. The Israelis and Palestinians have not been talking to each other for quite some time. It would be tremendously damaging to both of them if we went into 2012 without any negotiations.

As a result, we have been successful in getting Israelis and Palestinians together in Jordan in what I call baby steps. We have been doing this for over 60 years. Let's not think, through naivete, that we are going to solve it right away.

MARGARET WARNER: Should I read from your tone, though, that you don't think a chance of a breakthrough is very likely in 2012?

KING ABDULLAH II: The simple fact that I think both leaders, Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, I believe, want a way out of the impasse and have come to Jordan to have their lieutenants, so to speak, try to set up the process, so that we can get both the leaders together, I think should be given a lot of credit to both sides.

We know there are obstacles. We know there is a hard road to battle forward, but at least they're talking to each other. What we will see over the next couple of weeks will determine if there is enough there for the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to sit around at a table. If we can achieve that, then 2012 will be a safer year for both the Israelis and the Palestinians, with all the instability that is going on in the region.

MARGARET WARNER: Your Majesty, thank you so much.

KING ABDULLAH II: Not at all. Great pleasure. Thank you. - Margaret Warner, PBS Newshour 1/19/12

*  A REMINDER  *

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The Riverside Church New York
BEYOND VIETNAM
April 4, 1967 - ONE YEAR TO THE DAY PRIOR TO HIS ASSASSINATION

"After 1954, they ( the North Vietnamese ) watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. And they remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South, until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the President ( LBJ )...

[ This is the same President Johnson who, on this fateful trip to Dallas, informed his longtime mistress Madelane (sp) Brown, mother of his illegitimate son Steven, now deceased ( whom LBJ supported, along with mistress Madelane, until LBJ's death ) informed her that they wouldn't have to worry about the "Kennedy boys" any longer. ]

...claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than 8,000 miles away from its shores.

At this point, I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else, for it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other, and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after the short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long, they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed...

[ not unlike our proxy Israel ( or, are we Israel's proxy? ) in Palestinian land being laid waste, and Palestinian homes being destroyed ]

...whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America, who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote: "Each day the war goes on, the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism,” unquote.

We continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war and set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.

Part of our ongoing—part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under the new regime, which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary.

Meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task, while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now, there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality—and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression, which has now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisers" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago, he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay a hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism and militarism. With this powerful commitment, we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means, in the final analysis, that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft-misunderstood, this oft-misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man.

When I speak of love, I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response, I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I’m speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the First Epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”

Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says, "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word," unquote.

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam writes, "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now, let us begin. Now, let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter—but beautiful—struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah,
Off’ring each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. April 4, 1967

LEST WE FORGET

 

JIM LEHRER: David, how would you see it?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I don't know whether it was worth it. The cost was obviously high in lives, treasure and national morale.

But we have this -- we're left with this thing. We basically had centuries of stasis and stability and stagnation in the Middle East, which produced terrorism, but also produced the crushing of human capital for century after century -- 9/11 happens, the Taliban is thrown out, Saddam is deposed, people are voting with purple fingers.

And now we have a moment of turmoil. We don't know this turmoil -- it could be worse, it could be better. But it's a moment of turmoil. I think the Iraq war and the deposition of Saddam Hussein was part of the things that encouraged, instigated the turmoil. It's very messy, very complicated.

But, in 100 years or in 50 years, we will look back and see where the turmoil went and maybe we will have a better sense of how the Iraqi elections, getting rid of Saddam, getting rid of the Taliban helped lead to maybe getting rid of Mubarak, Gadhafi and all the rest.

JIM LEHRER: So, your sense of it now is that it's possible if -- that it could turn out very positive?

DAVID BROOKS: It's possible it could turn out badly. I say that with no confidence. But I would say we have moved from a period of stagnation to a period of turmoil. Whether that's good or bad turmoil, history will judge.

MARK SHIELDS: It's a terrible, terrible policy to go to war, the most serious decision a country can make, with absolutely no justification.

I mean, let's be very blunt about it. Al-Qaida was responsible for 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with it. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no ability or capacity to deliver those weapons that were nonexistent.

JIM LEHRER: And you don't dispute that, David?

DAVID BROOKS: No. Well, we obviously thought what we thought back then.

But I always thought that the need to disrupt the Middle East was one of the reasons why it was necessary.

MARK SHIELDS: Unstated.

JIM LEHRER: Unstated.

And goodbye.

(LAUGHTER) - PBS Newshour w/Mark Shields and David Brooks 12/16/11

 

* - Reflections on Iraq as U S Troops Leave -

To The EDITOR:

Re “U.S. Marks End to a Long War for an Uncertain Iraq” (front page, Dec. 16) and “A Formal End” (editorial, Dec. 16):

The convoy pictured rumbling down a dark highway is a welcome symbol of American withdrawal from a war that should never have been. The tanks leave a country that the United States exploded and dismantled, bringing death, illness and grief to Iraqi families.

Your editorial rightly calls the costs of this war “intolerable.” Yet even as troops leave, American contractors and corporations jostle for position and lucrative security, weapons and oil contracts.

Meanwhile, tensions with Iran persist, drone attacks rile Pakistan, and in Afghanistan, the war goes on.

At the end of 2011 we find ourselves bankrupted by war and wondering if, in Iraq, any lessons have been learned. After wars launched with cries of democracy and freedom, we must dust off and embrace two neglected words: diplomacy and peace. - NANCY DICKEMAN Seattle 12/16/11

A Formal End American troops, thankfully, are coming home.  But Iraq will need help and goading for years.

It is a relief that the American role in the misguided Iraq war is finally over. It came to an official close on Thursday with an appropriately subdued ceremony in Baghdad. We mourn the nearly 4,500 American troops and tens of thousands ( HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS! ) of Iraqis who lost their lives.

After so much pain and sacrifice, Iraqis now have the responsibility for making their own better future. The fighting is not over, and success is still a long shot. The United States has a major role to play: encouraging, supporting and goading Iraq’s leaders to make the long-delayed political compromises that are their only hope for building a stable democracy.

The fact that Saddam Hussein is gone is a genuine cause for celebration. But the list of errors and horrors in this war is inexcusably long, starting with a rush to invasion based on manipulated intelligence.

The Bush administration had no plan for governing the country once Saddam was deposed. The Iraqi economy still bears the scars from the first frenzied days of looting. The decision to disband the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army helped unleash five years of sectarian strife that has not fully abated. Iraq’s political system remains deeply riven by ethnic and religious differences.

America’s reputation has yet to fully recover from the horrors of Abu Ghraib. THE COUNTRY IS STILL PAYING A HUGE PRICE FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH’S DECISION TO SHORTCHANGE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. American policy makers, for generations to come, must study these mistakes carefully and ensure that they are not repeated.

As for Iraq today, the authoritarian tendencies of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki are deeply troubling. A member of the Shiite majority that was badly persecuted under Saddam, he has been far more interested in payback than inclusion.

Washington has pushed him over the years — but, often, not hard enough.

The Baghdad government promised jobs to 100,000 members of the Sunni Awakening movement — insurgents whose decision to switch sides helped end the civil war — but only half that have been hired. Parliament still needs to enact a law, called for in the Constitution, that would provide a legal basis for determining who should be prosecuted for supporting Saddam’s Baath Party or other extremist ideologies. Iraq’s leaders have many more issues to resolve. INCREDIBLY, THEY HAVE STILL NOT DECIDED HOW TO DIVIDE THE COUNTRY’S OIL WEALTH. THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ON WHO WILL CONTROL THE OIL-RICH CITY OF KIRKUK, which is claimed by both Baghdad and the semiautonomous Kurdish regional government.

Iraq’s oil production still has not rebounded, and basic services like electricity are still woefully inadequate. Iraq needs an impartial justice system. Washington has pressed Baghdad for years to end corruption and build a representative government. It will need to keep pressing.

After investing billions of dollars, the United States has had more success rebuilding Iraq’s security forces. But Iraqi and American commanders say these forces are not ready to fully protect the country against insurgents or potentially hostile neighbors. There are critical weaknesses in intelligence, air defenses, artillery and logistics.

The Obama administration was unable to reach a new defense agreement with Baghdad that would have allowed several thousand American troops to stay behind as backup. We hope that the Iraqi Army will do better than expected. The administration must be prepared to offer limited help if the army does get into serious trouble.

President Obama, who first ran for office campaigning against the war, has never wavered on his promise to bring the troops home. The last few thousand will be out of Iraq by year’s end. We celebrate their return. BUT THIS COUNTRY ( THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! ) MUST NEVER FORGET THE INTOLERABLE COSTS OF A WAR STARTED ON ARROGANCE AND LIES ( BY GEORGE WALKER BUSH! ) ! - N Y Times Editorial 12/16/11

Keystone Claptrap

Republican lawmakers are spinning fantasies about an oil pipeline from Canada

The Keystone XL oil pipeline has become the House Republicans’ weapon of choice in their fight with President Obama over jobs and taxes. Mr. Obama has said he will not make a decision on the pipeline until 2013. The Republicans are insisting that he approve it now and have attached an amendment to a bill extending the payroll tax cut in hopes of forcing his hand.

This legislative booby trap seems unlikely to make it through the Senate, and the president has all but said he would reject it if it does. But this has not stopped the House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, from using the pipeline as a political cudgel — or from wildly inflating its economic benefits.

The pipeline, known as Keystone XL, would be built by a Canadian company to carry HEAVY crude oil 1,700 miles from the tar sands in northern Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast. IT IS OPPOSED BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS BECAUSE EXTRACTING THE OIL FROM CANADA’S BOREAL FORESTS WOULD GENERATE MORE GREENHOUSE GASES THAN CONVENTIONAL OIL DRILLING. IT IS OPPOSED BY POLITICIANS AND VOTERS FROM BOTH PARTIES IN GREAT PLAINS STATES THAT THE PIPELINE WOULD CROSS.

Mr. Boehner calls Mr. Obama’s delay “theatrics” and described the project as a “no brainer” that will create “tens of thousands” of jobs immediately. This is a fairy tale, implying not only short-term but permanent benefits. The pipeline company, TransCanada, says the project could create 6,500 construction jobs annually, most of them temporary.

The State Department, the lead federal agency on the project, also estimates 6,500 temporary jobs. AND THE ONLY INDEPENDENT STUDY, conducted by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, concludes that IT MAY GENERATE NO MORE THAN 50 PERMANENT JOBS WHEN THE WORK IS DONE.

Contrary to another favorite Republican argument, the pipeline will also do little to reduce America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Though it would provide a steady source of crude for Gulf Coast refineries, existing contracts and business plans indicate that most of their output will be destined for export.

In the Senate, the minority leader, MITCH MCCONNELL, CALLS THE KEYSTONE XL “A SHOVEL-READY PROJECT.” He and Mr. Boehner should look again at the environmental downside and at the negative public reaction along the proposed route through sensitive terrain. They should also take a look at the job numbers. THE ONLY SHOVEL THIS PROJECT IS READY FOR IS THE ONE THAT WILL BURY IT FOR GOOD.- N Y Times Editorial 12/13/11

Aides Qualify Panetta’s Comments on Iran

By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — An assertion by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta 12/19/11 that Iran could have a nuclear weapon as soon as next year was based on a highly aggressive timeline and a series of actions that Iran has not yet taken, senior Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

In an interview broadcast Monday on “CBS Evening News,” Mr. Panetta was asked whether Iran could have a nuclear weapon in 2012.

“It would be sometime around a year that they would be able to do it,” he said. “Perhaps a little less.”

Mr. Panetta said the country’s ability to become a nuclear-weapons state could be accelerated if there was “a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel.”

He also restated American policy: that it would be unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that no options, including military action, had been taken off the table to prevent that from happening.

“The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Panetta said. “That’s a red line for us. And it’s a red line, obviously, for the Israelis.”

But on Tuesday, George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, said MR. PANETTA’S COMMENTS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A PREDICTION THAT IRAN WOULD HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON WITHIN A YEAR.

“The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Little said. “He was asked to comment on prospective and aggressive timelines on Iran’s possible production of nuclear weapons — and he said if, and only if, they made such a decision. He didn’t say that Iran would, in fact, have a nuclear weapon in 2012.”

Mr. Little said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency remained in Iran and had “good access to Iran’s continuing production of low-enriched uranium.” Should Iran choose to “break out” — diverting low-enriched uranium to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium — the inspectors could detect it, Mr. Little said.

“We would retain sufficient time under any such scenario to take appropriate action,” he said.

Mr. Panetta’s comments and efforts by his senior aides to add nuance and context to those statements show the highly sensitive nature of all public dialogue on Iran’s nuclear intentions. THE ISSUE IS PARTICULARLY ACUTE AS A DEBATE IS RAGING IN ISRAEL OVER WHETHER PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT IRAN FROM CONSTRUCTING A NUCLEAR WEAPON, AND, IF SO, HOW MUCH TIME REMAINS. - Shanker N Y Times A 8 12/21/11

Scott Pelley, continuing the journalistic eloquence of CBS, brings on the great David Martin to detail the beginning of this latest threat to world peace brought to the fore by Israel.

David Martin (1/11/12): "But somebody, perhaps Israel, is killing Iran’s nuclear scientists. Today’s assassination had the same M.O. as two attacks in November of 2010. One killed a scientist believed to be working on the design of a nuclear weapon; the other wounded the man who is now head of Iran’s atomic energy organization. A remote control bomb killed another nuclear scientist in January of 2010.

All told, three nuclear scientists have been assassinated. And that is only one of the covert tactics being used against Iran.

In 2010 the control systems at this Uranium enrichment facility were hit by a computer virus known as Stuxnet, causing centrifuges to spin out of control and self destruct.

And just last December, an explosion at a rocket testing complex outside Tehran killed the head of Iran’s ballistic missile program, along with several senior engineers, although it is not clear whether that blast was accidental or deliberate."

These events are of such a monstrous nature ( ACTUALLY ACTS OF WAR! ) that on public television, i.e. PBS Newshour, they could not be avoided by the successors to former host Jim Lehrer's nightly program.  Hence, the second item on 1/12/12 Jeffrey Brown's program on PBS Newshour was the assassination of still another Iranian nuclear scientist.  What was striking about the report was the ease with which Mr. Brown, and an Israeli military specialist Ronan Bergman and a David Albright casually presented the overwhelming evidence that Israel has been engaged in war against Iran for some time now, the early evidence for which was detailed by Seymour Hersh in the June 6, 2011 The New Yorker, which article was virtually ignored by Chairman S. I. Newhouse, Jr.

 

BOTTOM LINE

 

IRAN ADVERSARIES SAID TO STEP UP COVERT ACTIONS

BOMB KILLS A SCIENTIST

U. S. and Israel Seeking to Slow Progress on a Nuclear Program

By SCOTT SHANE  WASHINGTON -

 

AS ARGUMENTS FLARE IN ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES ABOUT A POSSIBLE MILITARY STRIKE TO SET BACK IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM, AN ACCELERATING COVERT CAMPAIGN OF ASSASSINATIONS, BOMBINGS, CYBERATTACKS AND DEFECTIONS APPEARS INTENDED TO MAKE THAT DECISION IRRELEVANT, ACCORDING TO CURRENT AND FORMER AMERICAN OFFICIALS AND SPECIALISTS ON IRAN.

THE CAMPAIGN, WHICH EXPERTS BELIEVE IS BEING CARRIED OUT MAINLY BY ISRAEL, APPARENTLY CLAIMED ITS LATEST VICTIM ON WEDNESDAY WHEN A BOMB KILLED A 32-YEAR-OLD NUCLEAR SCIENTIST IN TEHRAN’S MORNING RUSH HOUR.

THE SCIENTIST, MOSTAFA AHMADI ROSHAN, WAS A DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR AT THE NATANZ URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANT, A PARTICIPANT IN WHAT WESTERN LEADERS BELIEVE IS IRAN’S HALTING BUT DETERMINED PROGRESS TOWARD A NUCLEAR WEAPON. HE WAS AT LEAST THE FIFTH SCIENTIST WITH NUCLEAR CONNECTIONS TO BE MURDERED SINCE 2007; A SIXTH SCIENTIST, FERERYDOON ABBASI, SURVIVED A 2010 ATTACK AND WAS PUT IN CHARGE OF IRAN’S ATOMIC ENERGY ORGANIZATION.

Iranian officials immediately blamed both Israel and the United States for the latest death, which came less than two months after a suspicious explosion at an Iranian missile base that killed a top general and 16 other people. While American officials deny a role in lethal activities, the United States is believed to engage in other covert efforts against the Iranian nuclear program.

The assassination drew an unusually strong condemnation from the White House and the State Department, which disavowed any American complicity. The statements by the United States appeared to reflect serious concern about the growing number of lethal attacks, which some experts believe could backfire by undercutting future negotiations and prompting Iran to redouble what the West suspects is a quest for a nuclear capacity.

“The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to expand the denial beyond Wednesday’s killing, “categorically” denying “any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran.”

“We believe that there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbors and the international community that finds a way forward for it to end its provocative behavior ( PROVOCATIVE?  WHO HAVE THE IRANIANS KILLED FROM EITHER ISRAEL OR THE UNITED STATES? ) , end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community,” Mrs. Clinton said.

THE ISRAELI MILITARY SPOKESMAN, BRIG. GEN. YOAV MORDACHAI, WRITING ON FACEBOOK ABOUT THE ATTACK, SAID, “I DON’T KNOW WHO TOOK REVENGE ON THE IRANIAN SCIENTIST, BUT I AM DEFINITELY NOT SHEDDING A TEAR,” ISRAELI NEWS MEDIA REPORTED.

The scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, was a supervisor at a uranium enrichment plant.

Like the drone strikes that the Obama administration has embraced as a core tactic against Al Qaeda, the multifaceted covert campaign against Iran has appeared to offer an alternative to war. But at most it has slowed, not halted, Iran’s enrichment of uranium, a potential fuel for a nuclear weapon. And some skeptics believe that it may harden Iran’s resolve or set a dangerous precedent for a strategy that could be used against the United States and its allies.

Neither Israeli nor American officials will discuss the covert campaign in any detail, leaving some uncertainty about the perpetrators and their purpose. For instance, Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he believed that at least some of the murdered scientists might have been killed by the Iranian government. Some of them had shown sympathy for the Iranian opposition, he said, and not all appeared to have been high-ranking experts.

“I think there is reason to doubt the idea that all the hits have been carried out by Israel,” Mr. Sadjadpour said. “It’s very puzzling that Iranian nuclear scientists, whose movements are likely carefully monitored by the state, can be executed in broad daylight, sometimes in rush-hour traffic, and their culprits never found.”

A MORE COMMON VIEW, HOWEVER, IS EXPRESSED BY PATRICK CLAWSON, DIRECTOR OF THE IRAN SECURITY INITIATIVE AT THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY. “I OFTEN GET ASKED WHEN ISRAEL MIGHT ATTACK IRAN,” MR. CLAWSON SAID. “I SAY, ‘TWO YEARS AGO.’ ”

MR. CLAWSON SAID THE COVERT CAMPAIGN WAS FAR PREFERABLE TO OVERT AIRSTRIKES BY ISRAEL OR THE UNITED STATES ON SUSPECTED IRANIAN NUCLEAR SITES. “SABOTAGE AND ASSASSINATION IS THE WAY TO GO, IF YOU CAN DO IT,” HE SAID. “IT DOESN’T PROVOKE A NATIONALIST REACTION IN IRAN, WHICH COULD STRENGTHEN THE REGIME. AND IT ALLOWS IRAN TO CLIMB DOWN IF IT DECIDES THE COST OF PURSUING A NUCLEAR ( GENERATION OF POWER? ) WEAPON IS TOO HIGH.”

A former senior Israeli security official, who would speak of the covert campaign only in general terms and on the condition of anonymity, said the uncertainty about who was responsible was useful. “It’s not enough to guess,” he said. “You can’t prove it, so you can’t retaliate. When it’s very, very clear who’s behind an attack, the world behaves differently.”

The former Israeli official noted that Iran carried out many assassinations of enemies, mostly Iranian opposition figures, during the 1980s and 1990s, and had been recently accused of plotting to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States in Washington.

“In Arabic, there’s a proverb: If you are shooting, don’t complain about being shot,” he said. But he portrayed the killings and bombings as part of a larger Israeli strategy to prevent all-out war.

“I think the cocktail of diplomacy, of sanctions, of covert activity might bring us something,” the former official said. “I think it’s the right policy while we still have time.”

ISRAEL HAS USED ASSASSINATION AS A TOOL OF STATECRAFT SINCE ITS CREATION IN 1948, HISTORIANS SAY, KILLING DOZENS OF PALESTINIAN AND OTHER MILITANTS AND A SMALL NUMBER OF FOREIGN SCIENTISTS, MILITARY OFFICIALS OR PEOPLE ACCUSED OF BEING HOLOCAUST COLLABORATORS.

BUT THERE IS NO EXACT PRECEDENT FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE CURRENT CAMPAIGN AGAINST IRAN, INVOLVING ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES AND A BROAD ARRAY OF METHODS.

The assassinations have been carried out primarily by motorcyclists who attach magnetic bombs to the victim’s car, often in heavy traffic, before speeding away.

Iran’s Mehr news agency said Wednesday’s explosion took place on Gol Nabi Street, on Mr. Roshan’s route to work, at 8:20 a.m. The news agency said the scientist, who also taught at a technical university, was deputy director of commercial affairs at the Natanz site, evidently in charge of buying equipment and materials. Two other people were wounded, and one later died in a hospital, Iranian officials said.

IRAN’S AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS, MOHAMMAD KHAZEE, SENT A LETTER OF PROTEST TO SECRETARY GENERAL BAN KI-MOON, BLAMING “CERTAIN FOREIGN QUARTERS” FOR WHAT HE CALLED “TERRORIST ACTS” AIMED AT DISRUPTING IRAN’S “PEACEFUL NUCLEAR PROGRAM, UNDER THE FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT DIPLOMACY ALONE WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH FOR THAT PURPOSE.”

THE AMBASSADOR’S LETTER COMPLAINED OF SABOTAGE, A POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO THE STUXNET COMPUTER WORM, BELIEVED TO BE A JOINT AMERICAN-ISRAELI PROJECT, THAT REPORTEDLY LED TO THE DESTRUCTION IN 2010 OF ABOUT A FIFTH OF THE CENTRIFUGES IRAN USES TO ENRICH URANIUM. IT ALSO SAID THE COVERT CAMPAIGN INCLUDED “A MILITARY STRIKE ON IRAN,” EVIDENTLY A REFERENCE TO A MYSTERIOUS EXPLOSION THAT DESTROYED MUCH OF AN IRANIAN MISSILE BASE ON NOV. 12.

THAT EXPLOSION, WHICH IRAN EXPERTS SAY THEY BELIEVE WAS PROBABLY AN ISRAELI EFFORT, KILLED GEN. HASSAN TEHRANI MOGHADDAM, WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF IRAN’S MISSILE PROGRAM. SATELLITE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOW MULTIPLE BUILDINGS AT THE SITE LEVELED OR HEAVILY DAMAGED.

THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ACCORDING TO CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICIALS, HAS REPEATEDLY TRIED TO DERAIL IRAN’S URANIUM ENRICHMENT PROGRAM BY COVERT MEANS, INCLUDING INTRODUCING SABOTAGED PARTS INTO IRAN’S SUPPLY CHAIN.

In addition, the agency is believed to have encouraged some Iranian nuclear scientists to defect, an effort that came to light in 2010 when a scientist, Shahram Amiri, who had come to the United States, claimed to have been kidnapped by the C.I.A. and returned to Iran. (Press reports say he has since been arrested and tried for treason.) A former deputy defense minister, Ali-Reza Asgari, disappeared while visiting Turkey in 2006 and is widely believed to have defected, possibly to the United States.

WILLIAM C. BANKS, AN EXPERT ON NATIONAL SECURITY LAW AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, SAID HE BELIEVED THAT FOR THE UNITED STATES EVEN TO PROVIDE SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE TO ISRAEL TO HELP KILL AN IRANIAN SCIENTIST WOULD VIOLATE A LONGSTANDING EXECUTIVE ORDER BANNING ASSASSINATIONS. The legal rationale for drone strikes against terrorist suspects — that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda and its allies — would not apply, he said.

“UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, AIDING AND ABETTING WOULD BE THE SAME AS PULLING THE TRIGGER,” MR. BANKS SAID. HE ADDED, “WE WOULD BE IN A PRECARIOUS POSITION MORALLY, AND THE ENTIRE WORLD IS WATCHING, EXPECIALLY CHINA AND RUSSIA.”

Gary Sick, a specialist on Iran at Columbia, said he believed that the covert campaign, combined with sanctions, would not persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear work.

“IT’S IMPORTANT TO TURN AROUND AND ASK HOW THE U.S. WOULD FEEL IF OUR REVENUE WAS BEING CUT OFF, OUR SCIENTISTS WERE BEING KILLED AND WE WERE UNDER CYBERATTACK,” MR. SICK SAID. “WOULD WE GIVE IN, OR WOULD WE DOUBLE DOWN? I THINK WE’D FIGHT BACK, AND IRAN WILL, TOO ( IN SPADES! ) .” - SCOTT SHANE N Y Times 1/12/12

The following exchanges, earlier and more recently, are meant to cloud and modify the seriousness of the issue with which we are faced ( A particularly effective "modifier" is the senior producer and anchor for PRI's The World, Marco Werman! ) , a sinister, Jewish American Israeli long-standing information cabal to control, by whatever means, the destiny and resources of the Middle East, and the Islamic lands which surround it!

 

A random selection of additional prominent Jewish commentary:

"Charlie" Rose and Bernard-Henri Lévy:

As it is . . . The incredulity of "Charlie" Rose & Bernard-Henri Lévy sharing their thoughts on the weekend, 1/16-17/11, dedicated to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (Mr. Rose on 1/17-18/11 did replay a 2008 video of his conversation with Tom Brokaw on Dr. King), Bernard-Henri Lévy, surely the most vain and, like "Charlie", egotistical of those who, following the 11/4/95 assassination of Soldier/Statesman Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, composed the infamous "A Clean Break (which refers to the assassination!):  A New Strategy For Securing the Realm (Israel)", the first step of which was the elimination of Saddam Hussein, joining with other supporters of the notorious Benjamin Netanyahu, who, as we have seen from Charlie Gibson's piece, might just as well have pulled the trigger himself.

Further, "Charlie" Rose and Bernard-Henri Lévy ( who, according to the respected The New Yorker journalist Philip Gourevitch in the 12/12/11 The New Yorker Mr. Gourevitch revealed that Charlie's close friend Mr. Lévy "had inherited immense wealth" ) talked on 12/9/11 to enhance their relationship.

And all of this is taking place within the purview of the notorious Zionist Norman Podhoretz, the featured speaker 1/10/08 at the 92nd Street Y in New York city, as his son-in-law William Kristol joins the Op-Ed columnists of The New York Times and the slippery Jewish Frenchman Bernard-Henri Lévy, an early and clamorous, like Richard Perle, supporter of the war against Iraq, schedules his Y appearance for 3/5/08 and Dennis Prager readies his The Case for Judaism for 3/11/08. Mr. Prager, along with Natan Sharansky, a former member of the Israeli cabinet and now chairman of the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies (Israel's strategy?) is also funded by the Las Vegas billionaire ( SHELDON GARY ADELSON ) whose allegiance demands inquiry. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

"Republicans Promise to Be a Better Friend to Israel Than Obama

WASHINGTON — THE LEADING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES DREW ENTHUSIASTIC APPLAUSE FROM REPUBLICAN JEWISH LEADERS HERE ( The Republican Jewish Coalition Forum ) ON WEDNESDAY ( DECEMBER 7TH! ) AFTER ACCUSING PRESIDENT OBAMA OF FALLING SHORT IN HIS SUPPORT OF ISRAEL WHILE CODDLING ITS ADVERSARIES. BUT IT REMAINED TO BE SEEN HOW FAR THOSE ARGUMENTS WILL CARRY THEM, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CANDIDATES’ RIGHTWARD TILT ON OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN JEWS.

The speeches to the Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Candidates Forum suggested that the candidates would differ substantially from previous Democratic and Republican administrations on critical elements of the Middle East peace process. Some indicated they would put less pressure on Israel on issues like the contours of an independent Palestinian state.

NEWT GINGRICH, the former speaker of the House, criticized a line of public discussion — which he blamed on the Obama administration — that he said holds that “IT’S ALWAYS ISRAEL’S FAULT NO MATTER HOW BAD THE OTHER SIDE IS.” THIS, HE ADDED TO SUSTAINED APPLAUSE, “HAS TO STOP.”

 

* The Israelis have never accepted the responsibility for the unprovoked attack on the U. S. S. LIBERTY

- The June 8, 1967 attack on the USS Liberty - "The Attack On The Liberty: The Untold Story On Israel's Deadly 1967 Assault On A US Spyship" -

Capitol Hill - October 2003 - It's an historic occasion. An independent blue-ribbon commission is to release its findings from an investigation into the internationally explosive 36-year old attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967 that left more than 200 US Naval personnel killed or wounded. The commission consists of a former ambassador of the US to Israel; a US Naval Rear Admiral and former head of the US Navy Legal Division; a Marine General, America's highest ranking recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, and a former asst. commandant of the US Marines; a US Navy Four Star Admiral, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former chief of Naval Operations in World War II, a hero, and the only Naval Admiral to have commanded both the Pacific and Atlantic Fleets. Interestingly, this naval admiral was John Sidney McCain II.

Findings - That the attack on the USS Liberty carried out by Israeli forces was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American naval vessel and kill her entire crew; that Israel committed acts of murder against American citizens in an act of war against the United States; that the attack included the machine-gunning of stretcher bearers and life rafts; and that the Lyndon Johnson White House deliberately prevented the United States Navy from coming to the defense of the Navy ship. Never before, in American naval history, has a rescue mission been canceled when an American ship was under attack. In addition, surviving crew members were later threatened with Courts Martial, imprisonment or worse if they talked with anyone about what had happened to them, and they were abandoned by their own government.

- James Scott - author of "Attack On The Liberty" -

- Synopsis -

"On June 8, 1967, as war raged between Israel and its neighbors, an American spy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, eavesdropped on communications off the coast of Egypt. When Israeli fighter jets and reconnaissance planes flew overhead, the Liberty’s crew assumed that the ship’s identifying markings and American flag would be visible to the pilots in the clear skies above. After as many as eight passes over a period of nearly nine hours, fighters suddenly opened fire and began strafing and napalming the Liberty, which had only four machine guns for defense. When the air attack ended, Israeli torpedo boats appeared and scored a direct hit. By the time the assault was over, 34 crewmen had been killed and 171 wounded, two-thirds of the crew. Only heroic efforts by the officers and crew saved the ship from sinking.

Back in Washington, news of the attack on the Liberty was received with a mixture of shock and outrage. Many in the Pentagon, State Department and in Congress demanded that Israel be held accountable for the unprovoked assault in international waters. The Johnson Administration initially responded by threatening Israel but soon softened its attitude. Israel’s stunning victory in the Six-Day War, as it became known, was a source of pride to many American Jews, whose support was crucial to an administration mired in an increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam. With the death toll mounting daily in Vietnam, the attack on the Liberty was pushed to the back pages of the nation’s newspapers, and ultimately all but forgotten.

James Scott is a journalist and the son of a surviving Liberty officer. In this riveting book, he recounts the story of the horrifying attack and the tremendous impact it had on the lives of the crew. He puts the attack in context, showing how political considerations trumped the demands for justice from the survivors and their supporters in the military and in Congress. Drawing on new interviews and recently declassified documents in both the United States and Israel, he demonstrates that Israel’s initial insistence that the attack was a mistake caused by misidentification of the ship is implausible. He documents, for the first time, the fact that at least one Israeli pilot correctly identified the Liberty during the attack and that others inside Israel’s chain of command were aware of the ship’s identity as the assault unfolded. His descriptions of the crew under fire and their frantic work to save the ship are dramatic and unforgettable. Scott takes readers into the conference rooms at the White House where the most senior officials in the government debated how to respond to the attack and then eventually devised a plan to protect Israel from public outrage. He shows the debate inside the Israeli government over whether to punish the attackers, and reveals the widespread disbelief many American leaders had with Israel’s explanation.

The Attack on the Liberty is the finest account yet of this tragedy, and a remarkable tale of men under fire in an incident that remains bitterly disputed after more than forty years." -

- James Bamford - author of "A Pretext For War: 9/11, Iraq, and the abuse of America's intelligence agencies:

“The country should be grateful to James Scott for this very courageous book.”

 

MITT ROMNEY, the former Massachusetts governor, said the WHITE HOUSE HAD “CHASTENED” ISRAEL WHILE PUSHING AN APPEASEMENT STRATEGY, A POINTED ALLUSION BEFORE A JEWISH AUDIENCE THAT HARKED BACK TO THE DIPLOMACY THAT NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN, THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER, PURSUED IN THE 1930S WITH HITLER.

Mr. Romney restated his pledge to make Israel the first country he would visit as president, and he added that “Iran’s ayatollahs will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons on my watch,” though he did not detail how he would prevent it.

Mr. Gingrich starkly equated the United States’ “struggle with radical Islam” to the country’s relations with the Soviet Union just after World War II, on the eve of a cold war that would dominate American foreign policy for more than four decades.

The country is “about where we were in 1946,” he said.

PINNING HOPES FOR JEWISH VOTES ON TOUGH TALK ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who stumbled from front-runner status to single digits in the polls over the last few months, added that “whether you are old enough to remember the 1940s or not, you know the significance of that number” — six million, which he said was the number of Jews now living in Israel and the number murdered in the Holocaust.

One reason Republicans seek to sound serious on Israel is to appeal to evangelical Christians ( GLENN BECK! ) who make up large portions of the Republican primary voters in South Carolina and the caucusgoers in Iowa. Down the road, they also know that Jewish voters are critical to victory in general election swing states like Pennsylvania and Florida.

But just as the candidates have staked out hard positions on Israel, they have also moved to the right on other issues, a shift that Democrats say calls into question their appeal to a wide swath of Jewish voters.

“THEY CAN’T TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT. THEY CAN’T TALK ABOUT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. AND THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY IS THE MOST PRO-CHOICE DEMOGRAPHIC THAT YOU CAN DESIGN IN AMERICA TODAY, SO THEY CAN’T TALK ABOUT THAT,” SAID DAVID HARRIS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE NATIONAL JEWISH DEMOCRATIC COUNCIL. “SO THEY HAVE TO SPREAD MISINFORMATION,” HE SAID, ABOUT “THIS PRESIDENT’S STELLAR PRO-ISRAEL RECORD.”

Allies of the Obama administration, which enjoys healthy public support for its record on terrorism and national security, also cite its high levels of military assistance to Israel and resistance at the United Nations to the Palestinians’ efforts to win statehood recognition. They also point to national security successes under Mr. Obama’s leadership, like the killing of Osama bin Laden and the decimation of Al Qaeda’s ranks in the Pakistani frontier by drone strikes.

Mr. Romney used his speech to criticize President Obama on other fronts, saying that he was fostering an “entitlement” society.

“American prosperity is fully dependent upon having an opportunity society — I don’t think President Obama understands that,” Mr. Romney told the crowd. “I don’t think he understands why our economy is the most successful in the world. I don’t think he understands America.”

Mr. Romney’s remarks served as something of a rebuttal to a speech that Mr. Obama gave on Tuesday in Kansas, in which the president warned that trickle-down economic policy did not work.

“A merit-based opportunity society is one that gathers and creates a citizenry of pioneers — a people who invent, who build, who create,” Mr. Romney said. “And as these people exert the effort, and take the risks inherent in inventing and creating things, they employ and lift the rest of us, creating prosperity for all of us. The rewards they earn don’t make the rest of us poorer — they make us all better off.”

HIS VIEW RAN COUNTER TO MR. OBAMA’S ASSERTION A DAY EARLIER THAT WHILE TRICKLE-DOWN ECONOMICS APPEALS TO THE NATION’S “RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM AND OUR HEALTHY SKEPTICISM OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT,” IT IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE ECONOMIC POLICY." - Richard Oppel Jr. N Y Times 12/8/11

 

*  DemocracyNow with Amy Goodman & Juan Gonzalez December 16, 2011

"Manning in 1st Court Appearance as Iraq Occupation Formally Ends

Alleged U.S. Army whistleblower Private Bradley Manning is scheduled to make his first court appearance today after being held for more than a year and a half by the U.S. military. The 23-year-old Manning is suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks in the biggest leak of classified U.S. documents in history. The pre-trial hearing begins today at Fort Meade in Maryland. The Bradley Manning Support Network has organized a protest outside the gates of Fort Meade in solidarity with the accused soldier. Manning’s court appearance coincides with the completion of the U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq after an eight-year occupation.

Author, Columnist Christopher Hitchens Dies at 62

The author and columnist Christopher Hitchens has died at the age of 62. Hitchens was a longtime columnist for The Nation magazine and Vanity Fair. He left The Nation not long after coming out as a supporter of the Iraq War. A prolific author, Hitchens’ books included "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" and the atheist manifesto, "God Is Not Great."

[ The following item refers to the devastating Wednesday, November 26, 2008 attack on Mumbai, India, lasting until Saturday November 29, 2008 seems senseless, UNLESS ONE THINKS OF IT AS AN ISLAMIC ANSWER TO THE UNPROVOKED U. S. - British March 20, 2003, now called "THE ACTION FOR IRAQI FREEDOM"!

U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq: "In Terms of Destroying Iraq, It’s 'Mission Accomplished'"

MORE ADJUSTMENTS TO COME!

The U.S. military may be leaving Iraq, but the U.S. government is not. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad is the largest in the world, and thousands of private contractors will fill the role of the departing U.S. troops. We begin our coverage of the U.S. withdrawal with Sami Rasouli, the founder and director of the Muslim Peacemaker Teams in Iraq, who joins us from the city of Najaf. Invoking George W. Bush’s infamous declaration after the fall of Baghdad, Rasouli says, "In terms of destroying Iraq, it’s really 'mission accomplished.'"

Guest:  Sami Rasouli, founder and director of the Muslim Peacemaker Teams in Iraq. He lives in the Iraqi city of Najaf. He moved back to Iraq in 2004 after living abroad for nearly 30 years, much of that time spent in Minneapolis.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We begin today’s show in Iraq. On Thursday, the United States military announced a formal end to almost nine years of war in Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta presided over a modest flag-lowering ceremony in Baghdad that was witnessed by few Iraqis due to security concerns. The U.S. media was invited to attend the ceremony, but the Iraqi media was shut out.

DEFENSE SECRETARY LEON PANETTA: After a great deal of blood has been spilled by both Iraqis and Americans, the mission of an Iraq that could finally govern and secure itself has become real. The Iraqi army and police have been rebuilt, and they are capable of responding to threats. Violence levels are down. Al-Qaeda has been weakened. The rule of law has been strengthened. Iraq will be tested in the days ahead, by terrorism, by those who would seek to divide, by economic and social issues, by the demands of democracy itself.

JUAN GONZALEZ: On Wednesday night, President Obama spoke at a ceremony at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Fort Bragg, we’re here to mark a historic moment in the life of our country and our military. For nearly nine years, our nation has been at war in Iraq. And you, the incredible men and women of Fort Bragg, have been there every step of the way, serving with honor, sacrificing greatly, from the first waves of the invasion to some of the last troops to come home. So as your commander-in-chief and on behalf of a grateful nation, I’m proud to finally say these two words, and I know your families agree: welcome home. Welcome home. Welcome home.

AMY GOODMAN: During the same address, President Obama told soldiers, quote, "Because you sacrificed so much for a people that you had never met, Iraqis have a chance to forge their own destiny. That’s part of what makes us special as Americans. Unlike the old empires, we don’t make these sacrifices for territory or for resources. We do it because it’s right," President Obama said.

Over the past nine years, the U.S. invasion has left a bloody toll on Iraqi civilians and foreign troops. Nearly 4,500 U.S. troops died. Another 32,000 were wounded. An accurate toll of Iraqis killed may never be known. According to Iraq Body Count, at least 104,000 Iraqi civilians have died. In 2006, the British medical journal Lancet estimated 600,000 Iraqis had already been killed. Other studies put the death toll over a million. Hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis died due to the crippling sanctions in the years between the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 U.S. invasion. After 20 years of war and sanctions, Iraq’s infrastructure has been devastated.

On the streets of Baghdad, many Iraqis have expressed criticism of the role the U.S. played in their country. This is an Iraqi citizen named Hussein Al Najjar.

HUSSEIN AL NAJJAR: [translated] Obama’s speech hailed the U.S. invasion, but we were against the American invasion. In my opinion, what has happened and is still happening in Iraq, including terrorist acts and devastation, were the outcome of the U.S. presence in Iraq. The situation in Iraq is still unstable because of the U.S. presence, in my opinion. The U.S. forces also helped terrorism to enter Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: While the U.S. military is largely leaving Iraq, the United States is not. The U.S. will operate the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad. The diplomatic effort will be run by the State Department, staffed with thousands of private contractors. It’s estimated more than 16,000 contractors will remain in Iraq.

To discuss the U.S. withdrawal further, we will spend the hour talking about Iraq. We will begin, though, with Sami Rasouli. Sami Rasouli began Muslim Peacemaker Team in Iraq. He’s joining us from the Iraqi city of Najaf. He moved back to Iraq in 2004 after living in the United States for nearly 30 years. He was an institution in the Twin Cities, where he was a well-known restaurateur.

Sami Rasouli, we welcome you to Democracy Now! Talk about the last nine years since the United States invaded. What has happened to and come of your country?

SAMI RASOULI: Thank you, Amy, and I really appreciate you having me on your show. I miss seeing it, but checking out the show once a while through the internet.

Well, the war, as President Obama said, is over. But we understood from George Bush back on May 1st, 2003, that major combat operation was over and supposedly mission was accomplished. In terms of destroying Iraq, it’s really "mission accomplished," as I witnessed through the last, let’s say, eight years, since 2004, first time when I came from the U.S. visiting my family. I met you. That was end of 2003.

But to see what we’ve gotten from this war, after the violence went down dramatically and the dust of war has been settled, now we see the damage clearly everywhere in Iraq, where the electricity high—still the basic public services is almost not there, in terms of the electricity, never has been advanced by the two terms of the Iraqi government or even with the—no intervention by the U.S. efforts to improve these needed public services for an average Iraqi. The healthcare system has been really destroyed. As you mentioned, the infrastructure is a total catastrophe that began not only since 2003, and actually, it’s more than 20 years since 1991.

You know, we should not forget the effect of the sanction before the invasion. The Iraqi people have suffered a lot, and many of them have died. And now, death is not stoppable, because of many unknown diseases that’s caused by poisons that the U.S. military has been—has used against major cities in Iraq. In 2001 and, as well, in 2003, tons—hundred tons of depleted uranium has been—have been thrown on the city of Fallujah, where women today cannot get pregnant due to the deformation of their newborn babies. This is happening here in Najaf, as well. When the U.S. fought the resistance, so-called, the insurgents led by Muqtada al-Sadr.

But to go across the country today and hear the news locally, the Iraqi people are really jubilant and happy that the U.S., if this is true, eventually is pulling out its troops. But an average Iraqi is wondering, Amy—the current president of the U.S., Obama, when he ran for an office back in 2008, he was calling this war "the wrong war," and everybody was expecting, when he’d be an office, he will pull the troops from Iraq immediately. But what’s happened, 30,000 troops only were pulled out in 2009 and sent to Afghanistan. But the reality, after he assumed the office, up today—up today, he maintained the status quo what the previous president, George Bush, began with. So, it looks like we expected that Obama, when he tried to deliver his wide smile, but never deliver it, and now, because he’s running for the 2012 presidency, he is calling it—not calling it, but with the withdrawal of the troops, hopefully all the troops by the end of 2011, so he approved that war was wrong.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Sami Rasouli, I’d like to ask you—you returned back at the—to your country at the height of the war, when the dislocation and the mayhem was the worst throughout the war. Can you tell us how—what has happened to the refugee population, the thousands that were forced to flee the country during that period of the most sectarian violence and, of course, of the highest levels of violence with the United States? Have many people returned?

SAMI RASOULI: Well, the numbers of the refugees, there’s no certain, scientific statistically given. We talk about how many Iraqis died through the war. We don’t have numbers. But there is an estimate about five million people have been displaced: within the country, about two million, and out of the country, three million. And those mostly are the middle class, the cream of the crop, the professionals, the engineers, the doctors. Where the country can rely on and get developed and get rebuilt, they are not there, due to the displacement effort through the violent period between 2005, '06, ’07 and middle of 2008. The violence is still on, but those who got displaced internally, they were kept in camps. Then they got integrated within their families that they're related to, like their relatives. For example, the Shiites who were working as farmers in the areas surrounding Baghdad and to the west were—Ramadi province, Al Anbar province—those never got back to their work, to their homes, but they stayed in the southern provinces. Same thing to those who were in the south, but they pulled to the northern [inaudible] they come from originally, and they kept there. But those who are outside the country, in Syria, in a big number, and Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and there are many got distributed in the rich countries, like the U.S. — so-called the rich countries, now not anymore, but Australia, Canada and European countries, Scandinavian—

AMY GOODMAN: Sami? Sami, we’re—

SAMI RASOULI: They got—Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re having a little trouble understanding you. But finally, you, yourself, were injured. What happened?

SAMI RASOULI: Well, last year I was going to cover some area in Damascus to see what happened there, as the people who were living there before came back. But on my way, I got in a car accident, and I lost my left hip. Right away, I was moved to an emergency department in the hospital in Najaf by an ambulance, and the two doctors were operated on me, but they did the operation like primitively. They screwed the ball of my femur to the cap, and then I couldn’t—for months couldn’t stand up and walk, until I came back to the U.S. in Minneapolis, and I got my hip displaced—I mean, replaced by—totally, by an artificial one. But during the operation in Iraq, the doctors cut—two doctors cut up my sciatica nerve, and as result, I have right now drop foot, which is really causing me problems with walking as I used to.

AMY GOODMAN: Sami Rasouli, I want to thank you—

SAMI RASOULI: So, this [inaudible] — yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us, founder and director of the Muslim Peacemaker Teams in Iraq, speaking to us from Najaf, moved there in 2004 after living here for more than 30 years, particularly in the Twin Cities, known very well in Minneapolis. When we come back, we’re going to be speaking with Brown University professor Catherine Lutz about the costs of the war and then Yanar Mohammed to talk about the effects of war on women in Iraq. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.

THE COSTS OF WAR: TENS OF THOUSANDS DEAD, BILLIONS SPENT, AND A COUNTRY TORN APART

Over the past nine years, the U.S. invasion and occupation has left a bloody toll on Iraqi civilians and foreign troops. Nearly 4,500 U.S. troops died, and another 32,000 were wounded. An accurate toll of Iraqis killed may never be known. Iraq Body Count says at least 104,000 Iraqi civilians have died, while some studies put have put the death toll at over one million. We speak to Catherine Lutz, Brown University professor and co-director of the "Costs of War" research project at the Watson Institute for International Studies. "The costs have really been staggering," Lutz says. "We know that Congress appropriated $800 billion over the years for the Iraq War. But the true costs, of course, go much farther than that, starting with the people of Iraq, WHO HAVE LOST LIVES IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS."

Guest: Catherine Lutz, professor of anthropology and international studies at Brown University. She is co-director of the Costs of War research project based at the Watson Institute for International Studies. Lutz is the author of the book The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against U.S. Military Posts.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Catherine Lutz is joining us from Providence, professor of anthropology and international studies at Brown University, co-director of the Costs of War research project based at the Watson Institute for International Studies. Professor Lutz is the author of The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against U.S. Military Posts.

Tell us what have been the costs of the Iraq War, Professor Lutz.

CATHERINE LUTZ: Amy, the costs have really been staggering. We know about the number of U.S. servicemembers who have died. Most Americans know that. It’s over 4,500 individuals. We know that the Congress appropriated $800 billion over the years for the Iraq War. But the true costs, of course, go much farther than that, starting with the people of Iraq, who have lost lives in the hundreds of thousands, the people of that country who have been displaced from their homes. Again, as your previous speaker pointed out, those numbers are very hard to come by. But the U.N. estimates 3.5 million Iraqis are still displaced from their homes, and again, many widowed, many orphaned, and an environmental damage that has yet to be assessed.

BUT THE IDEA THAT THE WAR IS OVER IS, I THINK, WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO QUESTION, THE IDEA THAT THE WAR ENDS THE DAY THAT THE U.S. SERVICEMEMBERS LEAVE THAT COUNTRY. WE KNOW THAT MANY ARE STAYING BEHIND IN THE FORM OF PRIVATE CONTRACTORS AND STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES. WE KNOW THAT THE WAR WON’T END FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL, AGAIN, STRUGGLING TO GET BACK HOME, STRUGGLING WITH MISSING FAMILY MEMBERS AND SO ON. SO I THINK WE NEED TO ASK, IS THE WAR REALLY OVER? AND THE ANSWER IS, REALLY, NO.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Catherine Lutz, in terms of those who are staying behind, these contractors, many of them, a huge number, are armed, as well. Could you talk about—break down some of these folks that are staying behind, in terms of numbers?

CATHERINE LUTZ: WELL, THE STATE DEPARTMENT MISSION IN IRAQ, AS AMY POINTED OUT, HAS THE LARGEST EMBASSY ON THE PLANET, A $6 BILLION BUDGET. Much of that is going toward the support of 5,500 security contractors. And those people are guarding State Department employees, civilians, who are, again, engaged in a variety of activities there. But in some very important sense, that’s an index of how significantly—how significant the violence remains and the risk remains to the Americans who are there, because of, again, a continuing attempt to evict all of the Americans from Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the State Department’s new role in Iraq after the pullout of U.S. troops. She was speaking in Denmark.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: We will have to be working closely with the Iraqis to ensure the security of our civilians. And we have had very strong commitments from the Iraqis that whatever assistance we need will be forthcoming. I think it’s understood that this is one of the most challenging missions that the State Department has ever led, but we’ve had a great deal of thought given to what needs to be accomplished, and the team, both here in Washington and, even more importantly, in Baghdad, Erbil, Kirkuk and Basra, is very well prepared.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Catherine Lutz, clearly, one of the reasons why the pullout is happening now is because the United States government could not reach an agreement with the Iraqi government over immunity for any remaining U.S. soldiers. But now what’s going to happen with all of these civilians? What is the—is there any government-to-government agreement about how these civilians, many of whom obviously will be from the United States, will be treated?

CATHERINE LUTZ: Well, I think the real question is, how are the Iraqis going to be treated by those contractors? What are the rules of engagement? And what are the ways in which these contractors are permitted to respond when they feel threatened or when they feel that they’re—the people that they’re protecting are threatened? The inspector general for Iraq was not given the kinds of information that Secretary Clinton suggests is something that they’ve worked out, which is to say, those rules of engagement. So I think there’s really quite a risk to the Iraqi people that these contractors will, again, not be operating with that kind of—you know, operating in an environment in which violence is likely.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Lutz, who are these contractors? Name the companies.

CATHERINE LUTZ: Those companies are Triple Canopy—let me just read you their names. Triple Canopy, the Global Strategies Group, and—and again, some additional contractors—SOC Incorporated are the three main ones.

AMY GOODMAN: And so, this issue of whose laws they abide by?

CATHERINE LUTZ: Well, again, they do not have immunity in the same way that the troops did, and that’s why the Iraqis were allowing them to stay. But I think, again, if we look forward to what the rest of the country can expect in the next several years, it’s to continue to deal with the kinds of things that Sami talked about—a lack of electricity, the kinds of things that this mission is not going to help solve. And so, I think that the basic human needs to recover from injuries and losses of the nine years of war, that’s what we need to be talking about, is, what is the State Department doing vis-à-vis those issues?

IRAQI WOMEN’S ACTIVIST REBUFFS U.S. CLAIMS OF A FREER IRAQ: "THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY"

Yanar Mohammed, president of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, joins us to discuss the impact of the nearly nine-year U.S. occupation, particularly on Iraqi women. "The Iraqi cities are now much more destroyed than they were, I would say, like five years ago," Mohammed says. "IN THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE TURNED TO A SOCIETY OF 99 PERCENT POOR AND 1 PERCENT RICH, DUE TO THE POLICIES THAT WERE IMPOSED ON IRAQ." Mohammed decries the repression of Iraqi protesters that joined the Arab Spring in a February 25th action. "The women are the biggest loser in all of this. We went to the Iraqi squares. We demonstrated. The Arab Spring was there very strongly but got oppressed in ways that were new to Iraqi people. Anti-riot police of the American style was something that we witnessed there... This is not a democratic country."

Guest: Yanar Mohammed, President of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: We wanted to also bring into this discussion Yanar Mohammed. She is president of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq. Usually in Iraq, she right now is joining us from Toronto.

Yanar, talk about this last more than eight years of the invasion and the occupation.

YANAR MOHAMMED: If I start with the basics, the Iraqi cities are now much more destroyed than they were, I would say, like five years ago. All the major buildings are still destroyed. If you drive in the streets of the capital, your car cannot survive more than one month, because all the streets are still broken. So there was no reconstruction for the buildings, for the cities.

And in the same time, we have turned to a society of 99 percent poor and 1 percent rich, due to the policies that were imposed in Iraq. WHILE IRAQ HAS MORE THAN ONE MILLION WIDOWS—SOME OF THE COUNTS SAY ONE MILLION, SOME OF THE COUNTS SAY TWO MILLION WIDOWS—THESE WIDOWS TRY TO SURVIVE ON A SALARY OF $150, AND MOST OF THEM CANNOT GET THIS SALARY BECAUSE THEY DON’T HAVE PROPER ID DUE TO INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT. AND IN THE SAME TIME, THE 1 PERCENT, WHO LIVES—OF IRAQIS, WHO LIVES IN THE GREEN ZONE, THEY DROWN IN A SEA OF MONEY. AND THERE WAS A SCANDAL OF LOSING $40 BILLION FROM THE ANNUAL BUDGET OF THE COUNTRY, AND NOBODY IS ACCOUNTABLE FOR IT. SO WE HAVE—AFTER NINE YEARS, WE HAVE THE MOST CORRUPT GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD.

We are divided to a society of Shias, who are ruling, and Sunnis, who want to get divided from the country of Iraq. We are now on the verge of the division of country according to religions. And to ethnicities, it has already happened. We know that the Kurdish north is now a Kurdistan, the region of Kurdistan. And the constitution that we have in Iraq allows everybody to get divided or to get their autonomy. So now the Sunni parts of Iraq, they want to be their own agents. They don’t want to be part of the central government anymore. And in the same time, destruction is everywhere. Poverty is for all the people but the 1 percent who are living inside the Green Zone.

And I would like to add one thing. IF PRESIDENT OBAMA WANTS TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE ONE UNIFIED SOCIETY, THAT’S NOT THE TRUE STORY. WE ARE LIVING IN A HUGE MILITARY CAMP ( Is U. S. policy, DIVIDE AND RULE? ) , where one million Iraqi men are recruited in the army. And on top of that, there’s almost 50,000 militia members, of the Sadr group and the other Islamist group, who are not only local militias, like army within the country, but they are now being exported to other countries to oppress the Arab Spring in Syria and maybe later on in other countries. We are not a united country, because the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is another country, has the upper hand in Iraq. And the decisions that were done lately about who stays from the Americans and who doesn’t stay inside Iraq was due to the pressure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are the decision makers in Iraq.

And the biggest loser out of all of this are the women. Now, by the constitution, there are articles that refer us to the Islamic sharia, when this was not in action in the times of the previous regime. Under Islamic sharia, women are worth half a man legally and one-quarter of a man socially in a marriage. And we still suffer under this. AS A WOMEN’S ORGANIZATION, WE DAILY MEET WOMEN WHO ARE VULNERABLE TO BEING BOUGHT AND SOLD IN THE FLESH MARKET. We see widows who have no source of income, and nobody to get them IDs for themselves and their children, because they have been internally displaced. SO POVERTY AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN HAS BECOME THE NORM. And the government doesn’t care much about this. They talk about it a lot, but not much is being done about it. And—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yanar, I’d like to ask you, on another matter, the—we had a quote earlier in the show from President Obama saying that, unlike historical empires of the past, the United States doesn’t go into countries for territory or resources, but because it’s right. Could you talk to us about what has happened to the resources of Iraq, to the oil of Iraq? To what degree now are American companies involved that they were not before the war?

YANAR MOHAMMED: In the last year, we were told that Iraq’s economy is going to be changing, and there’s going to be a new phase of investment. But in reality, those who were invited into the Green Zone were surprised to see that it’s all about privatization, that we have new foreign oil companies. Some of them are already functioning in the south, like British Petroleum, who have an oil field from which they are extracting oil.

They are beginning to—they have brought some foreign workers to work in there, and they have totally discriminatory workplaces where the foreigner is paid much more than the Iraqi. I was told that the foreigners are paid in the thousands of dollars monthly, while an Iraqi employees is paid something like $400. And even the workplaces are very discriminatory and racist, in the sense that the foreigner workers are treated much better than the Iraqi employees.

And the question is, how did they get these foreign oil companies to come into Iraq? Like British Petroleum is one of them. It has many oil fields. It’s functioning. It’s extracting Iraqi oil. On which terms? We, the Iraqi people, don’t know. On which agreement did they come and they are functioning fully in Iraq? We, the Iraqi people, don’t know.

And the question is, why is all the money being shared by the 1 percent who are ruling Iraq and the U.S. administration and all these multinational companies, while the Iraqi widows cannot even have $150 as a salary? Most of the widows we’ve met in our organization do not have one penny coming into their pockets. No government finds themselves accountable for the women of Iraq, who have been turned deprived because of this war.

And I would like to add one thing. THERE IS A NEW GENERATION OF WOMEN AND MEN IN IRAQ WHO ARE TOTALLY ILLITERATE. You see a woman in her twenties. She might have children, or not, and that’s another story about the widows. But she has witnessed no schooling because of the sectarian war, because of the war on Iraq. IT’S A GENERATION OF ILLITERACY IN IRAQ, WHILE, BEFORE THIS WAR, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT IRAQ IN THE 1980S, AND EVEN IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS, IT HAD THE HIGHEST LITERACY RATE IN THE ARAB WORLD.

And the last point I would like to add, and I would have liked you to ask me about it, is the Arab Spring, when it started in Iraq, specifically on the day of February 25. When the government held a curfew in all the Iraqi cities, especially in Baghdad, we had to walk three hours to reach to the Tahrir Square of Baghdad, and 25,000 people were in that square expressing their political will that this is not the political system that they want to rule them—the Islamist government of the Shia, who is oppressing all the others, the Sunni, who are oppressed in the west, the ethnic divisions on the people.

And mind you, the gender divisions? In the Tahrir Square of Baghdad, many of us women were there, and we were so respected. Nobody told us to put on the veil on, while in these days the prime minister’s office is spreading out policies that all the female workers in the public sector will have to wear decent dress code—decent as in respecting our culture. The prime minister is imposing a mentality of discriminating against women based on Islamic sharia, while the demonstrators of the Arab Spring in Iraq want an egalitarian society.

And one thing that this new democracy, so-called democracy, proved in Iraq is that they were the best in oppressing the Arab Spring in Iraq. They sent us police, army and anti-riot groups to shoot us with live ammunition in the Tahrir Square. They detained and they tortured hundreds and thousands of us demonstrators. And this is because we only led a free demonstration.

And this is not only one demonstration. All the Fridays since the beginning of February have witnessed demonstrations in the main squares of Iraq—Baghdad, Sulaymaniyah, Basra, Samarra, all of Baghdad. People went into the squares, and there were no slogans of asking for a religious government. The U.S. administration came into Iraq: it divided the Iraqi people according to religion, according to their sect, according to their ethnicity. It’s divide and conquer. And now the women are the biggest loser in all of this. We went to the Iraqi squares. We demonstrated. The Arab Spring was there very strongly but got oppressed in ways that were new to Iraqi people. Anti-riot police of the American style was something that we witnessed there. The big vehicles that sprayed us with the hot water, polluted water, pushed us out of these squares. And sound bombs were thrown at us, live ammunition, the full works. This is not a democratic country. And it is not united, because it’s being divided into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions.

AMY GOODMAN: Yanar, I wanted to end by going back to the beginning, if you will, going back to 2003 to the words of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld after the fall of Baghdad.

DEFENSE SECRETARY DONALD RUMSFELD: Iraqis celebrating in the streets, riding American tanks, tearing down the statues of Saddam Hussein in the center of Baghdad, are breathtaking. Watching them, one cannot help but think of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain. We are seeing history unfold, events that will shape the course of a country, the fate of a people, and potentially the future of the region.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Donald Rumsfeld in 2003. Yanar, we have 30 seconds. Your final response?

YANAR MOHAMMED: I think that the victims and the parents of the victims of this war, the half-a-million dead of this war, were not invited to the celebration of the U.S. and the military in Baghdad. They should have been invited to give their say about this Iraqi war that left their families hungry and poor and really unable and helpless.

AMY GOODMAN: Yanar Mohammed, I want to thank you for being with us, president of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. We’ll be back in a minute.

Bradley Manning ( 12/16/11 on DemocracyNow ): Famed Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg on Alleged WikiLeaks Soldier’s 1st Day in Court

Alleged U.S. Army whistleblower Private Bradley Manning is scheduled to make his first court appearance today after being held for more than a year and a half by the U.S. military. Manning is suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks in the biggest leak of classified U.S. documents in history. We’re joined by perhaps the nation’s most famous whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg, and go to Ft. Meade, Maryland, for a brief update on a rally in support of Manning outside the base where he’ll appear. Noting that the WikiLeaks revelations helped spark the Arab Spring and in turn the Occupy Wall Street movement, Ellsberg offers this qualified praise, if Manning indeed committed the leak of which he stands accused: "The Time magazine cover gives protester, an anonymous protester, as 'Person of the Year,' but it is possible to put a face and a name to that picture of 'Person of the Year.' And the American face I would put on that is Private Bradley Manning."

Guests:  Daniel Ellsberg, in 1971, he leaked the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Alleged U.S. Army whistleblower Private Bradley Manning is scheduled to make his first court appearance today after being held for more than a year and a half by the U.S. military. The 23-year-old Manning is suspected of leaking hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. diplomatic cables to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks in the biggest leak of classified U.S. documents in history. The pre-trial hearing begins today at Fort Meade in Maryland. According to news reports, the hearing could last an entire week. Military prosecutors are aiming to show there is sufficient evidence to bring Manning to trial at a general court-martial on 22 criminal charges. If convicted, Manning could face life in prison.

AMY GOODMAN: Bradley Manning has been detained since May of 2010. He has not been seen or heard by the public since then. He was initially held on a charge of leaking a classified video to WikiLeaks that showed a 2007 helicopter attack that killed a dozen people in Iraq, including two Reuters employees—a journalist and his driver.

Supporters of Manning are rallying outside Fort Meade today and are planning another protest outside the base tomorrow. Kevin Zeese is an attorney for the Bradley Manning Support Network.

KEVIN ZEESE: The people who should be prosecuted are not Bradley Manning. He’s accused of letting the truth out. He’s not accused of doing any criminal activity. He’s accused of letting the truth out, and he should be given an award for that, not prosecuted. He’s facing the death penalty, potentially. He’s facing the death penalty for exposing war crimes.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about Bradley Manning, we turn now to perhaps the nation’s most famous whistleblower, Daniel Ellsberg. In 1971, he leaked the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Daniel Ellsberg joins us from the studios of the University of California, Berkeley.

Dan, welcome to Democracy Now! You have Bradley Manning first held in Kuwait, then at Quantico, then at Leavenworth, now being brought to Fort Meade. Can you talk about the significance of this Article 32 hearing and what it means?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, it’s equivalent to a grand jury hearing. It’s kind of symptomatic of the present state of law in the United States, sort of like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland: punishment first, trial afterwards, sentence after that. He’s been effectively punished now ten-and-a-half months in Quantico in isolation, a kind of torture, according to the U.N. standards and to our own domestic law, that he couldn’t be sentenced to under our amendment to the Bill of Rights against cruel and unusual punishment. He couldn’t be assigned to that, but he has already. That, in itself, makes a travesty of this continued trial.

I was the first to face the kind of charges that he’s facing, under the Espionage Act, specifically, a civilian charge that he’s facing, 18 U.S.C. 793, back in 1971, the first time that act had been used against someone disclosing information to the American people. In the end, my trial was ended because of gross governmental misconduct against me under President Nixon. This court-martial should be ended now for exactly the same reason. There has been gross, illegal conduct against Bradley Manning in the form of his incarceration for these many months without trial. And that’s one of several reasons why this trial is a travesty.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Dan Ellsberg, his defense lawyer has not been given permission to call most of the witnesses that he would like to call for this hearing. Could you talk about that?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: Well, I believe one of the witnesses, I’m not sure whether the defense has specifically called him. I haven’t seen the list. But we know—I know two people who—of official status, who have tried to get in to see him now for most of this year. One is Juan Méndez, the U.N. special rapporteur for torture, who has heard credible reports, as he puts it, of inhumane treatment. And under his mandate, under the U.N., he should see, in private, as an official representative of the U.N., Private Manning to see that. He has not been allowed to do that, either in Quantico or Leavenworth. And he has specifically complained about prevarication of the—by the American government in their unwillingness to let him see that. U.N. and Red Cross representatives have seen people in Guantánamo, but they can’t get in, apparently, to Quantico or Leavenworth. Representative Dennis Kucinich, in his official capacity, tried repeatedly to see him in there, for the same reasons, and was again put off, again and again, told that he would be able to see him, but never allowed to see him.

I think that other witnesses, I see from the witness list without their names, are to establish the point that the strictly military charges that he’s facing, that Bradley Manning is facing, things like unauthorized downloading or uploading of software onto military computers, are done by virtually everyone in his department. And this is selective prosecution, obviously intended to get him, even if they can’t prove the charges that they want to get connecting him to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks. Obviously, the torture to which he was subjected was meant to break him down, to get him to acknowledge links that would enable them to indict Julian Assange. And evidently that pressure has failed against Private Manning.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to play an excerpt of the video WikiLeaks released last year showing U.S. forces indiscriminately firing on Iraqi civilians in New Baghdad, an area of Baghdad. Military prosecutors have accused Manning of giving the video to WikiLeaks. The footage is from July 2007. The video shows U.S. forces killing 12 people, including two Reuters employees: Saeed Chmagh, the driver, and Namir Noor-Eldeen, an up-and-coming videographer working for Reuters.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Have individuals with weapons.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: You’re clear.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Alright, firing.

U.S. SOLDIER 3: Let me know when you’ve got them.

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Let’s shoot. Light ’em all up.

U.S. SOLDIER 1: Come on, fire!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’. Keep shootin’.

U.S. SOLDIER 4: Hotel, Bushmaster two-six, Bushmaster two-six, we need to move, time now!

U.S. SOLDIER 2: Alright, we just engaged all eight individuals.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s an excerpt of the video that Reuters was not able to get, even after the death of its reporter and driver, for years, but was released by WikiLeaks. Dan Ellsberg, the significance of this? And the significance of Time magazine naming "protester" as the "Person of the Year"?

DANIEL ELLSBERG: First of all, on that video, which I’ve seen a number of times, let me speak as a former Marine company commander, and I was a battalion training officer who trained the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines on rules of war. No question in my mind, as I looked at that, that the specific leaked pictures in there of helicopter gunners hunting down and shooting an unarmed man in civilian clothes, clearly wounded, in an area where a squad of American soldiers was about to appear, as the helicopter gunners knew, to take custody of anyone remaining living, that shooting was murder. It was a war crime. Not all killing in war is murder, but a lot of it is. And this was.

The Time magazine cover gives protester, an anonymous protester, as "Person of the Year," but it is possible to put a face and a name to that picture of "Person of the Year." And the American face I would put on that is Private Bradley Manning. The fact is that he is credited by President Obama and the Justice Department, or the Army, actually, with having given WikiLeaks that helicopter picture and other evidence of atrocities and war crimes—and torture, specifically—in Iraq, including in the Obama administration. That, in other words, led to the Tunisian uprising, the occupation in Tunis Square, which has been renamed by—for another face that could go on that picture, Mohamed Bouazizi, who, after the WikiLeaks exposures of corruption, in Tunis, himself, Bouazizi, burned himself alive just one year ago tomorrow, Saturday, December 17th, in protest. And the combination of the WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning exposures in Tunis and the exemplification of that by Mohamed Bouazizi led to the protests, the nonviolent protests, that drove Ben Ali out of power, our ally there who we supported up 'til that moment, and in turn sparked the uprising in Egypt, in Tahrir Square occupation, which immediately stimulated the Occupy Wall Street and the other occupations in the Middle East and elsewhere. So, "Person of the Year," one of those persons of the year is now sitting in a courthouse in Leavenworth. He deserves the recognition that he's just gotten in Time. Julian Assange, who published that, another person of the year, I would say, who’s gotten a number of journalistic awards, very much deserve our gratitude. And I hope they will have the effect in liberating us from the lawlessness that we have seen and the corruption—the corruption—that we have seen in this country in the last 10 years and more, which has been no less than that of Tunis and Egypt.

AMY GOODMAN: Dan Ellsberg, I want to thank you for joining us. We’re on the line right now with Jeff Paterson. We only have 30 seconds. He served—was the first resister of the first Gulf War, Marine corporal.

You’re at Fort Meade right now. Can you tell us what’s happening just before Bradley Manning’s hearing?

JEFF PATERSON: Well, we have media entering the base. There’s about 60 to 70 media credentialed to cover the hearing, that will happen every day from today through next Thursday. We have dozens of Bradley Manning supporters out here with banners and flags. We’re on military property, so our relationship with the military mobile police is a little dicey, but it looks like they’re going to let us stay here. Tomorrow we have buses coming from Occupy D.C. and Wall Street. [inaudible]

AMY GOODMAN: Jeff Paterson, we have to leave it there, co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network. Bradley Manning turns 24 years old tomorrow. - AMY GOODMAN JUAN GONZALEZ DEMOCRACYNOW 12/16/11

 

PBS Newshour 12/16/11 -

JIM LEHRER: And I don't want to make the same mistake that you said the moderator made and not talk about the Iraq war. It came to a conclusion. What are your thoughts about it? Was it worth it in cost to Americans first in terms of lives and money, and also, of course, in lives of the Iraqis?

MARK SHIELDS: NO, IT WAS NOT WORTH IT!

This was a war that the generals opposed, generals like Brent Scowcroft, and Anthony Zinni, and Joe Hoar, and Norman Schwarzkopf, and Eric Shinseki, people who had seen combat and tasted it. It was a war favored by civilians who had never experienced combat, whether it was Richard Perle, or Paul Wolfowitz, or Don Rumsfeld, or George Bush, or Dick Cheney.

And the reality was that we went into war under false pretenses. We went into a war that was not paid for. We went in for a war on a go-it-alone policy. And 4,500 American homes will not have a son, daughter, husband or wife this Christmas or any Christmas in the future, see their children grow up as a consequence of it. And 33,000 are wounded, many in a disabling way.

I think it's left us weakened. I think it's left us with less influence. I don't think Iraq is. . .

JIM LEHRER: We, the United States of America?

MARK SHIELDS: We, the United States of America.

And, strategically, the greatest advantage has gone in that neighborhood to Iran, which now has an influence disproportionate to what it had before this war began.

**  With all due respect, Mr. Shields, Are you familiar with Seymour Hersh's The New Yorker 6/6/11 article entitled Iran and the Bomb!    as it appears in GOPBIAS.INFO issue of

JIM LEHRER: David, how would you see it?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I don't know whether it was worth it. The cost was obviously high in lives, treasure and national morale.

But we have this -- we're left with this thing. We basically had centuries of stasis and stability and stagnation in the Middle East, which produced terrorism, but also produced the crushing of human capital for century after century -- 9/11 happens, the Taliban is thrown out, Saddam is deposed, people are voting with purple fingers.

And now we have a moment of turmoil. We don't know this turmoil -- it could be worse, it could be better. But it's a moment of turmoil. I think the Iraq war and the deposition of Saddam Hussein was part of the things that encouraged, instigated the turmoil. It's very messy, very complicated.

But, in 100 years or in 50 years, we will look back and see where the turmoil went and maybe we will have a better sense of how the Iraqi elections, getting rid of Saddam, getting rid of the Taliban helped lead to maybe getting rid of Mubarak, Gadhafi and all the rest.

JIM LEHRER: So, your sense of it now is that it's possible if -- that it could turn out very positive?

DAVID BROOKS: It's possible it could turn out badly. I say that with no confidence. But I would say we have moved from a period of stagnation to a period of turmoil. Whether that's good or bad turmoil, history will judge.

MARK SHIELDS: It's a terrible, terrible policy to go to war, the most serious decision a country can make, with absolutely no justification.

I mean, let's be very blunt about it. Al-Qaida was responsible for 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with it. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no ability or capacity to deliver those weapons that were nonexistent.

JIM LEHRER: And you don't dispute that, David?

DAVID BROOKS: No. Well, we obviously thought what we thought back then.

But I always thought that the need to disrupt the Middle East was one of the reasons why it was necessary.

MARK SHIELDS: Unstated.

JIM LEHRER: Unstated.

And goodbye.

(LAUGHTER) - PBS Newshour w/Mark Shields and David Brooks 12/16/11

 

* - Reflections on Iraq as U S Troops Leave -

To The EDITOR:

Re “U.S. Marks End to a Long War for an Uncertain Iraq” (front page, Dec. 16) and “A Formal End” (editorial, Dec. 16):

The convoy pictured rumbling down a dark highway is a welcome symbol of American withdrawal from a war that should never have been. The tanks leave a country that the United States exploded and dismantled, bringing death, illness and grief to Iraqi families.

Your editorial rightly calls the costs of this war “intolerable.” Yet even as troops leave, American contractors and corporations jostle for position and lucrative security, weapons and oil contracts.

Meanwhile, tensions with Iran persist, drone attacks rile Pakistan, and in Afghanistan, the war goes on.

At the end of 2011 we find ourselves bankrupted by war and wondering if, in Iraq, any lessons have been learned. After wars launched with cries of democracy and freedom, we must dust off and embrace two neglected words: diplomacy and peace. - NANCY DICKEMAN Seattle N Y Times 12/16/11

A Formal End American troops, thankfully, are coming home.  But Iraq will need help and goading for years.

It is a relief that the American role in the misguided Iraq war is finally over. It came to an official close on Thursday with an appropriately subdued ceremony in Baghdad. We mourn the nearly 4,500 American troops and tens of thousands ( HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS! ) of Iraqis who lost their lives.

After so much pain and sacrifice, Iraqis now have the responsibility for making their own better future. The fighting is not over, and success is still a long shot. The United States has a major role to play: encouraging, supporting and goading Iraq’s leaders to make the long-delayed political compromises that are their only hope for building a stable democracy.

The fact that Saddam Hussein is gone is a genuine cause for celebration. But the list of errors and horrors in this war is inexcusably long, starting with a rush to invasion based on manipulated intelligence.

The Bush administration had no plan for governing the country once Saddam was deposed. The Iraqi economy still bears the scars from the first frenzied days of looting. The decision to disband the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army helped unleash five years of sectarian strife that has not fully abated. Iraq’s political system remains deeply riven by ethnic and religious differences.

America’s reputation has yet to fully recover from the horrors of Abu Ghraib. THE COUNTRY IS STILL PAYING A HUGE PRICE FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH’S DECISION TO SHORTCHANGE THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. American policy makers, for generations to come, must study these mistakes carefully and ensure that they are not repeated.

As for Iraq today, the authoritarian tendencies of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki are deeply troubling. A member of the Shiite majority that was badly persecuted under Saddam, he has been far more interested in payback than inclusion.

Washington has pushed him over the years — but, often, not hard enough.

The Baghdad government promised jobs to 100,000 members of the Sunni Awakening movement — insurgents whose decision to switch sides helped end the civil war — but only half that have been hired. Parliament still needs to enact a law, called for in the Constitution, that would provide a legal basis for determining who should be prosecuted for supporting Saddam’s Baath Party or other extremist ideologies. Iraq’s leaders have many more issues to resolve. INCREDIBLY, THEY HAVE STILL NOT DECIDED HOW TO DIVIDE THE COUNTRY’S OIL WEALTH. THERE IS NO AGREEMENT ON WHO WILL CONTROL THE OIL-RICH CITY OF KIRKUK, which is claimed by both Baghdad and the semiautonomous Kurdish regional government.

Iraq’s oil production still has not rebounded, and basic services like electricity are still woefully inadequate. Iraq needs an impartial justice system. Washington has pressed Baghdad for years to end corruption and build a representative government. It will need to keep pressing.

After investing billions of dollars, the United States has had more success rebuilding Iraq’s security forces. But Iraqi and American commanders say these forces are not ready to fully protect the country against insurgents or potentially hostile neighbors. There are critical weaknesses in intelligence, air defenses, artillery and logistics.

The Obama administration was unable to reach a new defense agreement with Baghdad that would have allowed several thousand American troops to stay behind as backup. We hope that the Iraqi Army will do better than expected. The administration must be prepared to offer limited help if the army does get into serious trouble.

President Obama, who first ran for office campaigning against the war, has never wavered on his promise to bring the troops home. The last few thousand will be out of Iraq by year’s end. We celebrate their return. BUT THIS COUNTRY ( THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! ) MUST NEVER FORGET THE INTOLERABLE COSTS OF A WAR STARTED ON ARROGANCE AND LIES ( BY GEORGE WALKER BUSH! ) ! - N Y Times Editorial 12/16/11

 

** HERE AN ADDRESS BY A BONAFIDE HERO OF THESE UNITED STATES:

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The Riverside Church New York
BEYOND VIETNAM
April 4, 1967 - ONE YEAR TO THE DAY PRIOR TO HIS ASSASSINATION

"After 1954, they ( the North Vietnamese ) watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. And they remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South, until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the President ( LBJ )...

[ This is the same President Johnson who, on this fateful trip to Dallas, informed his longtime mistress Madelane (sp) Brown, mother of his illegitimate son Steven, now deceased ( whom LBJ supported, along with mistress Madelane, until LBJ's death ) informed her that they wouldn't have to worry about the "Kennedy boys" any longer. ]

...claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than 8,000 miles away from its shores.

At this point, I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else, for it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other, and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after the short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long, they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed...

[ not unlike our proxy Israel ( or, are we Israel's proxy? ) in Palestinian land being laid waste, and Palestinian homes being destroyed ]

...whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America, who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote: "Each day the war goes on, the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism,” unquote.

We continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war and set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.

Part of our ongoing—part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under the new regime, which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary.

Meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task, while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now, there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality—and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression, which has now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisers" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago, he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay a hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism and militarism. With this powerful commitment, we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means, in the final analysis, that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft-misunderstood, this oft-misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man.

When I speak of love, I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response, I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I’m speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the First Epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”

Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says, "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word," unquote.

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam writes, "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now, let us begin. Now, let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter—but beautiful—struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah,
Off’ring each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. April 4, 1967

THE CONCLUSIVE CLOSE

Additionally, this question: Is there no limit to the incessant "fund raising" for OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) that billionaires Arlene (Director) and Harold Schnitzer (now deceased) insert into their Public Broadcasting daily programming, programming which coincides with a collateral damaging, as it were, collateral reduction in timely "Hard News", conspicuously led by the absence of the threat to Middle East peace exemplified by Netanyahu & Lieberman's Israel?!?! In actuality, OPB under the Schnitzers has degenerated into OPPB, Oregon Public Propaganda Broadcasting, on a track developed in our age by Roger Ailes (who originated 'FOX' broadcasting) and his protege' Rush Limbaugh. Shameful.

What is often forgotten is that the notorious Schnitzer family of Oregon [which is responsible for the desecration of OPB (Oregon "Public" Broadcasting)] invited the war monger Benjamin Netanyahu to Portland, Oregon in July of 2002 to campaign for Republican Senator Gordon Smith (for whom the phrase "empty suit" was coined), i.e. Democrats for Smith, whose sub rosa supporters surely included Senator Ron Wyden. Netanyahu, whose Israeli acolyte Yigal Amir assassinated the genuine Soldier/Statesman Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November of 1995, this Netanyahu, through the notorious Israeli political apparatus, became the Israeli prime minister 1996-99! And it is this Netanyahu who the Schnitzers invited to Oregon to campaign for Gordon Smith. In all of this there exists (moreso today) , a fanatic, frenetic thread of sordid madness, a true threat to world peace as Netanyahu has demonstrated in the Middle East, and a diminishing informed American public here at home, as the Schnitzers are demonstrating with Oregon Public Broadcasting. We should have known. Netanyahu and the Schnitzers are COUSINS!, and on 7/19/10 Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow informed our ignorance, again.

"A newly revealed tape shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once openly discussed his intent to attack the Palestinian government, undermine the Oslo peace accords, and manipulate the United States to ensure its approval. The 2001 recording shows Netanyahu meeting with Israeli SETTLERS in the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu was then out of government after serving his first stint in office. Apparently unaware he was being recorded, Netanyahu talks openly of a 'broad attack' on the Palestinian government, saying, 'The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne.'

"Netanyahu also outlines how he would undermine the 1993 Oslo accords, he said, which established the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, by declaring any West Bank land that Israel wants to retain as 'military' and 'security zones.' Addressing potential US opposition to Israeli expansionism, Netanyahu says, 'I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. THEY WON’T GET IN THE WAY.'" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/19/10

 

Keystone Claptrap

Republican lawmakers are spinning fantasies about an oil pipeline from Canada

The Keystone XL oil pipeline has become the House Republicans’ weapon of choice in their fight with President Obama over jobs and taxes. Mr. Obama has said he will not make a decision on the pipeline until 2013. The Republicans are insisting that he approve it now and have attached an amendment to a bill extending the payroll tax cut in hopes of forcing his hand.

This legislative booby trap seems unlikely to make it through the Senate, and the president has all but said he would reject it if it does. But this has not stopped the House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, from using the pipeline as a political cudgel — or from wildly inflating its economic benefits.

The pipeline, known as Keystone XL, would be built by a Canadian company to carry HEAVY crude oil 1,700 miles from the tar sands in northern Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast. IT IS OPPOSED BY ENVIRONMENTALISTS BECAUSE EXTRACTING THE OIL FROM CANADA’S BOREAL FORESTS WOULD GENERATE MORE GREENHOUSE GASES THAN CONVENTIONAL OIL DRILLING. IT IS OPPOSED BY POLITICIANS AND VOTERS FROM BOTH PARTIES IN GREAT PLAINS STATES THAT THE PIPELINE WOULD CROSS.

Mr. Boehner calls Mr. Obama’s delay “theatrics” and described the project as a “no brainer” that will create “tens of thousands” of jobs immediately. This is a fairy tale, implying not only short-term but permanent benefits. The pipeline company, TransCanada, says the project could create 6,500 construction jobs annually, most of them temporary.

The State Department, the lead federal agency on the project, also estimates 6,500 temporary jobs. AND THE ONLY INDEPENDENT STUDY, conducted by Cornell University’s Global Labor Institute, concludes that IT MAY GENERATE NO MORE THAN 50 PERMANENT JOBS WHEN THE WORK IS DONE.

Contrary to another favorite Republican argument, the pipeline will also do little to reduce America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Though it would provide a steady source of crude for Gulf Coast refineries, existing contracts and business plans indicate that most of their output will be destined for export.

In the Senate, the minority leader, MITCH MCCONNELL, CALLS THE KEYSTONE XL “A SHOVEL-READY PROJECT.” He and Mr. Boehner should look again at the environmental downside and at the negative public reaction along the proposed route through sensitive terrain. They should also take a look at the job numbers. THE ONLY SHOVEL THIS PROJECT IS READY FOR IS THE ONE THAT WILL BURY IT FOR GOOD.- N Y Times Editorial 12/13/11

Aides Qualify Panetta’s Comments on Iran

By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — An assertion by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta 12/19/11 that Iran could have a nuclear weapon as soon as next year was based on a highly aggressive timeline and a series of actions that Iran has not yet taken, senior Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

In an interview broadcast Monday on “CBS Evening News,” Mr. Panetta was asked whether Iran could have a nuclear weapon in 2012.

“It would be sometime around a year that they would be able to do it,” he said. “Perhaps a little less.”

Mr. Panetta said the country’s ability to become a nuclear-weapons state could be accelerated if there was “a hidden facility somewhere in Iran that may be enriching fuel.”

He also restated American policy: that it would be unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that no options, including military action, had been taken off the table to prevent that from happening.

“The United States does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Panetta said. “That’s a red line for us. And it’s a red line, obviously, for the Israelis.”

But on Tuesday, George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, said MR. PANETTA’S COMMENTS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A PREDICTION THAT IRAN WOULD HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON WITHIN A YEAR.

“The secretary was clear that we have no indication that the Iranians have made a decision to develop a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Little said. “He was asked to comment on prospective and aggressive timelines on Iran’s possible production of nuclear weapons — and he said if, and only if, they made such a decision. He didn’t say that Iran would, in fact, have a nuclear weapon in 2012.”

Mr. Little said inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency remained in Iran and had “good access to Iran’s continuing production of low-enriched uranium.” Should Iran choose to “break out” — diverting low-enriched uranium to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium — the inspectors could detect it, Mr. Little said.

“We would retain sufficient time under any such scenario to take appropriate action,” he said.

Mr. Panetta’s comments and efforts by his senior aides to add nuance and context to those statements show the highly sensitive nature of all public dialogue on Iran’s nuclear intentions. THE ISSUE IS PARTICULARLY ACUTE AS A DEBATE IS RAGING IN ISRAEL OVER WHETHER PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION IS REQUIRED TO PREVENT IRAN FROM CONSTRUCTING A NUCLEAR WEAPON, AND, IF SO, HOW MUCH TIME REMAINS. - Shanker N Y Times A 8 12/21/11

Additionally, this question: Is there no limit to the incessant "fund raising" for OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) that billionaires Arlene (Director) and Harold Schnitzer (now deceased) insert into their Public Broadcasting daily programming, programming which coincides with a collateral damaging, as it were, collateral reduction in timely "Hard News", conspicuously led by the absence of the threat to Middle East peace exemplified by Netanyahu & Lieberman's Israel?!?! In actuality, OPB under the Schnitzers has degenerated into OPPB, Oregon Public Propaganda Broadcasting, on a track developed in our age by Roger Ailes (who originated 'FOX' broadcasting) and his protege' Rush Limbaugh. Shameful.

What is often forgotten is that the notorious Schnitzer family of Oregon [which is responsible for the desecration of OPB (Oregon "Public" Broadcasting)] invited the war monger Benjamin Netanyahu to Portland, Oregon in July of 2002 to campaign for Republican Senator Gordon Smith (for whom the phrase "empty suit" was coined), i.e. Democrats for Smith, whose sub rosa supporters surely included Senator Ron Wyden. Netanyahu, whose Israeli acolyte Yigal Amir assassinated the genuine Soldier/Statesman Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November of 1995, this Netanyahu, through the notorious Israeli political apparatus, became the Israeli prime minister 1996-99! And it is this Netanyahu who the Schnitzers invited to Oregon to campaign for Gordon Smith. In all of this there exists (moreso today) , a fanatic, frenetic thread of sordid madness, a true threat to world peace as Netanyahu has demonstrated in the Middle East, and a diminishing informed American public here at home, as the Schnitzers are demonstrating with Oregon Public Broadcasting. We should have known. Netanyahu and the Schnitzers are COUSINS!, and on 7/19/10 Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow informed our ignorance, again.

"A newly revealed tape shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once openly discussed his intent to attack the Palestinian government, undermine the Oslo peace accords, and manipulate the United States to ensure its approval. The 2001 recording shows Netanyahu meeting with Israeli SETTLERS in the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu was then out of government after serving his first stint in office. Apparently unaware he was being recorded, Netanyahu talks openly of a 'broad attack' on the Palestinian government, saying, 'The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne.'

"Netanyahu also outlines how he would undermine the 1993 Oslo accords, he said, which established the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, by declaring any West Bank land that Israel wants to retain as 'military' and 'security zones.' Addressing potential US opposition to Israeli expansionism, Netanyahu says, 'I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. THEY WON’T GET IN THE WAY.'" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/19/10

* - More on Netanyahu -

These six paragraphs from a twenty paragraph Ethan Bronner article on the comatose Ariel Sharon, who suffered a debilitating stroke six years ago as the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Sharon, a highly respected legitimate Israeli soldier statesman with first hand experience of having dealt with the treacherous, disreputable "Bibi" :

"Gilad Sharon, who was a confidant of his father’s and had access to his private papers, is not kind to his father’s longtime rival Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister and Likud leader. Mr. Sharon says in the book that IN 1997 MR. NETANYAHU PROMISED TO MAKE HIS FATHER FINANCE MINISTER BUT THEN RENEGED.

'Netanyahu summoned my father to a meeting in his office,' he writes. 'Standing at the entrance to the room and putting an end to the shortest meeting in the history of the prime minister’s office, MY FATHER SAID TO NETANYAHU, ‘A LIAR YOU WERE AND A LIAR YOU HAVE REMAINED.’ ' (MR. NETNAYAHU’S OFFICE DENIED THAT MR. SHARON SAID THAT.)

Recounting his father’s decision to withdraw from Gaza, Mr. Sharon says that Mr. Netanyahu — who was by then his father’s finance minister — hesitated and demanded that the withdrawal be subject to a referendum. Mr. Sharon refused, and Mr. Netanyahu walked out of Parliament as the vote on the withdrawal was taking place. At the end, according to the book, Mr. Netanyahu returned to the floor and voted in favor.

'THIS WAS A TRUE MANIFESTATION OF NETANYAHU’S CHARACTER,' GILAD SHARON WRITES. 'NOT ONLY WAS HE SUBVERSIVE, BUT HE WAS ALSO A COWARD.'

A spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu’s office said, 'Gilad Sharon has a long history of being highly critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and these charges are neither new nor surprising.' The spokesman, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, added that the parliamentary vote in question was a procedural one and that when THE REAL DECISION ABOUT THE GAZA WITHDRAWAL TOOK PLACE THE FOLLOWING SUMMER, MR. NETANYAHU VOTED AGAINST IT AND LEFT THE GOVERNMENT.

Gilad Sharon joined the opposition Kadima Party last year and is thought to be interested in entering politics. He said, however, that having just finished the book, he was still contemplating his next step." - Ethan Bronner N Y Times 10/21/11

 

* "Iran Says Plot to Kill Saudi Involved Opposition Group

By RICK GLADSTONE

Iran injected a new twist on Tuesday into the week-old American accusation of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington, asserting that one of the defendants really BELONGS TO AN OUTLAWED AND EXILED OPPOSITION GROUP.

The defendant, Gholam Shakuri, identified by the Justice Department as an operative of the elite Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, is actually A 'KEY MEMBER' OF THE MUJAHADEEN KHALQ, IRAN’S MEHR NEWS AGENCY REPORTED.

The agency did not explain the group’s possible motive but left the implication that the plot was a bogus scheme MEANT TO FRAME AND OSTRICIZE IRAN.

It said Mr. Shakuri, who is at large, had last been seen in WASHINGTON AND IN CAMP ASHRAF, THE GROUP’S ENCLAVE IN IRAQ. 'The person in question has been traveling to different countries under the names of Ali Shakuri/Gholam Shakuri/Gholam-Hussein Shakuri by using fake passports including forged Iranian passports,' Mehr said.

American officials did not immediately comment on the Mehr report. Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, reiterated the American view in a daily press briefing in Washington that 'this was a serious breach of international law and that Iran needs to be held accountable.'

The opposition group itself dismissed the Mehr report as nonsense. Shahin Gobadi, a spokesman, said in an e-mailed response that 'this is a well-known tactic that has been used by the mullahs in the past 30 years where they blame their crimes on their opposition for double gains.'

The group, also known as the National Council of Resistance of Iran, is regarded by Iran as a violent insurgent organization with a history of assassinations and sabotage aimed at overthrowing the Islamic government that took power in 1979. While the group claims to have renounced violence a decade ago, it is still classified as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department, but not by Britain or the European Union. It maintains a headquarters in Paris.

Mehr said it had learned what it called the new information about Mr. Shakuri from Interpol but was not more specific. Calls and e-mailed queries to Interpol headquarters in Lyon, France, were not immediately returned.

IF MR. SHAKURI WERE, IN FACT, A MEMBER OF THE OPPOSITION GROUP, IT WOULD BE AN EMBARRASSING TURN FOR THE UNITED STATES, WHICH ANNOUNCED THE SUSPECTED PLOT WITH SOME FANFARE A WEEK AGO IN A TELEVISED NEWS CONFERENCE BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC H. HOLDER JR., WHO SAID AMERICAN INVESTIGATORS BELIEVED HIGH OFFICIALS IN IRAN’S GOVERNMENT WERE RESPONSIBLE.

The Justice Department has accused Mr. Shakuri and Mansour J. Arbabsiar, a naturalized Iranian-American citizen from Corpus Christi, Tex., of conspiring to hire assassins from a Mexican drug gang for $1.5 million to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States.

American officials have acknowledged the suspected plot sounds hard to believe but asserted they have the evidence to back it up. Saudi Arabia, apparently accepting the accusation as fact, has accused Iran of a 'dastardly' scheme, and other American allies say they regard the accusation seriously.

Britain has gone farther than others, announcing on Tuesday it had ordered British banks to impound any assets of the two defendants as well as three other Iranian officials in the Quds Force suspected of running the plot.

Since Mr. Holder’s news conference, Iran has sought to counter the accusation with a mix of verbal counterattacks, accusing the Obama administration of concocting the plot to divert attention from other problems, conspiring with Israel to malign Iran and driving a wedge into Iran’s relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Iran scholars ( Pro-Israeli! ) have said the suspected plot is not implausible. Ray Takeyh, A SENIOR FELLOW FOR MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES AT THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ( ...PACKED WITH PRO-ISRAEL, ANTI-IRAN PROPAGANDISTS! ) IN WASHINGTON, said it could reflect an attempt by Iran’s security forces to retaliate for what they view as American-hatched plots carried out within Iran.

'It is suggesting, if true, that they’re trying to meet pressure with pressure,' he said. 'From their perspective, the United States is involved in Iran’s internal affairs.'" - RICK GLADSTONE N Y Times 10/19/11

 

* ...And this paragraph, the fourth in a seven paragraph article by American Scott Shane, which ends with ..."A HISTORY OF SABOTAGE AND ASSASSINATION AIMED AT OVERTHROWING THE ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT THERE".

"The Iranian news reports said that Interpol, the international law enforcement agency, had discovered that Mr. Shakuri was 'a key member' of the Iranian opposition group Mujahedeen Khalq.  The group, also known as the National Council of Resistance of Iran, is regarded as a terrorist group by Iran and has a history of sabotage and assassination aimed at overthrowing the Islamic government there." - Scott Shane N Y Times 10/20/11

"Reflections on the Israel-Hamas Deal"

TO THE EDITOR:

"It was fascinating to see the media’s coverage of the prisoner exchange in which hundreds of Palestinian prisoners were released for the freedom of the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

The focus was solely on Sergeant Shalit, his physical appearance, his face and everything about him, while little attention was paid to the Palestinians who were released from prison.

This shows the double standard of the media. It is as if the lives of the Palestinians don’t count for anything.

Human life should be treated with dignity whether it is an Arab life, a Jewish life or any other." - ABUBAKAR N. KASIM Toronto 10/19/11

 

**

 

"We Can All Become Job Creators

Howard Schultz. God bless him.

When last we left the chairman and chief executive of Starbucks, in mid-August, he had written a widely publicized e-mail lamenting the poisonous state of our nation’s politics. That led him to his first big idea: a call for a boycott of political contributions until Democrats and Republicans began to act in a nonpartisan way for the good of the country.

The idea had undeniable appeal. But it was also — let’s face it — pretty quixotic, fun to dream about but impossible to turn into reality.

Here we are two months later, and Schultz is back with Big Idea No. 2. It is every bit as idealistic as his first big idea, but far more practical. Starbucks is going to create a mechanism that will allow us citizens to do what the government and the banks won’t: lend money to small businesses. This mechanism is scheduled to be rolled out on Nov. 1. This time, Schultz is not tilting at windmills.

From the start, Schultz’s crusade has been focused on the need for jobs, or, as he likes to say, 'the jobs emergency.' Should the government finance a sustained infrastructure program to create jobs? Of course. Should it give tax breaks to companies that hire the unemployed? Yes again. But with an election coming up, nothing of the sort is likely.

With the government a nonfactor, Schultz began mulling other ideas. He knew that small businesses created most new jobs, but that many small businesspeople couldn’t hire because they had lost access to credit after the financial crisis. He thought about Starbucks’s involvement in microlending programs in some of the countries where it bought coffee. He wondered if there was some way that that could be applied to small business lending in this country. Finally, he thought about the nearly 7,000 Starbucks stores in the United States, and its tens of millions of customers. Surely, he mused, there must be some way to take advantage of Starbucks’s sheer size.

In late August, Schultz invited a handful of employees to his home. He told them that they were not there to discuss Starbucks business. 'Let’s try to take a big swing at job creation that will be unprecedented and unorthodox,' he said. The meeting went well into the evening. Schultz served pizza.

With the help of Starbucks, citizens can loan to small businesses.

Here’s the idea they came up with: Americans themselves would start lending to small businesses, with Starbucks serving as the middleman. Starbucks would find financial institutions willing to loan to small businesses. Starbucks customers would be able to donate money to the effort when they bought their coffee. THOSE WHO GAVE $5 OR MORE WOULD GET A RED-WHITE-AND-BLUE WRISTBAND, WHICH SCHULTZ LABELED 'INDIVISIBLE.' 'We are hoping it will bring back pride in the American dream,' he says. The tag line will read: 'AMERICANS HELPING AMERICANS.'

It didn’t take long for Starbucks to find the perfect financial partner: Community Development Financial Institutions, or CDFIs. These are lenders, mostly under the radar, that specialize in underserved communities. Most, but not all, CDFIs are nonprofit, and their loan default rates are extremely low. 'We specialize in expending credit, getting paid back, and paying back our investors,' says Mark Pinsky, whose organization, Opportunity Finance Network, acts as an umbrella group to the best of them.

Pinsky served on a board with a Starbucks executive. Schultz didn’t know that — indeed, he said he had never heard of a CDFI. But the young Starbucks executives charged with turning the idea into a reality soon found Pinsky — and realized that his organization was tailor-made for their project. Within a matter of days, he had met Schultz, and they had struck a deal.

STARBUCKS AND THE STARBUCKS FOUNDATION WILL PAY FOR THE MARKETING COSTS, THE WRISTBANDS AND EVERY OTHER COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW PROGRAM — WHICH WILL BE CALLED CREATE JOBS FOR USA — OUT OF ITS OWN COFFERS.

Here is the most beautiful part about the whole arrangement. The donations to Create Jobs for USA will not be loaned to the CDFIs. They will be turned into capital — equity that can be leveraged. Pinsky and others told me that that equity can be leveraged 7 to 1, meaning that if 10 million Starbucks customers donate $5, that will support $350 million worth of lending. That’s real money.

The Starbucks Foundation is starting things off with a $5 million donation. Schultz is hoping to convince other national retail chains to participate as well — so that Starbucks isn’t the only place people can join in the effort. And, of course, he is hoping that Starbucks customers will flock to it in droves.

SO AM I. WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND BANKS UNWILLING OR UNABLE, IT’S TIME WE TOOK MATTERS INTO OUR OWN HANDS. AT THIS POINT, WHO ELSE CAN WE COUNT ON?" - Nocera OP-ED N Y Times 10/18/11

 

NO LONGER
Under the RADAR!

"What Main Street Thinks About OCCUPY Wall Street"

To the Editor:

In “In Private, Wall St. Bankers Dismiss Protesters as Unsophisticated” (Business Day, Oct. 15), the views of “one longtime money manager” are summarized as follows:

“He added that he was disappointed that members of Congress from New York, especially Senator Charles E. Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, had not come out swinging for an industry that donates heavily to their campaigns. ‘They need to understand who their constituency is,’ he said.”

And that, ladies and gentlemen, tells you everything you need to know about why I, and so many other people on Main Street, strongly support the Occupy Wall Street movement.

We want our elected officials to belong to us, not to wealthy campaign donors. We want economic and regulatory policies to be determined by what’s good for the country, not by those who can spend the most obscene quantities of cash to buy the politicians and the media. - GRANT PETTY Fitchburg, Wis. 10/15/11

To the Editor:

I disagree with a bank executive’s assertion that “it’s not a middle-class uprising.” Who’s unsophisticated here?

I am an upper-middle-class health professional with a master’s degree, and I fully support Occupy Wall Street. Currently I have to work more than 60 hours a week, but if I had greater availability I would certainly be pounding the pavement with the protesters.

I strongly feel that the majority of the American middle class supports the ideals and goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement. - DAVID ILSON Rockville Centre, N.Y. 10/15/11

To the Editor:

In lucidly explaining the plethora of reasons people are joining the Occupy Wall Street protests, Nicholas D. Kristof goes on to say there’s a “dollop of envy” in those who are protesting (“America’s ‘Primal Scream,’ ” column, Oct. 16).

Envy of the high compensation of others is not the reason behind the protests. Rather, it is outrage, weariness and frustration toward those with the financial and political means who persistently manipulate the system in their favor, at the expense of and on the backs of the majority.

THE MAJORITY SIMPLY WANTS A FAIR, LEVEL, DEMOCRATIC PLAYING FIELD RATHER THAN AN UNJUST PLUTOCRACY. - SUSAN RICCI New York 10/16/11

 

MIRACULOUS JOURNEY

 

* STATUE OF LIBERTY

"The Statue of Liberty National Monument is situated on Bedloe's (now Liberty) Island in New York Harbor.  The 151-foot statue (entitled Liberty Enlightening the World) of a robed female figure bearing an uplifted torch and, in her left hand a tablet inscribed 'July 4, 1776' was designed by the Frenchman Frédéric-Auguste Bartholdi;  completed in Paris in 1885 with the aid of Alexandre-Gustave Eiffel, who designed the inner skeleton;  and officially presented to the United States by the French government.  The huge structure reached New York City in June 1885, but the base was not ready.  A grassroots fundraising campaign suggested by Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of the New York World, quickly raised $100,000 -- much of it in pennies, nickels, and dimes from school children, laborers, and others -- and the pedestal was completed in April 1886.  On 28 October of that year, officially designated as 'Bartholdi Day,' President Grover Cleveland, Count Ferdinand de Lesseps, members of the Franco-American Union, and thousands of onlookers, many aboard ships and small craft, gathered for the festive dedication ceremony marked by bands, parades, and cannon salutes.  A major restoration in 1984 was followed by a formal rededication precisely a century later, 28 October 1986.

Over the years, the Statue of Liberty greeted millions of immigrants, visitors, and returning troops from two world wars;  it remains perhaps the nation's most instantly recognizable symbol.  Nearly as well known is the sonnet by Emma Lazarus (1849-1887) inscribed on the pedestal in 1903:

'Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'"

 

* A Leading Progressive, Amy Goodman -

Monday, 10/24/11 - (1) OBAMA: WITH U.S. WITHDRAWAL, "WAR IN IRAQ WILL BE OVER"

The Obama administration has announced plans to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year after failing to reach an agreement with the Iraqi government. The United States had discussed keeping thousands of troops in Iraq, but had insisted their immunity be extended as a precondition. After the Iraqi government refused, the administration said Friday it would withdraw all its forces except for around 150 troops to guard U.S. sites. At the White House, President Obama said the withdrawal will mark the end of the Iraq war.

President Obama: "I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over. Over the next two months, our troops in Iraq, tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear and board convoys for the journey home." ( ...and will these troops be reintroduced into Iraq with the start of the new year? )

(2) U.S. to Keep Private Forces, Negotiate New Military Terms in Iraq; Clinton Warns Iran on Withdrawal

Despite withdrawing nearly all troops by the end of 2011, the United States will still maintain a large force of private contractors. According to ABC News, at least 5,000 ( Military? ) contractors will remain in Iraq in addition to more than 4,500 support personnel. The United States closed its regional headquarters in northern Iraq in advance of the withdrawal date. Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States will maintain strong military ties with Iraq, and issued a warning to Iran over trying to exert influence following the U.S. withdrawal.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "No one should miscalculate America’s resolve and commitment to helping support the Iraqi democracy. We have paid too high a price to give the Iraqis this chance. And I hope that Iran and no one else miscalculates that. So we are now going to have a security relationship with Iraq for training and support of their military, similar to what we have around the world from Jordan to Colombia."

In addition to maintaining a large private force in Iraq, Obama administration officials have also floated the possibility of maintaining a large military deployment in neighboring countries such as Kuwait. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the United States will negotiate a new agreement with Iraq over military training and assistance.

Leon Panetta: "Once we’ve completed the reduction of the combat presence, then I think we begin a process of negotiating with them in order to determine what will be the nature of that relationship ( DOUBLE TALK? ) —what kind of training do they need, what kinds of security needs do they need, and how can we provide it in an effective way. We do this in other countries. That’s what we’re going to do in Iraq." ( are these the forces mentioned in (1) ? ) - DemocracyNow 10/24/11

Tuesday, 10/25/11 - (1) WikiLeaks May Be Forced to Close Down Due to "Financial Blockade"

WIKILEAKS FOUNDER JULIAN ASSANGE SAID MONDAY HIS WEBSITE HAS TEMPORARILY STOPPED PUBLISHING NEW DOCUMENTS AND MAY SOON BE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN DUE TO FUNDING PROBLEMS. ASSANGE ACCUSED MASTERCARD, VISA, PAYPAL, BANK OF AMERICA AND OTHERS OF BLOCKING DONATIONS TO WIKILEAKS FOR NEARLY A YEAR.

Julian Assange: "Since the 7th of December, 2010, an arbitrary and unlawful financial blockade imposed by the Bank of America, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal and Western Union has destroyed 95 percent of our revenue... In order to ensure our future survival, WikiLeaks is now forced to temporarily suspend all publishing operations in order to direct all our resources into fighting the blockade and raising funds."

Assange criticized the financial service companies for targeting WikiLeaks, even though the company has never been charged with a crime.

Julian Assange: "As a result, WikiLeaks has been running on cash reserves for the last 11 months. The blockade has cost the organization tens of millions of dollars in lost donations at a time of unprecedented costs resulting from publishing alliances in over 50 countries with over 90 media and human rights organizations. Our scarce resources now must focus entirely on fighting this unlawful financial blockade."

(2) Nebraska Lawmakers to Hold Special Session over Keystone Pipeline

Republican Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman has called the state legislature into special session next week to address growing concerns over the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Opposition to the pipeline has been growing in Nebraska in part because TransCanada wants to run pipeline through the sensitive Sand Hills region over the Ogallala Aquifer.

(3) Obama Campaign Hires Former Keystone XL Pipeline Lobbyist for 2012 Campaign

The Obama administration is expected to make a decision on the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline this year. Meanwhile, environmentalists are criticizing Obama for hiring a former TransCanada pipeline lobbyist as a senior adviser to his 2012 re-election campaign. Broderick Johnson lobbied Congress when he was an employee of the firm Bryan Cave.

Johnson is also the husband of National Public Radio’s Michele Norris. Norris announced on Monday she will step down from her hosting duties as host of "All Things Considered" while her husband works for the campaign. - CONTACT TARSANDSACTION.ORG - DemocracyNow 10/25/11

Wednesday, 10/26/11 - (1) STUDY: INCOME OF WEALTHIEST 1 PERCENT TRIPLED OVER LAST THREE DECADES

A new congressional study has found the incomes for the wealthiest one percent of Americans nearly tripled over the last three decades, far outpacing income growth for all other groups. Between 1979 and 2007, the average real after-tax household income grew by 275 percent for the wealthiest Americans. Income grew by just 40 percent for middle-class Americans during the same period. The study also found the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans made more money in 2007 than the rest of the country combined. Democratic Rep. Sandy Levin of Michigan said the report was "the latest evidence of the alarming rise in income inequality."

(2) U.N Votes Overwhelmingly to Condemn U.S. Embargo Against Cuba for 20th Consecutive Year

The United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to condemn the U.S. embargo against Cuba for the 20th year in a row. The final vote was 186 to two. The United States and Israel were the only nations to vote against the resolution. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez said that the sanctions have caused direct economic damages of close to $1 trillion to the Cuban people over nearly half a century.

Bruno Rodríguez, Cuban foreign minister: "The only thing that has changed over the last 50 years, Mr. President, has been the blockade and the hostile, aggressive policy of the United States, in spite of the fact that this policy has not worked, nor will it ever. However, what the U.S. government wants to see changed will not change. The Cuban government will continue to be the government of the people, by the people and for the people."

American Ambassador Ronald Godard criticized the United Nations vote on the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

Ronald Godard, U.S. Senior Adviser, Western and Eastern Affairs: "For yet another year, this assembly is taking up a resolution designed to confuse and obscure. But let there be no confusion about this. The United States, like most member states, reaffirms its strong commitment to supporting the right and the heartfelt desire of the Cuban people to freely determine their future. And let there be no obscuring that the Cuban regime has deprived them of this right for more than half a century."

(3) South Africa Declares Support for Palestinian Statehood

In news from the United Nations, another member of the U.N. Security Council, South Africa, has publicly declared its support for Palestinian statehood. The government said in a statement, "South Africa looks forward, sooner (rather) than later, to welcoming Palestine as the 194th member of the United Nations." MEANWHILE, THE UNITED NATIONS BODY UNESCO IS PREPARING TO VOTE AS EARLY AS THIS WEEK (?) TO GRANT PALESTINE MEMBERSHIP IN THE BODY. The United States has threatened to cut off U.S. funding for UNESCO if it approves full Palestinian membership. - DemocracyNow 10/26/11

* And Richard Wolff's "CAPITALISM HITS THE FAN!"

Bob Lloyd's extensive review - "Just a few years back, business and economic pundits were falling over themselves in the mainstream press to offer belated warnings of the coming financial melt-down. Out of the blue, it seemed, was the sudden awareness that the plethora of fictitious financial products had no real value underpinning them, that the bubble of absurd expectations was fast approaching something sharp, and that those with a bit of sense were dumping their liabilities.

The crisis it seems, like many before it, approached with little warning and caught everyone unawares. At least, that's the popular story. The randomness of the business and trade world meant that crises were always possible if we weren't on our guard against it. And of course, when crisis strikes, those whose guards were down are the natural scapegoats. And those who made rash claims about years of uninterrupted growth were particularly exposed.

But the fact is that the crisis wasn't at all unexpected and it didn't come suddenly out of the blue. It actually developed over the last 30 years. Richard D. Wolff has now issued, in 'Capitalism Hits the Fan', a collection of his articles first published in Monthly Review which serves as a remarkable record of just how blind conventional economics really is, and also as a practical guide to how a real analysis of the crisis shapes up.

Between 1850 and 1975 in the U.S., the real incomes of working people pretty much kept pace with increases in productivity, which was good news for the owners of industry and the workers because the additional goods could be bought with the additional demand. Workers were earning enough to buy an increasing amount of the goods they produced. But then the link was broken in the mid-'70s and the power of the corporations forced down real wages.

As productivity outstripped real wages, profits of course rose as the cash that would have ended up in employee pay-packets ended up in the bank accounts of the owners where, by and large, it didn't get spent buying up the now surplus products. So there was insufficient demand for the surplus goods being produced. And we all know that crisis of overproduction led to falling prices and falling profits. How then to keep the demand up but without giving workers an increase in their real wages?

The master stroke was to lend the money to working people to satisfy their demand to possess an increasing range of consumer goods. By borrowing money, working people could still have the goods they wanted but couldn't afford, because their real wages were not growing. Under normal circumstances, not having the money would imply not being able to buy the products. Industry bosses realized this and the innovation was to boost consumer debt to keep the profits flowing.

But along comes problem number two. How then to provide the credit? Against what would the money be advanced? Well, the great American dream of everyone owning their own house was a reality for many people. And houses mean equity. The banks, and anyone else who could get in on the act, loaned working people the cash against the equity in their houses.

In 1974, the Federal Reserve estimated total consumer debt was $627 billion. By 1994 it had risen to $4,206 billion and by 2004 it was at $9,709 billion. Everyone and their financial friend was offering loans against equity. Following the 2000 stock market crash (another of those fragile bubbles), the Fed kept interests rates down, which gave rise to speculative investment in housing as more people borrowed to get that first home. Getting a mortgage was never so easy.

But underpinning all of this was the real value of homes, the real equity, the real economy, not the fictitious economy of double- and treble-sold collected securitized risk bundles. But the quest for profit continued unabated. New innovative ways were found to squeeze out more profit. Mortgage debts were bundled up and sold, their riskiness being assessed by financial companies set up to offer the right numbers. As they inflated the ratings of these bundles, the securitization of debt became more and more divorced from the real world and of course, as soon as the first doubt set in, it rapidly became a complete crisis of confidence.

The credit taps were jammed shut, loans were called in, banks refused to lend even to each other, and the whole irrational crazy pack of cards came crashing down. And then of course, everyone was hunting the guilty. Was it lack of regulation? Too much? Failure of government policy? Too big or too small government? Inadequate data? Fickle working people buying more than they could pay for? Irresponsible lenders encouraging people into debt?

The post festum squabble about policy is almost indecent in the way it covers up the endemic nature of crisis in capitalist economy. When the people who make the decisions are driven by profit and through competition are forced to put the public good a long way down the list, if it is there at all, those really to blame are the ones who defend the system and insist it is the only way to go. All those Democrats and Republicans who insist that the free market guarantees the public good should recognise the empirical slap in the face they've just been given and start to rethink whether this system is the best we can manage.

Back in the days of Roosevelt, everyone was calling for state intervention to provide the necessary demand that profit-centred manufacturing wouldn't or couldn't provide. The social services established under the New Deal have now all but been clawed back by the owners of industry in successive waves of government cutbacks, and during that time, the industrialists and company owners have seen their wealth explode to unheard of levels. They have never been so rich nor so powerful.

Everyone was a Keynsian between 1930 and 1970. But those inherent capitalist crises were still there and so it was all change in the 70s - everyone became monetarists and Milton Friedman and the Chicago School were the new prophets. But it was the very neo-classical economics which so obscured the tendency to crisis so evident in the capitalist economy.

The argument about bigger or smaller government, greater or lesser regulation, more or less fiscal stimuli, has been fruitless precisely because it doesn't address the real motor of capitalist economy, the extraction of profit by one class from another. The owners of capital are not patriotic, and the market works to their benefit, not to that of the common good. By ideologically displacing such ideas, economics becomes a faith-based activity rather than one based on the analysis of the facts.

Richard D. Wolff has provided a blow by blow account of how the crisis developed, how the politicians and parties reacted, and how the average folks suffered and will suffer in times to come. But he has done more than that. He has shown that Marxist economics provided a clear analysis throughout, which was not just accurate and prescient, but also points unmistakably to the need fundamentally to change the system. Profit benefits one class at the expense of everyone else and it has been empirically shown in every crisis who it is that picks up the tab.

Whether you align yourself with Democrat or Republican, New Labour or Tory parties, or are politically independent or non-aligned, this book provides an excellent source of clear well-focussed analysis of what happened in the last five years. For the first time in years, those parties who defend capitalism are on the defensive economically. In countries around the world they are talking austerity, sacrifice by working people, government bail-outs of financial companies, in the Messianic belief that their hallowed system will be fine just so long as their special treatment can bring it back to health.

They are defending a system that works against the public interest to benefit a small very wealthy minority. It's time to question the system itself."

 

In addition, Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges, the latter author of the 2008 breakthrough "America's War Against Iraqi Civilians", and the 2010 provocative "Death of the Liberal Class", surprisingly the both of them were guests of "Charlie" Rose for his 10/24-25/11 program, sharing the hour with the great Paul Volcker.

"Chris Hedges: We live in a system that is no longer democratic for the majority of citizens and especially the underclass. It is probably best described as an inverted totalitarianism, as Sheldon Wolin calls it. Where it’s not classical totalitarianism, it doesn’t find its expression through a demagogue or a charismatic leader but through the ANONYMITY OF THE CORPORATE STATE. In an inverted totalitarianism you have a system whereby corporate forces purport to pay fealty to electoral politics, the constitution, the iconography and language of American patriotism, and yet have so corrupted the levers of power as to render the citizen impotent. We see that just in one piece of legislation after another. Whether it’s the FISA reform act, whether it is the Obama health care bill, which ends up being 2000 pages written by the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, in essence the equivalent of a bank bailout bill for these corporations. I mean look, just, in moral terms as a former seminarian, we live in a nation where it is legally permissible for corporations to hold sick children hostage, while their parents bankrupt themselves trying to save their sons and daughters. That’s the sickness that we’ve descended to.

Additionally, this question: Is there no limit to the incessant "fund raising" for OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) that billionaires Arlene (Director) and Harold Schnitzer insert into their Public Broadcasting daily programming, programming which coincides with a collateral damaging, as it were, collateral reduction in timely "Hard News", conspicuously led by the absence of the threat to Middle East peace exemplified by Netanyahu & Lieberman's Israel?!?! In actuality, OPB under the Schnitzers has degenerated into OPPB, Oregon Public Propaganda Broadcasting, on a track developed in our age by Roger Ailes (who originated 'FOX' broadcasting) and his protégé Rush Limbaugh. Shameful.

What is often forgotten is that the notorious Schnitzer family of Oregon [which is responsible for the desecration of OPB (Oregon "Public" Broadcasting)] invited the war monger Benjamin Netanyahu to Portland, Oregon in July of 2002 to campaign for Republican Senator Gordon Smith (for whom the phrase "empty suit" was coined), i.e. Democrats for Smith, whose sub rosa supporters surely included Senator Ron Wyden. Netanyahu, whose Israeli acolyte Yigal Amir assassinated the genuine Soldier/Statesman Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November of 1995, this Netanyahu, through the notorious Israeli political apparatus, became the Israeli prime minister 1996-99! And it is this Netanyahu who the Schnitzers invited to Oregon to campaign for Gordon Smith. In all of this there exists (moreso today) , a fanatic, frenetic thread of sordid madness, a true threat to world peace as Netanyahu has demonstrated in the Middle East, and a diminishing informed American public here at home, as the Schnitzers are demonstrating with Oregon Public Broadcasting. We should have known. Netanyahu and the Schnitzers are COUSINS!, and on 7/19/10 Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow informed our ignorance, again.

"A newly revealed tape shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once openly discussed his intent to attack the Palestinian government, undermine the Oslo peace accords, and manipulate the United States to ensure its approval. The 2001 recording shows Netanyahu meeting with Israeli SETTLERS in the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu was then out of government after serving his first stint in office. Apparently unaware he was being recorded, Netanyahu talks openly of a 'broad attack' on the Palestinian government, saying, 'The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne.'

"Netanyahu also outlines how he would undermine the 1993 Oslo accords, he said, which established the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, by declaring any West Bank land that Israel wants to retain as 'military' and 'security zones.' Addressing potential US opposition to Israeli expansionism, Netanyahu says, 'I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. THEY WON’T GET IN THE WAY.'" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/19/10

 

*  Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/19/11

(1)  "Alaskan BP Oil Pipeline Rupture Predicted as 'Imminent' for over a Year

A BP oil pipeline on Alaska’s North Slope ruptured on Saturday, spilling up to 4,200 gallons of oil-containing fluids, mainly methanol, into the Alaskan tundra. ProPublica reports that the section of pipeline where the leak occurred was flagged by BP officials more than a year ago as so corroded it presented an imminent threat of rupture.

(2)  New Montana Oil Spill Releases Hundreds of Gallons

There has been another oil spill in Montana. Up to 630 gallons of crude has spilled at an oil field in the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. The oil line may have been leaking for 10 to 14 days before a neighboring landowner reported it last week.

Montana: Regulators Knew Contaminated Bark Was Being Sold in Asbestos-Tainted Town

In Montana, the Associated Press has revealed federal regulators knew potentially contaminated bark and wood chips were being sold from a Superfund site in the asbestos-tainted town of Libby, Montana, for three years before they stopped the practice. The contaminated wood chips were placed in yards, city parks, outside schools and at the local cemetery. Asbestos from a W.R. Grace mine in Libby has killed an estimated 400 people and sickened at least 1,750 people.

(3)  Israeli Navy Seizes Gaza-Bound Pro-Palestinian Ship

Israeli Navy commanders have seized a French ship carrying pro-Palestinian activists bound for Gaza. The French ship, Dignity al-Karama, set sail from Greece on Saturday. Among its 16 passengers were people from France, Canada, Greece, Sweden and Tunisia. The ship was supposed to be part of a large international aid flotilla to Gaza, but none of the other ships managed to leave port due to sabotage and interference by the Greek government.

(4)  Israel Moves to Build Hundreds of New Settlement Homes in Occupied Territories

The Israeli government is moving forward on plans to build 336 new settlement homes in defiance of the international community. According to the plan, 294 of the homes will be built outside of Jerusalem, another 42 will be build outside of the West Bank city of Nablus. Palestinians said Israel’s move to build more settlements hardened their resolve to seek statehood recognition from the United Nations. Hagit Ofran of the Israeli group Peace Now also criticized the new settlements.

Hagit Ofran, Peace Now: "The government of Israel is expanding the settlements despite the fact that it’s against the Israeli interest and against the declarations of the government that we are going to peace. This construction in settlements now pushes the Palestinians to go unilaterally to the U.N."

(5)  International Community Denounces New Israeli Anti-Boycott Law

A new Israeli law outlawing citizens and organizations from advocating for boycotts against any Israeli person or entity is drawing criticism from around the world as an attack on freedom of speech. Under the new law, any person — including journalists — calling for the boycott or divestment of Israel or the occupied West Bank can be sued by the boycott’s targets without having to prove that they sustained damage. Prominent Israeli columnist Ben Caspit, who is opposed to boycotts, denounced the new legislation, writing, “This is a blatant and a resounding shutting of people’s mouths. This is a thought police. There is no choice but to use this word. Fascism at its worst is raging.” The Jewish daily newspaper, The Forward, issued an editorial claiming, “a boycott can be a legitimate use of non-violent protest to achieve a worthy goal.” The editors of the paper then drew a line through the sentence, along with several others, to illustrate the type of reasonable thoughts that will be punishable under the new law.

*  Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/20/11

(1)  FBI Arrests 16 in Raids Targeting Online Hackers

The FBI has arrested 16 people in a series of nationwide raids targeting two of the world’s most well-known hacking organizations. Fourteen of the suspects were arrested for their alleged links to a December attack on the online payment site, PayPal. The loosely affiliated hacker activist group, Anonymous, took credit for the breach in response to PayPal’s suspension of accounts that donated money to the whistleblower website, WikiLeaks. An additional suspect was arrested for an Anonymous-linked breach of the FBI-affiliated website, InfraGard. The final suspect was arrested for allegedly lifting files from AT&T’s computer system and providing them to LulzSec, a separate hacking group with ties to Anonymous. The suspects were charged with conspiring to intentionally damage protected computers, which is punishable by a maximum of 10 years in prison. The arrests came as LulzSec reportedly breached the computer systems of News International, The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times, all Murdoch-owned publications.  GOD BLESS HACKERS!

*  Amy Goodman Juan Gonzalez DemocracyNow 7/21/11

(1)  Amira Hass

"Earlier this week, three Israeli missile ships and seven commando boats intercepted a French ship attempting to reach the Gaza Strip. The ship, Dignité-Al Karama, was the sole representative of the original 10-strong international aid flotilla hoping to break the blockade on Gaza and express support for Palestinians living under occupation. At least 150 soldiers were sent to sea early Tuesday morning to prevent the 10 civilian activists, the three crew members and the three journalists on the flotilla from reaching Gaza’s port. Fifteen passengers were arrested, prevented from seeing their lawyers, and sent for deportation. We speak with Ha’aretz correspondent Amira Hass, one of the few journalists who was aboard the ship. Hass is also one of the only Israeli journalists to have spent several years living in and reporting from Gaza and the West Bank.

Amira Hass, Ha’aretz correspondent.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We turn now to Israel, where three missile ships and seven commando boats intercepted a "freedom flotilla" trying to breach the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip earlier this week. The French boat, Dignité-Al Karama was the sole representative of the original 10-strong flotilla hoping to break the blockade on Gaza and express support for Palestinians living under occupation. At least 150 soldiers were sent to sea early Tuesday morning to prevent the 10 civilian activists, the three crew members and three journalists on the flotilla from reaching Gaza’s port.

AMY GOODMAN: The Israeli defense spokesman, Captain Barak Raz, said the boat had been boarded peacefully and was towed to the Israeli port of Ashdod.

CAPT. BARAK RAZ: After boarding the boat, which we did in a very professional manner, we ensured the safety of everybody on board. Everything appeared to be OK. They were given food and water. And right now the boat is being led toward the port of Ashdod.

AMY GOODMAN: After the boat was intercepted, 15 passengers were arrested and prevented from seeing their lawyers. Mahmoud Abu Daf, who heads the End of the Siege Committee, condemned the boat’s seizure and subsequent arrests.

MAHMOUD ABU DAF: [translated] We condemn the occupation’s act of seizing the Dignity ship and forcing it to go to the Ashdod port. We consider this a political and military piracy.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by one of the only journalists who was aboard the ship. Amira Hass is with Ha’aretz. She’s the correspondent for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. She’s the only one of the Israeli journalists to have spent years living in and reporting from Gaza and the West Bank.

Amira, welcome to Democracy Now! Describe what happened on the Dignité, on the boat.

AMIRA HASS: Good morning.

Some 60 miles away from Gaza, we got the signal from an Israeli warship asking where we were heading to. One of the—one on board said, "To Gaza." Then they said, "It’s illegal. It’s not allowed." The person—it’s Professor Vangelis Pissias, the Greek—tried to explain that this is a mission of peace and solidarity. There are no arms, no cargo, just wishing to reach Gaza. And they were replied again by, "No, this is not legal, or not allowed." Immediately then, all communication was jammed. We could not call anymore. We could not get calls anymore. The internet did not work.

And soon after, we saw four commando boats, very quick, very fast boats, approaching us. Masked men were aiming their rifles at us. They were, of course, in uniforms, IDF ( Israeli Defense? Force ) uniforms. They were aiming all sorts of guns that I don’t even know how to name them. There were two cannon—two of them had—each of them had a cannon, a water cannon. Then, three more were added to the four. They distanced a bit, then returned.

At around 2:00, they approached, started to use the water cannon, and shouted something. One of on board, Dror Feiler, who is an Israeli, shouted back in Hebrew. Another activist, Claude Léostic of France, said, "This is—we are on the way to Gaza. This is international water. You have no right to impound us." And yet, they managed to enter on board.

It was not violent as the former flotillas or the boats that were in past years, when they attacked people physically. But the very act, of course, is violent, the very act of—imagine 10 vessels, three warships and seven gunboats, attacking this small bucket. We looked like a bucket rocking in the sea. This was very violent. But physically, we were spared what—the fate that was the one of the Mavi Marmara.

AMY GOODMAN: Amira, can you explain how it was that the—

AMIRA HASS: Yeah?

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain how it was that this boat, the only one of the 10 of this flotilla—

AMIRA HASS: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —made it out of Greek waters, when all the others, like the U.S.-flagged _Audacity of Hope, which we covered with reporters on board, were not able to make it out? How did they escape the Greek authorities, who were congratulated by the Israeli authorities for keeping the others?

AMIRA HASS: Because their port of origin was Corse, a French port in Corse, the island of Corse. And so, the Greek authorities could not use all their bureaucratic tricks which they used on the other boats in order to prevent them from leaving.

AMY GOODMAN: This was Corsica?

AMIRA HASS: Still, they were trying. Still, the—they left—on the 25th of June, they left Corse. Then they stayed in the high sea for almost—for more than a week. Then they’re waiting for all the other boats. Then they waited near Crete. Then they entered one of the ports of Crete. Then they managed to get some—also with difficulty, some permits by the Greek coastal guard. The only reason is that it did not originate from Greece. All the rest were subject to very harsh Greek tricks, of course by order of the Israeli government. There is no doubt about it.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the purpose, what the people on board the bucket, as you described it, the boat, that did get taken in to Ashdod—what their purpose was in challenging the blockade?

AMIRA HASS: The purpose was, of course, to accomplish the mission, even though it was already in Lilliputian measures—to complete the mission or to show the determination of people, not only of those 10 who were on board, of 10 activists, but of the entire group. And as—I have spent about a month with the activists, because at the beginning I was together with the Tahrir, I was staying with the people on Tahrir, the Canadian boat, which had some other delegations. And I’ve learned not only about these 10, but about the majority of the participants, that—in this flotilla, in this very flotilla, that they were really—really are motivated by, I would say, very clear emancipatory values and ideals and personal history of each person, not only in the Palestinian issue, in the Palestinian focalism in freedom, but in different issues that concern equality and rights and freedom. Many on the Canadian boat are involved in the fight for rights of First Nations. There are feminists, of course. There are people who are involved in—people from Australia who are involved in their struggles there against mistreatment and exploitation of refugees. So this was a very clear message of the whole flotilla. This emancipatory message was very clear for me.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Amira—

AMIRA HASS: But at a certain moment, when the—yes?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Amira, if you can, I would like you to stay on as we bring in another guest.

(2)  "Israel has passed a new law outlawing citizens and organizations from advocating for boycotts ( i.e. Boycotts - Divestments - Sanctions ) against any Israeli person or entity. The law is drawing criticism from around the world as an attack on freedom of speech. Under the new law, any person, including journalists, calling for the boycott or divestment of Israel or the occupied West Bank can be sued by the boycott’s targets, without having to prove that they sustained damage. We’re joined by Gal Beckerman, the opinion editor at the Jewish daily newspaper, The Forward, which recently issued an editorial claiming "a boycott can be a legitimate use of non-violent protest to achieve a worthy goal." The editors of the paper then drew a line through the sentence, along with several others, to illustrate the type of reasonable thoughts that will be punishable under the new law.

Gal Beckerman, opinion editor at the Jewish daily newspaper, The Forward, and the author of the book, When They Come for Us, We’ll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Israel has passed a new law outlawing citizens and organizations from advocating for boycotts against any Israeli person or entity. The law is drawing criticism from around the world as an attack on freedom of speech. Under the new law, any person, including journalists, calling for the boycott or divestment of Israel or the occupied West Bank can be sued by the boycott’s targets without having to prove that they sustained damage. Israeli legislator Avraham Michaeli supported the law, saying that any call for a boycott is an act of "tortuous malice."

AVRAHAM MICHAELI: [translated] Boycotts are liable to harm business, cultural and academic activities of those subject to the boycotts, and inflict heavy damage, both financial and repetitional on them. In order to prevent such damage, it is proposed that knowingly publishing a call for any sort of boycott on anyone because of their links to state of Israel will be considered an act of tortuous malice subject to tort regulations.

AMY GOODMAN: But dozens of Israeli lawmakers voted against the measure, including Nitzan Horowitz. Horowitz said, "We are dealing with a legislation that is an embarrassment to Israeli democracy and makes people around the world wonder if there is actually a democracy here."

Prominent Israeli columnist Ben Caspit, who opposes boycotts, denounced the new legislation, writing, "This is a blatant and a resounding shutting of people’s mouths. This is a thought police. There is no choice but to use this word. Fascism at its worst is raging," he wrote.

The Jewish daily newspaper, The Forward, issued an editorial claiming "a boycott can be a legitimate use of non-violent protest to achieve a worthy goal." The editors of the paper then drew a line through the sentence, along with several others, to illustrate the type of reasonable thoughts that will be punishable under the new law.

JUAN GONZALEZ: For more, we’re joined by Gal Beckerman, who is the opinion editor at The Forward and the author of When They Come for Us, We’ll Be Gone: The Epic Struggle to Save Soviet Jewry.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

GAL BECKERMAN: Thanks for having me.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the discussion at the paper before the editorial that you put out?

GAL BECKERMAN: Mm-hmm. Well, you know, we really wanted to try to illustrate how absurd, in a way, this law was, because in some ways it was making illegal, verging on criminal, things that reasonable people, people who are, you know, quote-unquote, "pro-Israel" have been saying for a long time, in fact, you know, by some statistics, a majority of Israelis have been saying, which is that getting—ending the occupation might be a good thing for Israel.

AMY GOODMAN: What does this mean for The Forward? I mean, it wasn’t just symbolic, what you were doing—

GAL BECKERMAN: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —putting the lines through the words. What exactly does this anti-boycott law mean for people who are writing, for people who are speaking, for people who believe and don’t believe in boycotting Israel?

GAL BECKERMAN: Well, one of the more disturbing things about this law is its vagueness, because it really kind of creates a situation in which, if you are seen to be even hypothetically suggesting that a boycott might be something that could be a legitimate form of a nonviolent protest, that could, under this law, be construed as somehow violating the rights, the civil rights, of, say, a settlement, a settlement that’s producing oranges, you know, who says that they would be hypothetically damaged by a boycott, hypothetically economically damaged, and then you could be sued in civil court. So, the vagueness of it is partly what is so problematic.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to bring Amira Hass back into the conversation. The reaction among the Israeli public to this law?

AMIRA HASS: Look, I’ve been away when this law was voted for. I think that the majority of Israelis, or many Israelis, accept it. They feel that there was a threat, that it threatens their livelihood and life and the legitimacy of Israel. And so, I think that the Israeli—most of the Israeli lawmakers feel motivated, because they’re also backed by a large constituency.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, it’s interesting, Abe Foxman of the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, wrote a statement saying, "The Anti-Defamation League has a long history of vigorous opposition to any and all boycotts of Israel, [and] works every day to expose and combat those who seek to cause damage to the Jewish state. We are, however, concerned that this law may unduly impinge on the basic democratic rights of Israelis to freedom of speech and freedom of expression." Gal?

GAL BECKERMAN: Yeah, he—and he’s not alone. I mean, actually, the ADL, interestingly, were one of the first to come out against the law. But really, a very broad swath of American Jewish organizations, very much the mainstream, who have been pro-Israel in every way—you could not impugn their bona fides in terms of their pro-Israel status—came out against this, you know, because I think that it conflicts with these—with American principles of freedom of speech and the notion that even just by saying something, you could be liable.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And isn’t the debate that is continuing to grow on the passing of this law an indication that, to some degree, there is a fear that this could spread rapidly, in terms of on a worldwide basis, because of the continuing inability of the peace process in the Middle East to achieve any kind of long-term solution?

GAL BECKERMAN: I mean, I think there is—I think this law, in some ways, was—to listen to the legislators who kind of came up with it, it was a way of saying that, you know, if Israel is going to ask European countries to fight the BDS movement—Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement, any manifestation of it—that Israel had to do something itself to show that it was taking the same measures against its own citizens.

One other thing that it’s worth pointing out in this law, and I think why a lot of people reacted the way they did to it, was, it does something else besides this kind of freedom of speech issue. It kind of erases the line, as well, between criticism of Israel and criticism of the occupation, which is very, very critical, because it defines a boycott against Israel as not just against Israel, but lands under Israel’s control, areas under Israel’s control, which means basically that it’s codifying, in effect, the mantra, really, of the extreme right in Israel for a long time now, which is that any criticism or any protest against the settlement enterprise or settlement project is an existential threat to Israel itself. And this makes it, in effect, law. So you have people who are—again, you know, could not be described as anything but pro-Israel, but believe that the way to ensure Israel’s security future, democracy, is by ending the occupation. And now their thoughts, in effect, or their—you know, any implementation of what they think they could do to protest this idea, could be—could land them in court.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’ll leave it there. Gal Beckerman, opinion editor at the Jewish daily Forward, here in New York. Also, thank you to Amira Hass, who has just come off the boat. She was on the boat that was intercepted by the Israeli military that was attempting to challenge the Israeli blockade of Gaza. She was speaking to us from her home in Ramallah." - Amy Goodman Juan Gonzalez DemocracyNow 7/21/11

 

*  Neal Conan of National PUBLIC Radio 7/18/11 ( Is this Conan's feeble response to Pulitzer laureate Seymour Hersh's 6/6/11 The New Yorker article? ) endorses, through the once-responsible ( EXPOSED WATERGATE! ) Washington Post, now compromised by the likes of Jackson Diehl, pushing for continuous U. S. Troops in Iraq, TO FOIL IRAN??.

NEAL CONAN, host: And now, The Opinion Page. Under an agreement struck at the end of Bush administration, all U.S. troops must be out of Iraq by the end of this year. As the deadline approaches, Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl warns of the risks in a piece titled "Retreat Roulette." If we retreat from Iraq, he writes, will Iran take over? Of course, there are risks to staying on as well. Shiite firebrand Muqtada al-Sadr vows to return to armed resistance unless all U.S. forces leave on schedule.

So what are the risks of pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq? What are the risks of keeping them in? 800-989-8255. Email, talk@npr.org. You can also join the conversation on our website. Go to npr.org. Click on TALK OF THE NATION. Jackson Diehl joins us from the studio at The Washington Post. Nice to have you back.

JACKSON DIEHL: My pleasure.

CONAN: And under the agreement, the government of Nouri al-Maliki would have to ask Washington to keep U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The number everybody talks about is 10,000 or so. You argue that this is so important that we need to coax Baghdad to make the right decision. What's at stake?

DIEHL: Well, what's at stake really is whether or not Iran, which has been trying to turn Iraq into a satellite state for several years, will finally get its way. And the reason they would is because without U.S. troops there, Iraq would basically have no military ability to resist Iran on any kind of level; not their militias, which they keep in Iraq, not their conventional forces, not their missiles. And so you're going to have an Iraqi government, which is already a little bit inclined toward Iran, under a lot of pressure to go along with whatever Iran wants.

CONAN: That's not everybody in Iraq. There are a lot of people in Iraq who deeply resent Iran.

DIEHL: There are. But the government, the prime minister, Maliki, has always been a little bit pro-Iranian. His coalition is heavily pro-Iranian because he's dependent on a Shiite party that is basically an Iranian client, Muqtada al-Sadr, who you mentioned. And he's supposed to have a coalition with the other side, the part that resists Iran, but that coalition really hasn't worked out. It's basically split up. So the Sunni parties who would resist Iranian influence are currently out of power at the moment.

CONAN: And you also complained in your piece that the United States, well, the Obama administration has made it clear it's willing to keep another 10,000 troops in Iraq - I think there are about 47,000 there now - to leave 10,000 in Iraq for another year if it is asked by Baghdad. But the new secretary of defense, Leon Panetta, was in Baghdad and, you say, too brusque with our allies.

DIEHL: Well, they have a very ambivalent attitude about it. Military commanders, U.S. military commanders, I think, would very much like to see U.S. troops stay precisely because they're worried about this Iranian problem and the larger Iranian problem in the region. Former Secretary of Defense Gates said publically that he would like to see U.S. troops stay precisely because of the Iranian factor. But the civilian leadership and the Obama administration, the White House in particular, is much more ambivalent.

So they've sort of taken the view, well, we'll think about it if you ask us. And Panetta added in public, make a decision, damn it, were his words. So my thought was those are not the kind of coaxing that's going to get the right decision.

CONAN: The Iraqi government is infamous for its inability to make decisions. The prime minister currently serves as his own defense minister and interior minister because he can't get anybody to agree who those ministers ought to be.

DIEHL: Yeah. And that's precisely the problem. Those ministers should be Sunni ministers. He had agreed that people from the Sunni side would take on those roles, but he's been unwilling to deliver on that. And unless he does deliver on that, unless they can make some kind of internal deal, then their request for U.S. troops is unlikely to be forthcoming.

CONAN: And if that happens and the U.S. forces withdraw, you say all the blood and treasure that we've spent over the past years in this misbegotten enterprise would be effectively wasted.

DIEHL: Well, I think that's the great risk. Now, you hear from the other side, you hear from Obama administration officials I have talked to, that I shouldn't be so worried, that the Iranians themselves are having their economic problems, that they're divided internally, that they're worried about their other clients in the region with the Arab Spring going on. And they really don't have the wherewithal to push too hard on Iraq at the moment. And in any case, they feel fairly confident that Maliki will push back, even if he doesn't have U. S. troops behind him. But I think that's a pretty big risk to take.

CONAN: There is also the question, if you do leave U.S. forces there, some of them are going to be involved in incidents, some of them are going to be killed. There are risks on the other side.

DIEHL: There are risks on the other side. Although, you know, ideally, they would - you hope they would evolve to the point of U.S. troops in South Korea or U.S. troops in West Germany during the Cold War that are there basically as deterrent, as a guarantor but actually don't play that active a role and, therefore, don't suffer that many casualties. But you're right. In the last month, U.S. troops - 15 U.S. troops were killed in Iraq, which was the highest total in two years, and that's precisely because the Iranians ( Evidence? ) are stepping up their attacks.

CONAN: You're talking about a similar role to with - that which the United States plays in South Korea or Germany. Again, those are not controversial because, as you say, there's not combat involved. But stay in Iraq not just another year but decades?

DIEHL: Who knows how long it would be. I think, you know, you have to - I think the thinking would be that you need to stay there long enough that Iraq can defend itself against its neighbors such as Iran and be a truly independent and sovereign country. They're not there yet. They're a few years away from that.

CONAN: And the other factor is Iraq is an oil-rich country. When it gets production back up, it's going to be able to afford to build up its own forces.

DIEHL: Sure. And, of course, one problem with that is that a lot of countries in the region wouldn't necessarily look that favorably on a very strong Iraqi army again - starting with Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf countries, Kuwait. You know, they've had their problems with a very strong Iraq before. They don't necessarily want to see a really strong Iraqi army again that's completely unmediated by U.S. influence.

CONAN: Unmediated by U.S. - the United States is going to have this enormous embassy in Baghdad. There are going to be - even if all the U.S. troops leave, there's going to be many thousands of U.S. contractors there, trainers to help build up these Iraqi armed forces. There's going to be plenty of U.S. influence.

DIEHL: There'll be a lot of U.S. influence; there won't be a lot of U.S. influence in the military. One thing people point to now is the fact that you have U.S. officers operating in every level of the Iraqi army as advisers. They're talking to the lieutenant colonels. They're talking to the majors. They're having an influence on exactly what happens on the ground in sensitive areas that still exist, such as in northern Iraq. If you pull all of those people out, in just in a very tangible sense, we won't have the same influence.

CONAN: Here's an email from a listener, David. Are we not providing some protection to the Sunnis that came over to our side? He's talking about the tribal leaders who provided the spirit of the Anbar awakening that did a great deal to help turn the tide in Iraq.

DIEHL: Well, we're providing less and less protection. They've been under a lot of attack, those Sunni leaders; there was a number of them killed recently in Ramadi, very near a U.S. military base. And if our troops leave, again, the protection that we are offering simply through our presence there, kind of psychological protection, won't exist anymore.

CONAN: There is - you talked about the politics in Baghdad. There's politics in Washington too. The president, who's campaigned on the promise to get the United States to wind down the war in Iraq, he needs that request from Baghdad if he's going to keep U.S. forces in a country beyond the agreement negotiated by his predecessor.

DIEHL: Yeah, I think you're right. He does need that, and not only for that reason, not only for his reason, but for Iraqi reasons. We can't, as the United States, be seen to be imposing our troops on Iraq. It's really important that they publicly ask us for it. On the other hand, there are ways for the United States to talk quietly to Iraqis and to try and work out some kind of mutual arrangement so that the Iraqis make the request. And it's another thing to go there and publicly say, damn it. Make it a decision, as Panetta did.

CONAN: As Panetta did. There is still the question of Iraq's internal political problems. As you suggests, Muqtada al-Sadr's party is a critical element in the prime minister's coalition. Without them, he does not have the votes. They say if the American forces aren't out, they're not merely leaving the coalition, they're going back on the streets with weapons in their hands.

DIEHL: Yeah, and I think that's a very difficult thing. The way out of that, really, would be for Maliki, first of all, to go back to the Sunni parties with whom he supposed to have a coalition, to appoint the Sunni defense minister that he promised to appoint a year ago, and then simply to call Muqtada al-Sadr's bluff as he has done in the past. And I think it's - I think, in fact, Maliki would like to do those things. He would like to have U.S. troops. Most people believe he wants to make the request but he needs help getting over these couple of hurdles, especially in forging some kind of coalition with the Sunnis.

CONAN: And you foresee that this American presence, semi-permanent is what I'm hearing from you.

DIEHL: Well, I'm - I don't think anybody is thinking about how long it will last. Everybody is thinking about what's going to happen on January 1st and what's going to happen in 2012. But I think if you think forward, it had - you would need it for several years at least, until Iraq can use the oil wealth that you talked about to build up a credible enough army, until Iraqi politics settled to the point where you're not worried about having an implosion if we pull out.

CONAN: An army, difficult enough to build on its own, an air force is something else entirely. These things take time.

DIEHL: Yeah, although the Iraqis have put in a request to buy F-16s from the United States, so they've - and they're talking about, thanks to their new oil wealth, doubling the order to something like 36 planes, which would give them a fairly credible deterrent.

CONAN: We're talking with Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor and columnist for The Washington Post, whose article "Retreat Roulette, Why is the U.S. Gambling with Iraq's Future?" was published today in The Washington Post.

And if you'd like to join the conversation, what are the risks of pulling all U.S. forces out as they are scheduled to leave at the end of this year? What are the risks of keeping them in? 800-989-8255. Email us: talk@npr.org. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION which is coming to you from NPR News.

And the risks also include the - as you said, this would be a request coming from Iraq. So that would be seen in some quarters as a fig leaf for continued American occupation of Iraq.

DIEHL: Well, it'd certainly be seen that way by the Iranians, and as Secretary Gates said, that would be a good thing, if the Iranians were discomfited by this. But I think many people - other people around the region would be very glad to see this happens, starting with Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf states. All around the region, people do not want to see Iranian influence expanded and that's what they're worried about will happen in Iraq.

And they also want to see a stable Iraq. They don't want to see this sort of very fragile, tentative stability that's been established in the last several years come undone again, because it could have the effect of drawing all the countries back into Iraq in to some kind of sectarian war again. So I think it would be difficult to find a government other than Iran around the region that doesn't want to see the United States stay.

CONAN: And possibly Syria. But let's see if we can go next to Richard, and Richard with us from Truro.

RICHARD (Caller): Yeah. I think the risks are in not pulling out. The United States is an incredibly divisive force in that region, has fomented additional divisions within the country of Iraq, has done large - lots to destroy it. It's also spending its own money, which is just - we don't have, killing more people. I think that there's a, you know, an overstated fear of Iran. Instead of dealing with it as a country, this country pretends it's a monster instead of trying to use diplomatic relationships with Iran and dealing with the question, but it doesn't do that.

CONAN: The United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran.

RICHARD: Well, it's about time to establish them.

CONAN: All right. Thank you very much. Well, Jackson Diehl, that's another approach.

DIEHL: Yeah. And I think, to be fair, I think the Obama administration made a very big effort to reach out to Iran diplomatically at the beginning of the administration. As you remember, they were talking or at least hoping about some kind of a grand bargain with Iran, they would reach some kind of detente in the region. And it just failed utterly because of complete lack of Iranian interest. ( NO!  It failed because Obama, the PRESIDENT of the United States was unable to face down Netanyahu . . and, to date, Netanyahu has determined United States policy in the Middle East! )  And one thing you see is that the Iranians have been, in spite of all their own difficulties internally, implacable about pursuing their own interests across the region and about trying to push the United States out.

What they're doing now in Iraq is really extraordinarily aggressive. They are sending sophisticated munitions, sophisticated rockets, sophisticated roadside bombs to militias they control in Iran to use against, you know, Iraqi force...

CONAN: In Iraq.

DIEHL: I'm sorry ( The excitable Diehl is confusing the Israeli agents in Iran with genuine Iraqis who want the U. S. OUT OF IRAQ! ...but Conan rescues him. ) - in Iraq - to use against the U.S. and Iraqi forces. They are very aggressively basically waging war against the United States and trying to drive us out of there.

CONAN: Here's an idea submitted David in Fresno by email: Thinking out of the box, he writes: the Kurds are very much friends and admirers of the USA. Establish an independent Kurdistan in the north, place X amount of USA troops in Kurdistan, help Kurdistan become a real example of democracy in the Middle East, sit back and see what happens.

DIEHL: The Kurds would love that. That's been their dream for years.

CONAN: 51st state, yes.

DIEHL: Yes, that the United States would move troops to Kurdistan, support an independent Kurdistan and write off the rest of the country. And, of course, sometimes that looks attractive - a few years ago, before the surge, when Iraq was seen in almost chaos, it looked like an attractive option to some people here in Washington, that at least you could get one part of the country stabilized and friendly to the United States. But I think we're past that point now.

CONAN: Let's go next to Mike and Mike is on the line from Tucson.

MIKE (Caller): Yes. Basically, I think that we should completely get out of there. The reason this whole chaos has been created was because of us occupying that country. And as we moved there, al-Qaida, you know, came right after us into that country, and they have done more damage than what the Americans have done. Literally, this whole in-fighting, this whole killing, which has killed over 100,000, has been because of the al-Qaida following the American troops in there. So I think we should completely get out, leave it to the Iranians to clean it up, since they will do that. You know, if they want to have a strong ally in the Middle East, meaning Iraq, they will help the Iraqi government to clean up the al-Qaida of all its elements and that would be the end of all the in-fighting.

CONAN: End of all the in-fighting is probably an over-optimistic assessment. Jackson Diehl?

DIEHL: Yeah. I think if Iran went in and really aggressively tried to pursue the Sunni minority there, you'd have a return of, kind of, a very, very, very major sectarian blood-letting and internal civil war there. And I think what actually would happen is the Iranian will try to act more subtlety. They'll try and use the current government, the Maliki government, as their proxy and to influence them and to not to have them take dramatic steps against the Sunnis. In fact, they'll probably advise them not to do that, but at the same time to support Iranian interests more broadly across the region where - in places where Iran is trying to establish influence in the Persian Gulf, for example.

You know, the Iraqi government has already rather spoken out on behalf of the Bahraini Shiites who have risen up against their government. Imagine if you have a government in Baghdad that is pretty much an Iranian client, then, for example, you'll see much more aggressive Iraqi action and support of Shiites in the Persian Gulf.

MIKE: I'm sorry. I just want to make an...

CONAN: And you have to make it very quickly. We're running out of time, Mike.

MIKE: Yes, yes. I just want to say that we have gone over there, 5,000 miles away, and we dictate to all the neighboring countries not to interfere with Iraqi affairs. Whereas, the Iranians are their next-door neighbors and, you know, we condemn them for interfering with their affairs.

CONAN: Mike, thanks. I'm going to have to leave it there, but we appreciate the phone call. Jackson Diehl, thanks very much for your time today.

DIEHL: My pleasure. Thank you.

CONAN: Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor and columnist for The Washington Post, where his piece on Iraq ran today. There's a link to it at our website. Go to npr.org., click on TALK OF THE NATION.

 

- Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/25/11 -

"Iran Renews Accusations of U.S., Israeli Plot Following Scientist Assassination

Iran has accused the United States and Israel of collaborating to assassinate a scientist with potential links to the nation’s nuclear program. Darioush Rezainejad was gunned down outside of a kindergarten in Tehran on Saturday as he went to pick up his daughter. While his ties to Iran’s nuclear program remain unclear, his death bore similarities to the killing and attempted killing of several other Iranian nuclear specialists. In November, men on motorcycles attached a bomb to a vehicle owned by the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. On the same day, Majid Shahriari, manager of a major nuclear project, was killed, and his wife and driver were wounded, in a similar operation. In January of 2010, Iranian particle physicist, Masoud Ali Mohammadi, died after a bomb attached to his motorcycle was detonated by remote control. In addition to the killings, the United States and Israel have been accused of perpetrating a sophisticated cyber attack against Iran’s nuclear program. Last year, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad admitted the so-called Stuxnet computer worm damaged a number of centrifuges used to enrich uranium at Iran’s nuclear reactors." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/25/11

 

- DAVID E. SANGER, William J. Broad - PROPAGANDA

"Survivor of Attack Accelerates Iran's Effort to Produce Nuclear Material"

WASHINGTON - "Eight months after he narrowly survived an assassination attempt on the streets of Tehran, Fereydoon Abbasi, the nuclear physicist whom Iran’s mullahs have put in charge of the country’s Atomic Energy Organization, is presiding over what intelligence officials in several countries...

(1) ( Israel & AIPAC's United States! )

...describe as an unexpected quickening of Iran’s production of nuclear material.

The selection of Dr. Abbasi earlier this year was itself a clear message to the West. As a university scientist, he was barred from traveling outside Iran by the United Nations Security Council because of evidence that his main focus was on how to build nuclear weapons...

( "evidence" manufactured by Israel & United States )

...rather than power plants. But in recent weeks he has publicly declared that his country is preparing to triple its production of a type of nuclear fuel that moves it far closer to the ability to produce bomb-grade material in a hurry.

Filtering out the hyperbole surrounding recent proclamations about Iran’s tangible progress is always difficult, especially at a time when the country is determined to show that neither the Stuxnet computer worm, which crippled part of its nuclear infrastructure last year...

( Israeli ACT OF WAR? )

...nor Western sanctions have proved to be more than modest setbacks. Dr. Abbasi himself is rarely seen...

( Note paragraph 17 of this article! )

...or heard outside of Iran.

But international nuclear inspectors and American officials say that all the evidence points to the imminent installation of centrifuges at an underground nuclear plant on a military base near the city of Qum. Iran revealed the existence of the plant in 2009, after learning that the United States and European powers were about to announce that they had discovered the complex, deep inside the Iranian base.

What concerns inspectors and European and American officials is Iran’s announced effort to increase production of uranium enriched to nearly 20 percent purity....

( WEAPONS GRADE URANIUM REQUIRES 90 PERCENT PURITY! )

...Iran insists that it needs that fuel for a medical research reactor. But last week William Hague, the British foreign minister, dismissed that assertion as a cover story.

'When enough 20 percent enriched uranium is accumulated at the underground facility at Qum,' Mr. Hague said in the British newspaper The Guardian, 'it would take only two or three months of additional work to convert this into weapons-grade material.'

Outside analysts note that during Dr. Abbasi’s brief tenure in his new job, Iran’s top leaders have focused on showing that they have overcome multiple setbacks, inflicted by what they suspect to have been covert actions by the United States and Israel, and broad economic sanctions.

'The evidence is there that they are accelerating,' said Mark Fitzpatrick, an Iran expert and the director of the nonproliferation and disarmament program at the International Institute...

( Is the "INSTITUTE" concerned with Israel's 200+ Nuclear Arsenal? )

...for Strategic Studies in London. 'They have increased the production of uranium, they have increased the number of centrifuges they have spinning, they are putting in a larger number of second-generation centrifuges.'

Senior Obama administration officials with access to the intelligence say they concur with that assessment, but they do not sound alarmed. They argue that Iran’s continued reliance on an older, unreliable centrifuge model shows that it is having trouble making the leap to more sophisticated and efficient models. 'They’ve talked about moving up the line for years, before Abbasi got the job,' said one senior official.

The White House’s silence is notable because President Obama built much of his Middle East policy, before the recent Arab uprisings, on organizing other countries in the region to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. The administration commented on the most recent Iranian announcements only when asked.

'Iran is prohibited from installing or operating any centrifuges as a result of the U.N. sanctions that have been imposed upon it,' Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said when asked about Mr. Abbasi’s recent announcements. 'Provocative behavior of this sort reinforces the need for countries to implement fully their international sanctions obligations with respect to Iran.'

Diplomats say that Dr. Abbasi’s approach to nuclear diplomacy is a stark contrast with that of his predecessor at the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi. Mr. Salehi, a graduate of M.I.T. with a degree in nuclear engineering, is a polished diplomat who speaks fluent English and handles the news media with ease.

Dr. Abbasi is 'not as skillful — or as comfortable,' said a diplomat in Vienna who recently saw him in action when he visited Austria for a nuclear safety conference. 'He’s very stiff with the press.' Since Dr. Abbasi has become one of the country’s top government officials, he has received periodic exemptions from the United Nations travel ban.

According to Mashreghnews, an Iranian news Web site, Dr. Abbasi holds a doctorate in nuclear physics and has been a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps since Iran was founded in 1979. The Revolutionary Guards run the country’s nuclear weapons research effort and for years has deflected demands from inspectors for details about what are suspected of being experiments that would suggest work on a weapon.

In March 2007, the Security Council put Dr. Abbasi on its sanctions list because of allegations that he had ties to the Iranian nuclear effort, which poses a diplomatic problem: the man insisting that Iran’s effort is entirely peaceful is suspected of working on elements of weapons experimentation.

The United Nations described Dr. Abbasi as a senior scientist in the Ministry of Defense who was 'working closely' with Mohsen Fakhrizadeh — an officer in the Revolutionary Guards considered by Western intelligence to be a leader in Tehran’s effort to acquire nuclear arms.

( The aforementioned paragraph #17 )

Mr. Fakhrizadeh has not been seen in public in years. Dr. Abbasi’s experience may explain why: driving to work on Nov. 29, 2010, Dr. Abbasi saw a motorcyclist plant a bomb on the door of his car. He escaped, pulling his wife with him, seconds before it detonated. A separate attack that day killed one of his colleagues. Iran variously blamed the Mossad and the United States.

As the leader of Iran’s effort to enrich uranium, Dr. Abbasi has overseen the stabilization of the plant at Natanz, in the desert. And, at a hollowed-out mountain near Qum, he is spearheading the expansion of Iran’s enrichment program into underground halls.

Diplomats said the mountain site, known as Fordow, was about to receive its first centrifuges — machines that spin fast to purify uranium. In June, Dr. Abbasi announced that Iran would triple production of its most concentrated form of uranium and shift some production to Fordow from Natanz.

'It’s a real policy escalation to triple the production,' the Viennese diplomat noted. 'It’s provocative.'" - SANGER & Broad N Y Times 7/23/11

[ - Latest Israeli ACTS of WAR Against Iran - ]

 

- Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/27/11

Israel, U.S. Denounce Palestinian Statehood Bid at United Nations

The Obama administration and the Israeli government are continuing a vocal campaign to quash the Palestinian statehood bid at the United Nations. Palestinians are seeking a vote in September that would recognize an independent Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories. Speaking before the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, as well as deputy U.S. envoy Rosemary DiCarlo, offered matching positions.

Ron Prosor: "First, let me state clearly, unilateral actions will not bring peace to our region. Like a false idol, the Palestinian initiatives at the United Nations may be superficially attractive to some, yet they distract from the true path to peace."

Rosemary DiCarlo: "Let there be no doubt, symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September will not create an independent Palestinian state. The United States will not support unilateral campaigns at the United Nations in September or any other time."

Both the House and Senate have threatened to cut off aid if Palestinians continue with their statehood bid. Also addressing the Security Council, Palestinian envoy Riyad Mansour said Israel’s refusal to end the occupation remains the lone obstacle to peace.

Riyad Mansour: "We have fulfilled our responsibilities and are ready to govern ourselves. The only remaining obstacle is Israelis’ 44-year military occupation. Our people have legitimate rights, needs and demands, and it is our duty to listen and to act responsibly to advance their just cause. We cannot keep waiting for Israel to negotiate in good faith, an almost impossible matter so long as the occupier continues to be absolved of its obligations under international law and as long as might is permitted to trump right."

Israel Raids Palestinian Children’s Theater

In the Occupied Territories, witnesses say Israeli troops have raided a popular theater for Palestinian children in the West Bank town of Jenin. Israeli troops reportedly broke windows and arrested the theater’s director, as well as a member of its board. The Freedom Theater has helped Palestinian youths deal with the hardships of life under Israeli occupation by expressing themselves through the arts. The theater’s founder, Juliano Mer-Khamis, was killed in April by masked gunmen. - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/27/11

 

Of importance to these United States [...and directly related to the fiasco in the Middle East, caused by the feckless cupidity of the George W. Bush administration, which not only squandered the multi-billion dollar surplus inherited from the Clinton/Gore Administration, but then proceeded to abandon Afghanistan (which had perpetrated 9/11) and waged an optional battle and occupation against Iraq (Israel's initial "existential" obstacle in the Middle East), but without any funding nor concern for looming federal debt debacle! ], indeed the very future of this nation which has provided a beacon of light for the rest of the world; this hallmark of democratic governance has now been put at risk by careless, thoughtless Americans.  Time is short!

- Here, thoughtful political adversaries are in total agreement -

Jim Lehrer's PBS NewsHour:

JIM LEHRER: "And to the analysis of Shields and Gerson, syndicated columnist Mark Shields, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. David Brooks is away tonight.

And a few moments ago, the House of Representatives did, in fact, pass the Boehner bill by a vote of 218-210. They needed 216 to pass. All -- there were no Democrats among those 218.

Michael, what words would you use to describe, as a result of that vote a few moments ago, where we are now?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think it would be fascinating, if it weren't so frightening.

We have a situation where about 10 percent of the Republican Caucus in the House wanted to humiliate their own speaker in order to get a vote on a balanced budget amendment that is symbolic and completely irrelevant to the process. I think that's a sign of weakness on the Republican part.

It undermined their negotiating status in the Senate. I think Harry Reid now has a lot of cards. I think he's gone to Mitch McConnell and said, what do your people need to support my approach, the Reid approach? And that's likely to be the main approach that's taken, and then the House will have to look at it again. And they have to pass it with Democratic support.

JIM LEHRER: Mark, what happened? What's happened?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, the irony, Jim, is, one week ago, we were on the cusp of $4 trillion in deficit reduction. We are not tonight anywhere near that. At the same time...

JIM LEHRER: Yes, this -- the bill, the Boehner bill has $917 billion over 10 years.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right, and then a trigger...

JIM LEHRER: Then it triggers more.

MARK SHIELDS: ... to go through this again in six months, which is really appealing, attractive.

JIM LEHRER: Fun thing to think about.

MARK SHIELDS: Yes, I think that is its most endearing feature.

(LAUGHTER)

MARK SHIELDS: But -- and at the same time, it also included -- the deal that the speaker and the president worked on -- lower cuts in budget spending right now, when you can least afford budget cutting right now, because we have got an economy, as we learned today, that is struggling, that is wounded, that is sluggish, that's hurting.

And there's no -- you can make an ideological argument to cut spending, but at this time, you cannot make an economic argument to do it. So I think, as it heads to the Senate, I think Mitch McConnell will emerge. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell are the last two standing trees in this forest.

A week ago, it was the president of the United States and the speaker of the House. They have both been effectively sidelined by the events of the past week.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree it's up to those two guys now?

MICHAEL GERSON: No, I completely agree.

I think that Sen. Reid has the initiative right now. I think that there will be modifications in his approach in order to get some Republican senators. But that's the likely course here.

But I do think it's a real challenge to Boehner, who has shown weakness, but now may have to get, I don't know, 60-some Democratic votes, at least, in order to pass whatever happens. That's going to be itself a pretty difficult task.

JIM LEHRER: You're assuming something comes out of the Senate and goes back to the House.

MICHAEL GERSON: Back to the House. And there won't be much time to make any adjustments in this process. We're on a tight time frame.

JIM LEHRER: Explain -- pick up on what you said earlier. Just explain it one more time, while this whole constitutional amendment thing is symbolic and it will have no effect at all on anything we're talking about now, that they're talking about.

MICHAEL GERSON: No, I completely agree with that.

You're instructing the Senate. The House is instructing the Senate to have a two-thirds vote in order to get a future increase in the debt deal for a constitutional amendment. I don't think you can instruct the Senate to do a two-thirds vote on the sun rising in the east effectively. They're not going to accept that under any circumstance. And so it was entirely symbolic.

JIM LEHRER: And that, even if they did get that vote, it then has to go to the -- there's a long process to amend the Constitution of the United States.

MARK SHIELDS: It's illusionary. It's -- they're kidding themselves.

But it's a fig leaf that -- to bring on conservatives who are against the original plan, to give them sort of a rationale that they could go back to their people and say, we got this balanced budget.

Jim, it doesn't even say -- it doesn't say what the balanced budget amendment is. It says a joint resolution called a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It doesn't say what it is, whether it requires a two-thirds vote, as one of the proposed ones did. To raise any taxes at all, a two-thirds vote would be required.

So it's ludicrous, if it weren't so reckless. We're trifling right now with the well-being of the United States economy, which is in tough shape, and with the good faith and credit of this country, which has never been tampered with in 222 years.

JIM LEHRER: All right. How does Reid play this now? What can he say to McConnell to get -- he's got -- he's only got 53 Democrats.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right.

JIM LEHRER: Reid does. So he has got to get seven more, because he's got to have 60 in order to make this thing work. Where is he going to get those seven?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, and is he going to be sure to get all those Democrats, too? Because Democrats who are up for tough races, do they want to vote for something like this?

JIM LEHRER: Yes. Yes. Yes.

MARK SHIELDS: Harry -- this is what Harry Reid was born to do. Harry Reid is one of the great inside players. And he's not a compelling public presence on a platform, but he understands it.

Michael and I had a session with him, what, three weeks ago, and I got to tell you, he was clairvoyant.

JIM LEHRER: You mean you had a -- you just sat down and talked to him.

MARK SHIELDS: Just the two of us.

JIM LEHRER: Just the two of you.

MICHAEL GERSON: And he described exactly what would happen.

MARK SHIELDS: What would happen.

JIM LEHRER: Oh, is that right?

MICHAEL GERSON: It was really pretty extraordinary.

MARK SHIELDS: I mean, it was -- and this was the time when the president, and the summit, and all these big deals, and Biden and everything else.

And he just understands. So he's got to get something -- not only...

(LAUGHING)

JIM LEHRER: In other words, just to make sure I understand what you are saying, what you guys are saying...

MARK SHIELDS: Sure.

JIM LEHRER: ... he told you all that it's going to come down to something like this?

MARK SHIELDS: He said there will be no -- he said there would be no -- nobody will touch a single gray hair on the beautiful head of Medicare or Social Security and there will be no revenues, because the Republicans won't vote for revenues.

MICHAEL GERSON: That's the way it worked out.

MARK SHIELDS: And that's where we are right now. That's what president endorsed essentially last Friday, when he endorsed the Reid plan.

JIM LEHRER: All right, now, what can Mitch McConnell do? Can Mitch McConnell turn his back on the Boehner bill on behalf of Republicans?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think to some extent, he has to. It's not the basis of the negotiation anymore. House Republicans added a poison pill that discredited this...

JIM LEHRER: Would that be a poison pill for McConnell?

MICHAEL GERSON: The constitutional amendment?

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

MICHAEL GERSON: I don't think -- I think it's a nonstarter.

There are some big issues here.

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

MICHAEL GERSON: The defense spending issues are going to be very large, I think, for McConnell, because the Reid approach has some serious cuts in defense spending.

And then, you know, I think -- but McConnell's already proposed some ideas that are likely to be incorporated in the Reid -- in the Reid bill that will allow the president to do kind of a second tranche ( i.e. sharp slice french ) of increases in the debt limit without Congress having much of an influence over it.

MARK SHIELDS: Congress voting against it.

MICHAEL GERSON: Yes, Congress would have to vote against it.

So I think that the elements of a deal are here. You know, the problem from my perspective is, this is the easy stuff, because it doesn't deal with taxes, because it doesn't deal with entitlements. The question is -- it doesn't even solve the deficit problem. But it's been such a problem just to get the easy stuff.

The question is that the rating agencies, the credit rating agencies and others have, can they do the harder stuff right down the road? That, I think, is the real difficulty.

MARK SHIELDS: One of the things that hasn't been addressed, Jim, is -- and Republicans stand guilty of this, quite frankly -- this is the FIRST TIME ANYBODY HAS EVER DONE THIS with the -- RAISING THE DEBT CEILING!

JIM LEHRER: Use it to do...

MARK SHIELDS: Use it as a non-negotiable terrorist demand. And if anybody...

JIM LEHRER: Non-negotiable terrorist demand?

MARK SHIELDS: That's essentially -- that's essentially what was done in the House of Representatives.

If you put a penny...

JIM LEHRER: Paul Krugman in The New York Times this morning called it extortion.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, if you put a penny of revenue, a penny of revenue, if you even suggest that a registered nurse in an emergency room and a New York firefighter shouldn't pay taxes TWICE THE RATE OF A HEDGE FUND MANAGER, we ( THE REPUBLICANS ) leave. We're not going to be a party to that. That's -- that's basically where they were.

But more important than that, to use this vehicle, to think this is only a one-time precedent and that next time that there's a Democratic Congress and a Republican president that this isn't going to be used again vengefully, I mean, you talk about the poisoning of the Washington well, THIS DOES IT IN SPADES.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree; the well is poisoned beyond...

MICHAEL GERSON: I think it helps poison the well.

This is a reflection of the 2010 election, where Republicans...

MICHAEL GERSON: ... got a lot of ideological momentum, and they were not going to accept taxes in this process.

I think that there is fault on both sides here. I think Democrats have sat back and hoped that Republicans would self-destruct, which is a pretty good bet. I think that Republicans have been too ideologically divided to support their own speaker in the negotiations.

So it's a serious problem in our whole political class. If you were a Martian coming into this process, you would see a dysfunctional political process, where nothing is really working. The world is looking at this, the Eurozone in crisis, the American political system not particularly functional.

There's not much economic leadership on a global level right now. Those are serious things.

JIM LEHRER: But, if you all -- if you're right, then who exercises leadership over the next three days and gets this thing finally done?

MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think it's the Senate. And there are a lot of adults in the Senate. That's the place that often we go to for this kind of...

JIM LEHRER: So you think it will be done?

MICHAEL GERSON: I do. I think it's ugly, but likely.

MARK SHIELDS: Remember this. Mitch McConnell has kept a low profile, in large part because he didn't -- in no way wanted to be seen as sabotaging Boehner's plan. But now it is -- it is.

JIM LEHRER: But he has been supportive of the Boehner plan, rhetorically.

MARK SHIELDS: But that's what I mean. He has been totally supportive. But he knows now it's dead on arrival.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

MARK SHIELDS: So, it is. It's Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. It comes down to them.

But whatever they pass in the Senate, they're going to have to get, I would say, close to 100 Democrats in the House, because they're not going to lose -- they're going to lose half the Republicans, Boehner is. And to get them...

JIM LEHRER: With the new...

MARK SHIELDS: There has got to be revenues in there. You are not going to get -- you might 30 Democrats to vote for it just on the basis of it's the right thing to do.

You're not going to get the necessary number of House Democrats to vote for it without revenues in there somewhere. And that is going to be a real stumbling block for a lot of Republicans. And it's going to be tough work in the Senate.

MICHAEL GERSON: I would only add that the big economic news of the week may have been the revision downward of the economic growth number, OK?

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

MICHAEL GERSON: That is a long-term political problem for President Obama. It makes the next set of jobs figures likely to be really disturbing.

It also complicates the deficit problem in the future, because all of these plans assume maybe three percent growth. We're not even at two percent growth in our economy. These are going to be a serious complicating factor in our politics moving forward.

JIM LEHRER: And there was another thing that you wrote about in your column today, the Pew -- the new Pew study on the gap, the wealth gap of the United States. It has gotten larger and larger. That's what we should be talking about tonight, right, instead of this other stuff, theoretically, at least?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, Michael is absolutely right. And his column is well worth reading.

But when the top one percent in this country economically control more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, it tells you something about a gap there.

MICHAEL GERSON: In the 1980s, the gap between assets between whites and African-American families was about 12-1, which was bad enough. It's about 20-1 now.

That's really not a sustainable circumstance over the long run for the justice or even the stability of a society. It's the kind of thing that you do want to address in public policy. Get reasonable Democrats, get reasonable Republicans to do it. It's almost inconceivable in the current political environment.

MARK SHIELDS: This whole experience, Jim, of this deficit and debt ceiling has so diminished everybody involved in it.

I saw embarrassment, total professional and personal embarrassment, on the part of members of Congress this week that they were a part of this. And that diminishes confidence and trust and optimism about the government's ability to do anything. That's one of the casualties of this.

JIM LEHRER: And does it also, to use your word, Michael, poison the atmosphere for 2012, an election year, presidential and otherwise?

MICHAEL GERSON: No, I agree with that. I think that it creates an impression that our whole political class is incapable of dealing with the fundamental problems of our country.

Now, a Republican presidential candidate will come into this, which doesn't exist in this process...

JIM LEHRER: Sure.

MICHAEL GERSON: ... try to propose some answers, try to get some momentum. But I think it's...

JIM LEHRER: It's going to be there. It's going to be there no matter what.

MICHAEL GERSON: Yes.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. OK. Thank you both very much.

Good to see you again, Michael.

You, too, Mark.

MARK SHIELDS: Thank you, Jim." - Lehrer Shields Gerson PBS NewsHour 7/29/11

 

THE BOTTOM LINE

"The Centrist Cop-Out

The facts of the crisis over the debt ceiling aren’t complicated. Republicans have, in effect, taken America hostage, threatening to undermine the economy and disrupt the essential business of government unless they get policy concessions they would never have been able to enact through legislation. And Democrats — who would have been justified in rejecting this extortion altogether — have, in fact, gone a long way toward meeting those Republican demands.

As I said, it’s not complicated. Yet many people in the news media apparently can’t bring themselves to acknowledge this simple reality. News reports portray the parties as equally intransigent; pundits fantasize about some kind of “centrist” uprising, as if the problem was too much partisanship on both sides.

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?

The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.

Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. As you may know, President Obama initially tried to strike a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans over taxes and spending. To do so, he not only chose not to make an issue of G.O.P. extortion, he offered extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities: an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases. As The Times’s Nate Silver pointed out, Mr. Obama effectively staked out a position that was not only far to the right of the average voter’s preferences, it was if anything a bit to the right of the average Republican voter’s preferences.

But Republicans rejected the deal. So what was the headline on an Associated Press analysis of that breakdown in negotiations? “Obama, Republicans Trapped by Inflexible Rhetoric.” A Democratic president who bends over backward to accommodate the other side — or, if you prefer, who leans so far to the right that he’s in danger of falling over — is treated as being just the same as his utterly intransigent opponents. Balance!

Which brings me to those “centrist” fantasies.

Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don’t. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.

But for those who insist that the center is always the place to be, I have an important piece of information: We already have a centrist president. Indeed, Bruce Bartlett, who served as a policy analyst in the Reagan administration, argues that Mr. Obama is in practice a moderate conservative.

Mr. Bartlett has a point. The president, as we’ve seen, was willing, even eager, to strike a budget deal that strongly favored conservative priorities. His health reform was very similar to the reform Mitt Romney installed in Massachusetts. Romneycare, in turn, closely followed the outlines of a plan originally proposed by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. And returning tax rates on high-income Americans to their level during the Roaring Nineties is hardly a socialist proposal.

True, Republicans insist that Mr. Obama is a leftist seeking a government takeover of the economy, but they would, wouldn’t they? The facts, should anyone choose to report them, say otherwise.

So what’s with the buzz about a centrist uprising? As I see it, it’s coming from people who recognize the dysfunctional nature of modern American politics, but refuse, for whatever reason, to acknowledge the one-sided role of Republican extremists in making our system dysfunctional. And it’s not hard to guess at their motivation. After all, pointing out the obvious truth gets you labeled as a shrill partisan, not just from the right, but from the ranks of self-proclaimed centrists.

But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse." - PAUL KRUGMAN N Y Times 7/29/11

THE PRESIDENT SURRENDERS

"A deal to raise the federal debt ceiling is in the works. If it goes through, many commentators will declare that disaster was avoided. But they will be wrong.

For the deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

Start with the economics. We currently have a deeply depressed economy. We will almost certainly continue to have a depressed economy all through next year. And we will probably have a depressed economy through 2013 as well, if not beyond.

The worst thing you can do in these circumstances is slash government spending, since that will depress the economy even further. Pay no attention to those who invoke the confidence fairy, claiming that tough action on the budget will reassure businesses and consumers, leading them to spend more. It doesn’t work that way, a fact confirmed by many studies of the historical record.

Indeed, slashing spending while the economy is depressed won’t even help the budget situation much, and might well make it worse. On one side, interest rates on federal borrowing are currently very low, so spending cuts now will do little to reduce future interest costs. On the other side, making the economy weaker now will also hurt its long-run prospects, which will in turn reduce future revenue. So those demanding spending cuts now are like medieval doctors who treated the sick by bleeding them, and thereby made them even sicker.

And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be more reasonable in the next round?

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats. He surrendered last December, extending all the Bush tax cuts; he surrendered in the spring when they threatened to shut down the government; and he has now surrendered on a grand scale to raw extortion over the debt ceiling. Maybe it’s just me, but I see a pattern here.

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable.

At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels.

It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? AND THE ANSWER IS, MAYBE IT CAN’T." - Paul Krugman N Y Times 8/1/11

- The last four paragraphs of Mr. Krugman's 8/8/11 "Credibility, Chutzpah And Debt" -

"No, what makes America look unreliable isn’t budget math, it’s politics. And please, let’s not have the usual declarations that both sides are at fault. Our problems are almost entirely one-sided — specifically, they’re caused by the rise of an extremist right that is prepared to create repeated crises rather than give an inch on its demands.

The truth is that as far as the straight economics goes, America’s long-run fiscal problems shouldn’t be all that hard to fix. It’s true that an aging population and rising health care costs will, under current policies, push spending up faster than tax receipts. But the United States has far higher health costs than any other advanced country, and very low taxes by international standards. If we could move even part way toward international norms on both these fronts, our budget problems would be solved.

So why can’t we do that? Because we have a powerful political movement in this country that screamed 'death panels' in the face of modest efforts to use Medicare funds more effectively, and preferred to risk financial catastrophe rather than agree to even a penny in additional revenues.

The real question facing America, even in purely fiscal terms, isn’t whether we’ll trim a trillion here or a trillion there from deficits. It is whether the extremists now blocking ANY KIND OF RESPONSIBLE POLICY CAN BE DEFEATED AND MARGINALIZED." - Paul Krugman N Y Times 8/8/11

 

We are hearing rumblings from our audience that GOPBIAS.INFO has missed a crucial major exposition:  That possibly because of our esteem for Paul Krugman (1);  Seymour M. Hersh (2);  Nicholas D. Kristof (3);  and David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker (4);  that we have overlooked ethnicity as the pronounced factor in the selection of our sources, i.e. they are primarily Jewish and, as such, have a pronounced bias favoring Israel vis a vis our United States of America ( Has our audience forgotten that much of the turmoil in today's world is directly related to our madness in attacking, invading and occupying Iraq, all for Israel (5)! ) .

[ (1) "The President Surrenders" & "Credibility, Chutzpah and Debt"

 (2) "Iran And The Bomb" ( The New Yorker 6/6/11 + 7 pages of copy )

 (3) "Seeking Balance On Mideast"; OP-ED in 8/4/11 N Y Times

 (4) David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker

 (5) The George W. Bush administration

Note:  On the full-page color ad promoting Joby Warrick's "The Triple Agent" inside the back cover of S. I. Newhouse Jr.'s 7/25/11 The New Yorker is a glowing endorsement by James Bamford, listing his first two bestselling non fictions "The Puzzle Palace" and "Body of Secrets", skipping the great "A Pretext For War", but including his last best seller "The Shadow Factory". ]

Further, we plead no contest.  But that is the case of the media as a whole!  You need look no further than FOX Broadcasting, and the Jewish Roger Ailes!  He created Republican Rush Limbaugh, just in time for Democratic President Bill Clinton.  It was Limbaugh who facilitated the 1994 electoral takeover of the Clinton administration ( Hence, Newt Gingrich. ) in that critical midterm election, and laid the groundwork for the Rehnquist/O'Connor 12/12/00 illicit "ELECTION" of George Walker Bush, which would have been overturned, except for another major fiasco of the junior Bush, the horrific 9/11, for which the evidence of a looming attack was prevalent.  Ask the Jewish cancer-ridden John Donald Imus Jr., who correctly perceived the end of his talkshow career were Albert Gore to occupy the White House, to which Vice President Gore had been duly elected.  Significantly, the head of the FBI at that time was the Jewish Louis J. Freeh, so preoccupied with nailing Bill Clinton that he ignored the dire warnings of the holocaust to come!

The battle must continue.  Even as we work today there are factors which must be recognized:  The FreedomWorks phenomenon, which is not a feature of the "Tea Party", nor of former Republican Majority Leader of the House, Dick Armey.  FreedomWorks is a creature of Jewish billionaire Sheldon G. Adelson, owner of The Venetian, hotel and casino, in Las Vegas!

 

- Rick Hertzberg JOINS THE EFFORT -

"TAKE IT TO THE LIMIT

There is the current crop of Ohio Republicans, and then there are those who art in Heaven. A specimen of the former, ultimate destination unknown, is Speaker of the House John Boehner, a perpetrator (and, arguably, a victim) of the terrifying debt-limit arson that his party, on fire with ideological fanaticism, political ruthlessness, and economic heedlessness, decided to spend the summer fanning. Aloft, the Buckeye State’s celestial choir of the G.O.P. departed includes Presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, Taft, and (assuming he’s been sprung from Purgatory) Harding. Its original member, less famous than the rest but as distinguished as any of them, is Benjamin Franklin Wade.

In 1866, Wade, a nationally prominent Ohio senator, laid down the law on the national debt. He was a principal drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which, until recently, was known almost exclusively for Section 1, the guarantee of legal due process and equal protection. Lately, though, Section 4 has been getting some ink, especially its first sentence: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” The long-standing obscurity of this passage is due partly to the aside about insurrection and rebellion, which makes the whole sentence look like a historical relic and sound like a voice-over from a Ken Burns documentary, and partly to the rarity of the situation it anticipates, which has never before arisen in a serious way. Now that it has, a number of constitutional scholars, including Garrett Epps, of the University of Baltimore, and Jack Balkin, of Yale, have been calling attention to the sudden relevance of Section 4. The immediate worry of its drafters was that Union war veterans and their survivors might get stiffed once legislators from the former Confederate states were readmitted. But Wade and his colleagues took pains to word the clause more broadly. Their larger intention, Balkin wrote recently, was to prevent Congress from “repudiating the federal debt to gain political advantage, to seek political revenge, or to try to disavow previous financial obligations because of changed policy priorities”—a pretty good summary of what Republicans have been up to of late.

The federal budget, its deficit, and the long-term debt that the deficit feeds are all consequences of laws passed by Congress—laws governing the collection and expenditure of funds. The debt-limit statute is a law, too. But if the government can no longer lawfully pay the bills it has already lawfully incurred, the President cannot fulfill his constitutional obligation (Article II, Section 3) to “take Care that the Laws”—all of them—“be faithfully executed.” At that point, some argue, the Fourteenth Amendment should tip the balance. The week before last, Bill Clinton said that, in extremis, he would invoke it “without hesitation” and raise the debt limit himself rather than countenance default. Last week, with the final showdown looming and intimations of catastrophe mounting, prominent congressional Democrats, including Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn, the Party’s second- and third-ranking House leaders, urged President Obama to be ready to do just that.

On May 25th, Timothy Geithner, Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, pointedly read the Fourteenth Amendment’s debt clause aloud to reporters. But the President has steadily backed away. At first, he simply dodged the question. Then, on July 22nd, he said that “my lawyers” are “not persuaded that that is a winning argument.” Finally, last week, his press secretary, Jay Carney, said that “our position” is that “the President does not have the authority to raise the debt ceiling.” It’s “not an option.” (Carney also said that default is not an option, either.)

Of course, invoking the Fourteenth Amendment has always been a long shot, a last refuge. But Obama’s seeming refusal to hold it in reserve (“like the fire axe on the wall,” in Garrett Epps’s words) is emblematic of his all too civilized, all too accommodating negotiating strategy—indeed, of his whole approach to the nation’s larger economic dilemma, the most disappointing aspect of his Presidency. His stimulus package asked for too little and got less. He has allowed deficits and debt to supersede mass unemployment as the emergency of the moment. He has too readily accepted Republican terms of debate, such as likening the country to a household that must “live within its means.” (For even the most prudent householders, living within one’s means can include going into debt, as in taking out a car loan so that one can get to one’s job.) He has done too little to educate the public to the wisdom of post-Herbert Hoover economics: fiscal balance is achieved over time, not in a single year; in flush times a government should run a surplus, but when the economy falters deficits are part of the remedy; when the immediate problem is what it is now—a lack of demand, not a shortage of capital—higher spending is generally more efficacious than lower taxes, especially lower taxes on the rich.

So it’s less surprising than it should be that in the debt-limit negotiations he has met Republican intransigence with an apparent willingness to accede to one Republican demand after another: no tax rises for the comfortable (the only kind that Democrats have dared to suggest); no new revenues at all, even from closing the most egregious loopholes; cuts in spending only, including spending on “entitlements,” the modest (by international standards) programs of social insurance for the old, the poor, and the sick that, through the decades, somehow managed to struggle into existence over the hurdles of America’s structurally divided and, of late, alarmingly dysfunctional political system. With compromises like these, who needs surrender?

But if, in the debt-limit scramble, the President has been a less effective educator and negotiator than many of his supporters wish he would be, his Republican opponents, in thrall to their Tea Party Jacobins, have been reckless and irresponsible beyond imagining. At week’s end, Speaker Boehner thought it necessary to demand that both Houses of Congress pass and send to the states for ratification a so-called balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Though doomed from the start, the amendment in its purest form offers an insight into the dystopian vision of America proffered by one of our two major political parties. The budget would have to be balanced every year, regardless of economic conditions. Annual spending would be permanently capped at eighteen per cent of the prior year’s gross domestic product, a level last achieved in 1956. To exceed the cap—or to levy a new tax, or to raise (though not to cut) an existing one—would take a two-thirds supermajority of the full membership of both Houses of Congress. That’s more than Congress needs to declare war, more than the House needs to impeach a President, more, even, than the Senate needs to end a filibuster. Astonishingly, it’s more than Congress needs to approve amending the Constitution itself, which requires two-thirds only of those present and voting.

The difference between yesterday’s Republicans and today’s is the difference between Wade’s Fourteenth Amendment and Boehner’s proposed Twenty-eighth. Benjamin Wade was called a Radical Republican. In fact, he proudly called himself one, and he had earned the title: far ahead of his time, he was a passionate advocate of women’s suffrage, the rights of labor, and absolute civic equality for black Americans. His Republican successors in Congress call themselves conservatives, but they, most of them, are radicals, too. Just not in a good way." - HENDRICK HERTZBERG THE NEW YORKER 8/8/11

Notes:  The Veterans For Peace will rally on our Capitol Mall October 6th, and a representative group will be stationed there until our troops come home from Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan.  It's time for Israel to expend its shekels for this warfare against its so-called "Existential" adversaries.  We've paid enough in blood and treasure for the protection of the bellicose Netanyahu/Lieberman REGIME!

"New Support for Palestine - In all the tumult of the Arab revolts, one of the most striking manifestations of change is rejuvenated support for the Palestinian cause.  The embrace of the issue confirms its status as a barometer of justice and freedom for many Arabs and Muslims." - Page 2 N Y Times 8/10/11 - - THE TIMES: THEY ARE A-CHANGING!  OUR NEXT EDIT!!

 

*  Leading this post 8/10/11 edit, several items.

(1) The Joby Warrick "The Triple Agent" mentioned in the last edit deals with one of the many deadly fiascos in this ill-begotten military action in Afghanistan, which began when the "W" Bush, so full of himself and mesmerized by his stolen 2000 election, refused to focus on our nation's security.  That failure of purpose permeated our efforts abroad and in this case, culminated in the deaths of seven experienced undercover CIA station chiefs, a costly and tragic loss.  And inexcusable, when viewed in the light shed by Mr. Bamford's "A Pretext For War" ( Review THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION ) !

(2) The John Donald Imus Jr., also listed in the last edit, was also responsible for the rise of Israel's most effective member of the Congress of the United States, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who admitted same on his each and every appearance on the Imus program.  GOPBIAS.ORG has the convoluted details of Lieberman's arrival from obscurity.

 

Beginning with the August 21, 2011 "Sixty Minutes" Scott Pelley revisits a segment of an earlier program that features the trials of one Tom Drake, whose history with the National Security Agency can speak to the inherent knowledge of many informed individuals around the globe who track the excesses of the Jewish diaspora, ingrained with a determined lust to monopolize the loci of power, regardless of the damage inflicted on others.  The prime example in today's world is the 8/27/11 piece by Ethan Bronner, normally, along with Isabel Kershner, Israel's chief N Y Times reporter in Jerusalem, but here disrupted by the recognition that even the largess of our United States Treasury seems no longer adequate to quell the righteous outrage that other peoples have long expressed as their populations were abused, by the maniacal attitude of Jews and Judaism, who and which, saw themselves as God's chosen people.  Enough already!

"Israel Faces Painful Challenges as Ties Shift With Arab Neighbors in Upheaval

An Israeli soldier checked Palestinian women at the crossing between Jerusalem and Kalandia in the West Bank on Friday.  (This woman would not seem to be in pain!)

JERUSALEM - Eight days after Israel suffered a terrorist attack from Egyptian Sinai and weeks before it faces a Palestinian statehood resolution at the United Nations, its officials say they are struggling with a painful set of strategic and diplomatic challenges produced by the region’s popular uprisings.

As angry rallies by Egyptians outside the Israeli Embassy in Cairo this week have shown, Israel’s relationship with Egypt is fraying. A deadly exchange of rockets fired at southern Israel and Israeli airstrikes on Hamas-controlled Gaza this week showed the risk of escalation there. Damaged ties with Turkey are not improving. Cooperation with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank seems headed for trouble.

'WE ARE WITNESSING A PARADIGM SHIFT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES,' SAID A TOP ISRAELI OFFICIAL WHO SPOKE ON THE CONDITION OF ANONYMITY. 'Egypt was a major stabilizer in the region, and that may be over. Coordination with the Palestinian security officials could be lost. We are concerned about Turkey.'

Israeli officials say they are certain from detailed intelligence that the Aug. 18 infiltration that killed eight Israelis was planned and carried out from Gaza by Palestinians associated with a small radical group. But in its pursuit of the killers into Sinai and its assassinations of the group’s leaders in Gaza, Israel found itself with less room to maneuver than in the past.

LAST WEEKEND, OFFICIALS WERE CONTEMPLATING A MAJOR MILITARY ASSAULT ON GAZA. But that plan was shelved by the crisis that emerged with Egypt, by the realization that HAMAS ITSELF WAS UNINVOLVED IN THE TERRORIST ATTACK and by the worry about how SUCH AN ASSAULT WOULD AFFECT OTHER COUNTRIES’ VIEWS DURING THE UNITED NATIONS DEBATE OF A PALESTINIAN RESOLUTION IN SEPTEMBER.

Instead, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his most senior ministers decided over the course of several late-night meetings this week to promote cooperation with Egypt and restrict military action in Gaza to more limited strikes. Scores of rockets have hit Israel; dozens of Gazans have been killed and injured.

THE ISRAELIS SAY THEIR CHALLENGE IS THAT THEY NEEDED TO SEND DIFFERENT — INDEED CONTRADICTORY — MESSAGES TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES.

To groups they say have attacked Israel from Gaza and Sinai, their message was death...

...the brutal 12/26/08 - 1/18/09 massacre in Gaza was not an Israeli reaction to an attack from Gaza . . BUT ISRAEL'S RESPONSE TO A TWO YEAR TRUCE WITH HAMAS...

...To the interim military rulers of Egypt, however, they offered expressions of regret at the loss of Egyptian life and an assurance of nonaggressive intent.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has told the Egyptians that they can skirt the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty and send thousands more troops, accompanied by helicopters and armored vehicles, into Sinai to restore order in the increasingly lawless peninsula. In the past, Israel opposed any alteration of the terms of the treaty. But the lawlessness — a mix of Bedouin tribalism, radical Muslim infiltration and a breakdown of Egypt’s security control after its revolution — affects not only Israel, but Egypt, which depends on tourism revenue and gas exports from there.

As a result, officials here say, the Egyptians are cooperating with Israel. The two governments agreed to jointly investigate the Israeli forces’ killings of three Egyptian policemen after last week’s terrorist attack, an approach Israel initially opposed. Israeli officials also say the Egyptian military is making sure that the attack on Israel, which received very limited coverage in Egypt at first, is now getting more public attention.

WHILE ALL THE SHIFTS ACROSS THE REGION, INCLUDING THE BLOODY BATTLE FOR CONTROL OF SYRIA, ARE BEING DISCUSSED AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS, EGYPT, THE LARGEST ARAB COUNTRY, REMAINS THE BIGGEST CONCERN.

'So much depends on the Egyptian story,' one official said. 'If it ends in chaos, it will be a totally different Middle East. OUR RELATIONS WITH THE ARMY ARE GOOD AND NEED TO BE MAINTAINED. But who rules Egypt, the army or Tahrir Square?'

All officials interviewed said that popular sentiment, as expressed through the uprising that started in Tahrir Square, plays a greater role in Egyptian policy than it did under President Hosni Mubarak, who was overthrown in February. Mr. Mubarak showed no affection for Israel and came here only once, for a few hours, for THE 1995 FUNERAL OF YITZHAK RABIN ( An acolyte of Benjamin Netanyahu, Yigal Amir, had assassinated Soldier - Statesman Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin! ).  But his rule is associated with cooperative relations.

In spite of the concerns, Israeli officials noted Egypt’s new leaders have not carried out changes they had promised publicly.

'When the new government came to power in Egypt it vowed to change its policies toward Iran, the United States, the peace treaty with Israel and Gaza,' said Shlomo Brom, a retired general now at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. 'So far it hasn’t done any of it.'

By contrast, there has been a steady shift away from Israel in Turkey, which until a few years ago was both a strategic ally and a society welcoming to Israeli visitors and business. The government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has angrily criticized Israel’s Gaza policy and demanded an apology after Israeli commandos killed eight Turks and an American of Turkish origin aboard a flotilla seeking to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza last year.

Mr. Netanyahu’s aides and advisers have been divided over how to respond to Turkey’s demands. So far, a majority opposes an apology, arguing that Israel has nothing to apologize for and that it would make no difference.

A minority disagrees, calling for some apology and compensation for the victims. As one put it: “Turkey is not a lost cause. We may not be able to divert the stream of where it is headed, but with care we can cross the river. We still have a lot of common interests with them.”

Some officials say the concerns over Israel’s diplomatic difficulties are overstated, that Israel is stable and reliable and still has plenty of friends, for example, Greece, Cyprus, Romania and Bulgaria.

And with Arab countries focused on inner turmoil and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria fighting for the survival of his government, Israel’s strategic position may be better than believed, since those countries cannot now expand their militaries or contemplate a war.

'Our biggest concern is Iran, and Iran’s biggest ally is Assad, so his fall would be good for Israel,' one official said. 'Stepping back, diplomatically and culturally, things are worrying. But strategically we are not on the edge of a cliff.'

OTHERS DISAGREE. 'THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW FRAGILE THE CALM NOW IS,' ANOTHER ISRAELI OFFICIAL SAID OF THE OPTIMISTS. 'WE ARE LOSING SUPPORT AND LEGITIMACY. I AM NOT PANICKED. BUT I AM WORRIED.'" - Bronner N Y Times 8/27/11

THERE IS A GOD IN HEAVEN!

* - Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow 8/25/11 -

(a) Secret U.S. Diplomatic Cable Reveals McCain Promised to Provide Gaddafi with Weapons

A U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks on Wednesday reveals Republican Sen. John McCain, former 2008 presidential candidate, promised to provide arms and military gear to Col. Muammar Gaddafi during a meeting in August 2009. Also attending the meeting was Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins. The leaked cable reads, "LIEBERMAN CALLED LIBYA AN IMPORTANT ALLY IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM, NOTING THAT COMMON ENEMIES SOMETIMES MAKE BETTER FRIENDS."

(b) Cheney Admits Urging Attack on Syrian Nuclear Site

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has admitted in his forthcoming memoir that he urged President George W. Bush to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site in June 2007, but the President rejected his advice. Israel bombed the site three months later. In the book, Cheney also confirms he pushed to have Secretary of State Colin Powell removed from office after the 2004 election, because Powell had privately expressed doubts about the Iraq war.

(c) Historic Washington D.C. Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline Protest Results in 56 More Arrests

In what is being described as the largest civil disobedience protests in the environmental movement’s recent history, 56 more people were arrested Wednesday outside the White House in a protest against the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. Since Saturday, 275 people have now been arrested. Meanwhile, the leaders of the nation’s largest environmental groups released a letter Wednesday calling on President Obama to block the pipeline, saying it may be the "biggest climate test you face between now and the election."

(d) Israeli Air Strikes in Gaza Kill Four; Nine-Month-Old Israeli Baby Wounded by Rocket

In news from the Middle East, Israeli air strikes in Gaza have killed at least four people. Meanwhile, more than 20 rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel. A nine-month-old Israeli baby was wounded. The attacks threaten an informal truce agreed by Israel and Hamas on Sunday.

(E) Glenn Beck Holds Rally in Israel Denouncing United Nations, Human Rights Organizations

Former Fox television host Glenn Beck has declared he is forming a new Texas-based global movement to defend Israel from the United Nations and international human rights organizations. Beck made the announcement while addressing roughly 1,000 American Evangelical Christians and right-wing Israelis in Jerusalem on Wednesday. Beck, a born-again Mormon, showered praise on Israelis and the Israeli state.

Glenn Beck: "In Israel, there is more courage in one small square mile than in all of Europe. In Israel, there is more courage in one soldier than in the combined and cold hearts of every bureaucrat at the United Nations."

Beck’s appearance in Israel was the first stop in his worldwide speaking tour entitled "Restoring Courage," which will take him to South Africa and South America before a major event in Texas on Sunday. Roughly three dozen activists with the group Peace Now gathered to protest the rally. Yariv Oppenheimer is Peace Now’s secretary general.

Yariv Oppenheimer, Peace Now Secretary General: "We came to protest against this show of Glenn Beck. I think he tried to use the tension in this city for his career. And we have enough fanatics here, we don’t need anymore. We need friends who come from abroad to support the idea of two states, of sharing Jerusalem as capital for two states, for the Palestinians and the Israelis, and not people who come here just to provoke."

(f) Conservative Website, Brooklyn Rabbi Blame Earthquake on Declining Morals, Same-Sex Marriage

The publisher of the conservative website WorldNetDaily has published an editorial blaming Tuesday’s earthquake on the East Coast to what he sees as the nation’s declining morals. Joseph Farah writes, "Washington, D.C., deserves more than the wallop it got today. It needs a much bigger shaking up than it got." Meanwhile, a Brooklyn rabbi named Yehuda Levin, who has ties with the National Organization for Marriage, recorded a YouTube video blaming the earthquake on the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Yehuda Levin: "The Jerusalem Talmud tells us that one of the reasons that God brings earthquakes to the world is because of the transgression of homosexuality. And the Talmud states, 'You have shaken your male member in a place where it does not belong. I, too, will shake the Earth.' So, to those who sent out the email, yes, there’s a direct connection between earthquakes and homosexuality. There was in Haiti, and there is here in New York and Washington, D.C., where they passed homosexual legislation and ordinances."

* 8/26/11 Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow . . followed by The Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial

(A) Sen. Sanders to Introduce Bill to Strengthen Social Security

Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has announced plans to introduce a bill to strengthen Social Security. Sanders’ legislation would eliminate the income cap that currently exists in the payroll tax that does not tax income above $106,800. Sanders said wealthy Americans who earn more than $250,000 should pay more into the Social Security system to keep it afloat. Last week, Sanders talked about Social Security at the United Steel Workers conference in Las Vegas.

Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Don’t let anybody kid you. Social Security today—today—has a $2.6 trillion surplus—surplus. Social Security can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 25 years. Social Security has not contributed one penny to the deficit, and I will be damned if there is a cut to Social Security."

(B) CIA Forces FBI Agent to Redact Sections of Book about 9/11 Probe

The CIA has forced a former FBI agent to redact extensive sections of his new book called "The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against Al Qaeda." The former FBI agent, Ali H. Soufan, is an Arabic-speaking counterterrorism agent who played a central role in most major terrorism investigations between 1997 and 2005. According to the New York Times, Soufan argues in the book that the CIA missed a chance to derail the 9/11 plot by withholding from the FBI information about two future 9/11 hijackers living in San Diego. Soufan also gives a detailed firsthand account of the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.

(C) WikiLeaks Releases Tens of Thousands of New Classified U.S. Diplomatic Cables

The whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has announced it is releasing tens of thousands of previously unpublished classified U.S. diplomatic cables. The cables appear to be from a cache of more than 250,000 State Department reports leaked to the group. One of the newly released memos shows that the Obama administration coordinated with the Egyptian government to keep the Gaza border with Egypt closed.

 

- JUAN GONZALEZ: This week the public got its first look at a newly unveiled memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., that honors the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It’s the first memorial on the National Mall not dedicated to a war, a president or a white man. The memorial features a 30-foot-tall sculpture in which the civil rights leader appears to emerge from a chunk of granite that is carved to resemble the sides of a mountain. It was sculpted by Chinese artist Lei Yixin.

Well, the threat of Hurricane Irene has forced organizers to postpone the planned dedication of the memorial, which had been set to take place Sunday at 11:00 a.m. Some 250,000 people were expected to attend, including President Barack Obama. The dedication ceremony was to have taken place on the 48th anniversary of Dr. King’s famous "I Have a Dream" speech, delivered less than a mile away on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up, live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Dr. Martin Luther King, speaking in Washington, D.C., on August 28th, 1963. Well, the event at which Dr. King made his famous speech was the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. And even as the King Memorial dedication has been postponed, a related Rally for Jobs and Justice will proceed on Saturday, ending with a march to the King Memorial. It’s expected to attract thousands of labor, education and civil rights activists across the country. In the year before he was assassinated, Dr. King organized a Poor People’s Campaign for economic opportunity for all Americans.

To talk about the memorial and the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, we go to Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by longtime civil rights leader Reverend Jesse Jackson. Reverend Jackson is also president and founder of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition. And we’re joined in Denver, Colorado, by Dr. Vincent Harding, who was a longtime friend and former speechwriter for Dr. King, who wrote his famous "Beyond Vietnam" address. He’s also chair of the Veterans of Hope project. Dr. Harding is author of several books, including Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! The sculpture in Washington, the statue, Reverend Jesse Jackson, can you talk about its origins, how there finally is in Washington, D.C., this statue on the Mall that is not for a president or a war, the first time a black man is being honored?

REV. JESSE JACKSON: I suppose the gravitas is this journey, this 164-mile journey from Jamestown, Virginia, where slaves landed in 1619, of 246 years of legal slavery, then a hundred years of Jim Crow. That’s the context of that struggle to make this a more perfect union. And Dr. King’s role in it, at that stage, took us all to another level of hope and ambition. And so, his Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, in a very ingenious way, came with the idea of having a statue on the Mall and commenced to build a foundation, began to raise the money. The idea got traction, and now see the result of it in this huge statue on the monument. And so, not far from three presidents—Lincoln—Presidents Lincoln and Washington and Jefferson—stands a Nobel laureate, the man of peace, who was the world’s transformative figure on that Mall for, in one sense, Presidents Lincoln and Washington and Jefferson are huge national figures, but none on that Mall stands as tall as Dr. King as a world transformative figure, the idea of human rights and freedom around the world.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Reverend Jackson, Cornel West had a piece in today’s—an op-ed piece in today’s New York Times titled "Reverend King Would Be Weeping" ["Dr. King Weeps from His Grave"]. And the thrust of his column was that this symbol and memorial to Dr. King comes at the same time that so many of the substance of the issues that Dr. King raised, especially in his final days, are being ignored or even—the country is turning its back on those issues that Dr. King raised. Your reaction to this irony that Cornel West raises?

REV. JESSE JACKSON: I think we would do well to use the statue as an occasion to deal with his unfinished business. He was shot down, assassinated at age 39. His last agenda items included a Poor People’s Campaign, the quest to end the war in Vietnam, and stop the radical installation of capital in the hands of the very wealthy. And today, here we are with too few people with too much wealth, subsidized by the government, too many unnecessary wars and too many people in poverty. So, in substance, this memorial gives us a rallying point to keep going with his unfinished business. We bail out the banks, without link to lending and reinvestment, for example. The Bush tax cut extension is more money than all of the state budget deficits combined. So, clearly, Wall Street has made out big time, but the poor are expanding, and we’re losing jobs en masse, and we must, in fact, turn it around.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Vince Harding, the name of your book about Dr. King is Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero. You’re quoting from a poem by Carl Wendell Hines. Can you share that with us?

DR. VINCENT HARDING: I’d be very glad to, Amy. And I’m so glad to be on the program with you again. As I’ve thought about the monument, what came immediately to my mind was this poem that I quote in the King book by Carl Wendell Hines. And here is the section that I’m especially interested in sharing this morning:

Now that he is safely dead,
Let us Praise him,
Build monuments to his glory,
Sing Hosannas to his name.

Dead men make such convenient Heroes.
They cannot rise to challenge the images
We would fashion from their Lives.
And besides, it is easier to build monuments
Than to build a better world.

AMY GOODMAN: Dr. Vince Harding, talk about why you think that—

DR. VINCENT HARDING: That was on my mind.

AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead. Talk about why that is on your mind today, as this statute, well, is about to be formally unveiled, but because of the hurricane will be postponed.

DR. VINCENT HARDING: I think that the whole issue that Martin represented of the role of all of us as citizens in this nation to work to create a more just, compassionate and concerned nation is something that is so easy for us to forget as we build the monument. I believe very strongly that monuments, works of art, are of great importance. But what comes to my mind, Amy, is that when we take our children to see the monument, I hope that when they ask about who that is and why the monument is there, that we’ll say to those children, not that this is Martin Luther King who was a great speech maker, but that this is King who helped to inspire me to work for you to have a better school, my son, to work for you, my daughter, to be able to be a great creative agent in this world, to work for community to be a place where all of us can live and love in strength and unity. If we could tell our children from that monument what work it is that we are doing now to carry on the work that King was involved in and that King died for, then your monument will have its rightful place. But we must always keep in mind that that work has to go on if the monument is to have any real meaning for us all.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Reverend Jackson, about that work, the march that you’re having on Saturday, obviously in the midst right now of a presidency where many expected much more in terms of a dedication to alleviating some of the problems of the poor and of those who are less fortunate in this society, that hasn’t happened, your sense of what the message of the march will be?

REV. JESSE JACKSON: Let me say to you, I want to build upon—and first, good morning, Dr. Harding, one of Dr. King’s closest friends.

DR. VINCENT HARDING: Good morning, Jesse.

REV. JESSE JACKSON: We have a way of embracing martyrs—embracing martyrs and not marchers, trying to neuter him. He died a very unpopular man, attacked by our government, attacked by the media, shunned by many blacks themselves, for example, civil rights activists, because he dared to deal with the issue of unjust, unnecessary wars.

Today we’re spending a trillion dollars in Iraq on the wrong target. Overthrowing the government in Libya, well, a billion there, and billions more to restore it. Two billion a week in Afghanistan. And yet, we’re laying off teachers, firemen, policemen. He would be distressed by that. He would be weeping about that. The bailout for these banks, who drove us in the hole, and then they get bailed out without links to kind of reinvest. We refortified them, not restructured them.

These issues that Dr. King would have raised would be troubling, but it is his sense of outrage and conscience that make us better today. And I would hope, as Vince said, that the interpretation must lead us to his unfinished business. The dream only makes sense if it’s connected to the broken promise that had been unfulfilled for a hundred years. And today, the dream has to put every American back to work. That means reinvesting in the common people bottom-up. We’re cutting public transportation, denying access to jobs, resegregating. Our schools are more segregated. The biggest growth industry in most states is the jail-industrial complex. So he would see me raising troubling questions of conscience, so I will see this monument as an opportunity to raise issues of jobs and peace and justice.

AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Jackson, can you talk about the corporate contributors to this statue and the event, the mass corporate donations that funded the memorial—FedEx, General Motors, GE, PepsiCo, ExxonMobil?

REV. JESSE JACKSON: Well, I do not know, you know, who all did the contributions, but I do know that that will pale by comparison to how long the statue will be here. And you go to Lincoln, it’s a conversation about the Emancipation Proclamation. Or you go to Jefferson, there’s a statement about his being a founder of the country, democracy and slavery co-existing. You go to Washington, father of the country. You go to Dr. King’s statue, you’ll be talking about civil rights and social justice. It will outlast who contributed to making it happen. I would think that that would be the last—a man of peace on that statue, unlike these presidents. He’s the tallest figure there, because people coming here from South Africa and from Australia and from Asia, people all around the world, who embrace peace and justice and self-determination found in Dr. King’s statue, that one will be the most appealing statue on the entire Mall.

AMY GOODMAN: Vince Harding, you helped Dr. King write that speech, "Beyond Vietnam." You sat there for days preparing this, the famous speech he gave April 4th, 1967, a year to the day before he was assassinated. He gave that speech at Riverside Church. It became known as "Beyond Vietnam." Let me play a short clip for you now.

REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.: If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play. The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

AMY GOODMAN: That famous address, Time magazine later called the speech "demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." The Washington Post declared that King had "diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, and his people." Vince Harding, your reflections on that speech, in which he said the country he loved, America, the United States, was the greatest purveyor of violence on earth, as he spoke against the war in Vietnam, where we are today with the wars that President Obama is presiding over in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan?

DR. VINCENT HARDING: Well, I think, Amy, that that speech, which was not simply mine, but which definitely spoke to Martin’s own deepest convictions, that speech and the segment that you just read, for instance, is now very clearly the truth of Vietnam, regardless of what Time or the New York Times or the Washington Post was saying in 1967. By this time, we realize that King was the one who saw most clearly and most adequately what it was that was going on in Vietnam. And he called us away from that kind of adventure. He called us to become a mature democratic country and not a country of cowboy teenagers. And this, I think, is still the need for us right now, to find a way to become a mature people, so that we can recreate the country that is so badly in need of that vision of a more perfect union.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask Reverend Jackson. The wars—you’ve mentioned the wars—

REV. JESSE JACKSON: May I say, Juan—

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’m sorry, go ahead.

REV. JESSE JACKSON: What I wanted to say was that one of the fears about—in tributing Dr. King as one with a dove in one ear and a flower in the other is to miss the fact he was a man of courage and conscience and confrontation and then conciliation.

DR. VINCENT HARDING: Yes, yes, yes.

REV. JESSE JACKSON: He won the battle of Montgomery—confrontation—the battle of Birmingham, the battle of Selma, the battle of Chicago, the battle to end the war in Vietnam. He must be seen as a fighter who chose tough negotiations and confrontation, and then reconciliation. And that was the point that made him distinctly different, that he took the risk of fighting the battle to bring about the victory for reconciliation.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Reverend Jackson, I’d also like to ask you, because you mentioned all of the money being spent on the current wars. The United States is involved probably in more wars right now in different parts of—or military adventures in different parts of the world than in any time in its history. You’ve—Libya has been in the news a lot. You once met with Gaddafi. You’re familiar with the situation in Libya. What is your sense of the United States’ involvement in efforts at regime change in Libya?

REV. JESSE JACKSON: Twofold, it seems. Number one, the idea of a humanitarian mission there was well founded and probably could have been negotiated to a conclusion, because, after all, the forces—the rebels in Libya did not come to Gaddafi as the peaceful demonstrators did in Egypt. They came firing. He was firing. So it was a kind of civil war, which we maybe could have negotiated to some conclusion. And we chose to go from humanitarian relief to a full-scale war, and now we’ve paid over a billion dollars for that war, and we’ll pay billions more to reconstruct what we’ve torn up. And while the chaos abounds and destabilization abounds, now, of course, the same contractors who are rebuilding and getting the oil out of Iraq will be going next to Libya, which makes it kind of cynical. I hope that, early on, that this madness can be stopped and that we can, A, find a coherent foreign policy. And I find that right now, from Egypt to Libya to Yemen to Syria to Libya, our foreign policy is not very coherent.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to end with Vincent Harding. I’m looking at a piece by—from the Black Agenda Report by Jared Ball, who said, referring to corporate sponsors, "Of course, there are others like JP Morgan, Murdoch’s Direct TV, Exxon, Target [and] Wal Mart—other bastions of workers’ rights and liberty. All have come together to ensure that King be forever separated from [himself, from] his anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-patient work for a genuine revolution." Can you comment on that, Vince Harding?

DR. VINCENT HARDING: Oh, I would like to comment on it, my dear, especially to remind us that this country, this democracy that we’re trying to create, was sponsored by slaveholders, slave owners and slave traders. But that does not mean that that was the end of the story. As our great African-American teacher, who was one of our major Supreme Court justices, reminded us, that though the country began in that way, we could go on to create something new. I’m not worried right now about who paid for the memorial. What I want to do, and what I want to know, is how the memorial and the spirit of King can be remade, can be taken over into our hands and carried on to the point where we can get past the concerns that King had for racism, for materialism, for militarism. Those were his three major concerns as his life ended. If we can take that on at this point in history, then whoever paid for the monument does not matter. We are the ones who will have to create the meaning of King for the future of this country.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us. Vincent Harding, chair of Veterans of Hope project, longtime friend of Dr. Martin Luther King, author of a few books, including Martin Luther King: The Inconvenient Hero. And Reverend Jesse Jackson, joining us from Washington, D.C. The unveiling, the formal unveiling of the statue will be postponed because of Hurricane Irene, expected to slam into Washington on Sunday. The dedication will be postponed, that President Obama was going to be at. But the March for Jobs and Justice is going to happen on Saturday, that will end at the King Memorial.

 

THE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. National Memorial

 

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
The Riverside Church New York
BEYOND VIETNAM

"After 1954, they ( the North Vietnamese ) watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. And they remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South, until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the President ( LBJ )...

[ This is the same President Johnson who, on this fateful trip to Dallas, informed his longtime mistress Madelane (sp) Brown, mother of his illegitimate son Steven, now deceased ( whom LBJ supported, along with mistress Madelane, until LBJ's death ) informed her that they wouldn't have to worry about the "Kennedy boys" any longer. ]

...claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than 8,000 miles away from its shores.

At this point, I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else, for it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other, and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after the short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long, they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed...

[ not unlike our proxy Israel ( or, are we Israel's proxy? ) in Palestinian land being laid waste, and Palestinian homes being destroyed ]

...whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America, who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote: "Each day the war goes on, the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism,” unquote.

We continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war and set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.

Part of our ongoing—part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under the new regime, which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary.

Meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task, while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now, there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality—and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression, which has now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisers" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago, he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay a hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism and militarism. With this powerful commitment, we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means, in the final analysis, that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft-misunderstood, this oft-misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man.

When I speak of love, I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response, I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I’m speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the First Epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”

Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says, "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word," unquote.

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam writes, "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now, let us begin. Now, let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter—but beautiful—struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah,
Off’ring each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. April 4, 1967

(precisely one year prior to his assassination)

* "Monument has assumed rightful place.  WASHINGTON - It is one of the enduring mysteries of American history — so near-providential as to give the most hardened atheist pause — that it should have produced, at every hinge point, great men who matched the moment. A roiling, revolutionary 18th-century British colony gives birth to the greatest cohort of political thinkers ever: Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, Franklin, Jay. The crisis of the 19th century brings forth Lincoln; the 20th, FDR.

Equally miraculous is Martin Luther King Jr. Black America’s righteous revolt against a century of post-emancipation oppression could have gone in many bitter and destructive directions. It did not. This was largely the work of one man’s leadership, moral imagination and strategic genius. He turned his own deeply Christian belief that “unearned suffering is redemptive” into a creed of nonviolence that he carved into America’s political consciousness. The result was not just racial liberation but national redemption.

Such an achievement, such a life, deserves a monument alongside the other miracles of our history — Lincoln, Jefferson and FDR — which is precisely where stands the new Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. It opened Monday on the Tidal Basin, adjacent to Roosevelt’s seven acres, directly across from Jefferson’s temple, and bisecting the invisible cartographic line connecting the memorials for Jefferson and Lincoln, authors of America’s first two births of freedom, whose promises awaited fulfillment by King.

The artistic deficiencies, however, are trumped by placement. You enter the memorial through a narrow passageway, emerging onto a breathtaking opening to the Tidal Basin, a tranquil, tree-lined oasis with Jefferson at the far shore. Here stands King gazing across to the Promised Land — promised by that very same Jefferson — but whose shores King himself was never to reach. You are standing at America’s Mount Nebo ( i.e. Pisgah ) . You cannot but be deeply moved.

Behind the prophet, guarding him, is an arc of short quotations chiseled in granite. This is in keeping with that glorious feature of Washington’s monumental core — the homage to words (rather than images of conquest and glory, as in so many other capitals), as befits a nation founded on an idea.

Transcending all forms of sectarianism to achieve a common humanity was, of course, a major element of King’s thought. But it was not the only one. Missing is any sense of King’s Americanness. Indeed, the word America appears only once, and only in the context of stating his opposition to the Vietnam War. Yet as King himself insisted, his dream was 'deeply rooted in the American dream.' He consciously rooted civil rights in the American story, not just for tactical reasons of enlisting whites in the struggle but because he deeply believed that his movement, while fiercely adversarial, was quintessentially American, indeed, a profound vindication of the American creed.

And yet, however much one wishes for a more balanced representation of King’s own creed, there is no denying the power of this memorial. You must experience it. In the heart of the nation’s capital, King now literally takes his place in the American pantheon, the only non-president to be so honored. As of Aug. 22, 2011, there is no room for anyone more on the shores of the Tidal Basin. This is as it should be." - Charles Krauthammer Wash Post 8/28/11

 

NON FILTERED NEWS

 

As is obvious from Edward Rothstein's many pieces in The New York Times, including 8/26/11  [ e.g., regarding the miraculous The Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial ( "There is always an element of 'kitsch (?)' in monumental memorials, a built-in grandiosity that exaggerates the physical and spiritual statures of their human subjects" ) ] Jews see themselves as apart from the other peoples that make up this population.  That is a distinction that Roger Cohen, from London, has made more relevant in his 9/4/11 N. Y. Times OP-ED "The Netsuke Survived", a distinction that is truly enlightening today.

"PEOPLE start collections for many reasons — because they can, because they wish to contemplate beauty, because of the associations an object stirs. Perhaps a secret memory lurks in a loved bibelot: Proust muses that the collector’s pleasure 'was always for reasons which other people didn’t grasp.' Certainly exile, which is loss, can make a salvaged collection doubly precious.

The odyssey of 264 netsuke — Japanese carvings not much larger than cherry tomatoes — lies at the heart of Edmund de Waal’s extraordinary book 'The Hare with Amber Eyes.' The carvings in ivory or boxwood with subjects as various as a persimmon or a copulating couple were acquired by Charles Ephrussi in Paris in the 1870s. Ephrussi, a forebear of de Waal with a discerning passion for art, was a very rich man.

HE WAS ALSO A JEW, A DESCENDANT OF THE EPHRUSSIS OF ODESSA WHO BECAME KNOWN AS THE KINGS OF GRAIN. DIVERSIFYING ROUND EUROPE THEY AMASSED WEALTH ONCE COMPARABLE TO THE ROTHSCHILDS’. THEN EVERYTHING GOES UP IN SMOKE. DE WAAL’S BOOK IS A MEDITATION ON JEWISH UPHEAVAL AND LOSS.

This is a book ( 'The Hare with Amber Eyes' ) about Jewish credulity ( willingness to believe or trust too readily (?) ). The Ephrussis believed they were pillars of society; they were deluded. In 1896, three years before the netsuke left Paris for Vienna, Theodor Herzl, appalled by the Dreyfus Affair and convinced that combating anti-Semitism was futile, wrote 'The Jewish State,' arguing for a Jewish homeland in Palestine — his Zionist answer to the Ephrussis’ diaspora submissiveness.

DE WAAL SHUNS POLITICS. BUT PART OF THE SADNESS OF HIS STORY IS THAT THE GERMAN QUESTION THAT SO RAVAGED EUROPE HAS BEEN SOLVED, WHILE THE JEWISH QUESTION REMAINS OPEN. IT TOOK ALMOST 120 YEARS FROM THE FOUNDING OF THE MODERN GERMAN STATE TO REACH RESOLUTION. ON THAT SCALE, WITH THE MODERN STATE OF ISRAEL, WE MAY BE HALFWAY TO THE INEVITABLE BUT ELUSIVE PEACE." - Roger Cohen N Y Times 9/4/11

To carry it a bit further, we can see clearly that what James Bamford encompassed in "A Pretext For War", a 2004 Pulitzer-quality tome which was rejected for consideration by Columbia University and even classified NON GRATA by the great Michiko Kakutani, after a brief early mention, Bamford's " :  9/11, Iraq, And The Abuse Of America's Intelligence Agencies" was on the mark, and alone, except for Philip Roth's "The Plot Against America (?)".  The present TRILLION dollar chaos in the Middle East is accepted by Jews, as is the disingenuous editorial ( below ) in the compromised 9/3/11 The New York Times, endorsing the humiliated Ban Ki-moon United Nations report on the flagrant 2010 Israeli deadly commando attack in which well-armed Israelis once again, killed non-armed innocent citizens, this time in international waters (!) , and this time seemingly approved by the UN!  And the "All the News That's Fit to Print" The New York Times!  Here the Sulzberger Pro-Israel Clan certifies the Moonie Secretary General, the both of them subservient to the most treacherous prime minister of Israel, in that killer clan's brief bloody history, Benjamin Netanyahu.

"Turkey, Israel and The Flotilla - Both sides need to cool things down before it gets any worse -

A United Nations report on Israel’s attack last year on a Gaza-bound aid ship should have been a chance to ease fraught relations between Israel and Turkey. Instead, both sides dug in their heels.

The United Nations has long pummeled Israel, and Israeli leaders initially resisted an independent investigation into the raid that killed eight Turks and one Turkish-American. THE REPORT ISSUED FRIDAY SEEMED EVENHANDED. IT SAID THAT ISRAEL’S NAVAL BLOCKADE OF GAZA IS LEGAL AND THAT ISRAELI COMMANDOS BOARDING THE VESSEL HAD TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST 'ORGANIZED AND VIOLENT RESISTANCE.' But it said that the force used by the Israelis was 'excessive and unreasonable.' MOST OF THOSE KILLED WERE SHOT MULTIPLE TIMES.

The flotilla, which sailed from a Turkish port with the acquiescence of the Turkish government, was faulted for acting 'recklessly' in running the blockade. The report also said that 'more could have been done' by Turkey to persuade organizers to avoid a clash with Israeli forces.

Turkey rejected the findings, expelled Israel’s ambassador and announced that it was freezing military ties until Israel apologized for the deaths and compensated the victims’ families. It has also been demanding that Israel end the blockade and that the United Nations shelve the report.

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu warned that Ankara 'will take every precaution it deems necessary' to protect its shipping in the eastern Mediterranean. He didn’t explain, but it is irresponsible to even hint that Turkey, a NATO ally, might look for opportunities to confront Israel militarily.

Israel accepted the findings by the United Nations and said that it hoped to mend ties with Turkey, but it reiterated that it would not apologize. Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to apologize to Turkey. American officials are going to have to keep trying with both sides.

We don’t blame Israel for wondering if Turkey is keeping this conflict going to burnish its standing in the Arab world. Turkey is risking a lot, including billions in trade with Israel and its reputation as a responsible international player. Israel certainly doesn’t need to be any more isolated than it is.

Israel should apologize for the deaths. And Turkey should stop upping the ante." - The Sulzberger Clan, N Y Times 9/3/11

NOT SO FAST

 - Amy Goodman & DemocracyNow 9/2/11 "As Turkey Freezes Israel Ties, Critics Decry 'Whitewashed' U.N. Report on Gaza Flotilla, Blockade

Turkey has downgraded diplomatic ties with Israel and frozen military cooperation ahead of a long-awaited United Nations report on Israel’s deadly attack on a Gaza-bound aid ship in 2010. The report accuses Israel of 'excessive and unreasonable' force in its attack—which killed nine people—on the Mavi Marmara ship, and says Israel should issue a statement of regret and compensate the families of the dead as well as wounded passengers. But it also chides passengers aboard the Marmara and the other flotilla ships for what it calls a 'reckless' attempt to breach Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. In a major development with broader implications, the U.N. report concludes that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal under international law. We speak with Norman Finkelstein, author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including ''This Time We Went Too Far': Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.' We are also joined by Huwaida Arraf, one of the organizers of the Free Gaza Movement. Both Arraf and Finkelstein blast the U.N. report, calling it a 'whitewash' and 'morally debased.'

Guests:

Huwaida Arraf, chairperson of the Free Gaza Movement and co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement. She was on one of six ships that were in the Gaza flotilla when the Mavi Marmara was attacked.

Norman Finkelstein, author of several books on the Israel-Palestine conflict, including 'This Time We Went Too Far': Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Turkey has downgraded diplomatic ties with Israel and frozen military cooperation ahead of a long-awaited United Nations report on Israel’s deadly attack on a Gaza-bound aid ship in 2010. According to leaked excerpts, the report accuses Israel of, quote, "excessive and unreasonable force" in its attacks on the Mavi Marmara which killed nine people. The report says Israel should issue a statement of regret and compensate the families of the dead as well as wounded passengers. But the report also criticizes passengers aboard the Marmara and the other flotilla ships for what it calls a, quote, "reckless" attempt to breach Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. And in a major development with broader implications, the United Nations report also concludes that the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal under international law.

AMY GOODMAN: The U.N. investigation was overseen by Geoffrey Palmer, a former prime minister of New Zealand. Turkey says it will expel the Israeli ambassador and downgrade diplomatic ties to their lowest level until Israel drops its refusal to apologize for the raid and provides compensation.

For more, we’re going to go to Ramallah, where we’re joined by Huwaida Arraf, one of the organizers of the Free Gaza flotilla movement. She’s on one of—she was on one of the six ships that were in the Gaza flotilla when the Mavi Marmara was attacked. She’s joining us by Democracy Now! audio stream. And here in New York, we’re joined by Norman Finkelstein, author of a number of books on Israel-Palestine conflict, including 'This Time We Went Too Far': Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.

In Ramallah, Huwaida Arraf, your response to the leaked report—the New York Times posted it online—of the U.N.?

HUWAIDA ARRAF: Hi, Amy, Juan, Norman.

Sadly, it’s a completely expected whitewash of Israeli crimes. This panel’s composition—not only its composition, but its mandate—was problematic in so many ways. And it wasn’t designed to get at the truth of what happened or to achieve—to get at justice for the victims of Israel’s attack, but rather to arrive at political compromise between Israel and Turkey. And that’s what we have. It’s an attempt to whitewash the crimes, set them aside, and in addition, it came up with some outrageous claims that completely contradict the findings of numerous human rights organizations and international law authorities, including various bodies of the U.N. itself, about the legality of the Israeli blockade. So, very problematic.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the report’s criticism or faulting of one organization, in particular, a Turkish organization, that had some members—helped organize the flotilla. Could you talk about what it said and your response to that?

HUWAIDA ARRAF: Sure. It did say—you did quote that we were 'reckless,' but it also said that Israeli soldiers faced organized violence when they tried to board the Mavi Marmara, which is completely untrue. We spent a long time preparing for this flotilla. And our—everything that we prepared, the passengers and our—the foundations of our movement and what we do is based on nonviolent direct action resistance.

This is not to deny that Israeli soldiers did face some attacks when they boarded, but you can’t say that these attacks were anything more than self-defense, because of the obnoxious way in which Israeli soldiers—and very violent way in which they took over the ships, in the way that was intended to cause tremendous fear and commotion. They boarded the ships firing, even on our very small boat. The boat that I was on was traveling right next to the Mavi Marmara, and we only had about 17 people on that boat. They boarded, beating down people, using tasers, firing stun grenades and paintball pellet at people’s faces. It was completely uncalled-for violence, so that some people, a handful out of 700 volunteers, reacted in what can be called a violent way. It was self-defense, so it was in no way organized. And this is—I’m saying this, being part of the central organizing committee of the flotilla.

AMY GOODMAN: The U.N.'s report notes that, quote, "On the basis of public statements by the flotilla organizers and their own internal documentation, the Panel is satisfied that as much as their expressed purpose of providing humanitarian aid, one of the primary objectives of the flotilla organizers was to generate publicity about the situation in Gaza by attempting to breach Israel's naval blockade. The purposes of the flotilla were clearly expressed in a document prepared by IHH and signed by all flotilla participants," unquote.

The report then cites the document’s statement of purpose, which reads, quote, "Purposes of this journey are to create an awareness amongst world public and international organizations on the inhumane and unjust embargo on Palestine and to contribute to end this embargo which clearly violates human rights and delivering humanitarian relief to the Palestinians."

Norm Finkelstein, your response?

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, I noticed that Juan was looking perplexed at that statement. I have to say, last night, when I was reading the report, I was completely dumbfounded, and I had to keep repeating—rereading these passages over and over again. What the report stated—and all of your listeners should hear closely, because it was so shocking, so morally debased—the report said that we doubt, or we question, the true motives of the organizers of the flotilla. They said, we have evidence that their real motive was not humanitarian. And the statement that you just quoted was the evidence that their real motive was not humanitarian, that they had this really sinister, nefarious motive. Their real motive was not humanitarian; the real motive was, they said, the report said, to cast publicity on Israel’s illegal and immoral blockade of Gaza.

Now I have to say, that is—and I’m meaning this literally—it is a new low. I read all the Israeli reports, in particular the Turkel report, the one put out by the former Supreme Court justice. It’s about 300 pages. They never stooped to that level. They claimed that this handful of what they call jihadists, that they were looking for a confrontation with Israelis or the Israeli soldiers, and they brought on weapons for a confrontation. This report does not claim that they were looking for a confrontation. It holds them morally culpable for trying to cast publicity on an illegal and inhumane blockade. With the Israelis, at least we’re in the same moral universe, and it’s a question of fact. What was the intent of these commandos—excuse me, what was the intent of the activists? Was it to get a confrontation, or was it to cast humanitarian—cast light on what’s happening? But with this report, we’ve entered a new moral universe. They are actually saying that to cast light on an illegal and inhumane blockade is a morally sinister act.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask, there were four members on this committee: one from Turkey, one from Israel, then there were two supposedly independent ones, the former prime minister of New Zealand and Álvaro Uribe, the former president of Colombia, who himself presided over a period of the most—the highest level of extrajudicial killings and assassinations in his own country. It seems amazingly strange to have someone like Álvaro Uribe on this panel as an objective member of the committee.

AMY GOODMAN: The Colombian president.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, it was clear from the moment that Ban Ki-moon, the alleged secretary-general of the United Nations—it was clear from the moment he appointed Uribe on the panel that it was going to be a farce. Beyond all the crimes for which Mr. Uribe has been accused and also have been documented, he was also known as being very close to Israel and advocating closer military relations with Israel. So, from the get-go, from the moment the members were named, it was clear which way the report was going to go.

But, you know, you always wonder, what are they going to come up with? How could they possibly justify certain things? They said that the blockade of Gaza—now, we have to be clear. They said the naval blockade was legal. They separated it from the land blockade, for technical reasons, which it’s no point in going into here. But they said the naval blockade was legal. And the grounds they gave were this: that Israel clearly faces security problems from Gaza, the rocket and mortar fire. OK. And they say, to document this security problem, since 2001, some 25 Israelis have been killed by these rocket and mortar attacks. Fair enough. And then they say that many people have suffered psychologically, psychological trauma from these attacks. Fair enough.

Then there’s the other side of the equation. There is not one word, one syllable, on how many Gazans have perished as a result of Israeli attacks. It’s not 25. It’s not 250. It’s at least at an order of magnitude of 2,500. We’re not just talking about the 1,400 Palestinians who were killed in Operation Cast Lead. Israel always has operations in Gaza, has very fancy names—Operation Summer Rains, Operation Autumn Clouds, Operation Hot Winter, Operation Rainbow. All of it vanishes from this report. The only people who have suffered deaths in Gaza due to armed hostilities are Israelis.

Now, let’s say it’s true. Fair enough. They have a right to impose a naval blockade to prevent weapons from going to Gaza, for security reasons. Don’t the people of Gaza have the right to impose a military blockade on Israel, to prevent weapons from going to Israel? You can’t even raise that question. It’s beyond their comprehension. In fact, the irony is, that’s the law. The law is, as Amnesty International pointed out in its report 'Fueling Conflict,' under international law and domestic American law, it’s illegal to transfer weapons to any country or—any state or non-state party which is a consistent violator of human rights. So, if that commission, the Palmer Commission, named after, you know, the former New Zealand president, if they had any integrity, they would have said, OK, Israel has the right to impose a blockade on Gaza, and the international community" — because this is what Amnesty said. Amnesty says the international community has an obligation—that’s what they said—to impose an arms embargo on Israel, as well, because it’s a consistent violator of human rights.

AMY GOODMAN: I want—I wanted to bring Huwaida Arraf back into the discussion, who’s in Ramallah, chair of the Free Gaza Movement, was part of the aid flotilla last year that the Mavi Marmara was a part of. The U.N. investigation did accuse Israel of excessive and unreasonable force. Now Turkey has announced the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador, the suspension of military cooperation, hours before the report was published. But also, in the last attempts of the Gaza flotilla, just in the last months, they themselves stopped a ship from going forward. Can you talk about all of this, Huwaida?

HUWAIDA ARRAF: Sure. Really quickly, I’d like to just touch on a couple of important points that Norman made, the first one being about the legality of the blockade. And Norman did say that they considered it very separate from the rest of the closure, which has been declared completely illegal and a violation of Israel’s obligations, so there’s no way that this maritime blockade can be legal, no matter what way you look at it. It’s a violation of Israel’s obligations under international law as an occupying power.

Also, in regards to Uribe and the problems that Norman mentioned, the other thing is that he is known to have a complete disdain for human rights defenders. And you can look at complaints from human rights organizations within Colombia. Also, an organization called Human Rights First called this out, that him referring to human rights defenders as 'terrorist sympathizers' endangers human rights defenders. So, from the start, he had a disdain for people like us who like to call attention to and take action, nonviolent action, against these human rights abuses.

And the last really important thing before I get to your question is this report and the attention that it’s supposed to get, when we already had an independent U.N. fact-finding mission that released a report almost one year ago, comprehensive, interviewed over a hundred victims and participants, and that was put together by scholars in international law and known judges on international tribunals. This should be the authority on what actually happened, not this farce of a report.

But in terms of what you said about Turkey stopping—about being part of stopping the last flotilla, known as Freedom Flotilla 2, which was supposed to launch last summer, or this past summer, not exactly. It was Israel placed a lot of pressure on a lot of countries, the European countries, to stop their citizens from participating. Not many—you know, some leaders of these countries made statements that the flotilla is not helpful and that they warn their citizens not to take part. But the country that was—that really cooperated with Israel—and it was a shock and quite sad—was Greece. And it did—we did learn that it came under a lot of political and economic pressure also because of the economic situation that they’re in. But they did impose restrictions and did not let our boats leave. So it really became complicit in Israel’s blockade. And we are challenging that on different levels.

Turkey itself didn’t really. It did communicate to us and to our Turkish partners that it might not be helpful at this time, but what happened—but the Turkish organization IHH remained fully a part of the flotilla. The Mavi Marmara was not able to go, because it was not physically, mechanically ready to go. In fact, up until the date that we were supposed to launch, they still had people working to meet all of the guidelines for being certified to go into international waters on the kind of mission that we wanted it to. So we knew—at a point, we realized it wasn’t going to be ready, and we took that boat out of the equation. But the Turks remained fully a part of the organizing. And in fact, we were going to launch one boat from Turkey. One of the boats—it was the Irish ship—was located in Turkey, but it was sabotaged by, we believe, Israeli agents and was not able to launch. So, they didn’t really place any barriers, certainly not like Greece did.

AMY GOODMAN: But the fact that this report did find that Israel’s use of force was excessive and unreasonable, and the significance of Turkey expelling the Israeli ambassador?

HUWAIDA ARRAF: Definitely. Well, it’s kind of funny that Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador today after the release of this report, because the whole point of this report was to reach a political compromise and to repair the relation between Israel and Turkey. And we’re glad that Turkey has taken the position that it has taken. And in fact, Turkey’s foreign minister has said that it’s time that Israel paid a price. And it’s true, because Israel does not pay a price for any of its human rights violations. It continues to act with impunity. And even the fact that this report did say Israel acted using excessive force, it doesn’t—it doesn’t go enough to—money or paying compensation is not—is no kind of justice for the families or for the people that—for the victims of Israel’s actions. And that’s what we want to see. We want to see some kind of accountability. And that’s different from the U.N. report that was issued last September by the independent fact-finding mission, WHICH RECOMMENDED THAT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. And that’s what we’re waiting to see. So, this report, the Uribe-Palmer report, pays some lip service to the victims, but its main—again, its main goal, to repair relations, and we’re glad to see that Turkey is not falling for that.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I’d like to say—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Norman, if we can, we just have a little bit of time.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Sure.

JUAN GONZALEZ: If you could just briefly talk about the implications of this report coming out now and the continuing schism between Turkey and Israel, as we head into the United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood.

NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, actually, many Israelis worried that this would be Pyrrhic victory for the Israeli government, because being so stubborn about refusing to make an apology—there are two of consecutive words that just don’t translate into Hebrew. The two words, consecutive words, are 'excuse me.' They can’t comprehend that. And the Israeli—many Israeli officials were saying, 'Make the apology, because we need Turkey. Turkey is our—has historically been our strongest ally in the Muslim world. Things are now turbulent with our other main ally in the Arab world, Egypt. Make the apology, and move on.' But there were members of the Netanyahu government—in particular, Mr. Lieberman, the foreign minister, and his party—who refused, because they said if they made the apology, Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, would run with it and would embarrass the Israelis, and Israelis would be humiliated. But they didn’t think it was a wise move. And actually, I don’t think it is, either. Losing the military relationship with Turkey, suspension of diplomatic relations, and now you know Turkey, when the state issue—statehood issue comes up in September, they are going to be in the forefront now, because Erdogan has been humiliated by this report. It was a complete spit in the face of the Turks, what this report said.

So I think, from a moral point of view, it was a disgrace. But from a political point of view, it will probably end up helping the Palestinians. You have to remember the whole point of the report. It described the killing of the nine members of the—on the—passengers on the Mavi Marmara. You know the phrase they used? It was a 'major irritant' to diplomatic relations. KILLING NINE PEOPLE IS AN 'IRRITANT'?! And they said, 'We have to get over this irritant, so that Israel and Turkey can restore diplomatic relations.' That’s their moral level.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there. Norman Finkelstein, we thank you for being with us, author of, among other books, 'This Time We Went Too Far': Truth & Consequences of the Gaza Invasion, and Huwaida Arraf, chair of the Free Gaza Movement, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement, was on one of the six ships that were in the Gaza flotilla when the Mavi Marmara was attacked. She was joining us from Ramallah, on the West Bank." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 9/2/11

 - PROGRESS! -

"Abbas Affirms Palestinian Bid for U.N. Membership

RAMALLAH  West Bank — President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority said Monday that he was going to the United Nations this month to seek membership for a state of Palestine, not instead of negotiations with Israel, but in addition to them. His goal, he said, was for a Palestinian state and Israel to live in peace and security next to one another.

Even after any recognition by the United Nations, Mr. Abbas said, his hope is to negotiate with Israel.

'Our first, second and third priority is negotiations,' he said. 'There is no other way to solve this. No matter what happens at the United Nations, we have to return to negotiations.'

MR. ABBAS WAS SPEAKING IN HIS OFFICE TO 20 LEFT-WING ISRAELI INTELLECTUALS AND ARTISTS WHO HAD COME TO URGE HIM TO GO TO THE UNITED NATIONS DESPITE THEIR GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSITION. JOURNALISTS WERE INVITED TO COVER THE MEETING.

Abbas told the group that he had met abroad secretly three times in recent months with President Shimon Peres of Israel — in London and Rome, and in Amman, Jordan. A fourth meeting was called off by Mr. Peres. Mr. Abbas said he also held a previously undisclosed meeting with Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, 10 days ago.

The United States is opposed to a Palestinian bid for membership in United Nations. Senior American officials are due here this week to try to persuade the Palestinians to drop their effort.

Mr. Abbas said the Palestinians planned to start their membership drive with the Security Council despite a vow by the Obama administration to exercise its veto there. It is expected that the Palestinians’s next step would be in the General Assembly, where there is no veto but which can grant only observer status, not full membership.

'Some Israelis complain that this is a unilateral move, but when you address 193 countries, that is not unilateral,' he said. 'We are going to complain that as Palestinians we have been under occupation for 63 years.'

'We don’t want to isolate Israel but to live with it in peace and security,' he also said. 'We don’t want to delegitimize Israel. We want to legitimize ourselves.'

'We have good coordination to prevent terror and keep the situation calm and quiet,' he said. 'We will continue to do our job. Security will prevail as long as I am in office.'

But Abbas also said that if he came to the conclusion that he had failed his people, he would resign.

EARLIER IN THE DAY, ISRAELI SETTLERS IN THE WEST BANK TRIED TO SET A FIRE INSIDE A DISUSED MOSQUE TO PROTEST THE ISRAELI MILITARY’S DESTRUCTION OF THREE SETTLER HOUSES AT AN ILLEGAL OUTPOST." - Bronner N Y Times 9/6/11

"Diplomatic Strains Intensify Between Turkey and Israel

By Ethan Bronner & Sebnem Arsu

JERUSALEM - Tensions between Israel and Turkey mounted further on Monday, as Turkish officials ordered senior Israeli diplomats to leave the country by midweek and Israeli passengers arriving at the Istanbul airport were taken aside and questioned for 90 minutes by officials. Turkish officials said that Turkish tourists were treated the same way at the Tel Aviv airport last week.

The fraying relationship — once Israel’s strongest with a Muslim country, with hundreds of thousands of visitors traveling in each direction — unwound further last week when Israel said it would not apologize for the deaths of nine Turks and an American of Turkish origin last year on a flotilla seeking to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza.

Turkey has also threatened to seek international legal measures against Israel’s Gaza blockade and use its navy in the eastern Mediterranean to protect its actions there.

'AS A LITTORAL STATE WHICH HAS THE LONGEST COASTLINE IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN, TURKEY WILL TAKE WHATEVER MEASURES IT DEEMS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN,' THE FOREIGN MINISTER, AHMET DAVUTOGLU, SAID IN ANKARA.

MINISTRY OFFICIALS DELINED TO GIVE SPECIFICS. TURKISH NEWS REPORTS SUGGESTED THAT THE MEASURES MIGHT INCLUDE NAVAL ESCORTS FOR ANY AID BOATS OR FLOTILLAS DESTINED FOR GAZA IN THE FUTURE.

Alon Liel, a former Israeli ambassador to Turkey, said in an interview that Turkey might be thinking of interfering with future Israeli gas exports to Cyprus by placing its navy in between. He said that Israel exports about $2 billion in goods a year to Turkey, and that about half of that was oil and chemical products.

Mr. Liel, who is no longer in government, was critical of Israel’s actions in this affair, saying relations with Turkey could have been saved. He now worries that Egypt and Jordan will come under domestic pressure to expel Israeli ambassadors, especially as uprisings have spread.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey is planning to visit Egypt next week and has raised the possibility of going from there to Gaza, which would be a direct challenge to Israel. But most analysts predicted that he would drop the idea of visiting Gaza, which is controlled by the militant group Hamas, to avoid alienating Turkey’s American and other Western allies.

Some in the Israeli government urged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to offer the apology to salvage relations with Turkey. But he and most of those around him believe that Turkey is uninterested in such a move. Many analysts in both countries said the relationship would not improve soon.

'NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE SAYS ABOUT THE CONTINUATION OF THEIR HISTORICAL ALLIANCE, THE RELATIONSHIP CROSSED THE RUBICON — THE RED LINE,' SAID CENGIZ CANDAR, A TURKISH JOURNALIST AND ANALYST. 'TURKEY NOW CLAIMS THE LEADERSHIP OF THE ARAB WORLD THAT EGYPT ONCE HELD, AND THEREFORE IT IS IN COMPETITION WITH IRAN. IT IS IN A STANDOFF WITH ISRAEL IN A DISPLAY OF POWER.' - Bronner & Arsu N Y Times 9/6/11

 

THE JEWISH PERSPECTIVE

 - "Elusive Line Defines Lives in Israel and the West Bank -

BARTAA, West Bank - For decades Israel has tried to erase from public consciousness the Green Line, the pre-1967 boundary with the West Bank at the heart of stalled negotiations for a Palestinian state.

Israel has built on either side of the Green Line and deleted it from textbooks and weather maps. Israeli drivers plying the main Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway crisscross the unmarked line at the Latrun Interchange every second of the day, slicing through half a mile of West Bank territory and several more miles of no man’s land, oblivious to the area’s fraught history.

In Jerusalem, where Israel annexed the eastern part of the city and its holy sites after the 1967 war, a new light rail system traverses a patchwork of Jewish and Palestinian neighborhoods, gliding blithely across the invisible boundaries.

Yet a recent journey along the line, from the northernmost Jalama checkpoint to the tiny villages of Al Ghuwein and Sansana in the arid hills of the south, shows that despite attempts to blur it physically, Israel has carefully preserved the line in legal and administrative terms, and it defines lives on both sides.

In Jerusalem, a new train follows the Old City walls.
The light rail project has come under political attack
because it runs through mostly Palestinian East Jerusalem.

[ We are subject to the most threatening force on the planet, an Israel desperate to control the Middle East, at all costs.

...The details appear in our last item (...while we incorporate a new feature...):  "Beyond Cairo, Israel Sensing A Wider Siege" - Ethan Bronner, JERUSALEM, 9/11/11 ]

A Teaser -

"JERUSALEM - With its Cairo embassy ransacked, its ambassador to Turkey expelled and the Palestinians seeking statehood recognition at the United Nations, Israel found itself on Saturday increasingly isolated and grappling with a radically transformed Middle East where it believes its options are limited and poor.

The diplomatic crisis, in which winds unleashed by the Arab Spring are now casting a chill over the region, was crystallized by the scene of Israeli military jets sweeping into Cairo at dawn on Saturday to evacuate diplomats after the Israeli Embassy had been besieged by thousands of protesters." [Page 6.]

To be continued -

The Obama administration has called for negotiations for a Palestinian state with borders based on the 1967 boundaries, with mutually agreed land swaps. In the absence of talks, the Palestinian leadership plans to seek recognition of statehood within the 1967 borders at the United Nations this month.

Israel rejects the Green Line as indefensible. At its narrowest point from the Mediterranean coast to the line, Israel is only about nine miles wide — a two-minute helicopter ride. Compounding Israelis’ sense of vulnerability, the coastal plain fringed by the pre-1967 boundary rises up into a commanding mountain ridge running through the West Bank, which fell on the Arab-held side of the line until Israel occupied the territory after the 1967 war and placed it under military rule.

Successive Israeli governments established Jewish settlements on the West Bank hilltops, encouraged by Israeli religious nationalists who claim the area as part of their biblical birthright. For Palestinian officials emboldened by the rise of Palestinian nationalism, what began as a temporary cease-fire line has become holy.

- Invisible Wall -

An Elusive Line Defines Lives
in Israel and the West Bank

'If the Israelis do not recognize this line,' said Nazmi al-Jubeh, a Palestinian historian and a former negotiator, 'it means that they do not recognize the territory beyond it as occupied.'

Yet many Palestinians still harbor claims to the land on the Israeli side and reject any partition of the pre-1948 British Mandate of Palestine.

Driving the Green Line is like weaving a path between parallel universes, along a seam that is both present and absent, and that fuses and divides.

Invisible Wall

The Green Line was delineated as Israeli and Jordanian officers negotiated an armistice in the months after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war; it was named for the green marker with which it was drawn. The line held until 1967, when Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, along with the Egyptian-held Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights.

While the boundary largely separates the Israelis from the Palestinians, about 1.5 million Palestinian Arabs are citizens of Israel, and more than 500,000 Israeli Jews now live east of the Green Line.

But for the Palestinians, the old line already serves as a virtual border, though one without a state on the other side.

Here in Bartaa, a northern Arab village that straddles the Green Line in the area known as Wadi Ara, one encounters a quirky reality where the Green Line is alternately ignored and enforced — a paradox that, by extension, can be applied to the entire land.

Bartaa’s market spreads across a narrow valley that is dissected by crossroads. It is a riot of noise and color, with stores displaying gaudy evening gowns and plastic toys strung above the sidewalks. Only a well-informed traveler would know that the eastern half of the market sits in the West Bank, and the western half in Israel.

The Green Line runs, unmarked, right through the market, an imaginary wall separating two parts of a village that has long been inhabited by one extended family, the Kabha clan.

With Israel’s conquest of the West Bank in 1967, the hostile frontier evaporated and the two parts of Bartaa were reunited, the western part being part of Israel and the eastern part falling under Israeli military rule. Then, when Israel constructed the West Bank security barrier, which it said was essential to prevent suicide bombers, it looped the fence east of Bartaa, deeper into the West Bank territory. Although Palestinians see the barrier as a land grab, in this particular case, the villagers accepted it as the lesser of two evils, to prevent them from being redivided.

Israeli Jews and Arabs pour into West Bank Bartaa on weekends to take advantage of the lower prices. But since the 1990s, when Israel began requiring permits for the entry of Palestinians and tightened security measures as a result of terrorism, the West Bank Kabhas have been prohibited from crossing over the road into Israel.

[ Palestinians restricted from their own land?  And the Israelis are threatened by terrorism?  Au contraire!  The Israelis welcome the opportunity to kill Palestinians!  They've been doing it for 60-odd years! ]

Many in West Bank Bartaa have gotten around the problem by marrying relatives on the Israeli side, which gives them a different status. But others, like Abed Kabha, a Palestinian born here in 1967 who runs a grocery store on the West Bank side, have to apply for special permits to enter Israel. They say they stick to their own side of the village for fear of being caught by Israeli border police patrols, although the Israeli military authorities say that within Bartaa, they tend to turn a blind eye.

Until 12 years ago, Mr. Kabha worked in gardening in the Tel Aviv area. Now, he says, he crosses the market only 'for weddings and funerals.'

- Worlds Apart -

For many Israelis, being near or just over the Green Line is a matter of little consequence — so much so that some Israelis are not always sure which side they are on. By contrast, Palestinians living near the line are mindful of every inch of soil.

In the late 1990s, four idealists from the Tel Aviv area approached Ariel Sharon, then a government minister, with the idea of establishing a new community on the sandy dunes of Halutza in the Negev Desert, in southern Israel. Mr. Sharon sent them to a former army base called Sansana in the Negev. Like the forests that Israel planted there, the abandoned barracks hugged the Israeli side of the Green Line. But according to Eliram Azulai, 34, the secretary of Sansana, it soon transpired that the plan was to expand the village into the West Bank.

Mr. Azulai and his neighbors, many of whom are doctors or work in high-technology industries, unwittingly became settlers as Sansana grew to incorporate an adjacent West Bank hilltop. Mr. Azulai said that at the time 'nobody asked questions.' Being sent to live on the Green Line, or across it, he said, 'was not an issue.'

Sansana is a rare case of an Israeli community that straddles the Green Line. But even here, Israel has scrupulously maintained the administrative distinction. The 50 prefabricated homes on the Israeli side of the village were authorized by a district committee in southern Israel. The 60 permanent homes going up on the West Bank side had to be approved by the Israeli military and the Ministry of Defense.

Not far from Sansana, in the sparsely populated hills south of Hebron in the West Bank, lies Upper Ghuwein, an unofficial Palestinian encampment. Here, two extended families graze sheep and goats and tease crops from the parched earth. Half a mile away, the fence, part of Israel’s barrier, courses along the Green Line where the beige earth meets Israeli forest. The red roofs of Shani, a small settlement, peep through the trees.

In Upper Ghuwein, by contrast with the accidental settlers of Sansana, the history of every stone, tree and contour of the land is scored into consciousness.

Khader Hawamdi, 77, recalls Israeli and Jordanian officers walking with maps in the valley below, marking the armistice line with barrels. He says the villagers were told to move to this point, farther up the hill.

Palestinians line up at a checkpoint to cross the West Bank barrier on their way to Jerusalem for Friday prayers. Israel says the barrier is being built to prevent terrorist attacks, but Palestinians argue that much of the barrier is illegal because it extends into the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

But Upper Ghuwein was never recognized by the Israeli authorities. Its residents cannot get building permits, so they live in temporary shacks and their original cave dwellings. Only recently, the Palestinian Authority, which now governs certain aspects of the Palestinians’ lives in the West Bank, hooked up the village to electricity. Children as young as 5 walk about four miles to the nearest school in the Palestinian village of Samua.

The clans here claim vast amounts of ancestral land on either side of the Green Line, and concepts like borders and statehood have little meaning. They cling to the place despite the hardship.

'We stay here,' said Khawla Ismail Daghamin, 37, a weathered mother of 10, 'because if we leave, the Jews will take the land.'

- Refugees Close to Home -

All along the line are stories of Palestinian resentment and nostalgia for what was left behind. But in this complex area, nothing remains static for long.

The village of Walajeh nestles in the terraced hills between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, just across the Green Line in the West Bank, straddling the Jerusalem city limits. Its residents crossed into Jordanian-held territory during the fighting in 1948, when the original village, in what is now Israel, came under attack from the Zionist forces.

Until the 1967 war, said Muhammad Abu al-Tin, 60, 'people thought they still might go back.'

Then, when the reality of the Arab defeat finally set in, he said, the villagers built permanent houses on the village lands on the West Bank side, having become refugees within sight of their former homes. 'AT NIGHT PEOPLE WOULD SNEAK BACK TO SEE THEIR BOMBED HOUSES,' HE RECALLED. THEY WERE LATER RAZED BY ISRAELI BULLDOZERS.

The Green Line still runs through the valley between the original village and the new one, marked by a section of the old Jerusalem-Jaffa railway.

Now, though, more of the village lands, and the view, are disappearing behind concrete as Israel constructs the latest section of its barrier here, separating Walajeh’s houses from Israeli territory and from the adjacent Jewish settlement of Har Gilo.

'The wall is eating up the village,' said Khaled Abu Tin, 45, another resident. 'If the wall was the final border of a state, that would be one thing,' he said. 'But here they change plans every year. You do not know where you are.'

Dislocation seems to be the common experience of many Israelis and Palestinians on either side of the boundary. Yet the Green Line remains the visible and invisible dividing line between two peoples and the core of the tortuous process of creating two states.

Gideon Avidor, 70, a retired Israeli brigadier general, stared out from the roof of a fort in the strategic Latrun bulge overlooking the main Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway that was the site of one of the fiercest battles in the 1948 war. Israel eventually conquered the fort in 1967.

In theory, he said, with land swaps that would include keeping Latrun, among other places, the geography should not be a problem. The reality: First each side would have 'to decide to live alongside each other, or not to be looking to expel one another, in the simplest terms.'" - Isabel Kershner N Y Times 9/7/11

WILL ABBAS HOLD?

- "Palestinian Says U.S. 'Too Late' On U.N. Bid

RAMALLAH, West Bank - The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, said Thursday that last-ditch American and international ( ISRAELI ) efforts to prevent the Palestinians from applying for membership in the United Nations this month were 'too late.'

He said the Palestinians still intended to submit an application for recognition of Palestinian statehood to the Security Council as a first step, at risk of a confrontation with the United States.

'To be frank with you, they came too late,' Mr. Abbas told a group of foreign reporters on Thursday evening at the Mukata, his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. The international powers had 'wasted all the time' since the beginning of the year, he said, and even now, less than two weeks before the prospective bid at the United Nations, they still had not produced any concrete proposal.

Mr. Abbas was speaking after meeting in recent days with two senior American diplomats, David Hale and Dennis Ross, and Tony Blair ( both Ross and Blair are hired Netanyahu sycophants ), the envoy of the so-called quartet of Middle East peacemakers that includes the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. He said he had also spoken by telephone with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton this week.

The United States has vowed to veto a vote on Palestinian statehood at the Security Council, saying that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved only through direct negotiations.

Mr. Abbas said that if the quartet produced a package to pave the way back to negotiations that included an Israeli freeze on settlement construction and the use of the pre-1967 lines with agreed land swaps as the basis for talks on borders — both longstanding Palestinian demands — the Palestinians “will go to the United Nations and we will return back to talks.”

Israel has offered to enter talks at any time, but without preconditions. Israeli officials say that a United Nations vote in favor of Palestinian statehood based on the pre-1967 boundaries could set back peace negotiations for years, because no Palestinian leader would be able to accept anything less than what the United Nations accepts.

The Israeli minister of defense, Ehud Barak, called on Mr. Abbas on Thursday “to return to the negotiating table with no preconditions and to try to reach a breakthrough together.” He called on the quartet to help as best they could to this end.

Mr. Abbas said that he did not want a confrontation with the United States, but that a response would be up to the Americans.

The Palestinians have been deliberately vague about their exact plans. Some analysts view as brinkmanship the Palestinians’ stated intention of going first to the Security Council for a vote, rather than to the General Assembly; this would give Palestine a more modest status in the United Nations as an observer, nonmember state.

MR. ABBAS SAID THAT AFTER THEY ARRIVED AT THE UNITED NATIONS ON SEPT. 19, THE PALESTINIANS WOULD HAND THEIR APPLICATION TO SECRETARY GENERAL BAN KI-MOON FOR SUBMISSION TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL, AND THAT A COPY WOULD GO TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CHIEF. THEN, HE SAID, THE PALESTINIANS WILL SEE WHAT OCCURS.

Earlier Thursday, Palestinian officials and supporters kicked off a popular campaign to accompany the United Nations bid, with several dozen people marching to the United Nations headquarters in Ramallah.

Elsewhere in the West Bank, Israeli settlers were widely suspected of having sprayed Hebrew graffiti on a mosque and setting fire to two cars belonging to Palestinians on Thursday, to protest the Israeli military’s destruction of three settlers’ houses at an illegal outpost earlier this week. On Monday, Israeli settlers tried to set a fire inside an unused mosque in another West Bank village." - Kershner N Y Times 9/9/11

 

- Amy Goodman & DemocracyNow -

* September 8, 2011

- "U.S. Pressures Palestinians to Drop Statehood Bid

The Obama administration is ramping up efforts to subvert a Palestinian effort to seek statehood recognition at the United Nations later this month. The White House has claimed to support an independent Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution but has harshly opposed the Palestinian Authority’s campaign to achieve just that. On Wednesday, Obama aides David Hale and Dennis Ross met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in a last-ditch attempt to block the statehood move. At a nearby square in Ramallah, a Palestinian protester denounced the U.S. pressure.

Protester: 'These Americans are not bringing blessings to us. They came to terrify us. We tell the President, Abu Mazen, that Palestinian people are united. We tell the President, Abu Mazen, that the Palestinian people want you to continue your step and to go to the United Nations. Abu Mazen, do not give up. Abu Mazen, do not hesitate. The Palestinian people are with you.'

- "Palestinian Authority Cites Obama in Pro-Statehood Ads

As the United States attempts to quash the statehood bid, Palestinian leaders are using President Obama’s own words in a public effort to drum up support for their campaign. A radio ad sponsored by the Palestinian Authority quotes President Obama’s support for Palestinian statehood in a speech before the U.N. General Assembly last year.

President Obama: 'When we come back here next year, we can have an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations, an independent, sovereign state of Palestine living in peace with Israel.'

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is then heard in the ad saying, 'If [President Obama] said it, he must have meant it.'

* September 9, 2011

- "Report: U.S. Mulls Staging Troops in Kuwait After Iraq Withdrawal

The Obama administration is reportedly considering staging U.S. troops in Kuwait following the scheduled military withdrawal from neighboring Iraq at the end of the year. According to the Associated Press, the proposal is among a number being considered ahead of the withdrawal deadline. The Obama administration has already said it favors a plan that would leave up to 5,000 troops in Iraq IN ADDITION TO THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF CONTRACTORS AND CIA PERSONNEL SLATED TO REMAIN.

- "U.S. Confirms It Will Veto Palestinian Statehood at United Nations

The Obama administration has confirmed it will veto U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state if it is brought up for a Security Council vote. The White House has sought to block the statehood bid despite publicly claiming to support a Palestinian state. On Thursday, Palestinians officially kicked off the statehood campaign with a march in the West Bank town of Ramallah.

- "Non-Aligned Countries Back Palestinian State

As the United States attempts to disrupt the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United Nations, the 120 countries in the Non-Aligned Movement have announced they will vote for Palestinian statehood when it comes up at the United Nations.  Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr announced the decision.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Mohamed Amr: 'The majority of the Non-Aligned Movement members will endorse a resolution in the General Assembly, if it comes to that (the vote), upholding the right of the Palestinian people to have a full-fledged membership at the United Nations ( ...with the Palestinian capital in Arab East Jerusalem! ).'

- "REPORT: ISRAEL DOUBLES SETTLEMENT CONSTRUCTION SINCE ENDING PARTIAL FREEZE

Palestinians are seeking statehood recognition at the United Nations as Israel continues a MASSIVE expansion of settlements in the occupied West Bank. A new report from the Israeli group Peace Now! says settlement construction has doubled in comparison to building projects in Israel proper since the end of a partial freeze last year. Peace Now!’s Hagit Ofran said Israel has more than made up for the settlement construction it briefly put on hold.

Hagit Ofran: 'Our report shows that there were almost 2,600 units started in settlements after the settlement freeze, which means that all of the freeze (achievements) was already erased. The number of construction in Israel is half of the number of construction in the settlements. And we believe that the government of Israel is working against the Israeli interest, which is not to build in settlements and to make peace with the Palestinians.'" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 9/9/11

The Fates, "The Three Goddesses of Destiny", abound for Mahmoud Abbas!  Will he prove worthy?

 

 

- In the meantime, September 14, 2011 (Thanks to "Here and Now")... -

Robin Young: Israel is now center stage in world politics. Its embassy attacked last week in Egypt. Its long time failed negotiations partner, the Palestinian Authority, gaining support for a bid to bypass those stalled talks altogether, and request statehood at the UN next week. Today we want to take a look at the new chess board in the Middle East, the changed reality since the uprisings known as the Arab Spring, with Michael Slackman. He's deputy foreign editor for the New York Times and has covered the Middle East extensively as Cairo Bureau Chief for the paper. Michael welcome.

Michael Slackman: Hi Robin.

Robin Young: So, give us more of a sense of what's going on with the UN. A lot of people, you know, just come up from their summers. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has said he will submit a statehood application to the UN next Tuesday, but there are actors working furiously in front of and behind the scenes. Yesterday Turkey said that recognition of a Palestinian state is not a choice but an obligation. Germany is less happy, but Israel and the US firmly oppose. They would lose control of negotiations. So what is going on, who are the Palestinians negotiating with? What's happening?

Michael Slackman: Well, that's a big question, that's a lot. Basically what the U.., what the Palestinians are considering doing, and they've not specifically said what they are going to do when they get to the United Nations next week, which is the opening of the annual General Assembly. What they are looking to do is either ask the Security Council to declare them a state, which won't happen because the United States as a permanent member has already said it will veto it, which of course puts the United States in a very awkward position diplomatically with its allies, Arab allies in the Middle East. The other option would be to go before the General Assembly, and bear in mind when we say declare the Palestinians a state, it's in the context of the United Nations, which means that it wouldn't set it's borders, it wouldn't formally create any kind of capitol in East Jerusalem, all that would still be contingent on negotiations, obviously with Israel.

Robin Young: Well then I think that is the question that people have. What does this mean? You're a state, but what about all those roadblocks to all the talks over all the years? So you're saying this would be determined.

Michael Slackman: Well, in terms of facts on the ground, it would definitely put... let's hold on a second, General Assembly, let's start there because it seems that's where they're leaning. Given the comments the Palestinians made to our reporters in the Middle East yesterday, it appears that they're leaning towards asking the General Assembly to grant them what would be called Non-Member Status of the United Nations. They would be comparable to the Holy See, for example, where they would be able to join all of the conventions that other non-member states are allowed to, but would not be able to vote in the United Nations. That's what would effectively happen. Now the ramifications for that for Israel are; Palestinians could go to the Court of International... the International Court of Justice for example, International Criminal Court, and... against Israel regarding settlements, regarding check points, and all kinds of things that Israel would rather not be subject to in front of this court. It could also... there are other conventions that the Palestinians would also be party to and Israel doesn't want to have to deal with that.

Robin Young: Well now we understand that French diplomats are now trying to help the Palestinians shape a UN resolution, and it would somehow describe statehood along the 1967 lines, which, that's been a part of some of the talks involving possible land swaps and giving things up, but as you said it's more about sort of this observer status, so what is the sense that this is gonna happen?

Michael Slackman: It seems inevitable that this will go before the General Assembly now, and that it will likely pass. One of the reasons that I think everybody is upset about this, or I should say the United States and Israel, and some of Israel's allies are upset about this, is because it appears to be a de facto recognition that Oslo has failed. Oslo was the agreement the Palestinian Authority and Israel to move towards a negotiated settlement of the issues that would lead to a two state solution. So basically by doing this you set up a whole new paradigm for negotiations.

Robin Young: But some people are saying that possibly that's a good thing. That it hasn't happened in the other talks.

Michael Slackman: Well that's right. The Palestinians and their allies are saying that... Turkey, the Arab League yesterday said that in order to preserve the very concept of a two state solution we need to do this, because the other system has not worked. The Israelis and the Americans are saying if you do this, it forever undermines and eliminates the prospect of a two state solution.

Robin Young: Well, Michael Slackman, again Deputy Foreign Editor for the New York Times who has covered the Middle East extensively talking about the Palestinian move to make a bid for statehood, not through the two state solution talks that have been ongoing for decades but through the UN, in just about the minute we have before the break and then we'll take it up on the other side. Who's got the position of strength there, how much does the Arab uprising, the Arab Spring, how much does that change the chess board will open up.

Michael Slackman: Well the Arab uprising has clearly seemed to inspire the Palestinians to make this move now, as the Palestinian people have sat by watching as absolutely nothing happened on the ground over the period of years as they watched settlements increase both in East Jerusalem and the occupied territories. They've seen, you know, their brethren around the region cast off dictators and move towards more democratic societies. So I think they, they've very much been influenced by those events around the region.

Robin Young: Michael Slackman, again Deputy Foreign Editor for the New York Times weigh in on that, we have Israelis who are writing maybe this is the only way out, but on the other hand Ziad Asali, founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine, arguing this is a dangerous move for Palestinians, that it will result in bitterness and economic sanctions that are being threatened, by the US.

Michael Slackman: Well look, I think one of the things that history, or modern history, has taught us is to really not try to predict where things are going to go. You know, who would have guessed just a short time ago that crowds in Egypt would be attacking the Israeli embassy and that Israel would have to, you know, send military jets in to evacuate its ambassador?...

Robin Young: And let's examine, let's just take a second, I'm sorry Michael, let's take a second to explain why that might be happening. Hosni Mubarak was a supporter of Israel. At least came as close to one in that region.

Michael Slackman: Well Hosni Mubarak was a supporter of the old paradigm. The old paradigm was built around the Camp David accords and later Oslo. He definitely though, played a double game that allowed deep and virulent anti-Israeli attitudes to exist, indeed fostered them in many ways back home in Egypt. Now that he's gone, and his regime is gone, the kind of bulwark against the anti-Israeli sentiment is gone, and people have developed a culture of protests now and they've seen the effect of taking to the streets. They've been deeply, deeply anti-Israel for a very long time and now that's what's coming to the fore.

Robin Young: Well, tell us what else might be happening. What other factors in the region might be shifting this paradigm now?

Michael Slackman: Well as I think you mentioned earlier, Turkey has taken a much bolder stance against Israel. It was at one time very close ally, it was probably the closest, certainly the closest Muslim nation allied with Israel. They had military and economic ties. I think they peaked in the nineties. Most recently those began to fray when Israel invaded Gaza several years ago in response to non-stop rocket fire. The Turks felt that it was a slap in the face, in part because they were not notified in advance, and in part because they felt very, a kinship with the Palestinians in Gaza, and they felt the Israeli military incursion and bombing was the wrong thing to do. Ever since then we've seen a drifting apart. And then you had efforts on the part of the Israelis to have an embargo on the Gaza strip. There was, was it a year ago? The flotilla of aid ships attempting... really what it was was not about bringing aid in, it was about attempting to demonstrate the ability to break Israel's blockade and siege of the Gaza Strip. Israeli commandos went...dropped down on one of these boats that was Turkish owned and in the ensuing chaos on board when the commandos were attacked ( NOT SO  THE COMMANDOS WERE THE ATTACKERS! ) , they opened fire and killed something on the order of eight or nine Turks who were on the ship. Israel has since refused to apologize, they've said they regretted the deaths. The Turks have said that's not enough, they demanded an apology. In fact the Prime Minister has gone so far as to say he deemed the attack on their ship an act of war. And they, I think it was two weeks ago now, they expelled the Israeli ambassador, downgraded relations and have begun kind of a victory lap now around the Arab Spring countries. The Prime Minister was in Egypt yesterday, I believe he's there today, this is Prime Minister Erdogan we're talking about, and he went immediately on television and criticized Israel very sharply. He's now planning on travelling to Libya and Tunisia, other countries recently liberated from dictators, to promote his vision of the new Middle East as well.

Robin Young: So unsettling times for Israel in the Middle East.

Michael Slackman: Israel is increasingly isolated in the Middle East, and concerned about the relationship with Egypt in particular because they do share a very long border that has been effectively peaceful and it was something they didn't have to worry about. So they would have to reorient their entire military doctrine if the relationship with Egypt sours completely.

Robin Young: Well, and just, you mentioned Gaza and it reminds us that the Palestinians who are going to ask for statehood at the UN are...had been a divided people with Gaza controlled by the more militant Hamas and the West Bank controlled by Abbas' Fatah. Wha...how...who...do...are they in...do we know if their going together? We know there's been reconciliation between the two groups, but...

Michael Slackman: You know, you stumble on the question a little Robin because a lot of this is uncertain.

Robin Young: Right.

Michael Slackman: The Palestinians have clearly not been united on this. One day they announce they're going to the Security Council and their going to demand, they're going to put the US in the position of having to veto it because they want full state status, they don't want observer status. On the next day they announce they're leaning towards going to the General Assembly. So this is not Hamas. This is the Palestinian Authority, and Fatah, that is planning on going before the General Assembly. But presumably it would impact on the residents of the Gaza strip as well.

Robin Young: Well so, what now, today two key diplomats Dennis Ross and David Hale, US diplomats are due in the region for talks. What happens now? We mentioned the threat of sanctions against the Palestinian people, already struggling.

Michael Slackman: Let me give you an example of how complicated this is, with the diplomats handling this. Ok, United States Congress looks at the Palestinians and says...the Congress that is, that's very supportive of Israel, looks at Israel and the Palestinians and says 'you've now broken your agreements, you've gone outside Oslo, so we're gonna stop giving you money.'...

*  WHOA!  WE'RE GOING TO STOP GIVING THE PALESTINIANS A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR$, BUT CONTINUE WITH BILLION$ TO ISRAEL?  SOUNDS LIKE OUR CONGRESS IS ISRAELI, NOT THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS!!!  WAKE UP SLACKMAN!!!

...Well who does that hurt? It hurts the Palestinians, but the Israelis are also concerned because without the funds coming from Washington, they're concerned that the security arrangements that have been quite successful in safeguarding Israel from incursion by militants from the West Bank, and Gaza, will fall apart. So the Israelis are not so sure that they want financial sanctions on the Palestinians either, because ultimately it will land in their lap to have to deal with it.

Robin Young: Michael Slackman on the just incredibly complicated situation in the Mid-East, that's as we said moving very much to the front burner as Palestinians look for statehood through the UN. That'll happen next week. We'll continue to follow this story. Michael thanks for laying it out for us today.

Michael Slackman: Sure Robin.

 

- Palestinians See U.N. Bid as Their Most Viable Option

RAMALLAH, West Bank — "The Palestinian decision to apply for full United Nations membership at the Security Council, announced Friday by President Mahmoud Abbas, was the most viable of the only options possible: surrender, return to violence or appeal to the international community, a senior Palestinian official said Saturday.

The official, Nabil Shaath, spoke to journalists before leaving for New York as part of the Palestinian delegation heading to the United Nations. He said that the appeal would change the ground rules of the conflict, and that although the Obama administration had vowed to veto the request and Israel had threatened punitive countermeasures, the Arab uprisings should make them reconsider.

Nabil Shaath, a Palestinian official, this month. He spoke to
journalists on Saturday before leaving for the United Nations.

'If I were President Obama or Israel, I would ask myself what is happening in the region,' he said, adding of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel: 'Mr. Netanyahu is a pragmatist. If the odds change, he may change his calculations.'

Going to the Security Council instead of to the General Assembly, where there is no veto and where a pro-Palestinian majority is virtually guaranteed, has been considered a riskier and more confrontational approach because it invites an American veto.

But American, European and Israeli officials are now quietly arguing that the Security Council may prove easier for diplomats seeking a formula to get the Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations. The application through the Security Council will take longer because it will involve letters, committee formation and most likely requests for more time to study the situation.

Mr. Netanyahu’s office seemed eager to sound open to renewing talks even after Mr. Abbas presents his membership request letter to the United Nations. It labeled the application useless rather than terminal and added, 'When the Palestinian Authority abandons these futile and unilateral measures at the U.N., it will find Israel to be a genuine partner for direct peace negotiations.'

Mr. Shaath himself said that while Mr. Abbas’s speech on Friday was aimed at 'reassuring our people and the world that we are not hesitating,' Mr. Abbas 'left a door open at the end.'

American and European officials are still hoping to produce a statement to be issued by the so-called Quartet — the diplomatic group focused on the Middle East that is made up of the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia...

The "QUARTET" might consider the RECORD!

...to accompany any United Nations debate and serve as a point to restart negotiations.

But Mr. Shaath was blunt in his dismissal of the elements of a statement presented to Mr. Abbas on Thursday by Dennis B. Ross and David M. Hale, two senior American officials...

DENNIS ROSS, IN PARTICULAR, HAS LONG BEEN "BIBI'S FAVORITE AMERICAN ENVOY"

...TONY BLAIR, THE FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER AND QUARTET REPRESENTATIVE, HAS BEEN THE CENTRAL PLAYER IN DRAFTING THE STATEMENT. Quartet envoys were due to meet in New York on Sunday.

MR. SHAATH SAID THE STATEMENT 'VIOLATED SIX PARAMETERS OF THE PEACE PROCESS,' INCLUDING ACCEPTING ISRAELI SETTLEMENT GROWTH, CALLING ISRAEL A 'JEWISH STATE,' PRE-EMPTING DISCUSSION OF A RIGHT TO RETURN FOR PALESTINIAN REFUGEES TO ISRAEL, AND REJECTING EFFORTS TO UNIFY RIVAL PALESTINIAN FACTIONS: FATAH, WHICH DOMINATES THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, AND HAMAS, WHICH RULES IN GAZA.

'I THINK THAT WAS THE FINAL BLOW, THE FINAL STRAW,' HE SAID OF THE STATEMENT PRESENTED AT THE MEETING WITH MR. ROSS AND MR. HALE. 'AFTER THAT, PRESIDENT ABBAS DECIDED TO GO TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL.'

Mr. Shaath said that when he himself saw the Quartet statement proposal: 'I gulped. This was the statement that was supposed to persuade President Abbas not to go?'...

...(1) 'MR. BLAIR DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A NEUTRAL INTERLOCUTOR. HE SOUNDS LIKE AN ISRAELI DIPLOMAT SOMETIMES.'

Mr. Shaath distributed a 35-page booklet he and his colleagues plan to give to every United Nations delegation. Titled 'Recognizing Palestine: An Investment in Peace,' (2) it lists four reasons the Palestinians have taken this course:  ACTS BY ISRAEL THAT UNDERMINE PEACE, INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TOWARD THE PALESTINIANS, THE GROWTH OF JEWISH SETTLEMENTS and INTENSIFYING ISRAELI DESIGNS ON EAST JERUSALEM.

In discussing these issues on Saturday, Mr. Shaath was particularly cutting about settlements. He said the new Quartet statement never mentioned them except as 'demographic changes since 1967' and 'new facts on the ground.'

'Mr. Netanyahu doesn’t want to pay any price,' he said. 'He wants no swaps. HE WANTS EVERYTHING FOR FREE.'

Israeli leaders make the same accusation of the Palestinians — they are unwilling to give up any of their longstanding demands and to recognize that after more than four decades, circumstances have changed.

Each side accuses the other of violating the Oslo Accords, the 1993 framework that rules their relationship, although neither is willing to declare Oslo dead, only moribund.

Mr. Shaath said that the United Nations move would bring new legitimacy to the Palestinian leadership which, under Mr. Abbas, had 'succeeded in bringing in a new culture of nonviolence,' adding, 'We are not going back to violence.' He said Palestinian security forces would make sure that street demonstrations in coming days would be contained and peaceful.

In an example, hundreds of Palestinian and Israeli women and supporters demonstrated on Saturday for an independent Palestine on both sides of the Kalandia checkpoint between Ramallah and Jerusalem.

The usually traffic-clogged crossing, a point of friction where young Palestinians often clash with Israeli soldiers, was closed to cars by the Israeli military. DESPITE THE THRONGS OF DEMONSTRATORS, THE ATMOSPHERE REMAINED CALM, WITH LITTLE OF THE USUAL STONE-THROWING BY RIOTERS OR FIRING OF TEAR GAS BY THE MILITARY. SOME PALESTINIAN YOUTHS MADE V-SIGNS AND POSED FOR PHOTOGRAPHS NEXT TO ISRAELI SOLDIERS." - Bronner & Kershner N Y Times 9/18/11

The above is a FULL-PAGE AD (A-12) in the 9/19/11 N Y Times!

**  THESE ARE NOT ENOUGH?

AIPAC (The American Israel "Public" Affairs Committee), Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (Do they have similar "Conferences" in Great Britain, France and Germany?), JCPA (Jewish Council for Public Affairs), The Jewish Federations of North America, AJC (American Jewish Committee), ADL (Anti-Defamation League), Union for Reform Judaism, Orthodox Union, The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, HADASAH, NCJW (National Council of Jewish Women), American Jewish Congress, Women's League for Conservative Judaism, B'nai B'rith International, Jewish War Veterans of the United States, CEJL (Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life)

...THREE TO FIVE BILLION$ OF AMERICAN TREASURY SUPPORT, NOW FOR FORTY YEARS?

Our Message!  IT'S TIME TO STAND WITH THE PALESTINIANS!!

 

Who's Interests Come First
For Obama -
The United States, or Israel?

"New Challenges for Obama

WASHINGTON - When President Obama sits down with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey on Tuesday at the United Nations, he will mark another chapter in what is perhaps the most intense relationship that he has cultivated with a foreign leader.

Like many such relationships, it has had its ups and downs. At a meeting in Toronto last year, after Turkey voted no to sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, the two men had a combative two-hour exchange.

On Tuesday, administration officials said, Mr. Obama plans to lean hard on Mr. Erdogan to close Turkey’s bitter rift with Israel. In particular, the White House is worried about TURKEY’S THREAT TO USE ITS WARSHIPS TO ESCORT TURKISH RELIEF SHIPS BOUND FOR GAZA — A SITUATION THAT THE UNITED STATES FEARS COULD EASILY ESCALATE INTO A DEADLY CONFRONTATION." - Landler N Y Times 9/20/11

- To be continued

Fini, with appropriate Laurels, next!

AMY GOODMAN - DEMOCRACYNOW
SET THE PARAMETERS

- "Palestinians Bring Statehood Bid to the United Nations

*  The Palestinian Authority is expected to officially submit its request for statehood recognition at the United Nations today in defiance of U.S. and Israeli threats. The Obama administration has lobbied against the move, and U.S. lawmakers have threatened to cut off funding ( We're going to cut off funding MILLION$ to the Palestinian Authority, but continue the BILLION$ to Netanyahu's Israel? ). Palestinian officials Saeb Erekat and Nabil Shaath said U.S. insistence on dead-end negotiations has forced the PA to take its bid before the United Nations.

Saeb Erekat: "Mr. Netanyahu’s maneuvers are public relations. So, enough. To say, 'Come and meet, and let's talk, and let’s negotiate,’ over what? You have to say it. Mr. Netanyahu has to say it: 'I accept to stop all settlement activities as my obligation, and I accept the two states on 1967.' And we don’t see any contradiction at that moment between resuming negotiations and seeking Palestinian admittance in the U.N."

Dr. Nabil Shaath: "Friday, 9/23/11, will be a day of jubilation in Palestine. The President Abbas will give his speech, he will send his request for membership to the Security Council, and he will leave that evening. And so, it’s a happy day."

Debate: "Does U.N. Statehood Bid Advance or Undermine Palestinian Struggle?

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to officially submit a statehood request to the United Nations in defiance of U.S. and Israeli threats. A new joint Israeli-Palestinian poll shows the Obama administration’s stance on Palestinian recognition at the United Nations is MORE EXTREME than that of a strong majority of Israeli citizens, with 69 percent of Israelis saying their government should accept U.N. recognition of an independent Palestinian state. The survey also found 83 percent of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories support the bid. While supporters have hailed the bid as a step forward in the struggle to end the Israeli occupation and bring peace to the Middle East, critics call it a ploy by the Palestinian Authority to cling to power while undermining the rights of Palestinian refugees. We host a debate with two leading Palestinian analysts: Ali Abunimah, co-founder of the website The Electronic Intifada and author of "One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse," and Mouin Rabbani of the Institute for Palestine Studies and the webzine Jadaliyya.

Guests:

Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of "One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse."
Mouin Rabbani, co-editor of Jadaliyya Ezine and Visiting Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies. He previously he worked as Palestine Director of the Palestinian American Research Center.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to officially submit a statehood request to the United Nations Security Council later today. The United States has vowed to veto the move!

[ ...And all the while we continue to send OUR THREE BILLION$ annually to Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu? ]

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I am convinced that there is no shortcut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians, not us, who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them, on borders and on security, on refugees and Jerusalem.

JUAN GONZALEZ: A new poll shows the Obama administration’s stance on Palestinian recognition at the United Nations is more extreme than that of a strong majority of Israeli citizens. A joint Israeli-Palestinian poll shows 69 percent of Israelis think their government should accept U.N. recognition of an independent Palestinian state. The survey also found 83 percent of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories supported the bid. Many Palestinians have expressed concern about the U.S. decision but remain committed to their goal.

KIMUR, Ramallah Resident: [translated] We have brought a lot to the table, and we have conceded a lot. We have given up on 78 PERCENT OF THE LAND OF HISTORICAL PALESTINE for the state of Israel. What else do they want? They want us to leave. WE WILL NOT LEAVE...

[ "In 1948 the Jewish army expelled three-quarter of a million Palestinians from what then became the State of Israel. Ilan Pappe, the Israeli historian, said he still felt haunted by the story, and then, in 1998, the Israelis opened the military archives, and it became clear that the Zionist's movement had planned to expel the Palestinians long before 1948. In 2006 Ilan Pappe published his most recent book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. He spoke about his work at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands in January/February of 2007." - Maria Gilardin June 2007

Ilan Pappe: "(a synopsis) David Ben Gurion, who led an ideological movement ever since the 19th century, wanted to turn Palestine into a Jewish state with as few Palestinians in it as possible (when he was out of office this first Prime Minister of Israel was annoyed by the presence of so many Palestinians remaining in Israel, particularly in the Galilee). It shows that the leader of the Zionist movement, the 1st Prime Minister of Israel, someone at the heart of the Zionist movement, so annoyed by so many Palestinians in the Galilee, he is committed to a vision that sees historic Palestine as empty of Palestinians. Most of the Israeli Jews in the 1950's thought the same way, and nothing has changed in Israel in 2006. How to get there, how to de-Arabize Palestine. How to make Palestine a Jewish state, (i.e.) get rid of the people who live there (except, of course, for that number of Jewish settlers who in the 1930s had grown to one-third of the population in Palestine as they left the turmoil in Europe). How to deal with the majority in Palestine, the Palestinians. In February of 1947 the Zionists were very focused under Ben Gurion and the advisory committee he organized around him (only hardliners) and it took them a year, to February of 1948 to develop the plan to rid Palestine of the Palestinians, that as many as possible of the one million Palestinians should be expelled. How to do it? The experiment? The Jewish/Zionist army expelled about eight to nine villages. They wanted to see how the world would react. Nothing. So, you come with buses, lorrys - you go into someone's house, there are children, women, men, people have lived in these houses for hundreds of years: 'You have twenty minutes' to get on the bus and out you go. And half an hour after you leave on the bus someone detonates the house and blows it up. So Ben Gurion and others were not sure how the world and the young soldiers would react. Nothing. So, the master plan. They divided Palestine into twelve areas, the Haganah had twelve brigades, each brigade was given a list of villages, neighborhoods in mixed towns and systematically, in seven months, they expelled three-quarter of a million Palestinians, 531 villages were destroyed, eleven towns were demolished."

[Editor's note: This year 2008 is a trying one, not only because of our quadrennial elections which includes our presidency. The year is also the 60th anniversary of the problematic founding of the Jewish State of Israel (For the May '08 celebration George W. Bush will be a feted and honored guest. He's earned it, so to speak, with OUR money!) and, not surprisingly, the year will begin January 9th with a major series on the Public Broadcasting System, PBS, and a "companion landmark book (which) chronicles three hundred years of Jewish American history".] ]

...We will stay. And we will not be afraid of America, Israel or any other threats, whether they are to cut off donations or American aid. We will persist to remain on this land.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, Israeli Deputy Speaker of the Knesset Danny Danon praised President Obama’s speech at the United Nations and warned Israel will have a strong reaction to the Palestinian bid for U.N. membership.

DANNY DANON: There is no hope in the near future. This is the reality for the near future. Until we will see a viable partner among the Palestinians, there will be no real, genuine peace. It is not popular to say it. We all want change, peace, tomorrow morning. It’s not going to happen tomorrow morning. We will have to wait until we will see a real SUPINE partner among the Palestinians.

AMY GOODMAN: Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has said President Mahmoud Abbas will not be deterred and hopes the U.S. will not continue to be opposed to his country’s bid for statehood.

SAEB EREKAT: I would hope that the U.S. would revisit its position, because if we want to seek a Middle East that’s democratic, free, void of extremists and so on, we cannot maintain the status quo. The U.S. cannot continue treating Israel as a country above the laws of man. And that’s the truth.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more on the proposal for Palestinian statehood set to go before the U.N. Security Council, we’re joined by two guests. Ali Abunimah is the co-founder of news and analysis website, The Electronic Intifada, and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. He’s in Cleveland. We’re also joined by Mouin Rabbani in Washington, D.C., visiting scholar at the Institute for Palestine Studies. He is also co-editor of Jadaliyya Ezine. Previously he worked as Palestine director of the Palestinian American Research Center.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s go first to Washington, D.C., to Mouin Rabbani. What is your take on what is happening today at the United Nations, Mahmoud Abbas presenting his statehood bid?

MOUIN RABBANI: Yeah, well, the Palestinian leadership today is going to deposit an application for full membership in the United Nations at the Security Council. And it seems that the Security Council, at the behest of Washington, will sit on it, while Washington seeks to garner enough votes in opposition to this proposal, so it doesn’t have to exercise a veto. And it seems that the Palestinian leadership is not going to increase the pressure by also going to the General Assembly.

I have to say I think the main issue here is not the bid for recognition or statehood. I think the key issue here is the extent to which this initiative creates space and possibility for the internationalization of the question of Palestine in all its dimensions. In other words, a beginning of an irrevocable turn away from the Oslo process, which time and again has proven that it serves as nothing more than a political cover for the consolidation of Israeli control and the deepening colonization of the Occupied Territories.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Ali Abunimah, you have been a vocal opponent or critic of this move by the Palestinians. Why?

ALI ABUNIMAH: Good morning, Juan. Good morning, Amy and Mouin.

Well, if we take what the PA, the Palestinian Authority, leadership say at face value, they say that their goal here was to try to break the status quo and to sort of return to negotiations, but on much better and more reasonable terms. That’s what they said. And if we evaluate it by those criteria, it’s been a complete disaster, because, in fact, what we saw from President Obama was a speech that was more pro-Israel than anything we have ever seen from him, which is saying something. And that was not a speech by a president of the United States addressing a world body with any sincerity about bringing an end to the conflict. That was a candidate running in an election where he is being very falsely and unfairly accused of not being pro-Israel enough. And that showed in the speech. So, the Palestinian Authority, rather than having ended the Oslo status quo, will go back home having achieved nothing and having simply demonstrated that it remains a captive of a situation where Palestinians are expected to carry out security, so-called security, for the Israeli occupation, are totally dependent on European Union and United States financing, and therefore financial blackmail, and have closed off all avenues for political action. And so, I see, really, this as a total failure.

The source of the opposition really came from a lot of Palestinians across the political spectrum who expressed fears that going to the United Nations to call for a state on a fraction of historic Palestine, without recognition of any other Palestinian rights, such as the rights of Palestinian refugees or the rights of Palestinian citizens in Israel, rather than advancing the cause of Palestine, could actually limit it and circumscribe it in the future because of unintended consequences. But it doesn’t look like that’s going to be a factor, after all, because this bid has gone absolutely nowhere.

AMY GOODMAN: Mouin Rabbani, your response?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, you know, Ali is making the point that, for the Palestinian leadership, they’ve approached this entire issue as a tactical maneuver rather than a strategic initiative. And in that, he’s completely correct.

The point, rather, is, does this—does this initiative—or to the extent that it’s initiative, rather—create possibilities for a new dynamic for Palestinians to deal with the issues of occupation and self-determination and so on? And what I think you’ve seen in Palestinian society is a very broad desire to begin to move decisively away from the Oslo framework, which has been really, you know, bilateral negotiations, forever, about nothing, under unilateral American custodianship, with the U.S.—you know, Obama’s speech yesterday left even the Israelis in stunned disbelief about the extent of its pro-Israeli partisanship. So, no disagreement there. Rather, the issue is, you now have this initiative. This initiative creates possibilities, if the leadership is put under sufficient pressure by Palestinian society, to take it well beyond what the leadership intended. I think what Ali has been saying about the leadership is, more or less, essentially correct. But there—you know, the dynamic that’s created is by no means limited to what the leadership intends to do with it. And I think the key issue here is that this provides an opportunity to move away from Oslo and back towards the internationalization of the question of Palestine, where Palestinian—the issues of Palestinian self-determination are addressed on the basis of Palestinian rights as codified in a very large corpus of U.N. resolutions, rather than, you know, being codified in the pro-Israeli positions of the American administration and a Congress that has decisively gone off the deep end.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Ali Abunimah, what about this issue of bringing back the question of the—through the international community, of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian question? I was struck a couple of days ago by an interview with Brzezinski, a former key official in the Carter administration, who said that he saw this as a possible turning point in terms of the loss of influence of the United States in the Middle East and the rise, basically, of the European powers to be—to take a lead in attempting to resolve the question.

ALI ABUNIMAH: I don’t think that’s right. On the contrary, the role the European Union has been playing has been absolutely abject in terms of trying to be sort of a deal maker to get Israel’s demands written into Quartet statements, the Quartet being the self-appointed ad hoc group of international officials that has unilaterally placed the—replaced the United Nations on the question of Palestine. And the European Union provides the largest subsidies to Israeli occupation under the guise of aid to the Palestinian Authorities. So I don’t see the Europeans playing that role.

But on the question of internationalization and changing the dynamic, I agree with Mouin that that’s what needs to happen. But, you know, listen to your—to the introduction to this debate, and we had someone called Saeb Erekat being quoted as the chief negotiator. I and the rest of the Palestinians thought that Saeb Erekat had resigned after the scandals of the Palestine Papers were revealed. And yet, there he still is, calling himself chief negotiator. I think that that demonstrates the lack of accountability of this Palestinian leadership, the lack of connection to the Palestinian people, the lack of responsiveness to the Palestinian people, particularly the Palestinian diaspora and Palestinian citizens of Israel, who have essentially been written out of the question of Palestine. And part of the disaster of the Oslo process has been to reduce and circumscribe the Palestinian cause to residents of the West Bank and Gaza—and now perhaps only residents of the West Bank, as even Gaza is consigned to the garbage can.

And what we really need to do, I think, is rebuild a Palestinian consensus and body politic based on the rights and demands of every segment of the Palestinian people, inside and outside the country, based on fundamental rights, not a demand for limited statehood, which ignores the rights of the majority of Palestinians. Can this bid jump-start that process? I don’t know. But I think there are other movements going on that have been much more dynamic and much more inclusive, such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which was dismissed as very marginal just a couple of years ago but is now sufficiently frightening and threatening to Israel, that they’re enlisting the United States government to fight it, which, of course, the Obama administration has enthusiastically volunteered to do by pledging to help Israel fight so-called delegitimization. What they call delegitimization, we call a struggle for universal rights and self-determination of Palestinians.

AMY GOODMAN: Mouin Rabbani—

ALI ABUNIMAH: So I think there are other avenues that need to be explored. And this U.N. bid, I think, has, if anything, demonstrated the dead end of a diplomatic process within a U.N. system that is so hopelessly broken and rigged on behalf of the powerful.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, Mouin Rabbani, your response, but also what you would have liked to have seen President Obama say?

MOUIN RABBANI: Well, you know, Ali makes some very relevant criticisms of the Palestinian leadership, and I think one could add many more to what he’s said. And, of course, what is an essential requirement here is a reconstruction of the Palestinian national movement on the basis of an inclusive and purposeful strategy, and all the rest of it. At the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that there is this initiative at the United Nations and that Palestinians now have an opportunity to take this initiative well beyond the objectives for which it was launched by the leadership and to seek to intelligently use this initiative to promote the re-internationalization of the question of Palestine by addressing the issues of self-determination and the end of occupation on the basis of Palestinian rights as codified in international law and U.N. resolutions. I don’t think that that issue should have to wait until we get the leadership that we want or that we deserve, and I don’t think that these two elements are necessarily contradictory.

NOW, IN TERMS OF OBAMA’S SPEECH, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT’S—AGAIN, ISRAELIS THEMSELVES REACTED WITH STUNNED DISBELIEF THAT AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT WOULD GIVE A SPEECH AT THE U.N. THAT LEFT EVEN AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN DELIGHTED AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, BIBI NETANYAHU IS NOW GOING TO HAVE TO REWRITE HIS OWN SPEECH, LEST HE COME ACROSS AS LESS ISRAELI THAN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

So, again, you know, getting back to the larger question, one of the key values of going to the United Nations and promoting the internationalization of the question of Palestine is precisely to get away from this hopelessly compromised American role in—not in resolving this conflict, but which has in fact come down to a policy of transforming Israeli impunity and promoting Israeli impunity as a central plank of American Middle East policy and basically acting in support of perpetual Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. So there can be no solution within the current framework. There can be no solution, unless the American role is replaced by a genuinely international one. And I think that going to the United Nations represents an essential first step in that direction, complemented, of course, by many other strategies and tactics, some of which Ali has mentioned. But at the end of the day, one either has Oslo or one has internationalization, and I don’t think that there’s a third option between the two.

AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, Mouin Rabbani, with the Institute for Palestine Studies, and Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse... - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 9/23/11

 

[ The 9/23/11 Lehrer - PBS Newshour stiffed the Palestinian news story.  Out of deference to David Brooks, or to Rosh Hashanah?  Stay Tuned. ]

 

**  Hanan Ashrawi, distinguished Palestinian activist and Professor of English Literature at Birzeit University, Ramallah, West Bank - Professor Ashrawi accentuates the revelations of Ilan Pappe, in her 9/25/11 appearance on Christiane Amanpour's "This Week".

Ms. Amanpour: And joining me now, Hanan Ashrawi, a top Palestinian negotiator.

Thank you for being with us.

Prof. Ashrawi: Thank you, Christiane. It's good to be here.

Ms. Amanpour: It's really good to have you and to talk about this really important issue.

Prof. Ashrawi: Absolutely.

Ms. Amanpour: Is there a day after? President Abbas did what he did; prime minister of Israel has said, come on, let's talk, let's not wave papers around. Is there negotiations in the offing?

Prof. Ashrawi: Well, you know what we've been doing for the last 20 years. We've been negotiating, Christiane. We've been negotiating ad nauseum with a process that had no relationship to reality. That's the problem.

Ms. Amanpour: So what happens now, though? Now we're in a new situation.

Prof. Ashrawi: Now negotiations are not an objective. They are a means. And these have been a very flawed instrument. Either you fix the tool, the instrument, or you find alternatives. So if you negotiate and you buy Israel time to create unilateral facts, to build more settlements, to steal more land, it is in danger of destroying the whole -- not just peace process, but the prospects of peace.

Ms. Amanpour: The United States and its allies, the quartet, U.N., et cetera, have called for talks to start and to be concluded by the end of 2012.

Prof. Ashrawi: Absolutely.

Ms. Amanpour: Is that remotely possible?

Prof. Ashrawi: Look, what's possible is -- and we've said this very clearly -- if Israel commits to the terms of reference '67 boundaries, the two-state solution, Jerusalem as the capital, and with a timeframe, binding timeframe, as well as cessation of all settlement activities -- Israel talks about the two-state solution, talks about talks, but is busy stealing the land. It has stolen over 40 percent of the West Bank, and it has annexed Jerusalem, and it has changed the terms of reference and the agenda.

Ms. Amanpour: And...

Prof. Ashrawi: So if they commit, we will negotiate. If they don't commit, then we have to look for alternatives, because this is the end of the two-state solution. Look, Christiane, we've known each other for years. I'm not prone to hyperbole or lies or anything, but -- and no-panic politics (ph), but when President Abbas said this is the moment of truth, this is it, because soon there will be no two-state solution.

Ms. Amanpour: So people are concerned that he may have raised his people's expectations, that this is just going to deepen intransigence from the United States, from those opposed to these unilateral moves, and could lead to violence...

(CROSSTALK)

Ms. Amanpour: Do you think that's possible?

Prof. Ashrawi: Look, the only unilateral moves are Israeli moves on the ground (inaudible) the apartheid wall, the...

Ms. Amanpour: But what do you think is going to be the reaction of the Palestinians?

Prof. Ashrawi: Settlements -- no, the Palestinian people are very political, very astute, and they know -- they know that this a new phase. This is not the end of the road. This is the beginning of a new phase, that for 20 years, we've seen more lives lost, more land lost, more freedoms lost, and Israel has maintained the enslavement of the whole Palestinian people. They want to see a change in the modus operandi. They want the Palestinian not just identity, but rights to be vindicated and to be based on international law and international humanitarian law.

Ms. Amanpour: Prime...

Prof. Ashrawi: If it doesn't happen, then the power politics of a brutal military occupation will prevail.

Ms. Amanpour: Prime Minister Netanyahu, as you saw, said let's talk now. One of the things he spoke very loudly about at the U.N. was recognize Israel as a Jewish state. If you want a Palestinian state, fine, recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Prof. Ashrawi: Look -- look, we recognized Israel in...

Ms. Amanpour: Will the Palestinians do that? Because the quartet's even...

(CROSSTALK)

Prof. Ashrawi: We recognized Israel in '93. If Israel wants to change its name, it has to go to the Security Council or whatever and ask everybody that's recognized it to recognize it again as a Jewish state. We want a Palestinian state that is pluralistic, inclusive, and tolerant. I don't want an Islamic state or a Christian state. Why should I want a Jewish state?

But at the same time, look, in Israel, there are Palestinians who are Christians and Muslims. And when we say Jewish state, it means not only are they legitimately discriminated against, but that the Palestinian refugees have no right to return.

Ms. Amanpour: Let...

Prof. Ashrawi: Now, if Israel wants to call itself a Jewish state, then it has to go through the proper procedures to change its name.

Ms. Amanpour: But as you know very well...

Prof. Ashrawi: But we recognized it already. How come we're the only people who are asked to re-recognize Israel?

Ms. Amanpour: But you know very well -- and I know we're not going to negotiate this now -- but the whole issue of -- of return is a big issue, and they won't all be allowed to go into Israel.

Prof. Ashrawi: But that's -- you see, that's the problem. Israel has placed so many preconditions. It wants to annex Jerusalem. It wants to remove the refugees from the agenda. It wants to keep its troops in the Jordan Valley. It wants to (inaudible) it wants everything and it wants to annex all the settlement clusters and then says, "Let's talk."

No. There are unacceptable preconditions. Either you negotiate in good faith and act accordingly, in order to achieve the two-state solution, or this option will no longer be available, particularly given the Arab Spring, where this is a new phase, this is a new region, and it's a new ballgame, and they should understand the significance.

Ms. Amanpour: And we'll keep watching it. Complicated issue, as ever. Hanan Ashrawi, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us.

Prof. Ashrawi: Thank you. My pleasure.

 

- ADDENDUM

U.S. Quietly Supplies Israel With Bunker-Busting Bombs

By Thom Shanker

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has quietly supplied Israel with bombs capable of destroying buried targets, like terrorists’ arms caches or PERHAPS SITES IN IRAN SUSPECTED OF BEING PART OF THAT NATION’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM, American officials said Friday.

The administration’s transfer of bunker-busting bombs, first reported in an online article by Newsweek, began in 2009. American officials who confirmed the shipments spoke on the condition of anonymity, because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. They declined to comment on the number of bombs that had been supplied to Israel or on their capabilities.

ISRAEL HAD SOUGHT THIS CLASS OF WEAPONS FOR MANY YEARS. IN 2005, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION NOTIFIED CONGRESS OF A PENDING TRANSFER TO ISRAEL OF BOMBS DESIGNED TO DESTROY BURIED TARGETS. “This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a FRIENDLY COUNTRY,” a news release from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency stated.

Subsequent notifications of plans to sell Israel different models of bunker-busting weapons were sent to Congress by the agency again in 2007 and 2008.

- Shipment of the weapons, which Israel had sought for years, began in 2009. -

But the weapons were not given to Israel at the time. Pentagon officials were frustrated that Israel had transferred military technology to China. And there were deep concerns that IF THE UNITED STATES SUPPLIED BUNKER-BUSTING BOMBS TO ISRAEL, IT MIGHT BE VIEWED AS HAVING TACITLY ENDORSED AN ATTACK ON IRAN.

In the interim, Israel developed its own bunker-busting bomb, officials said, but the American variants were viewed as more cost-effective.

George Little, the Pentagon press secretary, declined to comment on the reports of a weapons transfer. “We’re not going to comment on these press reports, but make no mistake about it: the United States is committed to the security of Israel and Israel’s ability to maintain its qualitative military edge,” Mr. Little said.

THE ISSUE IS SO SENSITIVE THAT ISRAELI MILITARY OFFICIALS ASKED THE UNITED STATES NOT TO RELEASE DOCUMENTATION OF THE ARMS TRANSFER, EVEN IF REQUESTED UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, ACCORDING TO AMERICAN OFFICIALS.

Reports of the arms transfer to Israel could help President Obama’s political standing among Jewish voters.

The relationship between the administration and the Israeli government has been bruised by a variety of political and geopolitical matters, and efforts by the administration to strengthen the Israeli military may convince some voters that the president is sufficiently supportive of Israel. - Thom Shanker N Y Times 9/24/11

More to Come!

Extraordinaire Revue

 

**  In view of the record these last several weeks ( ...and 60-odd years ), what follows is genuinely surreal!

As Palestinians seek U.N. entry, a push for talks

By Neil MacFarquhar & Steven Lee Meyers

UNITED NATIONS - President Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, formally requested full United Nations membership for his as yet undefined country on Friday. But before the thunderous applause greeting his announcement in the General Assembly had faded, international powers laid out a new plan to resume direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that was designed to delay a contentious vote on the Palestinian request AS LONG AS POSSIBLE.

THE ESSENCE

James Zogby, an American pollster long involved in the peace negotiations, noted that virtually every attempt TO FORGE A TREATY SINCE 1993 HAD INCLUDED A DEADLINE THAT EXPIRED WITHOUT PROGRESS.

“What we have done now for the last 20 plus years is engage people in an endless process,” he said. “As long as they were riding the bicycle it didn’t matter if it wasn’t going anywhere as long as it didn’t fall down.”

AT THE ANNUAL UNITED NATIONS GATHERING OF WORLD LEADERS, MR. ABBAS WAS GREETED FRIDAY WITH NUMEROUS STANDING OVATIONS.

“I do not believe anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for full admission in the United Nations,” Mr. Abbas said, calling eventual statehood “the realization of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people.”

THE MOST SUSTAINED APPLAUSE, PUNCTUATED WITH CHEERS, CAME AS HE HELD UP A COPY OF THE LETTER REQUESTING MEMBERSHIP.

Connecting his statehood request with the Arab uprisings, he said, “THE TIME HAS COME ALSO FOR THE PALESTINIAN SPRING, THE TIME FOR INDEPENDENCE.”

Both leaders spoke for about 40 minutes, adopting professorial tones as they explained the conflict.

MR. NETANYAHU SCOLDED THE UNITED NATIONS, DESCRIBING IT AS A “THEATER OF THE ABSURD” FOR WHAT HE CALLED ITS UNFAIR FIXATION ON CONDEMNING ISRAEL.

The Security Council is expected to form a committee next week with one representative from each of the 15 members to study the proposal, which can take several weeks. It is unclear whether the Palestinians have the nine Council votes needed to move it to the General Assembly for final approval, WITH THE UNITED STATES ACTIVELY COURTING “NO” VOTES TO AVOID HAVING TO USE ITS VETO. - MacFarquhar & Meyers N Y Times 9/24/11

 

It's a given, that although the propaganda machine in the American media is widespread and deep, it conforms to a constant monograph.  Please note the ethnicity prevalent for Fox News [ Roger Ailes to Chris Wallace ] , for NPR [ Neil Conan, Robert Siegal ( Mr. Siegal often hosts "All Things Considered", i.e. All Things, that is, EXCEPT Israel, a trait which also characterizes Scott Simon's "NPR Weekend Edition" ) ]

The elite of the above group has always been, i.e. following the reign of William Safir ( oops, Safire ) , i.e. the pride of the combine has always been "Charlie" Rose, who, until September 26, 2011, kept his heritage in check, until that recent date, and then proceeded, in the on-air company ( "for the full hour" ) with Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, and then Rose let it all hang out and, knowingly or unknowingly, revealed and virtually endorsed this apocalyptic, pseudo messianic & maniacal Prime Minister of Israel who, clearly, represents a threat to the Middle East, indeed, to the entire world.

Back to Mr. Simon, who, on his 10/1/11 offering managed to promote an up-and-coming "Terrorist" TV program for "Showtime", the general theme being that a terrorist "attack is imminent"!  But in that the "Show", according to Mr. Simon, follows one on Israeli television, it is unlikely in the American version, to feature for example, "surveillance techniques" that a combination of U. S. and Israeli intelligence efforts were successful gathering "decisive evidence" that Iran had "an underground weapon-making center"!  Pity, because such a find would have great box-office appeal, and energize individuals like David Sanger, who have made careers of claiming that Iran is developing a nuclear capability so as to provide cover for the Israeli fixation on bombing Iran.

Unfortunately, for the likes of Mr. Sanger, the actual record is as follows:

"Street signs were surreptitiously removed in heavily populated areas of Tehran - say, near a university suspected of conducting nuclear enrichment - and replaced with similar-looking signs implanted with radiation sensors.  American operatives, working under cover, also removed bricks from a building or two in central Tehran that they thought housed nuclear enrichment activities and replaced them with bricks embedded with radiation-monitoring devices.

High-powered sensors disguised as stones were spread randomly along roadways in a mountainous area where a suspected underground weapon site was under construction.  The stones were capable of transmitting electronic data on the weight of the vehicles going in and out of the site; a truck going in light and coming out heavy could be hauling dirt - crucial evidence of excavation work.  There is also constant satellite coverage of major suspect areas in Iran, and some American analysts were assigned the difficult task of examining footage in the hope of finding air vents - signs, perhaps, of an underground facility in lightly populated areas."

Obviously, we're quoting Seymour Hersh's "IRAN AND THE BOMB" in The New Yorker 6/6/11, much of which we have posted.  The key of course, as Hersh reports, is "the two most recent National Intelligence Estimates (N.I.E.) on Iranian nuclear progress "have stated that there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any effort to build the bomb since 2003", and of course, prior to 2003, Iran's greatest concern was Iraq!  Jewish interests, of course, disregard these N. I. E.s, "the actual ground truth of the American government", and enlist the likes of Joe Lieberman to state "it's pretty clear that they (Iran) are continuing to work seriously on a nuclear-weapons program".

What follows is an almost historic ( what with today's media ) international promotion by the dean of Israeli apologists, "Charlie" Rose, with the diabolical Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Charlie Rose: …Speaking of Iran. There was a recent IAEA report, as you well know, saying that they have a significant more newly established centrifuges that can enrich uranium up to twenty percent. There is that. And you have spoken about the fear of Iran, and its destabilizing impact on the region, as well. There is also a little noticed news item today, that the Pentagon is going to send to you these double bunker buster bombs, that will be coming to Israel. Under which circumstances would you find it essential to Israeli security interests to do so?

Benjamin Netanyahu: It’s central to the world’s security interests. It’s central to America’s security interests. Iran is developing a program for nuclear weapons. It is developing rockets. Missile, ICBMs, to reach, not Israel, they already have the missiles to reach Israel, THEY ARE DEVELOPING ICBMS TO REACH MANHATTAN. They’re developing warheads. They say, Ahmadinejad, who spoke here the other day, at the UN. You know it’s outrageous. ( BIBI . DON'T . CHANGE . THE . SUBJECT!  BIBI DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT.  THE  ISSUE  IS  THE  PALESTINIANS! )  They should all have walked out when he implied that 9/11 was an American plot. I thought…my stomach turned over, you know. When I laid that wreath on that memorial, it was extraordinary. But what’s more extraordinary is that this man comes to this city and implies this madness. Do you want this guy to have nuclear weapons? Well here’s what he’s saying, “Well we’re not having nuclear weapons. We’re developing these medical isotopes for medical treatment.”  [ NO, BIBI.  THEY'RE DEVELOPING NUCLEAR POWER, WHICH IS THEIR RIGHT!  WERE THEY PURSUING NUCLEAR WEAPONS THEIR CENTRIFUGES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DELIVER 90 PERCENT PURITY NOT 20 PERCENT. ]  He’s developing these medical…

Charlie Rose: centrifuges
Benjamin Netanyahu: …these medical isotopes to put on ICBMs to deliver to patients in New York City huh? There’s got to be a cheaper way to deliver this stuff. Of course he’s developing nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them, not only…

Charlie Rose: Ok, so what is this...
Benjamin Netanyahu: …not only to us, but to you. I think that stopping him is not only, should not only be my concern, and it is. It should be the concern of America, and it is. It should be the concern of every civilized nation.  [ IN FACT, "EVERY CIVILIZED NATION" IS INVOLVED OPPOSING YOUR EFFORTS TO CONTINUALLY OCCUPY PALESTINIAN LAND, PARTICULARLY HISTORIC ARAB EAST JERUSALEM ]

[ [ BIBI!  WHAT ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS WHO ISRAEL HAS BEEN KILLING, ALMOST AT RANDOM, FOR SIXTY-ODD YEARS.

"In 1948 the Jewish army expelled three-quarter of a million Palestinians from what then became the State of Israel. Ilan Pappe, the Israeli historian, said he still felt haunted by the story, and then, in 1998, the Israelis opened the military archives, and it became clear that the Zionist's movement had planned to expel the Palestinians long before 1948. In 2006 Ilan Pappe published his most recent book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. He spoke about his work at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands in January/February of 2007." - Maria Gilardin June 2007

Ilan Pappe: "(a synopsis) David Ben Gurion, who led an ideological movement ever since the 19th century, wanted to turn Palestine into a Jewish state with as few Palestinians in it as possible (when he was out of office this first Prime Minister of Israel was annoyed by the presence of so many Palestinians remaining in Israel, particularly in the Galilee). It shows that the leader of the Zionist movement, the 1st Prime Minister of Israel, someone at the heart of the Zionist movement, so annoyed by so many Palestinians in the Galilee, he is committed to a vision that sees historic Palestine as empty of Palestinians. Most of the Israeli Jews in the 1950's thought the same way, and nothing has changed in Israel in 2006. How to get there, how to de-Arabize Palestine. How to make Palestine a Jewish state, (i.e.) get rid of the people who live there (except, of course, for that number of Jewish settlers who in the 1930s had grown to one-third of the population in Palestine as they left the turmoil in Europe). How to deal with the majority in Palestine, the Palestinians.

In February of 1947 the Zionists were very focused under Ben Gurion and the advisory committee he organized around him (only hardliners) and it took them a year, to February of 1948 to develop the plan to rid Palestine of the Palestinians, that as many as possible of the one million Palestinians should be expelled. How to do it? The experiment? The Jewish/Zionist army expelled about eight to nine villages. They wanted to see how the world would react. Nothing. So, you come with buses, lorrys - you go into someone's house, there are children, women, men, people have lived in these houses for hundreds of years: 'You have twenty minutes' to get on the bus and out you go. And half an hour after you leave on the bus someone detonates the house and blows it up. So Ben Gurion and others were not sure how the world and the young soldiers would react. Nothing.

So, the master plan. They divided Palestine into twelve areas, the Haganah had twelve brigades, each brigade was given a list of villages, neighborhoods in mixed towns and systematically, in seven months, they expelled three-quarter of a million Palestinians, 531 villages were destroyed, eleven towns were demolished."

[Editor's note: This year 2008 is a trying one, not only because of our quadrennial elections which includes our presidency. The year is also the 60th anniversary of the problematic founding of the Jewish State of Israel (For the May '08 celebration George W. Bush will be a feted and honored guest. He's earned it, so to speak, with OUR money!) and, not surprisingly, the year will begin January 9th with a major series on the Public Broadcasting System, PBS, and a "companion landmark book (which) chronicles three hundred years of Jewish American history".] ] ]

Charlie Rose: At what point will you say, “I cannot wait any longer”? What will be the factors that will make you take that decision?
Benjamin Netanyahu: Well I hope that we all recognize that we have to act in time.
Charlie Rose: Are you alarmed that that day, that point of decision may be clear and soon.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Well the Iranian goal of getting to a nuclear weapon gets closer with every day that passes.

Charlie Rose: Is there a difference between what Israeli intelligence says about that, and what US intelligence says?
Benjamin Netanyahu: The differences have narrowed considerably over the years, as we’re getting closer and closer. You know we’re not…we’re…usually we’re on the same page on this.
Charlie Rose: Is it a year away? Is it five years away?
Benjamin Netanyahu: It’s a lot less further away than it was a few years ago.
Charlie Rose: A lot less?
Benjamin Netanyahu: Yep.

Charlie Rose: Did the Stuxnet virus do great damage do you think? ( The Stuxnet virus had to do with, not nuclear weaponry, but with the development of nuclear power.  Prime Minister Netanyahu is simply trying to confuse us! )
Benjamin Netanyahu: Well it’s a lot less further away.  ( ...FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONRY, OR NUCLEAR POWER? )

Charlie Rose: A lot less, despite that, it’s a lot less further away?
Benjamin Netanyahu: Even if they had problems, you know, they keep on moving. They’re very determined.
Charlie Rose: But is it a year? Is it two years? Is it in that ball park do you think?
Benjamin Netanyahu: You’re not that far off.  ( Mr. Prime Minister?  Are you threatening to bomb Iran? )
Charlie Rose: And you say to the Israeli people “I will not let this stand”.
Benjamin Netanyahu: I…I think that this is an imperative for all, for Israel, for the United States, for everyone. President Obama has said he is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and I think if you look in a perspective of the twenty-first century – I know we spent most our time talking here about the Palestinian issues…

Charlie Rose: But I brought it back to this because I know how much you feel like this is a greater security issue for you.
Benjamin Netanyahu: It’s not only that, the Palestinian…peace with the Palestinians will not stop the centrifuges from spinning in Tehran.  ( THOSE CENTRIFUGES ARE SPINNING FOR NUCLEAR POWER!  NOT FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONRY.  SEYMOUR HERSH MAKES THAT CLEAR WITH EVIDENCE GATHERED IN HIS 6/6/11 "IRAN AND THE BOMB" WHICH QUOTES THE LATEST National Intelligence Estimates of the United States! )

Charlie Rose ( "Charlie" is falling into line! ): Absolutely.
Benjamin Netanyahu: But, if you stop the centrifuges from spinning in Tehran, you might actually get an easier peace with the Palestinians. Half of the Palestinian population that is controlled by Iran, Hamas, would immediately lose any meaning, because without Iran, without Iran's invincibility, Hamas doesn’t go very far. It’s like Cuba without the Soviet Union.
Charlie Rose: There is a note that Iran has diminished authority, because of the Arab Spring, because some of their allies are against them. Hamas, for example, had a different place in what happened in Syria, than the Iranian government did.

Benjamin Netanyahu: But Iran…there are these occasional contradictions, but by and large, in this earthquake, or sandstorm, that is sweeping the region, Iran is a force that continues to seek to subvert the Arab Spring to militant Islamic militancies, and they’re meddling and they’re involved in just about every country, to the worst, in the worst way. ( Huh?  It is common knowledge that HALF of Israel's military - clandestine budget is dedicated to subverting its Middle East neighbors! ) But you ask about their nuclear weapons program. I have no doubt that if they, if Iran, this Ayatollah regime, has nuclear weapons, then I think the Arab Spring will turn into an Iranian winter. I think there would be a dire threat for the future of my country. And I think there would be a malignancy – that’s the way I call it, a malignancy – inserted between the West and the East. That could threaten the peace of all of us. And I think the, the greatest imperative at the beginning of the twentieth century for responsible leaders everywhere, is to make sure that this does not happen ( Rather, for the leaders of this 21st Century, the challenge is to corral Israel which, as it stands, is threatening every Islamic state in the Middle East! ) .

Charlie Rose: Do you feel any responsibility to have…an approval from the United States government before you took unilateral Israeli action?
Benjamin Netanyahu: Well, look, Israel’s a sovereign country ( DOES THIS MEAN WE, THE UNITED STATES, CAN HALT THE ANNUAL FIVE BILLION$ "CONTRIBUTION", ONGOING SINCE THE 1960'S? ), and we always reserve the right to defend ourselves, but I wouldn’t get…I wouldn’t say anything beyond that.
Charlie Rose: Do you feel that Israel today is, in a sense, within the environment that you’re operating, is being, in a sense, demonized? And is that a big issue for you?

Benjamin Netanyahu: Sure, sure it’s being vilified all the time. It’s being slandered… ( the "Cast Lead Massacre" from 12/26/08 to 1/18/09 was not slander, it was indiscriminate killing of 1,400 Gaza Palestinians, because the Israelis felt they could get away with it! ) there’s a cast of characters. There’s a play. The Palestinian’s want peace, Israel doesn’t want peace. I don’t want peace. It’s completely contradicted by the evidence ( The "evidence"?  The actual evidence is clear for all the world to see, a constant, feverish effort by the Israelis to illegally build Jewish houses on occupied Palestinian land! ), by the actual evidence of all the offers we’ve made for peace, all the steps we’ve taken for peace, and the fact the Palestinians haven’t done that. So that’s the play. And outside this bogus play, outside the theater, are these vast things that are happening that people are not even noticing. That is Iran’s designs, and its development of nuclear weapons, and its…this apocalyptic, messianic sect, that could get atomic bombs...

[ THIS pretty much demolishes Mr. Netanyahu's diatribe, and exposes "Charlie" Rose's acquiescence! ]

...And threaten not only the peace, but threaten all of us. That…that, is a…is a great concern for me. Looking at it from a historical perspective, I rail against some of the, you know, the commentators and so on whose sense of history doesn’t go beyond breakfast, you know. It’s something very big is happening here, and it should be…it should be stopped, and I think if it is stopped, I think actually…
Charlie Rose: It being what?

Benjamin Netanyahu: The arming of Iran with nuclear weapons, the march of militant Islam. I think in a historical context…
Charlie Rose: The interesting thing, it has not been the march of militant Islam that has fueled the Arab Spring…
Benjamin Netanyahu: No. No.
Charlie Rose: …You know that, but you know that may be a competing argument as these governments try to struggle on…
Benjamin Netanyahu: No no. I think quite the contrary. I think it wasn’t militant Islam…
Charlie Rose: Exactly.

Benjamin Netanyahu: …but they could come, you know, look at what could happen in Egypt now. It wasn’t started by the militant Islamists, but they could be the only organized power that will take over. And then you get the opposite of what you want which is what happened in Lebanon. Lebanon you had the…you know you had the…cedar revolution that was going to talk about a new secular forward and progressive Lebanon. That was six years ago. Now Iran controls it. Hezbollah controls it. So Lebanon has descended into a semi-medievalism, you know. And the same thing happened in Gaza, and the same thing unfortunately is in Tehran. So that could very well spell out what could happen in other countries in the Middle East, despite the better hopes of the millions of young Arabs.

Charlie Rose: Many people worry that some incident will happen. Some incident that does not look that big at the moment, but could explode. For example, one scenario, that Turks agree that they will use somehow their own naval, their own navy, to escort a flotilla, to Gaza. If that happened, what would Israel do?
Benjamin Netanyahu: I’d say that’s not a good idea for anyone to entertain. It’s NOT a good idea ( THIS MAN IS DANGEROUS! ) . Look, we don’t…we didn’t seek the degradation in Turkish relations. In our relations with Turkey it began most dramatically in Davos, you know, under the previous government, when…
Charlie Rose: You mean when Shimon Peres…
Benjamin Netanyahu: When Shimon Peres...
Charlie Rose: …went on the platform at Davos and Erdogan walked off?
Benjamin Netanyahu: Right. And came back to a hero’s welcome in… You know, so there’s a lot of things I suppose in Turkish domestic policy, and Turkish foreign policy that…
Charlie Rose: But that’s, they were your friend.

Benjamin Netanyahu: Yeah. They were! They chose to change course for their own reasons, but I hope…
Charlie Rose: They said on that issue, said that you were prepared to sort of do…make an apology…you were prepared at one point to make an apology for a kind of, operational excess ( i.e. the killing of nine Turks, who were on a humanitarian mission? ) , and then you pulled back from that.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Well we had, you know, it’s the…
Charlie Rose: Domestic politics.
Benjamin Netanyahu: No, not domestic politics, it was something much…I won’t go into the details...
Charlie Rose: But that’s the truth.
Benjamin Netanyahu: No.
Charlie Rose: That in fact you were prepared perhaps to make…

Benjamin Netanyahu: Well maybe I expected something in return, which…which…
Charlie Rose: Which was?
Benjamin Netanyahu: Which, you know, if we’re ever gonna have this thing resolved, I’d rather not get into that. But I think that…I think it’s very hard to apologize for something you didn’t do wrong. You apologize…
Charlie Rose: For "operational excess". Do you believe …
Benjamin Netanyahu: …while these guys go down the fast…
Charlie Rose: …that’s what, they said, they said you had the right to blockade ( NO!  That UN report was bogus! ) but that there was operational excess…
Benjamin Netanyahu: …they go down the fast drop…you saw the video, they go down the fast drop and they’re hacked, nearly hacked to death!  ( WE APOLOGIZE FOR REITERATING THE TET-A-TET BETWEEN "CHARLIE" ROSE & "BIBI".  BUT THIS IS THE RECORD! )
Charlie Rose: I…
Benjamin Netanyahu: …and people see that, you know. Somebody said to me, a wise, wise scholar of the Middle East, he said, “If you apologize for something that you clearly shouldn’t, you will neither be valued as a friend or feared as a foe”. And given that we’re dealing with a historian whose over ninety years old that sort of gets my attention level, because my father is a historian who’s over a hundred years old. And so that answers…

Charlie Rose: I thought you were talking about your father...

( MUCH MORE TO COME ON THE SENIOR NETANYAHU! )

[ [ Psychobiography in politics is ordinarily a mug’s game. Sometimes, though, an assessment of inherited traits and ideologies can be telling. For years, Israeli and American commentators have been waiting for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to leave behind the right-wing Revisionist ideology of his father, Benzion, a historian of the Spanish Inquisition, and, like Nixon leaving for China, end the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Just as Nixon set aside decades of Cold War ideology and Red-baiting in the interests of practical global politics, Netanyahu would transcend his own history, and his party’s, to end the suffering of a dispossessed people and regain Israel’s moral standing.

This waiting game is a delusion. The stubborn ideological legacy that, in part, blocks such a transformation runs deep. During Netanyahu’s first term as Prime Minister, in the late nineteen-nineties, I met with him in his office, in Jerusalem, and he fondly recalled how his father encountered David Ben Gurion, in 1956, not long after Israel captured the Sinai. Ben Gurion had vowed to keep the Sinai for a thousand years, but Benzion was convinced that he would lose it. Why? Ben Gurion asked.

“Because the U.S. will force you to,” the elder Netanyahu said.

“Of course, he was right, unfortunately,” the son said. “That was the first and last time an Israeli Prime Minister succumbed to an American diktat.” This ingrained wariness toward Israel’s most stalwart ally and benefactor is just part of Netanyahu’s inheritance. On that same trip to Israel, Benzion, who is now a hundred and one, invited me to his house for lunch, and I am not sure that I have ever heard more outrageously reactionary table talk. The disdain for Arabs, for Israeli liberals, for any Americans to the left of the neoconservatives was chilling. - David Remnick 3/21/11 ] ]

...when you said that.
Benjamin Netanyahu: No, he’s over a hundred years old, well, he’s over ninety too, but that’s not him.
Charlie Rose: Does he have the same view about Israel’s future as you do, or is he to your right?
Benjamin Netanyahu: He has his pessimistic moments, but you know, right now, every moment that he has for me is a blessing.
Charlie Rose: Yeah. Indeed. How old is he?
Benjamin Netanyahu: Hundred and two.
Charlie Rose: And what do you want…what do you tell him you want your legacy to be?

Benjamin Netanyahu: That I’ve spent my time protecting the Jewish state, and enabling the Jewish future to proceed, with prosperity and security. So it’s not obvious. What we have is not obvious. You know, we’ve defied the rules of history ( ...and a refresher on the method! )...

"In 1948 the Jewish army expelled three-quarter of a million Palestinians from what then became the State of Israel. Ilan Pappe, the Israeli historian, said he still felt haunted by the story, and then, in 1998, the Israelis opened the military archives, and it became clear that the Zionist's movement had planned to expel the Palestinians long before 1948. In 2006 Ilan Pappe published his most recent book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. He spoke about his work at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands in January/February of 2007." - Maria Gilardin June 2007

Ilan Pappe: "(a synopsis) David Ben Gurion, who led an ideological movement ever since the 19th century, wanted to turn Palestine into a Jewish state with as few Palestinians in it as possible (when he was out of office this first Prime Minister of Israel was annoyed by the presence of so many Palestinians remaining in Israel, particularly in the Galilee). It shows that the leader of the Zionist movement, the 1st Prime Minister of Israel, someone at the heart of the Zionist movement, so annoyed by so many Palestinians in the Galilee, he is committed to a vision that sees historic Palestine as empty of Palestinians. Most of the Israeli Jews in the 1950's thought the same way, and nothing has changed in Israel in 2006. How to get there, how to de-Arabize Palestine. How to make Palestine a Jewish state, (i.e.) get rid of the people who live there (except, of course, for that number of Jewish settlers who in the 1930s had grown to one-third of the population in Palestine as they left the turmoil in Europe). How to deal with the majority in Palestine, the Palestinians.

In February of 1947 the Zionists were very focused under Ben Gurion and the advisory committee he organized around him (only hardliners) and it took them a year, to February of 1948 to develop the plan to rid Palestine of the Palestinians, that as many as possible of the one million Palestinians should be expelled. How to do it? The experiment? The Jewish/Zionist army expelled about eight to nine villages. They wanted to see how the world would react. Nothing. So, you come with buses, lorrys - you go into someone's house, there are children, women, men, people have lived in these houses for hundreds of years: 'You have twenty minutes' to get on the bus and out you go. And half an hour after you leave on the bus someone detonates the house and blows it up. So Ben Gurion and others were not sure how the world and the young soldiers would react. Nothing. So, the master plan. They divided Palestine into twelve areas, the Haganah had twelve brigades, each brigade was given a list of villages, neighborhoods in mixed towns and systematically, in seven months, they expelled three-quarter of a million Palestinians, 531 villages were destroyed, eleven towns were demolished."

...to come back ( On the backs of the Palestinian PEOPLE! ) and rebuild our sovereign state in our national homeland. That’s just against all the physics of history and of politics. There’s a strong…I read Will Durant’s book “The Lessons of…
Charlie Rose: “The History of Philosophy”
Benjamin Netanyahu: Not, well, I read “The Story of Civilization”, but he has a less…he has a hundred page book “The Lessons of History”, and it’s fascinating. He wrote it in 1916, and he says that when Oriental fecundity meets Western technology China will be a great power. Not bad for 1916.
Charlie Rose: Turned out to be true.

Benjamin Netanyahu: He was another one of these historians. So he said numbers count. And he says there’s one exception. The Jews have been able to beat, you know, this, to come back. That’s what I feel. The Jews have come back on the stage of history. But anti-Semitism is still there ( MUCH OF IT SELF-INFLICTED! ) . The attempt to ascribe to the Jews, in this case to the Jewish state, all the ills of not having peace, not having economic stability, not having security, that’s still there. So we fight against great odds, but at the same time we have a state. We have our country. We were six hundred thousand, sixty years ago, and now close to seven million. This is a real miracle. I’m in charge on my watch to protect the miracle.

Charlie Rose: But, as you talk with passion, and in a way that everybody should applaud, Palestinians feel the same thing. That’s what they want. A state.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Let ‘em have it. Here’s my hand. Here’s the table. Let’s get on with it. You know this is…there is no answer to the acid test. Because they keep…they’ll write five hundred Op-Eds…
Charlie Rose: But you understand, what you just said resonated with people around the world. Not just Jews. The same aspiration they have resonates with not just Arabs, but people around the world.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Come and talk. Come and talk. If the aspiration is just to live an independent life, in your state, but not to destroy my state, we’ll get peace.
Charlie Rose: If you believe they are not intent on destroying your state, and did not want circumstances that would cause you more fear than hope, you’d be prepared to make a deal?

Benjamin Netanyahu: No, I AM prepared to make the deal. And I can deliver the deal. The TRAGEDY for the Palestinians is that their leadership keeps missing out on these things. They were offered extraordinary offers by previous Israeli Prime Ministers. They didn’t take it. There were six Israeli Prime Ministers since the Oslo process began. Every one of them wanted peace. Every one of them offered the two state solution. But the Palestinians declined again and again. Because they wouldn’t make the tough compromises for peace that THEY need to make. Israel is willing to do it. I’M willing to do it. They have to be willing too.

Charlie Rose: Is it something the United States needs to do in terms of presenting, playing a larger role. Is there some need for either the quartet, which the United States is part of, or President Obama, to put forward that will make this better, or is it not the United States, it’s not the quartet, it is Israel and Palestinians sitting at a table, until they come out with something that is in the great long term interest and security of both peoples in a two state solution.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Charlie the answer is yes, but I think the US AND the Europeans have something to offer by telling the Palestinians, THAT’s exactly what we expect you to do. The fact that the US is saying that, with a clear voice today, I think is important. The Europeans may be joining us. I hope. It looks like they are.

Charlie Rose: Not all of them.
Benjamin Netanyahu: No well, yes. But…I said to Cathy Ashton ( Ms. Ashton is a Jewish plant! ) that it might be…to get anything in the EU they need 27 votes to agree, a consensus. I said “Cathy, I think it’s easier for me to reach an agreement with President Abbas than for you to reach an agreement among Europeans”, but I think they’re going to try to be helpful.
Charlie Rose: Thank you for the hour.
Benjamin Netanyahu: Thank you Charlie.
Charlie Rose: Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister…yes sir.
Benjamin Netanyahu: We ran twice as much as we should have talked, and I think it’s been a pleasure, and very worthwhile.
Charlie Rose: Thank you for coming.

 

What follows is an informative unbiased portrait of Iran, which is at odds with Prime Minister Netanyahu ( an acolyte of whom, Yigal Amir, assassinated the genuine Soldier Statesman of Israel, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin ) here, is the presentation of Rick Steve's whose portraits of Iran are precisely what is needed to counter the "apocalyptic, pseudo messianic but maniacal view" of Netanyahu.

"Hi, I'm Rick Steves — in what just might be the most surprising and fascinating land I've ever visited. We're in Iran—here to learn, to understand, and to make some friends. Thanks for joining us.

Like most Americans, I know almost nothing about Iran. For me, this is a journey of discovery. What are my hopes? To enjoy a rich and fascinating culture, to get to know a nation that's a leader in its corner of the world—and has been for 2500 years, and to better understand the 70 million people who call this place home.

We'll show the splendid monuments of Iran's rich and glorious past, discuss the 20th century story of this perplexing nation, and experience Iranian life today in its giant metropolis, historic capital, and a countryside village..["Salaam"]. Most important, we'll meet and talk with the people whose government so exasperates America. ["situation is open.."]... We'll go to Friday prayers in a leading mosque, consider the challenges confronting Iran's youth, enjoy the hospitality of a family dinner and survive the crazy Tehran traffic before experiencing the tranquility of rural life and meeting joyful school kids on a field trip.

Iran, twice the size of France, sits in an increasingly important corner of Asia—surrounded by Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. We start in the capital, Tehran, follow an ancient trade route south to the village of Abyaneh, to Esfahan, to Shiraz, and then finish at Persepolis.

Every country, including our own, limits access to foreign film crews. We're here in Iran with the permission of the Iranian government. And we're working within the limits it sets as we explore this complex society.

Knowing we're here to explore social and cultural dimensions rather than contentious political issues, the Iranian government is allowing our work. It believes the Western media has given Iran an unfair image. They gave us our visas provided we respect its limits as enforced by our guide. His job: keep us safe, manage the complicated permissions, and keep an eye on what we're shooting.

Tehran, a youthful, noisy capital city, is the modern heart of this country. It's a smoggy, mile high metropolis. With a teeming population of about ten million, its apartment blocks stretch far into the surrounding mountains.

Traffic is notorious here. My first impression: wild drivers. But after surviving my first day: I realized they were experts at keeping things moving. Many major streets actually intersect without the help of traffic lights. It's different...but it seems to work.

Immersed in the commotion of a busy work day—apart from the chador-covered women and lack of Western fast food chains—Tehran seemed much like any city in the developing world.

If you need to get somewhere in a hurry — or if your motorcycle taxi is under some big bus — , thank goodness for the subway. Tehran's thriving subway moves over a million people a day. 

This subway system is really as good as anything I've seen in Europe

Of Iran's 70 million people, well over half are under the age of 30. While there are plenty of minorities, the Persian population dominates. The local ethnicity reflects the turmoil of this country's long history. You'll find people with Greek, Arab, Turk, Mongol, Kurdish and Azerbaijani heritage.

Iranians are not Arabs and they don't speak Arabic. This is an important issue with the people of Iran. They are Persians and they speak Farsi. Faces seem to tell a story and are quick to smile...especially when they see a film crew from the USA. Actually, we found that the easiest way to get a smile was to tell people where we're from.

Rick: I'm from the United States...
Man 1: Oh, you're from the United States.....Ok...laughs
Man 2: America? Wow!
Rick: yeah, it's true, it's actually true
Woman: I love you America
Rick: Thank you that's nice to hear

I was impressed by how the people we met were curious and eager to talk. Young educated people are internet savvy and well-informed about the West. They generally spoke some English. Anywhere foreigners went, signs were bi-lingual: Farsi for locals...and English for everyone else.

The script looks Arabic to me, but I learned—like the language — it's Farsi. The numbers, however, are the same as those used in the Arab world.

Another communication challenge: people here have to deal with  different calendars: Persian and Muslim (for local affairs), and Western (for dealing with the outside world). What year is it? Well it depends: After Mohammad—about 1390 years ago, after Christ—two thousand and some years ago.

And all this complexity is the result of a long and tumultuous history. The National Museum of Iran helps to give an appreciation of this country's rich heritage. At first I was disappointed by what seemed like a humble collection for such a great culture. Then I learned that most of its treasures were destroyed or looted by invaders and much of what survived was taken away to the great museums in the West.

The collection starts in prehistoric times, back when nomadic hunters were becoming farmers. This bronze plaque featuring Gilgamesh dates from about 1000 BC, a time when this region was in the realm of Mesopotamia. Then in about 500 BC, with the great kings Darius and Xerxes, the mighty Persian Empire was established.

Their art glorified their kings and the notion of peace through strength. Culture flourished and it was about this time that, with cuneiform, the Persian language was first put into writing.

That first Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great from Greece. Later, a second Persian Empire was conquered by Arabs. Then came invasions by Turks and Mongols. Finally, with the establishment of a Third Persian Empire in the 16th century, this culture enjoyed a renaissance. While it's weathered wave after wave of conquerors, the essence of today's Iranian culture is still rooted in that first Persian Empire from 2,500 years ago."

- To Be Continued.

 

- HERE, IN THE OCTOBER 3rd, 2011 THE NEW YORK TIMES IS A "TIMELY" REFUTATION OF THE FOCUSED SEPTEMBER 26th, HOUR LONG "Charlie" Rose/Benjamin Netanyahu EXCHANGE.  Read it and weep.

Israel Accepts New Peace Talks, but Impasse Remains on Terms

by Isabel Kershner.

JERUSALEM - Israel on Sunday formally accepted an international proposal to return to peace negotiations with the Palestinians, but any immediate resumption of talks appeared unlikely as the Israelis and Palestinians differed sharply over the letter and spirit of the proposal.

A senior Palestinian official said over the weekend that after three days of deliberations, THE PALESTINIAN LEADERSHIP HAD DECIDED NOT TO RETURN TO TALKS UNLESS ISRAEL HALTED ALL SETTLEMENT CONSTRUCTION and agreed to clear terms of reference for the negotiations — requirements that were perhaps implied but not spelled out in the Sept. 23 statement of the so-called quartet of Middle East peacemakers, which is made up of the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

AFTER ISRAEL’S ADVANCEMENT LAST WEEK OF PLANS FOR NEW HOUSING IN A CONTESTED AREA OF JERUSALEM, THE PALESTINIAN OFFICIAL, NABIL SHAATH, TOLD REPORTERS IN THE WEST BANK CITY OF RAMALLAH ON SATURDAY THAT IT WAS NOW NECESSARY FOR THE QUARTET TO STATE CLEARLY “WHAT IT UNDERSTANDS THE TERMS OF REFERENCE TO BE,” AND THEN FOR THE ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER, BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, “TO SAY, ‘YES, WE ACCEPT.’ ”

Despite weeks of intensive international diplomacy designed to deflect or minimize the impact of a contentious Palestinian bid for recognition of statehood and membership in the United Nations, the Israelis and Palestinians appear to be stuck at an impasse, just as they have been for the past year.

The last round of direct talks broke down soon after they started in September 2010 when a 10-month Israeli moratorium on construction in the West Bank Jewish settlements expired. Israel has refused an additional building freeze in territory captured from Jordan in the 1967 war, where the Palestinians envisage their future state.

Israel says that the Palestinians have made a strategic decision to seek recognition of an outline of a state without the give and take of negotiations and that last time they waited nine months before agreeing to start talks. Asked about the possibility of an additional moratorium, Mr. Netanyahu told The Jerusalem Post last week, “We already gave at the office.”

The Palestinians, eager not to appear rejectionist, have pointed out what they say are the positive attributes of the quartet’s statement. Mr. Shaath said it contained “very few flaws.”

But the language of the statement was intentionally nonspecific in parts, employing codes meant to make it acceptable to both sides. THE PALESTINIANS ARE DEMANDING CLARITY, SAYING THAT IT IS PARTLY SUCH DIPLOMATIC AMBIGUITY THAT HAS LEFT THE PALESTINIANS WITHOUT A COUNTRY AFTER NEARLY 20 YEARS OF INTERMITTENT TALKS.

The quartet’s statement did not explicitly mention a settlement freeze, but it called on the two sides “to refrain from provocative actions” and cited their obligations under the 2003 “road map,” an American-backed peace plan that called for, among other things, a complete stop to all settlement activity.

The Palestinians say that it also accommodates their demand for the pre-1967 boundaries to serve as the basis for border talks.

The Israelis point out that the quartet’s statement specifies that talks should resume without preconditions. It sets a time frame for an agreement to be completed by the end of 2012. And it calls on the Israelis and Palestinians to deal first with borders and security, contrary to Israel’s position that all final status issues are interlocked and must be tackled simultaneously.

A construction site on Sunday in Gilo, part of the disputed land in Jerusalem. Plans for housing there have dismayed Israeli allies.

The rub remains the continued building in the settlements. A senior Israeli official said Sunday that this Israeli government was already “showing more restraint than any previous Israeli government” regarding building in the West Bank. BUT NO ISRAELI GOVERNMENT HAS EVER AGREED TO FREEZE CONSTRUCTION IN THE JEWISH NEIGHBORHOODS OF ISRAELI-ANNEXED ARAB EAST JERUSALEM, he said, reiterating a long-held Israeli position and rejecting a crucial Palestinian demand.

The dispute over building in the areas of Jerusalem beyond the pre-1967 boundaries came into sharp relief again last week when ISRAEL ADVANCED PLANS FOR ABOUT A THOUSAND NEW HOUSING UNITS in one such area, Gilo, which is home to 40,000 mostly Jewish residents on the southern edge of Jerusalem bordering the West Bank.

Touring Gilo with reporters on Sunday, the deputy foreign minister of Israel, Danny Ayalon, said that this was “in the heart of a pulsating, vibrant city” and “an integral part of Jerusalem.”

“JERUSALEM IS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL. IT CANNOT BE DIVIDED AND WILL NOT BE DIVIDED,” HE SAID, AS CRANES SWUNG IN THE BACKGROUND AND MECHANICAL DIGGERS WORKED ON ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT OF 108 NEW UNITS THAT WAS APPROVED SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

Israel intends to keep Gilo under any future deal with the Palestinians. BUT MOST OF THE WORLD DOES NOT RECOGNIZE ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY IN THE AREAS OF JERUSALEM THAT THE PALESTINIANS CLAIM AS PART OF THEIR FUTURE NATION and wants Israel to refrain from further building there so as not to prejudice the outcome of negotiations and as a sign of good faith.

THE LATEST PLANS FOR 35 NEW APARTMENT BUILDINGS EXTENDING DOWN A STEEP, PARTLY POPULATED INCLINE ON AN OUTER EDGE OF GILO ELICITED EXPRESSIONS OF DEEP DISMAY FROM CLOSE ALLIES, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES AND GERMANY.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, telephoned Mr. Netanyahu on Friday and told him that the plans “raised doubts that the Israeli government is interested in starting serious negotiations,” her spokesman said in a statement cited by news reports.

Mr. Shaath, the Palestinian official, said that the advancement of the Gilo plans effectively “ended the quartet statement then and there!” - Ms. Kershner N Y Times 10/3/11

MORE TO COME!  MAGNUM REVIEW!

* AMY GOODMAN 10/7/11 COMPLETES THE PICTURE -

Attacks on Palestinians Increase in West Bank

Tensions are on the rise in the Occupied Territories amidst a WAVE OF ATTACKS by Israeli settlers and troops. Israeli police say they have arrested suspects accused of vandalizing and setting fire to two Palestinian mosques. The mosques were hit as part of a settler-backed "Price Tag" campaign, a VOW TO TARGET PALESTINIANS IN RESPONSE TO THE DISMANTLING OF "UNAUTHORIZED" OUTPOSTS OUTSIDE OF THE MAJOR ISRAELI SETTLEMENT BLOCS THAT ALREADY CARVE UP PALESTINIAN LAND. The settlers recently extended their vandalism to an Israeli army base in the West Bank, an incident that may have spurred the Israeli military to FINALLY take action. NO ONE HAD BEEN ARRESTED IN ANY OF THE THREE PREVIOUS ARSON ATTACKS IN THE WEST BANK OVER THE PAST YEAR. Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers fired tear gas and stun grenades at a crowd of Palestinian youths who had gathered to protest an Israeli DEMOLITION OF A PALESTINIAN HOME. A member of the family owning the property denounced the Israeli military.

Halima Al Khatib: "They raided us around 6 a.m. Since the morning, occupation forces and their intelligence forces came here. They imposed curfew to prevent anyone from reaching the house and they isolated us in the house and beat up the men. Then they DEMOLISHED the house. I say God will take revenge at them." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 10/7/11

 

A Major Two-Part Final (?) Wrap
For
GOPBIAS.INFO

* Ray McGovern VS PBS's Margaret Warner

- RAY McGOVERN (27-year CIA analyst on 6/6/05 Lehrer NewsHour): "I would go back to an earlier conversation, and this happened on the 20th of September 2001, and this happened nine days after 9/11. This involved Tony Blair, who was in Washington having dinner with the President. How do we know about this? We know this because Christopher Meyer, the UK ambassador was there at that dinner. What does he say? The conversation went like this. President Bush: 'Uh, Tony. Uh, we're going into Afghanistan in a week or two, but that won't take long and we get out of there and we're going right into Iraq. Are you with me, Tony? Are you with me?' And Christopher Meyer says 'My goodness, it was really, and Tony was really sort of nonplussed, but he said 'Yes sir, I'm with you Mr. President.' (Margaret Warner tries to interrupt, but Mr. McGovern continues) So that goes back (a flustered Ms. Margaret Warner) "Mr. McGovern, speed up!" (Mr. McGovern) "so that goes back to 2001" (Ms. Warner) "We're almost out of time. Get to the next part!" (Mr. McGovern) "Okay, that's it." (Ms. Warner, almost shouting) "So, it's not about Iraq, it's about Afghanistan!" (Mr. McGovern) "Well, no. This has to do with Iraq. What the President said to Tony Blair, on the 20th of September (2001) according to the UK ambassador who was there, is 'We're going into Afghanistan in a couple of weeks. It won't take us long there, and we're going right into Iraq right after that. Are you with me?' And Tony Blair said 'Yes!'"

Over the years we have received enumerable complaints regarding the Warner contretemps. Finally, this 9/20/11 report by General Electric NBC Universal’s Brian Williams that Tony Bennett on, of all programs, Howard Stern’s, said that George W. Bush admitted that he had made a mistake going into Iraq, that there was no reason, i.e. NO WMDS.

 

HYPERBOLE APPROPRIATE

The conspiracy of silence, by the American Media/Press, regarding the George W. Bush theft of the 2000 presidential election, an "election" designed to provide the authority for the attack and occupation of Iraq;  the backstory for this abomination, authenticated by the duplicitous Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Scalia & Thomas Supreme Court 12/12/00 rendition of Bush VS Gore;  the backstory for this unprecedented National Swindle, comprising the attack and occupation of Iraq;  IT WAS ALL "ARRANGED" FOR THE BENEFIT OF ISRAEL!

And "...the Rest of the Story" is even more alarming.  The ease with which Israel has been able to prod a series of U.S. Military and State Department policies devised to enable the growing list of "existential enemies" of the state of Israel, that budget for these projects may be approaching several TRILLION$ of DOLLAR$!  All of which is the responsibility of, not the Israeli Treasury, but that of the United States!  How is it that the many public protests afoot in the United States today, does not include a focus on our expenditures for Israel?  Were there such a remonstrance, it would surely be labeled that old Israeli catchall, anti-Semitism?

"From the very first moment, the Bush foreign policy would focus on three key objectives:  Get rid of Saddam Hussein, end American involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and rearrange the dominoes in the Middle East.  A key to the policy shift would be the concept of PREEMPTION.

The blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his (Bush) top National Security advisors ( the Israeli "Soldier Statesman" Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995 ) .  Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser".

Additional phrases from pages 261-263 of James Bamford's award-winning "A Pretext For War:  9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" - "But the centerpiece of their recommendations was the removal of Saddam Hussein as the first step in remaking the Middle East into a region friendly, instead of hostile, to Israel".  "Their plan, 'A Clean Break:  A New Strategy for Securing the Realm', also signaled a radical departure from the Peace-Oriented policies of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a member ( Yigal Amir ) of an extreme right-wing Israeli Group".

"As part of their 'Grand Strategy', they recommended that once Iraq was conquered and Saddam Hussein overthrown, he would be replaced by a puppet leader friendly to Israel.  'Whoever inherits Iraq' they wrote, 'dominates the entire Levant strategically.'"  Oy Vey!

*  An Insider Informs America!

- "U.S. Envoy Puts Match to Bridges With Iraq Tell-All"

By Steven Lee Myers

WASHINGTON - Peter Van Buren, an American diplomat who speaks Japanese, Mandarin and 'some Korean,' though no Arabic, did a very undiplomatic thing when the State Department sent him to Iraq for a year. He wrote a book.

The result is one diplomat’s darkly humorous and ultimately scathing assault on just about everything the military and the State Department have done — or tried to do — since the invasion of Iraq. The title says it all: 'We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People' (Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company).

Ample ink has been expended on the war, defending it, attacking it or just trying to understand it. What makes Mr. Van Buren’s account so striking is its gleeful violation of the spirit — and perhaps the letter — of the written and unwritten code of America’s diplomatic corps.

In anything but diplomatic language, he skewers the Army’s commanders and the Iraqis, the embassy, its staff, and even its ambassador at the time, Christopher R. Hill, though not by name. He takes sarcastic aim at the ambassador’s Sisyphean effort to grow a lawn in the sprawling embassy compound beside the Tigris River.

'NO MATTER WHAT IRAQ AND NATURE WANTED, THE AMERICAN EMBASSY SPENT WHATEVER IT TOOK TO HAVE GREEN GRASS IN THE DESERT,' he writes. 'LATER FULL-GROWN PALM TREES WERE TRUCKED IN AND PLANTED TO LINE THE GRASSY SQUARE. We made things in Iraq look the way we wanted them to look, WATER SHORTAGES THROUGH THE REST OF THE COUNTRY BE DAMNED. The grass was the perfect allegory for the whole war.'

He is certainly not the first diplomat to harbor doubts about the efficacy of American diplomacy, but in the cautious culture of the State Department, where every public statement is carefully 'cleared,' often all the way back in Washington, airing them so starkly is simply not done.

'What’s in it is so important because while there are hundreds of books on the shelves today that give relatively colorful accounts of military life inside and outside the wire, THERE AREN’T ANY BY STATE EMPLOYEES WHO TAKE ON THE RECONSTRUCTION PART OF THE WAR SO VIVIDLY,' Kelley B. Vlahos wrote admiringly on ANTIWAR.COM.

The book and the publicity surrounding it — including an Op-Ed article by him in this newspaper — have infuriated Mr. Van Buren’s colleagues. To them, he has betrayed his loyalty to the well-traveled, multilingual, highly educated professional cadre that is the Foreign Service.

'If you feel that strongly about policies you feel are misguided and harmful, you do the honorable thing and resign before tearing your colleagues apart in public,' said a diplomat who served in Iraq, speaking, as is more typically the case, on the condition of anonymity.

Mr. Van Buren himself describes the project as 'career suicide,' though, for now, he continues to work in human resources at the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters.

NOW 51, married with two daughters and living in Virginia, he has been in the Foreign Service for 23 years, with postings around the world. According to his biography in the book, he was honored for his work after the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, and he worked extensively with the military in previous assignments in Asia and at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, where he participated in a Marine Corps field exercise meant to simulate conditions in Iraq.

In short, he hardly seemed the type of Foreign Service officer to go rogue, but he has an impish eye for the absurd and a common-sensical attitude that was deeply FRUSTRATED IN THE POLITICAL-MILITARY BUREAUCRACY THAT HAD EVOLVED IN IRAQ BY THE TIME HE ARRIVED IN 2009.

He served in two of the State Department’s provincial reconstruction teams, or P.R.T.’s, in the alphabet soup parlance of the Global War on Terror (G-WOT). The P.R.T.’s were created in 2006 to shift the focus of the American war effort at least in part beyond the barrel of a gun.

The teams, embedded in bleak, sand-clogged military bases, consisted of diplomats, specialists from the Departments of Justice or Agriculture and contractors, all well paid if not always, in his view, necessarily qualified for the task at hand.

'Nobody seemed happy,' he writes in a typical passage of Thanksgiving dinner inside the dining facility (D-FAC) at his base, one of two on the southern outskirts of Baghdad where he worked, 'but everyone did get a lot of food, though like our reports of success, much was ladled out while little was swallowed.'

THE PASSAGE ECHOES HIS MAIN COMPLAINT: THE DAY-TO-DAY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, HE ARGUES, WERE DONE AS MUCH TO SATISFY THE BUREAUCRATIC NEED TO DEMONSTRATE MEASURABLE PROGRESS AS ACTUALLY TO MAKE MEASURABLE PROGRESS.

He describes clashing with his superiors for trying to cancel programs that were clearly failing, like one to give sheep to widows that instead went to a corrupt sheik. He derides the distribution of humanitarian assistance (H.A.) as little more than photo opportunities that allowed commanders to check a box on progress reports.

'P.R. would fire off hundreds of frames of the same shot, of a smiling Joe handing a Transformer toy to a beaming Iraqi kid,' he writes. 'If the photographers had zoomed out a bit they’d have seen the Iraqi faces grow more sullen the older the recipient. For every 3-year-old smiling over a Snickers bar, there was a gray-haired mother accepting a blanket without making eye contact.'

THE AMERICANS, HE CONTINUES, WERE OBLIVIOUS TO THE HOSTILITY THE INVASION CAUSED AMONG THE IRAQIS THEY WERE TRYING TO HELP. WHEN HIS TEAM GAVE AWAY TREE SEEDLINGS, ONE FARMER RESPONDED BY SPITTING ON THE GROUND. 'YOU KILLED MY SON AND NOW YOU ARE GIVING ME A TREE?' HE QUOTES THE MAN AS SAYING.

MR. VAN BUREN’S MOST SERIOUS ACCUSATIONS INVOLVE THE WASTE OF MONEY SPENT ON THE RECONSTRUCTION, $63 BILLION$ AND COUNTING. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir) has chronicled numerous abuses amounting to billions of dollars, but Mr. Van Buren’s account abounds with the granularity of projects too small for Sigir to bother with.

Among many examples, he cites the $3 MILLION PURCHASE OF 25 MOBILE WATER PURIFICATION UNITS, ONLY TO FIND OUT THAT THEY WERE ILL SUITED FOR THE HIGH SALINITY OF IRAQ’S WATER. 'Local thugs' stole one and charged for water until it broke down, 'and the people blamed the United States for sending them shoddy equipment.'

AS the Foreign Service requires, Mr. Van Buren submitted his manuscript for review in September 2010, shortly after he returned from Iraq. The rules state that the review must be completed within 30 days. When he heard nothing, he took that as assent.

Last month, however, the State Department wrote to the publisher and objected, citing three brief passages it said contained classified information, though all are fairly well known, like the Central Intelligence Agency’s budgetary support for the Iraqi intelligence agencies.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the publisher, Pat Eisemann, said the passages 'on their face clearly did not contain classified information.' Anyway, copies of the book were already on their way to bookstores.

A State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the issue is a personnel matter, said the department had in fact begun discussions with Mr. Van Buren over the book’s contents, though belatedly. Publishing without awaiting the required review amounted to a violation, the official said. It is not clear what further action, if any, the department intends to take.

The last of the P.R.T.’s, in the volatile province of Diyala, closed last month ahead of the final withdrawal of American troops this year. Some have disputed Mr. Van Buren’s grim view of the provincial reconstruction teams’ success, but his account amounts to a CODA FOR THE HISTORY OF THE P.R.T.’S AND THE WAR ITSELF.

'When we invaded — intervened, dropped by — Iraq, we said we’re going to rebuild this country,' he said in an interview. 'The mission was to create a stable democracy in the Middle East that would be a partner for the United States, that would crank out oil, that would solve our petroleum fears. These were the goals, and they are what you have to measure this against.'" - STEVEN LEE MYERS N Y Times 10/8/11

 

* Truly Fair and Balanced Reporting

October 14, 2011 - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow

"Obama Vows New Sanctions on Iran

President Obama is vowing to seek new international sanctions on Iran over U.S. allegations the Iranian government plotted to carry out an attack inside the United States. Two alleged operatives were indicted this week on charges they sought to hire a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi ambassador. In his first public comments on the charges, Obama pledged to further isolate Iran.

President Obama: 'What we’re going to continue to do is to apply the toughest sanctions and continue to mobilize the international community to make sure that Iran is further and further isolated and that it pays a price for this kind of behavior. Now, we don’t take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran, but what you can expect is that we will continue to apply the sorts of pressure that will have a direct impact on the Iranian government, until it makes a better choice in terms of how it’s going to interact with the rest of the international community.'

The Obama administration has insisted the plot is legitimate, despite widespread doubts. Those involved were easily detectable, and U.S. investigators thought it to be so outlandish, they doubted Iranian involvement from the beginning of their probe. Speaking before the Senate Banking Committee, David Cohen, the Treasury Under-Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, said U.S. sanctions could include new measures against Iran’s Central Bank.

David Cohen: 'All options to increase the financial pressure on Iran are on the table, including the possibility of imposing additional sanctions against the CBI. If Iran continues to choose its path of defiance, we will continue to develop new and innovative ways to impose additional costs on Iran.'

The U.S. Department of State has confirmed it has made direct contact with Iran over the allegations. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland acknowledged that contact had been made, but refused to disclose specifics.

Victoria Nuland: 'We are not prepared at the moment to go any further on the question of who spoke to whom and where, but just to confirm that we have had direct contact with Iran.'"

- "Obama ( THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ) Pledging tough Sanctions For Iran In Plot" ( BUT ) "Tehran denies role in Scheme to Kill Saudi Envoy to the U.S."

By HELENE COOPER

"WASHINGTON - President Obama vowed on Thursday to push for what he called the 'toughest sanctions' against Iran, saying that THE UNITED STATES HAD STRONG EVIDENCE that Iranian officials were COMPLICIT in an alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

In his FIRST PUBLIC REMARKS on the assassination scheme, Mr. Obama sought to COUNTER SKEPTICISM ABOUT WHETHER IRAN’S ISLAMIC GOVERNMENT DIRECTED AN IRANIAN-AMERICAN CAR SALESMAN TO ENGAGE WITH A MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL TO KILL SAUDI ARABIA’S AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES and carry out other attacks. Mr. Obama insisted that American officials 'know that he had direct links, was paid by, and directed by individuals in the Iranian government.'

'Now those facts are there for all to see,' Mr. Obama said. 'We would not be bringing forward a case unless we knew exactly how to support all the allegations that are contained in the indictment.'

The president did not lay out any specific new sanctions against Iran; his administration is considering a number of measures, but has limited leverage and would have to muster international support to impose anything with real teeth.

While Mr. Obama made his remarks during a news conference in the White House East Room with the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, THE STATE DEPARTMENT SAID THAT UNITED STATES OFFICIALS HAD BEEN IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN OVER THE ACCUSATIONS.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKESWOMAN, VICTORIA NULAND, WOULD PROVIDE NO DETAILS. BUT THURSDAY NIGHT A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL SAID THE CONTACT HAD BEEN MADE BY THE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS, SUSAN E. RICE, WHO GAVE A LETTER TO HER IRANIAN COUNTERPART, MOHAMMAD KHAZAEE.

IN HER REMARKS ABOUT THE ALLEGED PLOT, MS. NULAND SAID: 'WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE DETAILS, IT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF A MOVIE, BUT AS YOU BEGIN TO GIVE MORE DETAIL ON WHAT WE KNEW AND WHEN WE KNEW IT AND HOW WE KNEW IT, IT HAS CREDIBILITY.'

Mr. Obama said that the administration had reached out to allies and the international community to build support. 'We’ve laid the facts before them,' he said. 'And we believe that after people have analyzed them, there will not be a dispute that this is in fact what happened.'

THE PRESIDENT GOT SOME SUPPORT FROM SOME ALLIED GOVERNMENTS ON THURSDAY ( Does That Include ISRAEL? ) . The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told reporters at a news conference in Vienna that 'this dastardly act reflects the policies of Iran.' The Saudi government has not yet decided whether to withdraw its ambassador from Tehran in protest, he said.

IN LONDON, THE BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY, WILLIAM HAGUE, TOLD THE HOUSE OF COMMONS THAT THE SUSPECTED PLOT 'WOULD APPEAR TO CONSTITUTE A MAJOR ESCALATION IN IRAN’S SPONSORSHIP OF TERRORISM OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS,' British news agencies reported. He added that the BRITISH GOVERNMENT WAS 'IN CLOSE TOUCH WITH THE U.S. AUTHORITIES AND WILL WORK TO AGREE AN INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE, ALONG WITH THE U.S., THE REST OF THE E.U. AND SAUDI ARABIA.'

IRAN ESCALATED ITS REBUTTAL OF THE AMERICAN CHARGES, SAYING THE CLAIMS ABOUT THE ALLEGED PLOT WERE SO LUDICROUS THAT EVEN POLITICIANS AND THE MEDIA IN THE UNITED STATES WERE EXPRESSING SKEPTICISM ABOUT THEM.

Iran’s state-run media was dominated on Thursday by rejections of the American charges. The foreign minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, called the charges part of a 'new propaganda campaign.' THE OFFICIAL IRNA NEWS AGENCY QUOTED IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER, AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, AS SAYING: 'REPEATING STUPID AND USELESS METHODS BY HOPELESS WESTERN POLICY MAKERS TO CREATE IRANOPHOBIA WILL NOT BE FRUITFUL AND THEY WILL FAIL AGAIN.'

While Mr. Obama echoed assertions by other administration officials that Iranian officials were complicit in the alleged plot, he did not go as far as some officials did on Wednesday when they told reporters that they had concluded that the operation had been discussed at the highest levels of the Iranian government.

Appearing next to the South Korean president, Mr. Lee, who was in Washington for a state visit, Mr. Obama promised to “apply the toughest sanctions and continue to mobilize the international community to make sure that Iran is further and further isolated and pays a price for this kind of behavior.” He said that all options were on the table — a diplomatic signal that he would not rule out military strikes — but administration officials privately say it is highly unlikely that the United States would respond with force.

Instead, the administration will try to persuade Russia, China, Europe and India to endorse tougher sanctions against Tehran. Thus far, the United States has prodded its international partners to put in place limited sanctions against Iranian officials involved in the country’s nuclear program, as part of the international effort to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

But that strategy has, so far, had limited success, with Russia and China in particular wary about going too far in a direction that officials say could hurt commercial interests in those countries.

The United States does virtually no business with Iran, and that leaves American officials with few meaningful options for unilateral action. Some lawmakers in the United States are calling for Mr. Obama to try to increase pressure on Iran by punishing Russian and Chinese companies that do business with Iran’s energy industry. But the administration has resisted such a move, which would undoubtedly deeply anger Moscow and Beijing.

White House officials said they were still weighing what additional sanctions they would push for in light of the alleged plot. One possibility, administration officials said, would be to target Iran’s central bank. But that likely would provoke resistance because it would entangle other countries or entities that do business with the central bank. Another possibility would be to focus on members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps who are involved in the country’s oil industry. But that could affect global oil markets.

Standing next to Mr. Obama in the White House East Room Thursday, Mr. Lee gave him a measured vote of confidence on the suspected plot.

'We were deeply shocked when we read the reports on the attempt to harm the Saudi envoy here in Washington, D.C.,' Mr. Lee said. 'I and the Korean people strongly condemn all forms of terrorism.'" - HELENE COOPER N Y Times 10/14/11

 

Truly alarming
"This is the magical city of Jerusalem"

Thousands of years of history, fascinating archaeological sites, and 5-star cuisine.  A place different than any other.  No where else on Earth can you feel the spiritual connection to a land, to being home.

Join Jewish National Fund's 'Road to Jerusalem' trip.  Be part of a celebration at AMMUNITION Hill marking the 45th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.  EXCLUSIVELY with JNF! - - There's a little bit of Israel in all of us.  Come find the Israel in you. - Jewish National Fund" - Oy Vey!

 

"Iran vs. U.S., Playing Out An Old Story

 

Alleged Plots Add to List Of Bitter Accusations

By SCOTT SHANE and ARTIN AFKHAMI

WASHINGTON - WHEN AN IRANIAN SCIENTIST WAS SHOT AND KILLED IN FRONT OF HIS HOME IN TEHRAN ON JULY 23, HE WAS THE THIRD RESEARCHER WITH SUPPOSED TIES TO IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM TO BE ASSASSINATED IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS.

A week later, $49,960 was wired from a foreign bank account linked to Iran’s Quds Force to a man posing as a Mexican drug hit man, the down payment on an alleged Iranian scheme to murder the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

The simultaneous unfolding of assassination plots in two countries might well be a coincidence. But if the Obama administration is right that the outlandish contract scheme to murder the ambassador was the work of Iranian officials, it is only the latest episode in a covert struggle that has played out for years involving Iran, the United States and an AMERICAN ALLY ( ? ) , Israel.

'The Iranians absolutely believe the U.S. and Israel have been carrying out a covert campaign against them,' said Gary Sick, an Iran expert at Columbia University. 'And clearly they are right.'

Mr. Sick, like many specialists, said he had trouble fully accepting the administration’s interpretation of the suspected plot to kill the Saudi ambassador. The man prosecutors say was at the center of the scheme, a whiskey-drinking used-car dealer named Mansour J. Arbabsiar, seems an unlikely agent for the sophisticated Quds Force, the external arm of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, he said.

But he said the Guards, who oversee Iran’s nuclear program and had ties to the murdered scientists, would be looking for ways to avenge or deter such attacks. 'A mysterious killing in Washington might well look like payback for the scientists,' he said. 'It’s the incompetence of this plot that’s so hard to believe.'

Speaking at Friday Prayer in January 2010, a hard-line cleric, Ayatollah Ahmad Alamolhoda, described the murder of scientists as 'a sign of the all-out, multifront war that the enemy is fighting against us.' He added, 'We must know that to the extent there are attacks against us, it is necessary to defend ourselves to the same extent.'

(Please recall that in 1953 our President Eisenhower overthrew the democratically elected Iranian Premier Mohammed Mossadegh, TO CONTROL IRAN'S OIL, so, if today there is a country in the Middle East prone to attacking its neighbors, the international public record indicates it is Israel, not Iran!)

THE KILLINGS OF THE SCIENTISTS, THOUGHT BY MOST WESTERN ANALYSTS TO BE THE WORK OF ISRAEL, with tolerance from the United States, were far from the only bloody episodes in what has been largely a cold war.

Iran stands accused of providing powerful explosive devices to insurgents fighting American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The use of such surrogates dates virtually from the Islamic Revolution in 1979; American officials believe Iran was behind the bombings of the United States Embassy and Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 and the strike against Air Force personnel at Khobar, Saudi Arabia, in 1996.

IN RECENT YEARS, ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES HAVE WORKED ASSIDUOUSLY to slow Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons. The C.I.A. has operated a 'brain drain' project to lure Iranian nuclear researchers to the West, an effort glimpsed last year when a defecting scientist, Shahram Amiri, suddenly returned to Iran. (After a hero’s welcome, he was imprisoned on treason charges, according to reports from Iran.)

Both countries are believed to have worked in recent years to sabotage Iran’s program to enrich uranium, SMUGGLING DAMAGED COMPONENTS INTO IRAN’S SUPPLY CHAIN AND DESTROYING CENTRIFUGES BY PLANTING THE SO-CALLED STUXNET COMPUTER WORM.

That varied assault plays directly into the worldview of Iran’s clerical leaders, said Reuel ( ...the totally tainted... ) Marc Gerecht, who worked against Iran as a C.I.A. officer from 1985 to 1994.

The covert skirmishes, he said, 'are part of what the Iranians call a titanic struggle between the faithful and the unbelievers, between Iran and the United States, the great Satan, with Israel as the little Satan.' The Iranian view of the United States as an enemy 'is paranoid, but it’s not inaccurate,' said Mr. Gerecht, now with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a CONSERVATIVE RESEARCH GROUP.

Since the appointment in 2007 of Mohammad Ali Jafari as commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Iranian officials have promoted the idea of 'soft war' between Iran and the West, suggesting that an insidious cultural invasion could undermine the theocracy. The Guards and the Basij, or volunteer militia, have been trained to combat such influences, seeking to filter them from the media and Internet.

Officials saw the opposition Green Movement that blossomed in 2009 as just such a threat, portraying young opponents of the government as tools of the United States. Likewise, Iranian leaders today see an American hand behind some developments in the Arab Spring, particularly the undermining of Iran’s allies in Syria. The rivalry between Saudi Arabia, the Sunni Arab power in the region, and Iran, the Persian bastion of Shiite Islam, is an old story, but some of the American diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks showed Saudi hostility in especially raw form. In a now-famous 2008 cable from Riyadh, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, reminded the Americans that King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch, had urged the United States to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear program.

'He told you to cut off the head of the snake,' Mr. Jubeir is quoted as saying.

Whether that statement put him in Iran’s sights in the plot revealed this week is uncertain. The Washington Post reported Friday that Iran’s Quds Force is believed by American and Saudi intelligence to be behind the killing in May of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi, Pakistan.

But plotting the murder of a Saudi diplomat on American soil would be an act aimed at the United States as much as at Saudi Arabia, said Reza Aslan, an Iran expert at the University of California, Riverside.

Mr. Gerecht said he was inclined to accept the administration’s account of the Washington murder plot, which he sees as a bold escalation of hostilities in the covert conflict. 'The only thing that has kept the Iranians from hitting in the United States is the fear that it will rouse the beast,' he said. 'If the Justice Department is right about this plot, that’s very bad news.'" - Scott Shane Artin Afkhami N Y Times 10/15/11

If there was any validity to this "IRANIAN PLOT", David Sanger would be all over it!!!  But the fact that he now is, does NOT indicate validity.  It merely assures us that the PROPAGANDA is more convoluted and intense.

 

Israel's Record
At Home

"Israel Plans to Build More Housing in East Jerusalem

By RICK GLADSTONE

The Israeli government has submitted formal plans to build a new neighborhood of Jewish housing in a part of Jerusalem beyond the 1967 lines close to the West Bank city of Bethlehem, the ANTI-SETTLEMENT ISRAELI GROUP PEACE NOW REPORTED FRIDAY.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD, GIVAT HAMATOS, WOULD BE SITUATED ON THE SOUTHERN FLANK OF EAST JERUSALEM, THE PART OF THE HOLY CITY THAT THE PALESTINIANS WANT AS THE CAPITAL FOR THEIR FUTURE STATE OF PALESTINE.

Peace Now, which opposes Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, said in a statement that unlike other recent Israeli construction projects in East Jerusalem that had expanded existing neighborhoods, 'THE NEW PLAN CREATES AN ENTIRELY NEW FOOTPRINT OF A NEW ISRAELI NEIGHBORHOOD IN EAST JERUSALEM.'

The practical consequence, the group said, would be to 'complete the isolation between Bethlehem and East Jerusalem' and constitute 'A GAME CHANGER THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGES THE POSSIBLE BORDER BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PALESTINE.'

The project, which would create 2,610 homes, was first proposed a few years ago and must still undergo an eight-week appeal period under Israeli law. It would be the first entirely new Jewish area in Jerusalem since 1997.

Word that the Givat Hamatos project was proceeding injected new worries into the increasingly troubled relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and FURTHER DIMMED HOPES FOR A RESUMPTION OF PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.

Reacting to the news, the chief Palestinian Authority negotiator, Saeb Erekat, who was in Paris with President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, was quoted by Agence France-Presse as saying it proved 'THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT WANTS TO DESTROY THE PEACE PROCESS AND THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION.'

This week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel established a committee to examine settlement outposts built on private Palestinian land in the West Bank. The government has promised to dismantle many of those outposts and there was concern that the committee’s TRUE GOAL WAS TO FIND WAYS TO AVOID THAT, ALTHOUGH MR. NETANYAHU’S OFFICE DENIED THAT.

'We oppose any effort to legalize settlement outposts, which is unhelpful to our peace efforts and would contradict Israeli commitments and obligations,' the State Department said in a statement on Wednesday." - RICK GLADSTONE N Y Times 10/15/11

- The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

 

NON FILTERED NEWS

 

As the United States and its citizens prepare to recognize and honor the two hundred and thirty fifth anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, which marked our separation from the tyrant King George III of England, how is it that the President of the United States Barack Obama, when he himself is a recipient of the largess of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965, for which the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and others gave their lives, how is it that President Obama and his administration is so disdainful of the long-suffering Palestinians ( 60 PLUS YEARS - AND THEY SENT NO JEWS TO AUSCHWITZ ) and, yet, supports the tyrannical Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel's Netanyahu - Avigdor Lieberman Regime, which confines a million and a half Gazans to a literal open air prison, subjected to the elements, even after the 12/6/08 - 1/18/09 MASSACRE of Gaza, ON OBAMA'S WATCH ( HE COULD HAVE PREVAILED ON GEORGE W. BUSH! ) , which now provides support for the Israeli sabotage in Greek and international waters of the peaceful humanitarian "Freedom Flotilla", "Audacity of Hope", ten plus vessels sailing to Gaza to help relieve a destitute Palestinian Gazan existence, ON THEIR OWN LAND!

 

- Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, DemocracyNow in London, Athens, etc., 6/30/11 -

- Exclusive Tour of Gaza-Bound U.S. Ship, Audacity of Hope; Saboteurs Damage Other Ships in Flotilla

"Organizers of the humanitarian flotilla to the Gaza Strip say another one of their ships has been sabotaged. The engine of an Irish ship docked in Turkey was reportedly so badly damaged it would have sunk in the middle of the ocean, threatening the lives of the passengers on board ( IS THIS AN ACT OF WAR? ). It’s at least the second flotilla vessel to be targeted this week following damage to a Greek-Swedish ship docked in a port near Athens. Activists have accused Israel of orchestrating the sabotage, but say they have no direct proof. The Israeli government is trying to stop the ships from leaving port and has vowed to intercept them should they set sail. An Israeli official quoted in the Jerusalem Post said, the more "[they] have to run in place in Athens, the better it is for Israel." One of the ships in the 10-vessel flotilla is the U.S.-based "The Audacity of Hope," named after President Obama’s best-selling book. At least three dozen U.S. citizens are on board, carrying letters from Americans to the people of Gaza. DemocracyNow! producer Aaron Maté and videographer Hany Massoud are in Greece to cover The Audacity of Hope’s journey. On Wednesday, Yonatan Shapira — a former Israeli Air Force pilot turned peace activist who is now a crew member on the U.S. boat — gave DemocracyNow! a rare look inside the ship and talked about the threat of sabotage. “I see it as an obligation of me as an Israeli and a Jew to help steer the wheel of this boat into Gaza in order to challenge these war criminals, and to send this message to the Palestinian people, to the Palestinian children in Gaza and the rest of the world, that they are not alone and we support them, and one day, they will be free,” Shapira said.

• Yonatan Shapira, former Israeli Air Force pilot turned peace activist who is now a crew member on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla’s U.S.-flagged ship, “The Audacity of Hope.”
   
• Aaron Maté, DemocracyNow! producer reporting from Athens, Greece where he is covering the Audacity of Hope’s journey, part of the Second Freedom Flotilla to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza.
   

JUAN GONZALEZ: Organizers of the humanitarian flotilla to the Gaza strip say another one of their ships has been sabotaged. The engine of an Irish ship docked in Turkey was reportedly so badly damaged it would have sunk in the middle of the ocean threatening the lives of the passengers on board. It’s at least the second flotilla vessel to be targeted this week following damage to a Greek-Swedish ship docked in a port near Athens.

Activists have accused Israel of orchestrating the sabotage but say they have no direct proof. The Israeli government is trying to stop the ships from leaving port and has vowed to intercept them should they set sail. An Israeli official quoted in the Jerusalem Post said the more "they have to run in place in Athens, the better it is for Israel."

AMY GOODMAN: Well one of the ships in the ten-vessel flotilla is the U.S.-based "Audacity of Hope," named after President Obama’s best-selling book. At least three dozen U.S. citizens are on board, carrying letters from Americans to the people of Gaza. DemocracyNow! Producer Aaron Maté and videographer Hany Massoud are in Greece to cover the Audacity of Hope’s journey. On Wednesday, Yonatan Shapira — a former Israeli Air Force pilot turned peace activist who is now a crew member on the U.S. boat — gave DemocracyNow! a rare look inside the ship and talked about the threat of sabotage. For our tv audience, we had to shoot this video carefully at the request of flotilla organizers who don’t want to give away the ship’s location.

YONATAN SHAPIRA: So, we are now inside the "Audacity of Hope". My name is Yonatan Shapira and I’m a crew member on the Audacity of Hope together with four other people. We have a captain from the United States, another crew member from Washington and two other crew members from the U.K. and I’m from Israel. And we have the passengers that are about 36-40 and probably around 10 media persons who are going to be on board. The boat is approximately 35 meters. It was bought in Greece and yeah, we are hoping to leave soon to Gaza. We are carrying a very dangerous weapon it’s letters from people in the United States to Gaza. I have my own very dangerous weapon that is my harmonica I hope the Israeli navy will not choose to do the mistake and stop us and arrest us for carrying letters to Gaza. So let me show you upstairs real quick.

It’s a lovely deck and that would be the place where probably we will spend most of the time cause it’s nice breeze and comfortable benches. What we know already happened to other boats, it was all published in the last 24 hours, is that the boat of the Swedish-Norwegian-Greek group was sabotaged by divers and I guess everyone can guess who did it. It’s my brothers from Israel. What they did is they cut, small cuts in both of the shuts that goes to the propellers and as soon as the captain of their boat, just for checking the engine, turned it on it completely "bended" it. The boat is now dry docked and they hope to be ready in maybe a couple of days or so.

They are definitely trying whatever they can not to let us go. Yesterday as an act of safety I dived around the boat in this quite filthy water, but we wanted to make sure that our boat is still fine, but we have to guard 24 hours a day and make sure that no one is sabotaging our boat, which of course is an act of crime, it’s a completely criminal thing to sabotage engines, propellers of a boat, it can create an accident, it can create a very very dangerous potential harm for passengers or crew. So we have to be very very careful, but determined with a lot of audacity and a lot of hope.

AMY GOODMAN: Israeli air force pilot Yonatan Shapira on the Audacity of Hope, the U.S. flag ship that contains more than 50 people, we’ll go there live in a moment, that are trying to set sail to challenge the Israeli blockade to Gaza. When we come back we’ll hear Yonatan Shapira’s own story.

- Debunking the Israeli-US Effort to Thwart Gaza Freedom Flotilla: “We Are Committed to Non-Violence”

In addition to fears of ship sabotage and threats from the Israeli military, the U.S. citizens trying to sail to Gaza aboard U.S.-flagged ship “The Audacity of Hope” in the humanitarian flotilla are dealing with another challenge: their own government. The U.S. Department of State has warned U.S. passengers they could face "fines and incarceration" for taking part in the flotilla and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to have given Israel the green light to use force. Last week, Clinton said the flotilla would be [provoking] actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves." The threat of violence comes just one year after Israeli forces killed nine passengers in the first flotilla to Gaza after storming their ship. The passengers aboard the U.S. ship this year are a diverse group — parents, grandparents, young people, lawyers, doctors, nurses, social workers and peace activists. They include a Jewish survivor of the Nazi Holocaust, 87-year old Hedy Epstein; and the acclaimed writer, poet and activist Alice Walker, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of "The Color Purple." As The Audacity of Hope prepares to depart from Greece, DemocracyNow! producers Aaron Maté and Hany Massoud spoke to crew member and former Israeli air force pilot, Yonatan Shapira, about the Israeli-U.S. effort to thwart the ship’s journey.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, in addition to fears of sabotage and threats from the Israeli military, the U.S. citizens trying to sail to Gaza aboard the Audacity of Hope are dealing with another challenge: their own government. The U.S. State Department has warned American passengers they could face "fines and incarceration" for taking part in the flotilla and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to have given Israel the green light to use force. Last week, Clinton said the flotilla would be QUOTE "provoking actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves."

The threat of violence comes just one year after Israeli forces killed nine passengers in the first flotilla to Gaza after storming their ship. The passengers aboard the U.S. ship this year are a diverse bunch — parents, grandparents, young people, lawyers, doctors, nurses, social workers, peace activists. They include a Jewish survivor of the Nazi Holocaust, 87-year old Hedy Epstein; and the acclaimed writer, poet and activist Alice Walker, the Pulitzer-winning author of "the Color Purple."

AMY GOODMAN: Well, as the Audacity of Hope prepares to depart from Greece, DemocracyNow! Producers Aaron Maté and Hany Massoud spoke to crew member and former Israeli air force pilot Yonatan Shapira about the Israeli-U.S. effort to thwart the ship’s journey.

AARON MATÉ: I wanted to get your response to some of the statements from Israeli officials, one saying they have intelligence showing that extremists who’ve infiltrated the flotilla, "will use violence directly against our soldiers." There has been talk also of another official said that they think flotilla members are planning on using sulfuric acids against the Israeli troops. What’s your response?

YONATAN SHAPIRA: It’s just ridiculous to the point that you can just laugh. All of the participants of the flotilla, and our boats especially, signed declarations of non-violence. None of us is planning whatsoever to attack any of the soldiers. We are committed to nonviolence, and these are just more and more lies of the Israeli propaganda machine. People in 2011, that they are still buying into these propaganda, are not connected to reality.

Mostly these things, in my opinion, are directed in order to brainwash the Israeli public in order to justify any kind of harm that they are going to do to us. If someone is preparing a chemical and different other kind of weapons against someone, it is the Israeli army against us, it’s not us against them. Our power, our advantage is our non-violent message, our international message of peace, justice, and equality. Their weapon is the chemical, and the tear gas, the water cannon, the bullets, rubber coated or not rubber coated. We are with the message of peace and justice and non-violence, and they are coming with violence. The way they tried to turn it upside down is just making them look even more ridiculous.

AARON MATÉ: Israeli defense Minister Ehud Barak says that if activists are sensitive to human suffering they should turn their efforts to free Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured by Hamas in Gaza. IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz said that people in Gaza are now living a "comfortable lifestyle."

YONATAN SHAPIRA: Listening to these things said by the Minister of Defense and the Chief of Staff in Israel is like listening to what the commander of the ghetto in Germany or in the apartheid South Africa would say about the life of the blacks or the Jews in these ghettos. So I would invite Ehud Barak to really see what is it to live in Gaza. I think in his ivory tower and comfortable life, he is completely disconnected of the reality, the reality of the children of Gaza, the reality of 1.5 million people that are daily, day and night being oppressed by his army, by the soldiers that he sends to kill, to shoot.

Gaza, if someone doesn’t know, is like an open-air prison, and whoever is walking in just so-and-so distance from the fence is being shot, it’s called the death zone. So if you are just a person with a mental problem or just lost your way and you get too close to the fence, you get shot to death. And this thing happened to my great grandmother and grandfather, that were killed in Germany in ’42. So I see it as an obligation of me as an Israeli and a Jew to help steer the wheel of this boat into Gaza in order to challenge these war criminals and to send this message to the Palestinian people, to the Palestinian children in Gaza and the rest of the world that they are not alone and we support them one day, one day they will be free.

I do it also as an ex-military person, that finally after too many years, but finally I did it in 2003, 8 years ago, I refused. And that’s what I expect my former fellows in the squadron where I used to serve. I used to serve in the "black hawk" squadron the same squadron that participated in the massacre on the Mavi Mamara a year ago. And my message to these pilots in this specific squadron is, if you want to be honest with yourself, if you want to look into the eyes of your children in 10 and 20 years from now, refuse to be part of this illegal blockade. Refuse to obey these illegal orders to arrest us, to board our boats, to shoot us. It’s up to them if this illegal operation is going to happen.

This is a direct quote to these pilots to refuse their orders. Don’t take off from these air force bases. I was once one of you. I learned to fly with you, some of you were my students and now I call them to refuse these orders. It’s completely illegal. They should go on to the website of, for example, the U.S. boat, it’s USTOGAZA.ORG. and see all of us. Each one of us has one-minute statement of who is he, where is he from, why do they do that. We have Jewish Americans, we have women, we have men, we representatives from the whole American society, and I want them to watch video after video, and then go and tell their commanders that they are not going to participate in this illegal operation.

AARON MATÉ: Now, Yonatan this is not your first attempt to reach Gaza by sea. You were part of the Jewish boat to Gaza that was raided last year. Now, you were attacked when this happened. Can you tell us what happened to you?

YONATAN SHAPIRA: Yeah, in short, we were of course non-violent. We had nine people on board. One of them was a Holocaust survivor, he was 82-years-old. One of them was 60-years-old a bereaved father who lost his daughter in a suicide attack and me and my brother and other Jewish activists, we were hugging each other and singing "We shall overcome" and some song in Hebrew, and the Holocaust survivor Ruven was playing his harmonica while the navy raided our boat. Later they had a press release that the whole raid happened non-violently on behalf of the passengers and of the army, but it’s a complete lie. When they came to my brother, they choked him and handcuffed him and took him to another boat. When they came to me, while I was hugging my friend, the 60-years-old father, Ramiel Hanan, they pulled aside my life jacket and put the electric Taser gun close to my heart and fired it. I remember looking at the eyes of this officer, I think he was a captain or a major or something like that and I didn’t even resist. We are so committed to not-violence that I did not even move the electric gun aside. But it has to be mentioned that if I was a Muslim or a Palestinian or a Turk they might have just shot us to death. But since we were Jews, you know and I was Israeli, we got the treatment of the electric gun. But just a few days before they shot to death two Palestinian fisherman that got too close to the three-mile or three-kilometer zone that they decided they are not allowed to. So this time we are coming again with the same message of hope, of non-violence and I expect these soldiers, these officers, these pilots to refuse to be part of this crime.

AMY GOODMAN: Former Israeli air force pilot Yonatan Shapira on the Audacity of Hope, the U.S. flag ship that about 50 passengers are hoping to sail to Gaza.

- Live Update From Jewish Holocaust Survivor on U.S. Ship in Gaza Flotilla

DemocracyNow! producer Aaron Mate and 86-year-old Jewish Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein are on the U.S. ship, “The Audacity of Hope,” as it sits moored in an Athens port, draped in American flags, waiting to set sail for Gaza, joining nine other ships in a humanitarian flotilla to challenge the Israeli naval blockade of Palestine. Asked why she is attempting to go to Gaza, Epstein says, “If I can go anywhere in the world, why not to Gaza? Because the Israelis do not want me to go there? That is not a good reason for me not to go.”

• Hedy Epstein, 86-year-old Jewish Holocaust survivor and longtime activist with the International Solidarity Movement.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re on board the Audacity of Hope right now with Aaron Maté, DemocracyNow! Producer. Aaron can you tell us what’s happening? It’s afternoon, Athens, Greece, time. Are you setting sail right now?

AARON MATÉ: Amy I’m standing on the Audacity of Hope. We’re still moored at dockside. They’ve just unveiled the banner on the side of the ship, it says "To Gaza With Love." And they’ve put an American flag on top of the boat to remind Israelis that they expect to intercede, that this is an American ship with U.S. citizens sharing the cargo, which I can see right now they’ve spread out some of the cargo, it’s a bunch of, they’re to Gaza residents, from U.S. citizens, I’m looking at one right now, I’m picking one up, it says, "To Gaza With Love," and it’s from Jason 5, and there’s a picture of a rainbow and a sun.

The passengers are here. They’re excited they’re getting ready to go. Of course there’s been a lot of raids. The police have been here a lot. Of course the ship has been held up by Greek authorities because there was a complaint filed by an Israeli group. But the spirit here is one of defiance. People are ready to go. And actually I’m going to pass you right now to one of the passengers, her name is Hedy Epstein, she’s an 86-year-old Holocaust survivor, and she’s right here.

AMY GOODMAN: Aaron is turning to her right now. It’s not a great line, but they are on the Audacity of Hope, so we’re going to give this a try. Hedy Epstein why are you trying, why are you on this boat attempting to get to Gaza?

HEDY EPSTEIN: Why would I not want to go to Gaza? If I can go anywhere in the world, I go to Gaza because the Israelis don’t want me to go there. That’s not a good reason for me not to go. I’m determined to go. This is my try to go to Gaza and if I don’t make it this time [inaudible], until we can go to Gaza at any time we want to.

AMY GOODMAN: Hedy Epstein, a Jewish survivor of the Nazi Holocaust. She is 86 years old, on board the Audacity of Hope. We will continue to cover the attempted journey of the Audacity of Hope. They were expected to leave last Saturday. We will update you on our website, at democracynow.org. Hedy Epstein thank you for joining us. DemocracyNow!’s Aaron Maté on board the ship he will be covering this journey". - Amy Goodman Juan Gonzalez DemocracyNow in London, Athens, etc., 6/30/11

 

NON FILTERED NEWS

 

In keeping with GOPBIAS.INFO's overall theme - "NON FILTERED NEWS" - it is critical to include Amy Goodman's DemocracyNow broadcast, Wednesday July 6, 2011, with its focus on Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks, which spells out conclusively, in detail, the WikiLeaks' involvement in the "Arab Spring" and the miraculous Egyptian revolution - plus - the "Freedom Flotilla" to Gaza - all making up the most remarkable democratic movement in the Middle East since Iran's democratic election of Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in 1951 ( removed from office by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 ) !

DemocracyNow 7/6/11!

 

* Congress Threatens Palestinians With Aid Cutoff Over Statehood Bid

The House has overwhelmingly approved a measure opposing the Palestinian effort to seek statehood recognition at the United Nations this fall. The Palestinian Authority is preparing to ask the U.N. General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories along the 1967 borders. The non-binding House resolution calls for a suspension of U.S. aid to Palestinians if they continue with the statehood bid. It passed by a vote of 400-to-6, following a similar vote in the Senate last month.

* Israel Prepares to Block Entry of Palestinian Solidarity Activists in "Flytilla"

The Israeli government is launching a massive internal security operation to block an influx of Palestinian solidarity activists arriving from abroad. Hundreds of people are scheduled to fly into Tel Aviv this weekend to visit the occupied West Bank at the invitation of Palestinian civil society groups. The trip is being called the "Flytilla," after the flotilla of ships currently trying to break the naval blockade of Gaza. An Israeli police spokesperson says hundreds of officers will be deployed to block the activists’ entry.

Micky Rosenfeld: "What we know is there are scheduled several hundred activists that will come in over the next 24 to 48 hours, meaning from Thursday night to the end of the weekend, and that’s why all necessary arrangements, security arrangements have been made."

* Revisiting DemocracyNow 7/6/11!

* Audacity of Hope: Inside Report Aboard U.S. Ship’s Dramatic Challenge to Greek Ban on Gaza Flotilla

"A French boat carrying eight people as part of the 10-ship Freedom Flotilla to the Gaza Strip has left Greek waters, defying a ban imposed by Greece under heavy pressure from Israel and the United States. The small boat is the first to elude Greek authorities after two ships were stopped since Friday. Carrying humanitarian cargo, the ships are trying to reach Gaza just over a year after Israeli forces killed nine people aboard the first Freedom Flotilla. Democracy Now!’s Aaron Maté was on board the U.S.-flagged ship, The Audacity of Hope, when it became the first flotilla ship to defy the ban and make a break for Gaza, only to be intercepted by Greek authorities in a dramatic standoff at sea. He filed this report." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/6/11

Ali Abunimah Responds To Israeli Claims That Gaza Flotilla Is A “Provocation”

"As the 400 international activists wait to set sail from Greece to Gaza on the Freedom Flotilla, Israeli media has been full of reports speculating about the activists’ character and motivations for participating in the humanitarian aid mission. Israeli newspapers have charged that the flotilla is carrying sacks of chemicals on board because passengers plan to kill IDF soldiers. The reports come after Foreign Ministry officials informed Israeli cabinet ministers that there was no information about members of "terrorist groups" planning to take part in the flotilla. “Israel is trying to present the flotilla as a military threat, whereas nobody in the world believes that,” says our guest, Ali Abunimah, co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, “not even Israeli cabinet ministers.”" - Ali Abunimah 7/1/11

Israeli Official Condemns Gaza Flotilla, Refuses to Deny Israeli Role in Sabotage of Boats

"Ido Aharoni, Consul General of Israel in New York, defends the Israeli government’s campaign against the flotilla claiming there is no need for humanitarian aid to be shipped to Gaza now that Egypt has opened the Rafah border crossing. Aharoni also refuses to deny Israel played a role in the sabotage of two boats in the flotilla and refuses to promise that Israeli officials will not arrest the Democracy Now! journalists on board the flotilla if Israel intercepts the ship. “I can tell you the whole idea of the flotilla is unnecessary, and we have no interest in dealing with it, and hopefully the flotilla will not be on its way to Israel,” Aharoni said." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/1/11

* A New McCarthyist Hysteria: WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange Responds to Espionage, Terrorism Allegations

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange appeared in London July 2 for an unusual conversation with Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, moderated by Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman. Assange is currently under house arrest in Norfolk, outside London, awaiting a July 12 appeals hearing on his pending extradition to Sweden for questioning on sexual misconduct allegations. He has not been charged with a crime in any country. In this excerpt from Saturday’s discussion, Žižek and Assange respond to critics who say Assange should be charged in the United States under the Espionage Act of 1917 and that WikiLeaks should be shut down. 'We should always see censorship, actually, as a very positive sign, and attempts towards censorship as a sign that society is not yet completely sewn up, not yet completely fiscalized but still has some political dimension to it. I.E: What people think and believe and feel and the words that they listen to actually matters,' says Assange." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/6/11

* WikiLeaks Readies Suit Against Credit Card Companies Over "Economic Blockade"

"During a July 2 discussion in London moderated by Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange discusses a new lawsuit WikiLeaks is filing against Visa and MasterCard for what he calls an 'economic blockade' against his whistleblower group, preventing them from collecting credit card donations online. Mastercard, Visa and other financial giants cut off payment methods to WikiLeaks following the release of secret U.S. diplomatic cables last year. 'It is an extraordinary thing that we have seen, that Visa, MasterCard [and other companies] are instruments of U.S. foreign policy,' Assange says." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/6/11

* WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange on Role of U.S. Cables in Helping Stir Arab Spring

"Earlier this year, WikiLeaks released the largest trove of classified U.S. State Department cables in history, exposing the U.S. role in propping up unpopular regimes in the Middle East and supporting human rights abuses against opponents. During a July 2 discussion moderated by Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange highlighted the importance in releasing the information documented in the diplomatic cables, the impact WikiLeaks has had on world politics and journalism in general, and about the Arab Spring political uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, now continuing across the region in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Libya." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/6/11

* AS DEBT TALKS THREATEN MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, STUDY FINDS U.S. SPENDING $4 TRILLION$ ON WAR

"As part of ongoing debt negotiations, the White House has proposed slashing more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade — twice what Obama had proposed earlier. While much of the talk in Washington centers on taxes, Social Security and Medicare, far less attention is being paid to the growing cost of the U.S. wars overseas. A new report from Brown University has estimated the true cost of the U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will end up costing approximately $4 trillion — FAR MORE THAN THE BUSH OR OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED. The authors of the study reveal that because the war has been financed almost entirely by borrowing, $185 billion in interest has already been paid on war spending, and another $1 trillion could accrue in interest alone through 2020. We speak with Neta Crawford, co-director of the Costs of War Project, and a Professor of Political Science at Boston University.

JUAN GONZALEZ: President Obama met with congressional leaders at the White House Thursday and vowed not to sign a short-term extension of U.S. $14.3 trillion debt ceiling beyond the approaching August 2nd deadline. As part of the debt negotiations, the White House has proposed slashing more than $4 trillion from annual deficits over the next decade – twice what Obama had promised earlier.

While much of the talk in Washington centers on taxes, Social Security and Medicare, far less attention is being paid to the growing cost of U.S. wars overseas. The U.S. military and the C.I.A. are currently carrying out operations in at least six countries – Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

AMY GOODMAN: A new report released by Brown University has estimated the true cost of the U.S. wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will end up costing approximately $4 trillion – far more than the Bush or Obama administrations have acknowledged. The authors of the study reveal because the war is being financed almost entirely by borrowing, $185 billion in interest has already been paid on war spending, and another $1 trillion could accrue in interest alone through 2020. It could cost nearly another $1 trillion to pay for the medical care and disability for current and future war veterans.

To discuss the cost of war, we’re going up to Boston University to speak with Professor Neta Crawford. She’s the co-director of the Cost of War Project and a professor of political science at Boston University. The significance of this report, even as they’re debating the deficit in Washington, and talking about agreeing on deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare – Neta Crawford, the cost that the United States is spending right now in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and what you’re pointing out in this report – equally in Pakistan – right now?

NETA CRAWFORD: Yes, the United States has already spent about $3 trillion and it will spend much more than that over the next several decades, including that maybe $1 trillion that was mentioned by your reporter, on veterans and medical.

AMY GOODMAN: Lay out for us what you have found, these massive costs that we, in this country I think, have very little awareness of the media covering actual war less and less.

NETA CRAWFORD: Well, there are two aspects of that. First, the president and many people focus on just the Pentagon’s appropriation for the wars in the last 10 years, and that’s $1.3 trillion in constant dollars. But the costs are deeper than that. They go to veterans medical and disability costs, foreign assistance, homeland security, and then, as you mentioned, interest on the debt. When you add all that up, it is about twice what we tend to talk about if we just focus on Pentagon appropriations.

The other element of the costs is that future cost, which we must pay – the interest on the debt and veterans’ medical and disability. Then there’s another layer of costs which we were not able to fully calculate, which are the social costs to families and also the cost to state and local governments for veterans’ care. Then there are many other pockets of cost if you look all over the U.S. government.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yesterday on the show we talked about the problems of post-traumatic stress with many veterans and the suicide rates. What portion of this cost that is never factored in did you conclude was a result of both the need for current medical treatment for returning veterans as well as future treatment?

NETA CRAWFORD: Well, the U.S. has already spent already about $32 billion in medical and disability for veterans, but that doesn’t include what families are spending privately nor what state and local governments are spending. Of course, all of this is an under-estimate of the toll because as you know, until recently, the U.S. was not including many people who do have traumatic brain injuries or post-traumatic stress because those were under-diagnosed.

AMY GOODMAN: Why aren’t we seeing this reflected in the conversations on the networks, as this whole discussion about deficits takes place? The massive cost that is going into the state of war rather than back into the states of this country, that are in such dire need, Professor Crawford?

NETA CRAWFORD: I think it’s partly that after 9/11, we are in such shock and fear that this lingered, and the tendency not to question what seemed to be defense expenditures, were actually – they could have been questioned. That’s a long-term sort of hangover of the 9/11 attacks, our sort of inability to be questioning these budgets. I think another element here is that, again, the cost is sort of hidden from view and put in these different budgets so it’s hard, unless you take a more comprehensive view, to get a handle on the scale of the cost.

A third factor is perhaps that these wars have been funded mostly through special appropriations or emergency appropriations until recently. Those costs are not scrutinized as much by Congress as they ought to be.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Of course, one part of that that has been now structurally put into our budget is Homeland Security. Your assessment of the enormous expenditure? Because it seems that no matter what the budget deficit is, there’s always money available for more efforts at Homeland Security. Can you talk about this impact of actually militarizing the domestic budget of the United States?

NETA CRAWFORD: That is about an additional $400 billion over the last 10 years for Homeland Security. Of course, it is in a way ironic because at the same time U.S. has spent this money to increase preparedness, it took away National Guard troops and equipment and moved them abroad. In a sense, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Crawford, included in the cost of war – you’ve got the financial costs, far more than has been estimated before here in this country. I mean, Professors Stiglitz and Bilmes at Harvard, the Nobel Prize winning economists, say we’re talking about actually estimates over years of something like $5 trillion, but also the human casualties cost of war.

NETA CRAWFORD: We calculated, estimated about 225,000-250,000 people have died – that’s including soldiers, civilians, contractors. But more than that, we know this is a conservative estimate because in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan, there has been a tendency to under count and not report the direct war dead. In addition, we tend to focus on those who were killed by bombs and bullets, but pay less attention to those who died because of lack of safe drinking water or disease or displacement and inability to eat, so that rates of malnourishment are still high in Iraq. Malnutrition is very high in Afghanistan. Millions of people in Pakistan are displaced and don’t have regular access to food and safe drinking water.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Crawford, we’ll leave it there but we’ll link to your report at democracynow.org, called Cost of War. Professor Crawford is professor of political science at Boston University." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/8/11

 

NON FILTERED NEWS

 

*  "On the eve of the extradition hearing for WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange in London, we spend an exclusive hour with David House, who co-founded the Bradley Manning Support Network after U.S. Army Private Manning was arrested for allegedly releasing classified U.S. military documents to WikiLeaks. House refused to testify last month in Alexandria, Virginia, before a grand jury hearing on WikiLeaks and the disclosure of thousands of classified U.S. diplomatic cables. Democracy Now! spoke to House at the Frontline Club in London about the significance of WikiLeaks, how he helped found the Bradley Manning Support Network, his visits with Manning at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, the federal surveillance he and his associates have come under, and his experience before the grand jury. “In my mind, this reeks of the Pentagon Papers investigation,” says House. “Richard Nixon’s [Department of Justice] 40 years ago attempted to curtail the freedoms of the press and politically regulate the press through the use of policy created around the espionage investigation of the New York Times. I feel the WikiLeaks case we have going on now provides Obama’s DOJ ample opportunity to continue this attempt to politically regulate the U.S. media.”

David House, co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network. In June 2011, he refused to testify about WikiLeaks before a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia.

MS. GOODMAN: On the eve of the extradition hearing for WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange in London, we will spend an exclusive hour with David House, who co-founded the Bradley Manning Support Network after U.S. Army Private Manning was arrested for allegedly releasing classified U.S. documents to WikiLeaks. David House helped publicize the oppressive conditions of Manning’s solitary confinement at the Quantico Marine Corps Base after he was allowed inside the prison to visit Bradley Manning. Manning’s conditions at Quantico were described as tantamount to torture, and it was being investigated by Juan Méndez, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture. Last month, David House refused to testify before a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia. House cited his right against self-incrimination and said the Obama administration is using Nixonian fear tactics to dismantle WikiLeaks.

Well, Democracy Now! caught up with David House in London over the July 4th weekend, when we went to London to moderate a discussion with Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks editor-in-chief, and the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek. Today, we spend the hour with David House as he discusses how he founded—co-founded the Bradley Manning Support Network, talks about the federal surveillance that he has come under, his experience before the grand jury, and his visits to Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, where Manning was held in maximum-security confinement before being transferred to the Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. I spoke to David House at the Frontline Club in London, which was founded to honor journalists killed on the front lines of war.

MS. GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’re in London, England, and I’m joined by David House. He’s the co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

MR. HOUSE: Thanks.

MS. GOODMAN: Why did you found this network? When did you do it?

MR. HOUSE: Well, I knew Bradley Manning in Boston in January 2010. And when the news of his arrest broke in May 2010, I was one of several friends of his in the Boston area who decided to get together to ensure that Bradley’s due process was not infringed upon in the course of the U.S. government’s investigation into his alleged involvement in the WikiLeaks disclosures.

MS. GOODMAN: How did you know Bradley?

MR. HOUSE: I met him at a computer science event in the Boston area in January, a free software event. He was in attendance with some other friends from Boston, and we met very briefly, at the end.

MS. GOODMAN: Was this before or after Iraq?

MR. HOUSE: Before or after Iraq?

MS. GOODMAN: He served in Iraq?

MR. HOUSE: I’m not sure. I think he was on leave when he came to the event in January.

MS. GOODMAN: How did you learn what happened to Bradley Manning?

MR. HOUSE: I was in my Cambridge residence. One of my friends came over and said, "Have you seen the news?" I said, obviously, "What news?" And we went over to my laptop. He opened it up, pulled up the Wired article by Kevin Poulsen, and there was a headline, something similar to "Adrian Lamo Turns in U.S. Intelligence Analyst," and a picture of Adrian Lamo and a picture of Bradley Manning. And my first thought was, you know, "Oh, my god! I know both of these people." And my second thought was, "Well, we have to do something to make sure this guy’s due process is not infringed upon." So, that was kind of the beginning of what would become the BMSN ( Bradley Manning Support Network ), at least in the Boston area.

MS. GOODMAN: How did you know Adrian Lamo?

MR. HOUSE: Adrian Lamo is a pretty well-known figure in computer circles, at least online. He makes himself very accessible to individuals. I think I met him online two or three years ago through a mutual friend from Alabama, of all places. So he was someone that’s always kind of been on the internet and communicating with people that were very public in the hacking community for quite some time.

MS. GOODMAN: So, tell us what happened, or at least how you came to understand what happened to Bradley Manning.

MR. HOUSE: Sure. So, in Boston in May, right after we decided we needed to do something, there was a mailing list put together online, and several activists from around the country and around the world got together around this mailing list to toss around ideas about what they could do to best support Bradley Manning. And out of this, the Bradley Manning Defense Fund was founded. And the Defense Fund was founded and is currently hosted by Courage to Resist. And it’s raised over $150,000 for Bradley Manning’s defense.

While all this was going on, all the infrastructure was going up, a big federal presence descended upon Boston. So, I was working at MIT, living in Cambridge, and one day I got a knock on my door, and there were four agents.

MS. GOODMAN: What were you doing at MIT?

MR. HOUSE: I was doing information economics research with the Center for Digital Business. So, I got a knock on my door one day, and there were these four agents. Two identified themselves as Army CID, and two identified themselves as State Department, which could have been anything. And my roommate at the time was a Palestinian filmmaker at MIT, and so I remember being quite nervous as the agents came in my house, because there was kafiyas hanging on the wall and books about Palestine everywhere, which the agents took particular note of. And during the course of our hour-long conversation, I came to the understanding that they were trying to find evidence about the WikiLeaks leak in the Boston area and other hackers they thought may be associated with the disclosure of information allegedly coming from Bradley Manning. At the very end of the conversation, they offered me a cash reward in order to, as I said, keep my ear to the ground about WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning.

MS. GOODMAN: How much did they offer you?

MR. HOUSE: No dollar amount was given, just a cash reward. And that’s the point at which I asked them to leave the apartment. Over the series of, I would say, three to four weeks after that, there was very obvious surveillance happening of myself and my friends in the Boston area. And this surveillance presence kind of only emboldened us and gave us more confidence, but it was very odd to walk out of your apartment and to see a black sedan sitting down the street, the same black sedan you would later see outside your place of work. Students in the Boston area were questioned on the street for weeks after this, after this interview.

And so, right when the Bradley Manning Support Network was ramping up and these activists were coming together to figure out how they could help Bradley Manning, as in my case, a friend of mine, we were also under this mass surveillance, and it was quite an interesting experience to have to go through.

MS. GOODMAN: Did the Army, did the State Department descend on others, question them?

MR. HOUSE: Yes, there were other people in Boston questioned, as well, people I’m not comfortable giving their names because obviously they’re not as public in this affair as I am right now. But there were, I believe, at least four people who were questioned in addition to myself.

MS. GOODMAN: And was it your understanding they said they would not cooperate?

MR. HOUSE: I’m unsure. What do you mean by "cooperate"?

MS. GOODMAN: Well, they offered you a cash reward; you asked them to leave.

MR. HOUSE: Like become informants. Ah, I have no guarantee that anyone else refused to become informant. If they did, they didn’t talk about it, so...

MS. GOODMAN: And what was your communication with Adrian Lamo?

MR. HOUSE: During this time? Adrian and I didn’t talk, at all. I mean, after the Wired chat logs were released via Wired, it was pretty clear that Adrian and I were no longer friends. And this was—

MS. GOODMAN: For the people who aren’t familiar with this case, explain what those chats were that were released by Wired magazine.

MR. HOUSE: Right, so Wired magazine released the alleged chat logs of Bradley Manning, between Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo.

MS. GOODMAN: Some of them.

MR. HOUSE: Some of them, right. And these chat logs were purported to show Bradley Manning confessing to having released the WikiLeaks cables to WikiLeaks. But there’s a lot of controversy about the validity of these logs, whether they’re true or not, because the logs, the way they’re made up, it’s actually just like a text document, something anyone can type up. And these were released by Wired.com, partially, during the May 2010 story that broke all of this to the mainstream press. So, after that happened, Adrian lost a lot of friends in the hacking world—I would say most friends in the hacking world—and all of his credibility was completely shot. At the HOPE Conference, the Hackers on Planet Earth Conference, in New York—

MS. GOODMAN: Hackers on Planet Earth?

MR. HOUSE: Yes, yes. In that July, I mean, people were wearing T-shirts that said, you know, "stop snitching" and things like that. So, I mean, it was a very big cultural backlash against Adrian. So the only real communication I had with him was via like a random Facebook message or something to try to gauge where he was at and get information from him around, I think, end of July. But aside from that, no one really was talking to this guy. It became apparent that he was working for the Feds, and that was a very big deal.

MS. GOODMAN: We continue our conversation with soldier David House, co-founder of the Bradley Manning Support Network. He’ll talk about being stopped at airports and other issues in a minute." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/11/11

 

 

NON FILTERED NEWS

Message To The New York Times!
The Retraction Of The Richard J. Goldstone Report?
WE THINK NOT!

DemocracyNow Holds Forth!

JUAN GONZALEZ: Israel has called on the United Nations to retract the Goldstone Report on the 2008-2009 Israeli assault on Gaza after its author backtracked from some crucial findings. Judge Richard Goldstone chaired a fact-finding mission which said both Israel and Hamas were guilty of war crimes in the conflict.

In an editorial in the Washington Post on Friday, Judge Richard Goldstone said, quote, "Civilians were not intentionally targeted [by Israel] as a matter of policy." This claim stands in direct contradiction with what Judge Goldstone said when the findings were first revealed.

JUDGE RICHARD GOLDSTONE: We detail a number of specific incidents in which Israeli forces launched direct attacks against civilians with lethal consequences. These were, with only one exception, where the facts established that there was no military objective or advantage that could justify the attacks.

JUAN GONZALEZ: About 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, and 13 Israelis were killed in the devastating conflict. Israel launched Operation Cast Lead with the aim of ending cross-border rocket fire from Palestinian militants.

To discuss the implications of Judge Goldstone’s position, we have with us in the studio—we’re joined by Adam Horowitz and Lizzy Ratner. They are co-editors of an abridged version of the U.N. investigation, titled The Goldstone Report: The Legacy of the Landmark Investigation of the Gaza Conflict.

Welcome to both of you.

LIZZY RATNER: Thank you so much.

ADAM HOROWITZ: Thanks for having us.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Starting with you, Adam, your reaction to the op-ed piece in the Washington Post?

ADAM HOROWITZ: Right, well, I was very surprised to read the piece in the Washington Post, but I also think that the initial reaction, especially from Israel supporters, is misread. It’s being characterized as a retraction. And if you read the op-ed, Judge Goldstone actually only comments on one small part of the report, which I take as an implication that the rest of the report stays intact and that he is still in support of that.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the main thing that he retracts?

ADAM HOROWITZ: He talked about one small point. He said that there was not a policy, an intentional policy, to target civilians. This was something that was mentioned in the report, but it was just one small issue. Much larger was the issue of intentionally attacking the civilian infrastructure of Gaza, which he doesn’t mention, and the idea of just disproportionate and indiscriminate violence, which he doesn’t address and which affects civilians disproportionately.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And hasn’t the problem been from the very beginning that there was no cooperation whatsoever from Israel in terms of the initial investigation, or even in terms of the United Nations human rights investigation that has followed and came out with a report recently, Lizzy?

LIZZY RATNER: Yeah, absolutely. From the moment Judge Goldstone took on the mission, took on the chairmanship of the mission, he was begging Israel. He wrote letters to Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, saying, "Please comply with this investigation. We think you have valuable things to contribute. We want to make sure we get our facts right." And Israel routinely said, "No, we will absolutely not comply with this investigation. In fact, we’re going to make it very difficult for you to do your investigation. We’re not going to let you into Gaza. If you want to go into Gaza, you have to go in through Egypt, through the Rafah border. And we’re not going to let you talk to Israeli citizens in Israel. We’re not going to let you into the West Bank to examine what happened there." So, in fact, the Goldstone Report—the Goldstone investigation had to go to Geneva to interview a number of Israeli citizens about what was happening in Sderot, the rockets coming into Sderot. So, Israel, from the beginning, has not complied. In fact, there was a sort of a committee to investigate how the recommendations of the mission were being carried through. It was called the Committee of Experts. And this was simply an investigation of the investigation of the Goldstone Report, and Israel wouldn’t comply with them either. So, yeah, from the beginning, Israel has said, "We’re not going to help out at all."

ADAM HOROWITZ: Yeah, and if I can add just one piece there, in the op-ed, Judge Goldstone says, you know, "If I knew what I knew now, or if I had had access to Israel, the report would have looked different." And Israel supporters are using that statement to try to discredit the entire report. Judge Goldstone has said that all along. He said all along that if he had had access to talk to Israeli political and military leaders, Israeli civilians in Sderot and other affected areas, of course the report would have looked different. I mean, that is a—that’s a commonsense point that he’s been making all along.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And it seems to be, here in the United States, his retraction of a portion of the report has gotten far more coverage than the original conclusions of his report when it first came out.

ADAM HOROWITZ: Yeah. No, I think that’s true. I mean, there’s an article in the Times today highlighting that and highlighting the Israeli strategy now to try to have the entire report retracted by the U.N., although in Ha’aretz this morning, the Israeli newspaper, they’re already saying that there’s no way that the U.N. is going to retract the report, that there’s no way one op-ed in the Washington Post can outweigh a 500-page U.N. report that had, you know, months of research and—that has gone into it.

LIZZY RATNER: And it’s important to point out that there were four commissioners who oversaw the creation of the Goldstone Report. Richard Goldstone was the lead commissioner, but there are three others who have in no way retreated an inch from the report. And, of course, as Adam has said at the beginning, Goldstone’s retreat is a fairly—it’s a modest retreat. Most of the report still stands. And one can even question the claim he makes, that there wasn’t intentional targeting of civilians.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the claim that Israel really has gone after those rogue elements in the military who may have been involved in the targeting of civilians, that were not, quote, "part of Israeli policy," supposedly?

LIZZY RATNER: Right. Well, this is a very, very important point. Goldstone says in his essay that he reaches the conclusion that Israel didn’t intentionally target civilians, because Israel has conducted a number of investigations, they’ve been credible, and they all suggest that this wasn’t policy. And then he goes on to cite—Goldstone goes on to cite this report, as I mentioned, by this Committee of Experts, which was charged with investigating how Israel and Hamas were following through on the recommendations of the Goldstone Report, and he says that this report by the Committee of Experts kind of validates this idea that Israel has done credible investigations.

Interestingly, if you read this report on the Committee of Experts, which came out two weeks ago, it says the exact opposite: it says, yes, Israel has begun investigations into 400 incidents, but that these investigations have taken far too long, that they’ve been inconclusive in many cases, and that, in fact, Israel in no way showed any willingness or ability to look into whether or not there was an intentional policy of targeting civilians.

And then, Goldstone goes on to mention a particular case, the case of the al-Samouni family, which was one of the worst and most tragic chapters of Operation Cast Lead. And the Samouni family was a family that had all gathered in a single household during Operation Cast Lead. They had actually been herded there by the Israeli military and told that they should be there to be safe. And then a bomb landed on the house and killed, I believe it was, 21 members of the family in a single blow. And so, Goldstone says in his essay that an investigation by Israel shows that all that took place was a misreading of drone images. The officer who ordered the attack is being investigated. In fact, this Committee of Expert report that came out two weeks ago says they really can’t find any conclusive evidence, or they can’t really figure out what’s going on with the investigation. There’s a lot of conflicting information. It doesn’t seem like the officer is actually necessarily being investigated. It looks like—there’s conflicting information. Some information suggests that he didn’t know they were civilians; other information suggests that he was warned that there were civilians and ordered the attack anyway. So, you know—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Adam, we just have about a minute, but the importance of whether the Dahiya Doctrine revealed that Israel was targeting civilians—can you talk about what that Dahiya Doctrine was?

ADAM HOROWITZ: Sure, the Dahiya Doctrine is the war doctrine that Israel first used in the 2006 attack on Lebanon, which basically said that any area that they were receiving fire from, they would consider the entire area to be a military target. Dahiya is a neighborhood in Beirut that was absolutely flattened. Leading up to Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, the Israeli military and political command was very clear that they were going to recreate Dahiya in Gaza. And many people, including Judge Goldstone and the Goldstone Report, say that’s exactly what happened. And that’s one of the most damning charges of the Goldstone Report, which Goldstone does not address in this op-ed, that there was an intentional policy of collective punishment, of attacking the civilian infrastructure, the electricity, the food, the people of Gaza, to punish them for having elected Hamas. And that’s a charge that still stands.

JUAN GONZALEZ: We’re going to have to leave it there, but we’ll certainly be following this in future broadcasts. We’ve been speaking with Adam Horowitz and Lizzy Ratner. They’re co-editors of an abridged version of the U.N. investigation, titled The Goldstone Report: The Legacy of the Landmark Investigation of the Gaza Conflict.

* ILAN PAPPE ON GOLDSTONE RETRACTION!

"If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a different document." Thus opens Judge Richard Goldstone's much-discussed op-ed in The Washington Post. I have a strong feeling that the editor might have tampered with the text and that the original sentence ought to have read something like: "If I had known then that the report would turn me into a self-hating Jew in the eyes of my beloved Israel and my own Jewish community in South Africa, the Goldstone report would never have been written at all." And if that wasn't the original sentence, it is certainly the subtext of Goldstone's article.

This shameful U-turn did not happen this week. It comes after more than a year and a half of a sustained campaign of intimidation and character assassination against the judge, a campaign whose like in the past destroyed mighty people such as US Senator William Fulbright who was shot down politically for his brave attempt to disclose AIPAC's illegal dealings with the State of Israel.

Already In October 2009, Goldstone told CNN, "I've got a great love for Israel" and "I've worked for many Israeli causes and continue to do so" (Video: "Fareed Zakaria GPS," 4 October 2009).

Given the fact that at the time he made this declaration of love he did not have any new evidence, as he claims now, one may wonder how could this love could not be at least weakened by what he discovered when writing, along with other members of the UN commission, his original report.

But worse was to come and exactly a year ago, in April 2010, the campaign against him reached new heights, or rather, lows. It was led by the chairman of the South African Zionist Federation, Avrom Krengel, who tried to prevent Goldstone from participating in his grandson's bar mitzvah in Johannesburg since "Goldstone caused irreparable damage to the Jewish people as a whole."

The South African Zionist Federation threatened to picket outside the synagogue during the ceremony. Worse was the interference of South Africa's Chief Rabbi, Warren Goldstein, who chastised Goldstone for "doing greater damage to the State of Israel." Last February, Goldstone said that "Hamas perpetrated war crimes, but Israel did not," in an interview that was not broadcast, according to a 3 April report the website of Israel's Channel 2. It was not enough: the Israelis demanded much more.

Readers might ask "so what?" and "why could Goldstone not withstand the heat?" Good questions, but alas the Zionization of Jewish communities and the false identification of Jewishness with Zionism is still a powerful disincentive that prevents liberal Jews from boldly facing Israel and its crimes.

Every now and again many liberal Jews seem to liberate themselves and allow their conscience, rather than their fear, to lead them. However, many seem unable stick to their more universalist inclinations for too long where Israel is concerned. The risk of being defined as a "self-hating Jew" with all the ramifications of such an accusation is a real and frightening prospect for them. You have to be in this position to understand the power of this terror.

Just weeks ago, Israeli military intelligence announced it had created a special unit to monitor, confront, and possibly hunt down, individuals and bodies suspected of "delegitimizing" Israel abroad. In light of this, perhaps quite a few of the faint-hearted felt standing up to Israel was not worth it.

We should have recognized that Goldstone was one of them when he stated that, despite his report, he remains a Zionist. This adjective, "Zionist," is far more meaningful and charged than is usually assumed. You cannot claim to be one if you oppose the ideology of the apartheid State of Israel. You can remain one if you just rebuke the state for a certain criminal policy and fail to see the connection between the ideology and that policy. "I am a Zionist" is a declaration of loyalty to a frame of mind that cannot accept the 2009 Goldstone Report. You can either be a Zionist or blame Israel for war crimes and crimes against humanity -- if you do both, you will crack sooner rather than later.

That this mea culpa has nothing to do with new facts is clear when one examines the "evidence" brought by Goldstone to explain his retraction. To be honest, one should say that one did not have to be the world expert on international law to know that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza in 2009. The reports of bodies such as Breaking the Silence and the UN representatives on the ground attested to it, before and after the Goldstone report. It was also not the only evidence.

The pictures and images we saw on our screens and those we saw on the ground told only one story of a criminal policy intending to kill, wound and maim as a collective punishment. "The Palestinians are going to bring upon themselves a Holocaust," promised Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy minister of defense to the people of Gaza on 29 February 2008.

There is only one new piece of evidence Goldstone brings and this is an internal Israeli army investigation that explains that one of the cases suspected as a war crime was due to a mistake by the Israeli army that is still being investigated. This must be a winning card: a claim by the Israeli army that massive killings by Palestinians were a "mistake."

Ever since the creation of the State of Israel, the tens of thousands of Palestinians killed by Israel were either terrorists or killed by "mistake." So 29 out of 1,400 deaths were killed by an unfortunate mistake? Only ideological commitment could base a revision of the report on an internal inquiry of the Israeli army focusing only on one of dozens of instances of unlawful killing and massacring. So it cannot be new evidence that caused Goldstone to write this article. Rather, it is his wish to return to the Zionist comfort zone that propelled this bizarre and faulty article.

This is also clear from the way he escalates his language against Hamas in the article and de-escalates his words toward Israel. And he hopes that this would absolve him of Israel's righteous fury. But he is wrong, very wrong. Only a few hours passed from the publication of the article until Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and of course the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate President Shimon Peres commissioned Goldstone with a new role in life: he is expected to move from one campus to the other and hop from one public venue to the next in the service of a new and pious Israel. He may choose not to do it; but then again he might not be allowed to attend his grandson's bar mitzvah as a retaliation.

Goldstone and his colleagues wrote a very detailed report, but they were quite reserved in their conclusions. The picture unfolding from Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations was far more horrendous and was described less in the clinical and legal language that quite often fails to convey the magnitude of the horror. It was first western public opinion that understood better than Goldstone the implications of his report. Israel's international legitimacy has suffered an unprecedented blow. He was genuinely shocked to learn that this was the result.

We have been there before. In the late 1980s, Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote a similar, sterile, account of the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Palestinian academics such as Edward Said, Nur Masalha and Walid Khalidi were the ones who pointed to the significant implications for Israel's identity and self-image, and nature of the archival material he unearthed.

Morris too cowered under pressure and asked to be re-admitted to the tribe. He went very far with his mea culpa and re-emerged as an extreme anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racist: suggesting putting the Arabs in cages and promoting the idea of another ethnic cleansing. Goldstone can go in that direction too; or at least this is what the Israelis expect him to do now.

Professionally, both Morris and Goldstone tried to retreat to a position that claimed, as Goldstone does in The Washington Post article, that Israel can only be judged by its intentions not the consequences of its deeds. Therefore only the Israeli army, in both cases, can be a reliable source for knowing what these intentions were. Very few decent and intelligent people in the world would accept such a bizarre analysis and explanation.

Goldstone has not entered as yet the lunatic fringe of ultra-Zionism as Morris did. But if he is not careful the future promises to be a pleasant journey with the likes of Morris, Alan Dershowitz (who already said that Goldstone is a "repentant Jew") between annual meetings of the AIPAC rottweilers and the wacky conventions of the Christian Zionists. He would soon find out that once you cower in the face of Zionism -- you are expected to go all the way or be at the very same spot you thought you had successfully left behind you.

Winning Zionist love in the short-term is far less important than losing the world's respect in the long-run. Palestine should choose its friends with care: they cannot be faint-hearted nor can they claim to be Zionists as well as champions of peace, justice and human rights in Palestine.

Ilan Pappe is Professor of History and Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter. His most recent book is Out of the Frame: The Struggle for Academic Freedom in Israel (Pluto Press, 2010).

 

- FINI -

 

Notes for Wednesday April 13th of 2011 - Thomas L. Friedman's "Pray.  Hope.  Prepare.:  Where the Arab World goes from here."  No mention of Israel.  On the preceding Monday, the 11th, 'Charlie' Rose gave Israeli President Shimon Peres a full forty-five minutes to expose Peres' arrogance:  "We didn't have anything (in 1948) -we started from nothing!"

Oh?  The Jews had the Irgun Zvi Leumi AND, as the famed Ilan Pappe, Professor of History and Director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter has informed us several years ago:

 

"In 1948 the Jewish army expelled three-quarter of a million Palestinians from what then became the State of Israel. Ilan Pappe, the Israeli historian, said he still felt haunted by the story, and then, in 1998, the Israelis opened the military archives, and it became clear that the Zionist's movement had planned to expel the Palestinians long before 1948. In 2006 Ilan Pappe published his most recent book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. He spoke about his work at the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands in January/February of 2007." - Maria Gilardin June 2007

Ilan Pappe: "(a synopsis) David Ben Gurion, who led an ideological movement ever since the 19th century, wanted to turn Palestine into a Jewish state with as few Palestinians in it as possible (when he was out of office this first Prime Minister of Israel was annoyed by the presence of so many Palestinians remaining in Israel, particularly in the Galilee). It shows that the leader of the Zionist movement, the 1st Prime Minister of Israel, someone at the heart of the Zionist movement, so annoyed by so many Palestinians in the Galilee, he is committed to a vision that sees historic Palestine as empty of Palestinians. Most of the Israeli Jews in the 1950's thought the same way, and nothing has changed in Israel in 2006. How to get there, how to de-Arabize Palestine. How to make Palestine a Jewish state, (i.e.) get rid of the people who live there (except, of course, for that number of Jewish settlers who in the 1930s had grown to one-third of the population in Palestine as they left the turmoil in Europe). How to deal with the majority in Palestine, the Palestinians. In February of 1947 the Zionists were very focused under Ben Gurion and the advisory committee he organized around him (only hardliners) and it took them a year, to February of 1948 to develop the plan to rid Palestine of the Palestinians, that as many as possible of the one million Palestinians should be expelled. How to do it? The experiment? The Jewish/Zionist army expelled about eight to nine villages. They wanted to see how the world would react. Nothing. So, you come with buses, lorrys - you go into someone's house, there are children, women, men, people have lived in these houses for hundreds of years: 'You have twenty minutes' to get on the bus and out you go. And half an hour after you leave on the bus someone detonates the house and blows it up. So Ben Gurion and others were not sure how the world and the young soldiers would react. Nothing. So, the master plan. They divided Palestine into twelve areas, the Haganah had twelve brigades, each brigade was given a list of villages, neighborhoods in mixed towns and systematically, in seven months, they expelled three-quarter of a million Palestinians, 531 villages were destroyed, eleven towns were demolished."

 

* And not to be forgotten:

"INSIDE JOB - EXPOSE' OF THE DECADES!"

IN THAT CHARLES FERGUSON'S ACADEMY AWARD WINNING DOCUMENTARY "INSIDE JOB" IS LESS THAN TWO HOURS LONG, HOW IS IT THAT SOME ENTERPRISING "PUBLIC" TELEVISION PROGRAM, SAY THE PBS NEWSHOUR, OR FRONTLINE, ETC., INCLUDING THE SEVERAL CHANNELS AVAILABLE ON OREGON "PUBLIC" TELEVISION BROADCASTING, HOW IS IT THAT THIS MONUMENTAL FILM IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AMERICAN TELEVISION VIEWING PUBLIC?

And Amy Goodman Brings Us Up-To-Date!

U.S. Military Blocks U.N. Official from Seeing Bradley Manning

U.S. military officials have blocked a top U.N. official from privately seeing accused whistleblower, U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, who has been held in solitary confinement at a military prison since July. Juan Méndez, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, said he was “deeply disappointed and frustrated” that he was not allowed to have an unmonitored visit with Manning. Méndez has been seeking to determine whether Manning’s confinement at a military brig amounts to torture. Manning is accused of leaking thousands of classified U.S. military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks. On Sunday, the New York Review of Books published a letter signed by more than 250 lawyers, professors and authors that called the conditions of Manning’s confinement “illegal and immoral.” The list of signatories includes Laurence Tribe, a Harvard professor who taught constitutional law to Barack Obama. Tribe was a key backer of his 2008 presidential campaign.

Israel: Netanyahu Considers Withdrawal from West Bank

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering a withdrawal of the Israeli military from the West Bank. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reports the military pullout and other measures are being considered in an effort to stave off potential diplomatic backlash following the possible recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September. Netanyahu is said to believe there is little chance for further negotiations with Palestine and is seeking ways to rally the United States, the European Union and other Western nations against a unilateral move in the United Nations by Palestine and other countries. - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 4/12/11

"AMANPOUR: So, will dreams of democracy slip into the sand? ABC's Terry Moran filed this dispatch from the revolution.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) TERRY MORAN, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: This was no mirage, it was one of the most stirring and most hopeful events of resent years. A people rising. A dictator falling. A nation, reaching for a new era of freedom. It all seemed so real.

Two months later, Cairo, a city that has seen so many centuries of rulers, and revolutions and conquers, Cairo has returned to its ancient rhythms and ways, but a shadow has fallen across the city, across the hope of those heady revolutionary days.

Eight days ago, violent crashes erupted in Tahrir Square which was the center of the region which was the center of the revolution that toppled President Hosni Mubarak, but this time protesters were targeting the military government that took hit place and promised a transition to democracy. Two were killed, dozens injured. It was an ominous sign of increasing frustration with the change of pace here. And there are other disturbing signs.

He was charged with insulting the army.

MAGED MAHER, ACTIVIST: Yes. Criticizing the army, most of time, considered as insulting.

MORAN: But I thought you had a revolution here?

MAHER: I thought the same.

MORAN: Maged Maher is an activist and a good friend of the imprisoned blogger, Michael Nabil, whose case has become a human rights flash point here.

Nabil was hauled to a military court last month and sentenced to three years in prison for what he wrote.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're not free yet. We went to streets and we shouted loudly that we want freedom. If people go to jail, because of expressing an opinion, so we don't have it yet.

MORAN: So a question hangs over Egypt and the answer to it matters to the whole world.

Are you free today?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are free. And we are to create the system now.

MORAN: Abdel Rahman Yousuf (ph) is a poet. And he was one of the more prominent activists in the revolution.

We first met him when he was camped out in Tahrir Square during the protests. We returned to the square with him on Friday. A few protesters were there, urging national unity. The biggest security presence was the traffic cops.

And we found Yousef (ph) is still cautiously optimistic like so many Egyptians we met. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are free people but we want to be a free nation.

MORAN: It matters so much because Egypt with 85 million people and ancient culture have long been the center of gravity of the whole Arab world. The fall of Hosni Mubarak here helped to light the fires of revolt in country after country.

Gas prices, the dangers of terrorism, relations between Islam and the west, it's all riding on these revolutions. And it turns out, revolution is hard and tricky work, even, perhaps especially in Egypt.

The real question in this country is did they have a revolution or a coupe? The military has power but so do the people and the protesters here. And the situation right now is a delicate, sometimes tense balance between the guns of soldiers and demands of the people.

WAEL GHONIM, GOOGLE EXECUTIVE: I don't think Secretary Clinton was right about the comment of the revolution becoming a mirage.

MORAN: Wael Ghonim, an Egyptian executive with Google is a leader. He helped organize it on Facebook and other social media and he was imprisoned by Mubarak's regime during the protests. Today he too wants to give the military the benefit of the doubt.

GHONIM: The army is actually so far is trying to protect the revolution. They're doing mistakes just like any system in the world. Plus this is completely new to them. But at the end of the day, they have been showing a great deal of commitment towards protecting the revolution.

MORAN: The military government has scheduled elections later this year and the generals did seem to respond to the people's demand this week when Mubarak himself and two sons were arrested for corruption and other charges.

So, is Egypt heading towards true democracy or is it a mirage?

There are no guarantees here, but the people are rising AND THERE IS NO GOING BACK.

For This Week I'm Terry Moran in Cairo." - ABC 4/17/11

 

Gaza Killing of Italian Activist Deals a Blow to Hamas

* Saturday, April 16, 2011 -

 

Spiked Boot

Netanyahu/Lieberman

Today's Israel!

 

- Murder of Pro-Palestinian Activist In Gaza Deals Blow To Hamas

GAZA - FOR VITTORIO ARRIGONI, AN ITALIAN PRO-PALESTINIAN ACTIVIST WHO FRIENDS SAID FOUGHT PEACEFULLY FOR JUSTICE, THE END WAS AS VIOLENT AS IT WAS INCONGRUOUS.

Police officers from Hamas, the Islamic militant group that rules Gaza, found his body in a house in Gaza City that was empty of furniture, except for the mattress on which the body was lying, according to witnesses. THE DOCTOR WHO PERFORMED THE AUTOPSY SAID MR. ARRIGONI’S KILLERS HAD USED A PLASTIC CORD TO STRANGLE HIM.

Mr. Arrigoni had dedicated his life to people he saw as oppressed, beginning his work as an activist right out of college and in recent years writing a blog and a book from Gaza. He was well known in Gaza City for his willingness to take chances to help make his case for the Palestinians.

“Today we lose an Italian citizen, a citizen of Bulciago, and also a Palestinian citizen, because he had married Palestine,” Luigi Ripamonti, the deputy mayor of his hometown of Bulciago, told Italy’s Sky 24 Television.

THE LOSS OF MR. ARRIGONI WAS NOT THE FIRST FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT, AN ACTIVIST ORGANIZATION WITH FOREIGN VOLUNTEERS IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA. RACHEL CORRIE, WHO HAD ALSO WORKED WITH THE GROUP, WAS KILLED IN GAZA BY AN ISRAELI MILITARY BULLDOZER SHE TRIED TO BLOCK IN 2003, BECOMING A GLOBAL SYMBOL OF THE PALESTINIAN STRUGGLE.

ALTHOUGH HER DEATH GALVANIZED PUBLIC OPINION WORLDWIDE, IT DISCOURAGED MANY OTHER ACTIVISTS FROM LIVING AND WORKING IN GAZA.  MR. ARRIGONI HAD MADE IT HIS MISSION TO REVITALIZE THE MOVEMENT HERE AFTER HIS ARRIVAL IN AUGUST 2008 ON A BOAT OF ACTIVISTS PROTESTING ISRAEL'S BLOCKADE OF THE ENCLAVE.

Vittorio Arrigoni, right, a pro-Palestinian activist from Italy, received a passport from Ismail Haniya, head of Hamas' government in Gaza, in 2008.  Mr. Arrigoni's body was found Friday.

His death could set back that effort at a critical time for the activists. An international flotilla plans to set sail in May and challenge Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza. Last year, Israeli commandos seized a boat that was part of another such flotilla; nine activists died in the melee that dominated world news for days.

Mr. Arrigoni first began championing causes in Africa and Eastern Europe, switching his attention to the Palestinians only later.

IN A VIDEO POSTED ON YOUTUBE, MR. ARRIGONI SAID HE CAME FROM A FAMILY OF PARTISANS. “MY MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS FOUGHT AND DIED AGAINST THE OCCUPATION, ANOTHER OCCUPATION, THE NAZI OCCUPATION OF ITALY,” HE SAID. “PROBABLY FOR THIS REASON IT’S IN MY BLOOD, MY DNA, TO PUSH AND STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM AND HUMAN RIGHTS.”

IN AN INTERVIEW ON FRIDAY, HIS MOTHER, EGIDIA BERETTA, THE MAYOR OF BULCIAGO, SAID HER SON HAD FIRST ARRIVED IN THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES IN 2002.  HE SPENT THE LAST NINE YEARS TRAVELLING BETWEEN ITALY, THE WEST BANK AND GAZA.

“HE WAS TAKEN WITH PALESTINE,” MRS. BERETTA SAID, “AND PALESTINE TOOK TO HIM.” HIS FIRST EXPERIENCES, SHE SAID, WERE WORKING IN SUMMBER CAMPS IN VARIOUS PALESTINIAN CITIES.

THE HAMAS AUTHORITIES WERE RELUCTANT ON FRIDAY TO ACCUSE ANY PALESTINIAN GROUP OF MURDERING MR. ARRIGONI. HAMAS OFFICIALS SUGGESTED POSSIBLE ISRAELI INVOLVEMENT, NOTING THAT ISRAEL WAS WORKING TO THWART THE PLANS FOR THE UPCOMING INTERNATIONAL FLOTILLA.

“We cannot deny the relation between this incident and an international campaign by the Zionist enemy to restrict the arrival of pro-Palestinian activists,” said Mahmoud Zahar, a Hamas leader in Gaza. - N Y Times 4/16/11

Notes from 4/24/11 - (1) When the killers of Vittorio Arrigoni were cornered by Hamas police, the leader of the group of three annihilated the other two with an explosive device and killed himself, thereby shielding his Israeli handlers!

(2) "Public" television monitors have reached back to 1997 for a Rick Steves' film on Israel, without notation, to propagandize an Israel which was not a threat to the Middle East in '97, an Israel which was at the time protected by the corrupt Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak, supported by the United States Treasury.

(3) Once again, the Israelis have, in essence declared war on Iran, this time using the "Stars" virus.  Clearly, they're desperate to avoid a fair and equal sharing of power in the Middle East.

- ELSEWHERE -

HARI SREENIVASAN: A gunman in an Afghan army uniform killed two people in Kabul today. It was the latest in a string of attacks that have claimed 16 lives since Friday.

The Kabul incident came inside the Afghan Defense Ministry. The Taliban said the gunman was a militant who was also an army officer. On Saturday, another Taliban agent, also wearing an Afghan army uniform, blew himself up, killing five American troops and four Afghan soldiers. The U.S. is on a timetable to begin withdrawing forces in July.

In Iraq, as many as nine people were killed when suicide bombers set off two car bombs in Baghdad. The attack happened right outside the heavily fortified Green Zone near a security checkpoint. The targets appeared to be government motorcades on the road from the airport. In the aftermath, soldiers inspected the blast scene littered with charred debris. At least 23 other people were wounded in the attacks.

Approximately 5,000 people occupied a major city square in Syria today. They insisted they will not leave until President Bashar Assad steps down, and they defied warnings from authorities. The gathering in the city of Homs followed a funeral procession for eight people killed on Sunday in clashes with police.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported the State Department has secretly funded Syrian opposition groups, but a spokesman played down the report.

MARK TONER, State Department spokesman: We are not working to undermine that government. What we are trying to do in Syria, through our civil society support, is to build the kind of democratic institutions, frankly, that we're trying to do in countries around the globe.

HARI SREENIVASAN: The Post report cited diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks. The cables say the U.S. has funneled up to $6 million to Syrian exiles to finance a satellite TV channel plus activities inside Syria. - PBS NewsHour 4/18/11

 

SPIKED BOOT ANALYZED
BY NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

As we note elsewhere Martin Indyk has had ample coverage on television and in the Media/Press with the Lehrer NewsHour and the New York Times and Thomas L. Friedman, among others. Not so for a legitimate historian/analyst whose both parents survived the Holocaust, Norman Finkelstein. So here is a series of observations by Mr. Finkelstein which he managed to include in the 1/8/09 DemocracyNow regarding the bloodbath ( 12/26/08 - 1/18/09 ) in Gaza.

Amy Goodman: We're also joined by Norman Finkelstein here in New York, leading critic of Israeli foreign policy, the author of several books, including The Holocaust Industry, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah.

Norman Finkelstein: Well, the record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Mr. Indyk is correct that Hamas had adhered to the ceasefire from June 17th until November 4th. On November 4th, here Mr. Indyk, I think, goes awry. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point--and now I'm quoting the official Israeli website--Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.

"Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha'aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday's Ha'aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one, as Mr. Indyk I think correctly points out, to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman's language basically means Israel's capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.

And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas."

Amy Goodman: Norman Finkelstein?

Norman Finkelstein: Well, I think the problem of Mr. Indyk's presentation is he constantly reverses cause and effect. Just as he said a moment ago that it was Hamas which broke the ceasefire, although he well knows it was Israel that broke the ceasefire on November 4th, he now reverses cause and effect as to how the present impasse came about. In January 2006, as he writes in his book, Hamas came to power in a free and fair election. I think those are his words. He then claims on your program and he claims in his book that Hamas committed a "putsch"--his word--in order to eliminate the Palestinian Authority. And as I'm sure Mr. Indyk well knows and as was documented in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair by the writer David Rose, basing himself on internal US documents, it was the United States in cahoots with the Palestinian Authority and Israel which were attempting a putsch on Hamas, and Hamas preempted the putsch. That, too, is no longer debatable or no longer a controversial claim.

Now, Mr. Indyk says that Hamas is reluctant or unclear about whether it wants to rule in Gaza. The issue is not whether it wants to rule in Gaza; the issue is can it rule in Gaza if Israel maintains a blockade and prevents economic activity among the Palestinians. The blockade, incidentally, was implemented before Hamas came to power. The blockade doesn't even have anything to do with Hamas. The blockade came to--there were Americans who were sent over, in particular James Wolfensohn, to try to break the blockade after Israel redeployed its troops in Gaza.

Amy Goodman: The former World Bank president.

Norman Finkelstein: Correct. The problem all along has been that Israel doesn't want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn't want to resolve diplomatically the conflict. Mr. Indyk well knows that both the leadership in Damascus and the leadership in the Gaza have repeatedly made statements they're willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border. The record is fairly clear. In fact, it's unambiguously clear.

Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled "Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question." And every year the vote is the same: it's the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side. The vote this past year was 164-to-7. Every year since 1989--in 1989, the vote was 151-to-3, the whole world on one side, the United States, Israel and the island state of Dominica on the other side.

 

* And not to be forgotten:

 - 2011 Academy Awards 2/27/11

Academy Award Documentary Feature

- THE GEORGE W. BUSH - CREATED NATIONAL BUDGET DISASTER:

IN THAT CHARLES FERGUSON'S ACADEMY AWARD WINNING DOCUMENTARY "INSIDE JOB" IS LESS THAN TWO HOURS LONG, HOW IS IT THAT SOME ENTERPRISING "PUBLIC" TELEVISION PROGRAM, SAY THE PBS NEWSHOUR, OR FRONTLINE, ETC., INCLUDING THE SEVERAL CHANNELS AVAILABLE ON...

OREGON "PUBLIC" TELEVISION BROADCASTING,

...HOW IS IT THAT THIS MONUMENTAL FILM IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AMERICAN TELEVISION VIEWING PUBLIC?

AND A REMINDER

The pattern had been established on November fourth of 1995 by the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, following which the so-called neocons coined "A Clean Break:  A New Strategy For Securing the Realm (Israel)", the first step of which was the elimination of Iraq's Saddam Hussein.  Perhaps the key factor was the 12/12/00 5-4 conspiratorial decision by the William Rehnquist Supreme Court, buttressed by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and the twosome, Antonin Gregory Scalia & the silent Clarence Thomas; the result was the George Walker Bush (his father, George Herbert Walker Bush had nominated Thomas) stolen United States' presidency from Albert Arnold Gore, which, as we might have anticipated from the four years that George H. W. Bush produced as president, the Junior, with his gift to the wealthy, broke the back of the financial system of the entire Western World.

And there was this on Page 265 of Jim Bamford's stellar "A Pretext For War":  "We're going to correct the imbalances of the (Clinton) administration on the Mideast conflict", Bush told his freshly assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on January 30, 2001.  "We're going to tilt it back toward Israel!"

"Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion.  'I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon', Bush told his newly gathered national security team".  If you can recall, it was during his early meeting with his Principals that Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill registered surprise after those meetings with President Bush focused on Iraq, tying in with the "A Clean Break:  A New Strategy For Securing the Realm (Israel)", a phrase that deserves aphorism status, in that it describes the total of United States foreign policy for the last near twenty God-awful years, years which, in fact, have bankrupted this great country, financially ("Inside Job") and morally.  All for the classic Rogue State of Israel.

- IS THERE FURTHER HOPE? -

Israeli Luminaries Press for a Palestinian State
By ETHAN BRONNER

JERUSALEM — Dozens of Israel’s most honored intellectuals and artists have signed a declaration endorsing a Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 borders and asserting that an end to Israel’s occupation “will liberate the two peoples and open the way to a lasting peace.”

The signers plan to announce their position on Thursday from the same spot in Tel Aviv where the Jewish state declared its independence in the spring of 1948. The page-long declaration is expected to be read there by Hanna Maron, one of the country’s best-known actresses and a winner of the Israel Prize, the country’s most prestigious award, which is granted yearly on Independence Day.

Of the more than 60 who had signed the declaration by Tuesday, about 20 were winners of the Israel Prize and a number of others had been awarded the Emet Prize, given by the prime minister for excellence in science, art and culture. Signatures were still being collected on Tuesday.

“The land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people where its identity was shaped,” the statement begins. “The land of Palestine is the birthplace of the Palestinian people where its identity was formed.” It goes on to say that now is the time to live up to the commitment expressed by Israel’s founders in their Declaration of Independence to “extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness.”

Yaron Ezrahi, a political theorist at The Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the signers, said the group chose this week to issue its declaration because it was Passover, which marks the freedom of the Jewish people from slavery.

“We don’t want to pass over the Palestinian people,” Mr. Ezrahi said. “This is a holiday of freedom and independence.” He added that given the struggle for freedom across the Arab world today and the Palestinians’ plans to seek international recognition of their statehood by September, it was important for Israeli voices to be added to the call.

Two weeks ago, another group of several dozen prominent Israelis, many of them from the fields of security and business, issued what they called the Israeli Peace Initiative, a more detailed but somewhat similar plan for a two-state solution. Both groups say they are upset by their government’s policies in this regard, which they consider insufficient.

The Palestinian leadership says that unless Israel ends the building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, it will not return to negotiations with it and will instead seek international recognition of Palestinian statehood by September at the United Nations.

The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says the real problem is that the Palestinians refuse to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state. Official recognition of that, it says, would revive negotiations, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE ALSO CLEAR DIFFERENCES OVER LAND AND ISRAEL’S SECURITY NEEDS.

Mr. Netanyahu is expected to announce by the end of May HIS proposal for moving forward with talks on a TWO-STATE SOLUTION. - Bronner N Y Times 4/20/11

Again, and FINI!

 

Additionally, this question: Is there no limit to the incessant "fund raising" for OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) that billionaires Arlene (Director) and Harold Schnitzer insert into their Public Broadcasting daily programming, programming which coincides with a collateral damaging, as it were, collateral reduction in timely "Hard News", conspicuously led by the absence of the threat to Middle East peace exemplified by Netanyahu & Lieberman's Israel?!?! In actuality, OPB under the Schnitzers has degenerated into OPPB, Oregon Public Propaganda Broadcasting, on a track developed in our age by Roger Ailes (who originated 'FOX' broadcasting) and his protege' Rush Limbaugh. Shameful.

What is often forgotten is that the notorious Schnitzer family of Oregon [which is responsible for the desecration of OPB (Oregon "Public" Broadcasting)] invited the war monger Benjamin Netanyahu to Portland, Oregon in July of 2002 to campaign for Republican Senator Gordon Smith (for whom the phrase "empty suit" was coined), i.e. Democrats for Smith, whose sub rosa supporters surely included Senator Ron Wyden. Netanyahu, whose Israeli acolyte Yigal Amir assassinated the genuine Soldier/Statesman Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November of 1995, this Netanyahu, through the notorious Israeli political apparatus, became the Israeli prime minister 1996-99! And it is this Netanyahu who the Schnitzers invited to Oregon to campaign for Gordon Smith. In all of this there exists (moreso today) , a fanatic, frenetic thread of sordid madness, a true threat to world peace as Netanyahu has demonstrated in the Middle East, and a diminishing informed American public here at home, as the Schnitzers are demonstrating with Oregon Public Broadcasting. We should have known. Netanyahu and the Schnitzers are COUSINS!, and on 7/19/10 Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow informed our ignorance, again.

"A newly revealed tape shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once openly discussed his intent to attack the Palestinian government, undermine the Oslo peace accords, and manipulate the United States to ensure its approval. The 2001 recording shows Netanyahu meeting with Israeli SETTLERS in the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu was then out of government after serving his first stint in office. Apparently unaware he was being recorded, Netanyahu talks openly of a 'broad attack' on the Palestinian government, saying, 'The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne.'

"Netanyahu also outlines how he would undermine the 1993 Oslo accords, he said, which established the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, by declaring any West Bank land that Israel wants to retain as 'military' and 'security zones.' Addressing potential US opposition to Israeli expansionism, Netanyahu says, 'I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. THEY WON’T GET IN THE WAY.'" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/19/10

 

THE REVOLUTION’S MISSING PEACE

The President of Turkey - ABDULLAH GUL

ANKARA, TURKEY

THE wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa is of historic significance equal to that of the revolutions of 1848 and 1989 in Europe. The peoples of the region, without exception, revolted not only in the name of universal values but also to regain their long-suppressed national pride and dignity. But whether these uprisings lead to democracy and peace or to tyranny and conflict will depend on forging a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and a broader Israeli-Arab peace.

The plight of the Palestinians has been a root cause of unrest and conflict in the region and is being used as a pretext for extremism in other corners of the world. Israel, more than any other country, will need to adapt to the new political climate in the region. But it need not fear; the emergence of a democratic neighborhood around Israel is the ultimate assurance of the country’s security.

In these times of turmoil, two forces will shape the future: the people’s yearning for democracy and the region’s changing demographics. Sooner or later, the Middle East will become democratic, and by definition a democratic government should reflect the true wishes of its people. Such a government cannot afford to pursue foreign policies that are perceived as unjust, undignified and humiliating by the public. For years, most governments in the region did not consider the wishes of their people when conducting foreign policy. History has repeatedly shown that a true, fair and lasting peace can only be made between peoples, not ruling elites.

I call upon the leaders of Israel to approach the peace process with a strategic mindset, rather than resorting to short-sighted tactical maneuvers. This will require seriously considering the Arab League’s 2002 peace initiative, which proposed a return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders and fully normalized diplomatic relations with Arab states.

Sticking to the unsustainable status quo will only place Israel in greater danger. History has taught us that demographics is the most decisive factor in determining the fate of nations. In the coming 50 years, Arabs will constitute the overwhelming majority of people between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea. The new generation of Arabs is much more conscious of democracy, freedom and national dignity.

In such a context, Israel cannot afford to be perceived as an apartheid island surrounded by an Arab sea of anger and hostility. Many Israeli leaders are aware of this challenge and therefore believe that creating an independent Palestinian state is imperative. A dignified and viable Palestine, living side by side with Israel, will not diminish the security of Israel, but fortify it.

Turkey thinks strategically about the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, not only because it knows that a peaceful Middle East would be to its benefit, but also because it believes that Israeli-Palestinian peace would benefit the rest of the world.

We are therefore ready to use our full capacity to facilitate constructive negotiations. Turkey’s track record IN THE YEARS BEFORE ISRAEL’S GAZA OPERATION IN DECEMBER 2008 bears testimony to our dedication to achieving peace. Turkey is ready to play the role it played in the past, once Israel is ready to pursue peace with its neighbors.

MOREOVER, IT IS MY FIRM CONVICTION THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS A LONG-OVERDUE RESPONSIBILITY TO SIDE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW AND FAIRNESS WHEN IT COMES TO THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN PEACE PROCESS. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WANTS THE UNITED STATES TO ACT AS AN IMPARTIAL AND EFFECTIVE MEDIATOR BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS, JUST AS IT DID A DECADE AGO. SECURING A LASTING PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE GREATEST FAVOR WASHINGTON CAN DO FOR  ISRAEL.

It will be almost impossible for Israel to deal with the emerging democratic and demographic currents in the absence of a peace agreement with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world. Turkey, conscious of its own responsibility, stands ready to help. - N Y Times OP-ED 4/21/11

- The Israeli Plan Is Evident!

"Protesters For and Against Palestinian State Clash in Tel Aviv!

By Isabel Kershner - JERUSALEM

Dozens of prominent Israeli artists and intellectuals declared their support for a Palestinian state on the streets of Tel Aviv on Thursday and quickly found themselves confronted by rightist opponents calling them “traitors” and, according to one report, “Jewish Nazis.”

While angry confrontations between protesters on opposite sides of Israel’s gaping ideological divide are not unknown here, this one came at a delicate time, with international pressure growing on Israel to find a way back to peace talks with the Palestinians. It also occurred in a symbolic place, in front of the building where David Ben-Gurion declared Israeli independence in the spring of 1948.

THE GROUP OF LEFTIST INTELLECTUALS AND ARTISTS SIGNED THE DECLARATION ENDORSING A PALESTINIAN STATE ON THE BASIS OF THE 1967 BORDERS AND ASSERTING THAT AN END TO ISRAEL’S OCCUPATION “WILL LIBERATE THE TWO PEOPLES AND OPEN THE WAY TO A LASTING PEACE.” AMONG THE SIGNERS ARE ABOUT 20 WINNERS OF THE ISRAEL PRIZE, THE COUNTRY’S MOST PRESTIGIOUS AWARD.

The last round of Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations collapsed in September, soon after they started, when a temporary Israeli moratorium on building in West Bank Jewish settlements expired. The Palestinians refuse to return to talks as long as construction continues, and they want clear terms of reference for negotiations. Israel says it is ready to resume talks, but without preconditions.

PALESTINIAN LEADERS SAY THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL THEY WILL SEEK INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE BY SEPTEMBER AT THE UNITED NATIONS.

THE SIGNERS OF THE ISRAELI DECLARATION OF SUPPORT WERE JOINED IN TEL AVIV BY HUNDREDS OF LEFTIST SYMPATHIZERS.

About 30 rightist opponents gathered nearby and began verbally abusing those attending the ceremony. Television images showed rightists holding a sign calling the leftists “traitors” and hurling insults like “criminals.” According to some local news media reports, counterprotesters also called the leftists “Jewish Nazis.”

In a television debate, Yariv Ben-Eliezer, grandson of Mr. Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, and an academic specializing in communications, accused the signers of the declaration in Tel Aviv of staging a “media gimmick” and of cheapening Israel’s own Declaration of Independence.

Zeev Sternhell, professor emeritus at Hebrew University, an impassioned leftist and an Israel Prize winner for his work in the field of political science, replied that on the contrary, the signers meant to elevate the Israeli Declaration of Independence and ensure Israel’s future with the new avowal of two states for two peoples.

In 2008, Professor Sternhell was wounded when a pipe bomb exploded outside the door of his Jerusalem home. IN 2009, THE ISRAELI POLICE CHARGED AN AMERICAN IMMIGRANT WHO LIVED IN A WEST BANK SETTLEMENT WITH THE BOMBING OUTSIDE THE PROFESSOR’S HOME AND IN A STRING OF OTHER ATTACKS." - Kershner N Y Times 4/22/11

"Palestinian Police Kill Israeli Visiting West Bank Holy Site

Ethan Bronner JERUSALEM — The Palestinian police shot and killed one Israeli and wounded four others early Sunday AFTER THE ISRAELIS SURREPTITIOUSLY VISITED A JEWISH HOLY SITE INSIDE A PALESTINIAN-CONTROLLED AREA, officials on both sides said.

The shooting occurred outside Joseph’s Tomb in the West Bank city of Nablus after THREE CARLOADS OF RELIGIOUS ISRAELI JEWS VISITED THE SITE TO PRAY, WITHOUT COORDINATING THEIR PLANS THROUGH THE ISRAELI ARMY. TWICE-MONTHLY TRIPS TO THE TOMB HAVE BEEN ORGANIZED WITH ARMY ESCORTS FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS WITHOUT INCIDENT.

Palestinian security officials said they were questioning the Palestinian police officers who fired their weapons during the episode. The dead man was identified as Ben-Yosef Livnat, a 24-year-old father of four from Jerusalem and A NEPHEW OF LIMOR LIVNAT, THE RIGHT-WING MINISTER OF CULTURE AND SPORT FROM THE LIKUD PARTY IN ISRAEL. Mr. Livnat grew up on a settlement near Nablus, where his parents still live.

After the shooting, Palestinian youths set fires outside the tomb. Israeli and Palestinian security officials extinguished them. Later, at a funeral procession for Mr. Livnat that began at the nearby settlement, DOZENS OF MASKED ISRAELI SETTLERS ATTACKED PALESTINIANS ALONG THE WAY, SMASHING THEIR CARS AND WOUNDING A BOY.

The procession ended at a grave site on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem where MS. LIVNAT, THE MINISTER AND AUNT OF THE DEAD MAN, CALLED HIS KILLING “A COLD-BLOODED MURDER.”

A statement from DEFENSE MINISTER EHUD BARAK, who is responsible for Israeli security in the West Bank, ALSO USED THE TERM “MURDER,” ADDING, “NO FAILURE OF COORDINATION CAN JUSTIFY AN EVENT OF THIS KIND AND FIRING ON INNOCENT PEOPLE.” Mr. Barak instructed the army to investigate and demanded that the Palestinians do the same and that they take all necessary measures against those who fired.

The Palestinian governor of Nablus, Jibril al-Bakri, told Israel Radio that the shooting was a result of lack of coordination between the worshipers and the Israeli Army. He said that Palestinian police officers who were on a regular patrol shot a warning into the air before firing at the cars. He stressed that the shooting was a mistake.

An Israeli military spokesman said at day’s end that Israeli and Palestinian security officials had met and exchanged what they knew and were continuing their inquiries.

The Palestinians, he said, accused the Israeli worshipers of having thrown rocks at the police before the shooting began.

DAVID HA’IVRI, A JEWISH SETTLER SPOKESMAN WHO IS INVOLVED IN COORDINATING VISITS TO JOSEPH’S TOMB WITH THE ISRAELI ARMY, SAID SOME WORSHIPERS REFUSED TO VISIT IN THIS WAY AND SNEAKED IN ON THEIR OWN.

“We do not endorse that,” Mr. Ha’Ivri said. “We call on people to be responsible.” He added that the organized visits to the tomb were nonetheless still too infrequent to accommodate all who wished to go. Most of those who sneak in are members of the Breslov Hasidic sect who live in Jerusalem, he and others said.

The military spokesman said that on Jewish holidays — it is Passover now — it was not uncommon for some devout Jews to sneak into holy sites under Palestinian control. If caught by the Palestinians, they are nearly always handed over to the Israelis without violence, he said.

Many Jews believe that Joseph’s Tomb is the final burial place of the son of Jacob, the biblical patriarch.

A spokesman for the Israeli rescue service, Magen David Adom, said that the cars had been fired upon after visiting the tomb. He said that apart from Mr. Livnat, who died of a gunshot wound to the head, two others in a second car were evacuated by helicopter. Others were lightly wounded and treated on the spot." - Bronner N Y Times 4/25/11

 

- POSSIBLE MIDDLE EAST PROGRESS?

"The Palestinians have reached initial agreement on uniting their rival governments. Officials of Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza announced the plan today. It calls for forming a single caretaker government until new elections can be held a year from now. Israel again rejected any government that includes Hamas, which opposes the existence of a Jewish state." - Hari Sreenivasan PBS Newshour 4/27/11

"The Palestinian Authority has to choose between peace with Israel and peace with Hamas!" - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, in response, on television with agreement from the Obama Administration, which warned that Hamas was a terrorist organization unfit for peace-making!

* FRONT PAGE - ABOVE THE FOLD *

RIVAL FACTIONS OF PALESTINIANS REACH AN ACCORD

Israel Denounces The Deal, Which Calls for New Elections

JERUSALEM - "The two main Palestinian factions, Fatah and Hamas, announced Wednesday that they were putting aside years of bitter rivalry to create an interim unity government and hold elections within a year, a surprise move that promised to reshape the diplomatic landscape of the Middle East.

The deal, brokered in secret talks by the caretaker Egyptian government, was announced at a news conference in Cairo where the two negotiators referred to each side as brothers and declared a new chapter in the Palestinian struggle for independence, hobbled in recent years by the split between the Fatah-run West Bank and Hamas-run Gaza.

It was the first tangible sign that the upheaval across the Arab world, especially the Egyptian revolution, was having an impact on the Palestinians, who have been losing faith in American-sponsored peace negotiations with Israel and seem now to be turning more to fellow Arabs. But the years of bitterness will not be easily overcome, and both sides warned of potential obstacles ahead.

Israel, feeling increasingly surrounded by unfriendly forces, denounced the unity deal as dooming future peace talks since Hamas seeks its destruction. “The Palestinian Authority has to choose between peace with Israel and peace with Hamas,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in a televised statement. The Obama administration warned that Hamas was a terrorist organization unfit for peacemaking." - Bronner Kershner N Y Times 4/28/11

 

WHITE HOUSE RESPONSE

Reconciliation Deal by Rival Factions Forces U.S. to Reconsider Aid to Palestinians

WASHINGTON — "The announced reconciliation on Wednesday between Fatah and Hamas, the estranged Palestinian movements, puts the Obama administration in the uncomfortable position of having to reconsider its financial support for the Palestinian Authority, including millions of dollars the United States has spent to train and equip Palestinian security forces, officials and members of Congress said.

The agreement, reached after secret talks brokered by Egypt, caught the Obama administration, like many others, by surprise. At a minimum it complicates the administration’s faltering hopes to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It also casts doubt on American efforts in recent years to build up the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, led by Fatah, as the legitimate leader of the Palestinians.

THE WHITE HOUSE, which has been debating how best to revive peace talks ahead of an address to Congress next month by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, ALL BUT DISMISSED THE PROPOSED RECONCILIATION BY REITERATING THE LONGSTANDING AMERICAN DESIGNATION OF HAMAS AS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION that has never expressed a willingness to recognize Israel, let alone negotiate with it.

“As we have said before, the United States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote the cause of peace,” Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said in the administration’s only public response. “Hamas, however, is a terrorist organization which targets civilians.”

He added that any Palestinian government had to accept certain principles announced by international negotiators known as the Quartet: the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia. They include renouncing violence, abiding by past agreements with the Israelis and recognizing Israel’s right to exist. Hamas has never agreed to those conditions.

Administration officials declined to discuss publicly the impact the reconciliation might have on American policy, saying they were still trying to learn more about how exactly the two rival organizations would be able to reunite years after violently splitting.

There were, however, immediate calls by pro-Israeli members of Congress to withhold American aid to the Palestinians if their leadership included Hamas. “It calls into question everything we have done,” Representative Gary L. Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said in a telephone interview. He later issued a statement saying the United States would be compelled by “both law and decency” to cut off all aid.

“I don’t think there is any will on the part of the administration or the Congress to provide funds to a government that is dominated by a dedicated terrorist organization,” he said.

The administration is already on record warning of that. Shortly after taking office, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton flatly ruled out cooperating with a Palestinian Authority that included Hamas as a partner.

“We will not deal with, nor in any way fund, a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agreed to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority,” she told Congress then.

Since 2005, under President George W. Bush, the United States has spent $542 million to train the Palestinian Authority’s National Security Force, provide it nonlethal equipment and refurbish its camps and buildings. That included $150 million in the current fiscal year. That training, while viewed with suspicion by some of Israel’s supporters, has been credited with improving the professionalism of the forces and security more broadly." - Myers N Y Times 4/28/11

"IN SHIFT, EGYPT EXTENDS HAND TO ISRAEL'S FOES

Normalizing ties with Iranians and Hamas!

David D. Kirkpatrick CAIRO - EGYPT IS CHARTING A NEW COURSE IN ITS FOREIGN POLICY THAT HAS ALREADY BEGUN SHAKING UP THE ESTABLISHED ORDER IN THE MIDDLE EAST, PLANNING TO OPEN THE BLOCKADED BORDER WITH GAZA AND NORMALIZING RELATIONS WITH TWO OF ISRAEL AND THE WEST'S ( i.e. Israel's ENABLER ) ISLAMIST FOES, HAMAS AND IRAN.

Egyptian officials, emboldened by the revolution and with an eye on coming elections, say that they are moving toward policies that more accurately reflect public opinion. In the process they are seeking to reclaim the influence over the region that waned as their country became a predictable ally of Washington and the Israelis in the years since the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

The first major display of this new tack was the deal Egypt brokered Wednesday to reconcile the secular Palestinian party Fatah with its rival Hamas. “We are opening a new page,” said Ambassador Menha Bakhoum, spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry. “Egypt is resuming its role that was once abdicated.”

Egypt’s shifts are likely to alter the balance of power in the region, allowing Iran new access to a previously implacable foe and creating distance between itself and Israel, which has been watching the changes with some alarm. “WE ARE TROUBLED BY SOME OF THE RECENT ACTIONS COMING OUT OF EGYPT,” SAID ONE SENIOR ISRAELI OFFICIAL, CITING A “RAPPROCHEMENT BETWEEN IRAN AND EGYPT” AS WELL AS “AN UPGRADING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EGYPT AND HAMAS.”

Balancing its new independence against its old allegiances, Egypt is keeping all its commitments, including the peace treaty with Israel, Ambassador Bakhoum emphasized, and she said that it hoped to do a better job complying with some human rights protocols it had signed.

BUT SHE SAID THAT THE BLOCKADE OF THE BORDER WITH GAZA AND EGYPT’S PREVIOUS ENFORCEMENT OF IT WERE BOTH “SHAMEFUL,” AND THAT EGYPT INTENDED SOON TO OPEN UP THE BORDER “COMPLETELY.”

AT THE SAME TIME, SHE SAID, EGYPT IS ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF NORMALIZING ITS RELATIONS WITH IRAN, A REGIONAL POWER THAT THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERS A DANGEROUS PARIAH.

“All the world has diplomatic relations with Iran with the exception of the United States and Israel,” Ambassador Bakhoum said. “We look at Iran as a neighbor in the region that we should have normal relations with. Iran is not perceived as an enemy as it was under the previous regime, and it is not perceived as a friend.”

If Egypt believes Israel’s refusal to halt settlements in the West Bank is the obstacle to peace, for example, then “cooperating with the Israelis by closing the border to Gaza did not make sense, as much as one may differ with what Hamas has done,” argued Nabil Fahmy, dean of the public affairs school at the American University in Cairo and a former Egyptian ambassador to the United States.

Many Egyptian analysts, including some former officials and diplomats who served under then-President Hosni Mubarak, say THEY ARE THRILLED WITH THE SHIFT. “This is the new feeling in Egypt, that Egypt needs to be respected as a regional power,” said Emad Gad, a foreign policy expert on relations with Israel at the official Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

Mahmoud Shokry, a former Egyptian ambassador to Syria under Mr. Mubarak, said: “Mubarak was always taking sides with the U.S., but the new way of thinking is entirely different. We would like to make a model of democracy for the region, and we are ensuring that Egypt has its own influence.”

In the case of Iran, a competing regional power, Ms. Bakhoum noted that although Egypt broke off relations with the Islamist government after its 1979 revolution, the countries reopened limited relations in 1991 on the level of a chargé d’affaires, so normalizing relations was more of an elevation than a reopening.

For the first time in years of talks the Hamas leaders were invited to the headquarters of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs instead of merely meeting at a hotel or the intelligence agency — a signal that Egypt was now prepared to treat Hamas as a diplomatic partner rather than a security risk.

“When I was invited to the meeting in the Foreign Ministry, that was something different, and this is what the agreement grew out of,” said Taher Nounou of Hamas. “We definitely felt that there was more openness from the new Egyptian leadership.” Foreign Minister Nabil el-Araby told the Palestinians that “he doesn’t want to talk about the ‘peace process’ any more, he wants to talk about the peace,” Ambassador Bakhoum said.

She said the Egyptian government was still studying how to open the border with Gaza, to help the civilians who lived there, and to determine which goods might be permitted. But she said the government had decided to move ahead with the idea. - KIRKPATRICK CAIRO N Y TIMES 4/29/11

- In an accompanying 4/29/11 N Y Times piece Ethan Bronner from Ramallah in the PALESTINIAN West Bank places these paragraphs (#17, #18 & #19) -

"Israelis on the left said they believed the Fatah-Hamas agreement could prove useful to achieving a two-state solution.

'I have always felt that divisions within Palestinian politics were not good for peace and see this as a step forward,' said Tamar Hermann, who leads public opinion polling on peace questions at the Israel Democracy Institute and was at the Abbas lunch on Thursday.

Efraim Halevy, a former chief of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, said in a telephone interview that he had always believed that 'THERE WILL BE NO SERIOUS PROGRESS IN THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT WITHOUT SOME WAY OF INCLUDING HAMAS IN THE PROCESS SO AS TO TRANSFORM THEM FROM BEING PART OF THE PROBLEM TO BEING PART OF THE SOLUTION.'" - PALESTINIAN FACTIONS VIEWS UNITY PACT BRONNER N Y Times 4/29/11

AS WE VIEW THE PRESS APPROACH TO ISRAEL'S ALTERED STATUS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, SHOULD WE BE CONCERNED WITH THE STRANGLEHOLD THAT JEWISH REPORTERS AND MONITORS EXERCISE ON RELAYING DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS NEW MIDDLE EAST?

 

* In one of the most gutsy of calls by any president of the United States in this great country's history, President Barack Obama activated our superb U. S. Seal team to dispose of mass murderer Osama Bin Laden, and in an action by the Obama White House unparalleled in secrecy, upon which the entire operation depended.  And it must be remembered that 9/11, the tenth anniversary of which is upon us in the next four months, that hateful day was generated by a United States congressional leadership which has bowed to the no longer tolerable insatiable demands of a Netanyahu State of Israel determined to dominate a Muslim Middle East *

- Amy Goodman Leads The Recovery -

"Palestinian Factions Sign Deal, Israel Withholds Millions in Funds as Punishment

Thirteen Palestinian factions, including Fatah and Hamas, have signed a reconciliation deal that will pave the way for elections within a year. The deal was signed following talks with Egyptian officials in Cairo. Meanwhile, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad says the Palestinian Authority may not be able to pay for the salaries for about 130,000 public employees or anything else if Israel does not release about $100 million in funds collected over the last month on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. Israel is withholding the funds to punish Fatah for reaching a deal with Hamas. Fayyad said, “Israel has no right to withhold this money. This is Palestinian money and it is not a grant or charity from Israel.”" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 5/3/11

 

A NEW PARADIGM

To the Editor:

While elated over the killing of Osama bin Laden, I can’t help observing that his death would likely have occurred years earlier if the Bush administration hadn’t diverted military and intelligence resources from seeking to capture or kill him to initiating the senseless war in Iraq, which did not pose the danger to us that Bin Laden did. - Dan Harrison N Y Times BriarcliffManor New York 5/3/11

To the Editor:

The information gained from years of interrogations at Guantánamo Bay, coupled with dogged intelligence work, led to Osama bin Laden. Gratitude is owed to President George W. Bush for staying the course in face of severe opposition. I commend President Obama for his wisdom in continuing the Bush strategy. - Joe Ascoli N Y Times Old Bridge N J 5/3/11

Surely Mr. Ascoli knows this will never sell.  Start the reading with James Bamford's "A PRETEXT FOR WAR:  9/11, Iraq, and the abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" - pages 260-265.

NPR's Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep introduces Israel's Ambassador to the United States, the notorious Michael Oren, as "the distinguished author and analyst":

INSKEEP: The turmoil in the Middle East swirls all around Israel and Israelis are wondering what it means for them. Israel lost an ally in Egypt when President Hosni Mubarak fell. Another neighbor, Syria, faces an uprising. Even closer to home, the two main Palestinian factions agreed yesterday to form a unity government. One faction, Fatah, has negotiated with Israel for many years. Israel considers the other faction, Hamas, the most dangerous Palestinian group.

In this time of change, we sat down with Michael Oren, a distinguished author and historian who is now Israel's ambassador to the U.S. He is not happy to see Hamas in the Palestinian unity government.

OREN: Hamas is an organization that has fired over the years thousands of rockets and mortars at Israeli citizens, at our towns, at our farms. And Hamas was one of the only elements in the entire Middle East to condemn America's action against bin Laden. Now Hamas has been brought into a unity government with the Palestinian Authority with whom we had hoped to engage in a peace process leading to a two-state solution. It makes it extremely difficult for us to negotiate...

INSKEEP: Extremely difficult or impossible? Is this peace process done? Is it not going to happen as long as Hamas has a share of power?

OREN: Well, it may be extremely difficult to make a peace treaty, even talk about a peace treaty. We've seen no indication that Hamas is willing to give up terror or to recognize Israel or to recognize the peace process as it has progressed so far.

INSKEEP: Although this is a difficult call, isn't it, on some level, because having divided authority among the Palestinians isn't very good either.

OREN: It's not good and it's preferable that there been Palestinian unity between Gaza and the West Bank, we agree. But we don't want to have that come at the cost of giving a victory to terror.

INSKEEP: I want to look at this from a little longer perspective just for a moment. You wrote a really compelling book about the Six Day War in 1967. And you point out that in your reading of the history there was not necessarily an Israeli design to take all of Jerusalem, to take the West Bank. It happened in the course of the war. It happened without a grand strategy. Given that the situation that we have now was, by your reading, something of an accident, do you accept that at some point the situation is going to have to change?

OREN: I accept that the current situation is unsustainable, that we do need peace in our region. No one wants to see this conflict continue. What's important in thinking back to what happened in June of 1967 was there are several lessons. One is that events in the Middle East can get out of hand very, very quickly. And look, in the last few months we've seen revolts occurring across the Middle East that nobody anticipated.

I think there's also a cause for optimism looking back on the Middle East. The major issue in the Middle East at that time among the Arab states was how best to destroy the state of Israel. And I look at the Middle East today and it's not as if the Middle East is free of violence - there is much violence - but there is in many ways far more stability than we had back then. And the major issue in the Middle East today is not how best to make war with Israel but the big issue is how best to make peace with Israel, which is quite a sea change.

INSKEEP: You mentioned that in some ways the Middle East is more stable than it was several decades ago. But of course we've entered in the last few months a period of great change. It's perceived here that Israelis are deeply concerned about the direction that things are going, or at least the Israeli government is. Is your country in a less secure position than it was three or four months ago before the uprisings?

OREN: Well, we see many opportunities but we also see some risks. You know, ISRAEL HAS LONG BEEN PROUD TO SAY IT'S THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST ( ...and Inskeep introduces this person as an historian? ) , but we would be happier still to say that we were one of many democracies in the Middle East. And if these democracies do arise and if they're peace-loving democracies, we will be the first to embrace them.

But we have to see the risks as well. We've seen in not-so-distant pasts where democratic movements that began in Iran and Lebanon, in Gaza, were hijacked by radicals and transformed those areas into basic terrorist states. So along with a sense of hope we have to exercise a certain amount of caution.

INSKEEP: Well, let's be frank, the military government that is temporarily -they say temporarily - holding power in Egypt is already changing its foreign policy toward Israel and taking steps that Israel would disagree with. And if you go and listen to political rallies in Cairo, lines criticizing Israel are guaranteed applause lines.

OREN: It's true, and we don't - I don't in any way diminish the amount of animosity ( AND FOR GOOD REASON! ) that exists in the Egyptian street, but we do hope that if Egypt evolves into a functioning democracy, then politicians will not be able so easily to deflect popular disaffection away from the Egyptian government to Israel.

INSKEEP: On Israel's other border there is, of course, Syria, where there are also demonstrations against Bashar al-Assad. Have you been warning the United States not to throw Bashar al-Assad over the side or to push him too hard?

OREN: Categorically no.

INSKEEP: No.

OREN: Categorically no.

INSKEEP: You're happy...

OREN: (Unintelligible) a rumor like that floating around, Steve. No, not at all. Our position is that we will support any genuine reform in Syria. We will certainly welcome the emergence of a vital democracy in Syria. We would see that as preferable to the dictatorship that has existed in Syria now for more than 40 years.

INSKEEP: So you had real concerns about Hosni Mubarak losing his job. You have no concerns about Bashar al-Assad losing his job?

OREN: We have a bit of concern about rapid change. We would prefer to see gradual change. And we know that democracy takes a long time to build up. The Arab regimes that have collapsed, for example, in Egypt, they're given basically a couple of months to figure out how democracy works, how a party works. That's going to be a huge challenge. And it is not without its risks because the most organized parties in our area of the world, with the best funding and the clearest leaderships, are the radicals.

INSKEEP: One of the reasons I wanted to talk to you is because you wrote an article in Foreign Policy magazine telling the United States not to forget that Israel is a valuable ally of the United States. Why did you think it was important to make that point right now?

OREN: Well, support for Israel in this country is close to an all-time high. But an increasingly vocal group of what they call realists say that Israel is no longer a strategic asset for the United States but a liability. And this area, this idea has taken root in academia and in some of the think-tanks in our area of the world here within the Beltway ( AND FOR GOOD REASON! ) .

INSKEEP: Because it's used against the United States. U.S. support for Israel is used against the United States in Arab countries and other countries. That's why, right?

OREN: That's one of the reasons that they cite. And I felt it was important to take this to task and put this argument to rest once and for all. There is really, certainly in the Middle East, five years down the line, there is no country that is stable, democratic and unequivocally pro-American. And that is the type of ally that you don't find every day.

INSKEEP: Are you making that argument now though because you fear that with all the other changes in the Middle East and the Arab uprisings, that someone in the United States or in the Obama administration is going to lose sight of you?

OREN: No, I don't feel that. In fact, security relations between Israel and the Obama administration are at an all-time high also. We share our knowledge in fighting terror. So our security cooperation is really quite extraordinary.

INSKEEP: But your government was certainly not happy with the way the United States handled the Egypt uprising, for example.

OREN: No, there was no - we didn't express any - and I stress any -dissatisfaction with the way the administration handled it. Our only preference, our hope, was that the transition in Egypt would take place gradually and not too precipitously, in a way that would bring the radicals to power.

INSKEEP: And is it moving a little too quickly for you?

OREN: Again, we wish it would - the elections would be postponed a little bit longer, give these democratic and Western-oriented elements in Egypt greater time to organize. And I think that we are not alone in having that preference, but the Egyptians have their preference and we have to respect it.

INSKEEP: Ambassador Michael Oren in Israel. Thanks very much.

OREN: Thank you, Steve". - NPR's Morning Edition ( ...of PROPAGANDA! ) 5/5/11

 

* For those reporters, monitors and networks, both publicly and privately held, who have been so meticulous informing their audiences that George Walker Bush using a bullhorn while standing on a pile of 9/11 rubble at Ground Zero, that that somehow equates with President Obama's, and the Navy's Group VI Seals elimination of Osama Bin Laden, and also removes the memory that the Albert Gore presidency was stolen and awarded to the undeserving "W" by the 12/12/00 Republican Supreme Court decision of Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas & Anthony Kennedy.  That decision brought a Bush to power who nearly destroyed the financial system of these United States, and simultaneously threatened Social Security, while lining the pockets of billionaires with tax cuts!  Everyone knows we have a Republican news media ( WE ARE SO REMINDED ALL DAY, EVERY DAY! ) , which is why there is the GOPBIAS.INFO website.

But equating Mr. Bush with President Obama is, on its face, ridiculous, not withstanding the appearance of the media's headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue, at the so-called "Newseum" a few blocks from the Capitol.  The entity of a NEWS media is now defunct, evidenced regularly, by its avoiding the exchange between 27 year veteran of the CIA, Ray McGovern, and the regular, Margaret Warner, years ago, on the nightly PBS Newshour. *

There are exceptions, and the uproar which forced the board of trustees of the City University of New York, CUNY, made that clear by reversing its decision to withhold an honorary degree from Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, who had been opposed by ONE trustee, an obvious acolyte of Benjamin Netanyahu, Jeff S. Wiesenfeld, who objected to Mr. Kushner's characterizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians in 1948 as ethnic cleansing, and, in his rant, describing Palestinians as somehow not human.  WAKE UP AMERICA!  It's our billion$ which have created this Menace in the Middle East!

 

- With solid reporting, Amy Goodman restores veracity to the issue.

- Amy Goodman DemocracyNow -

Palestinian Factions Sign Unity Deal in Egypt

Palestinian leaders gathered in Cairo, Egypt, Wednesday to mark the signing of a unity deal between the main factions, Fatah and Hamas. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal held their first face-to-face meeting since 2006. Palestinian activist Mustafa Barghouti called on the international community to back the deal.

Mustafa Barghouti: "What you’ve seen today is not only a sign of unity but, I hope you’ve read in the speeches that were made, a sign of moderation from all Palestinians, including Hamas, and that’s a very important step forward. I believe that Europe, the United States, everybody in this world should support the unity agreement. Israel, of course, is against the unity agreement, and that’s very clear. Why? Because Mr. [Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman, who doesn’t know how to speak diplomatically, said it very clearly. He said, 'We want Palestinians to remain divided so that they remain weak.' And we want to be unified so that we become powerful and strong, so that we can achieve real peace."

Israel: Unity Deal a "Blow to Peace"

Israel has rejected the Palestinian unity deal, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling it "a tremendous blow to peace." Israeli Vice-Premier Silvan Shalom said Israel will redouble its effort to oppose recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.

Silvan Shalom: '’What needs to be done these days is to prevent those efforts of the Palestinians to get the recognition in the U.N. Assembly to have a new Palestinian state, because if we will give them the recognition, it will help the Iranians to build one more front base here within the Middle East.'’

The Obama administration has also refused to back the unity deal. In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesperson Mark Toner called on Hamas to accept longstanding international demands.

Mark Toner: "We’ve been clear all along the principles to which we think any Hamas element in the government would have to adhere to. And that is, you know, recognition of the state of Israel, a commitment to nonviolence, and the acceptance of the previous agreements and obligations between the parties, including the road map. We’ve been clear about those all along, that if Hamas wants to play a meaningful role in the political process there, and indeed in the peace process, they need to—they need to adhere to these principles."

Critics have long accused the United States of hypocrisy because neither the United States or Israel accept the same principles towards the Palestinians. With U.S. backing, the Israeli government has refused to recognize an independent Palestinian state in the occupied territories, commit to nonviolence, and accept previous agreements such as the road map. - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 5/5/11

EGYPT'S
MOHAMED ELBARADEI
HAS ADDED TO THE MOMENTUM

"Charlie" Rose: What role is Iran playing?

Mohamed ElBaradei, Former head of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): Well not, not much right now. And that’s also another issue Charlie. I think at this stage when the Arab world is exploding, you need to engage Iran. You need to make sure that Iran would be a positive force. Iran could be a very positive force. Clearly in Iraq, clearly in Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and I don't understand that we still have this standoff between Iran and the US. I don’t see any reason for it right now. In fact I’ve been advising, all my American collegues and friends, that now, and Europeans, now is the time to engage Iran. We need to find finally a solution to the standoff between Iran and the West. It’s a win-win situation and if it was needed a few years ago, it is needed today more than anytime before.

Rose: Do you believe that there would be a response in Iran?

ElBaradei: I think there would be a response. There was a response a year ago when I was still at the IAEA, unfortunately it fell, on the altar of Iranian domestic politics at that time, and when they put their act together it was the US domestic politics where President Obama got involved with the health care system, the Tea Party. I think there is an opportunity. I believe both Iran, at least the Iranian leadership and the US leadership are ready to engage, it just, we need somebody not to wait for the other to blink. I need the both of them to blink at the same time. And understand that both need each other for regional security, FOR GLOBAL SECURITY. - Mohamed ElBaradei with "Charlie" Rose April 27, 2011

 

* THE PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES, BARACK OBAMA, WAS COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO ELIMINATE OSAMA BIN LADEN, BUT CAN HE CORRAL OUR NEMESIS, THE PALEOLITHIC BENJAMIN NETANYAHU?

 

In that Barack Obama is addressing AIPAC, the American Israeli "Public(?)" Affairs Committee on Sunday 5/22/11, and Israeli Prime Minister on Tuesday 5/24/11 speaks to the Joint Session of the Congress of the United States of America, once again we are indebted to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who has over the last few months so eloquently, yet incisively, placed in perspective, the continuing madness of United States support of Netanyahu Apartheid Zionist Israel, by waging billion dollar genocidal warfare ( PAID FOR BY THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER ) against the Muslim Middle East.

An interjection 5/10/11 by Hari Sreenivasan on PBS Newshour also speaks to this outrage:  "A federal appeals court in San Francisco issued a sharp rebuke to the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department today. The court accused the VA of unchecked incompetence in handling post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions. It ordered the VA to work out a new mental health care plan with two veterans groups that brought suit. The ruling was unanimous."

David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker, in its 5/16/11 issue:  "And, perhaps most urgently, will the death of bin Laden accelerate the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan? Afghanistan was one of the places where Al Qaeda was born, and where it was sheltered. But Al Qaeda long ago fled to all corners, changing its mailing address to franchise cells in Waziristan, Peshawar, southern Yemen, and housing projects in European cities. Bin Laden’s death underscores the question of why we go on losing young men and women daily in the defense of an indefensibly corrupt government in Kabul."

The opposition to Mr. Remnick's analysis may have, in part, contributed to NPR's Tom Gjelten's decision to expose, finally, the practice, i.e. habitual performance, of those, beginning with George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who promoted initially the war against Iraq, which has turned into a debacle, and followed up with tens of thousands of American troops, and "contractors", in Afghanistan, all to facilitate Zionist Israel's "DESTINY" to control the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

* Tom Gjelten's May 14, 2011 revelation of STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS!

TOM GJELTEN: In the time since bin Laden was killed, each day has brought a little more news about the operation. This week, we learned that a bin Laden diary found in his house showed he had differences with his followers over what targets should be hit. And U.S. officials anonymously told the Reuters news agency that pornography was found in bin Laden's compound.

Were those details leaked by U.S. officials anxious to discredit bin Laden's al-Qaida movement in the Muslim world? If so, it would be an example of what's called strategic communication - putting out news that furthers your cause.

Christopher Paul of the RAND Corporation:

Mr. CHRISTOPHER PAUL (Social Scientist, RAND Corporation): Strategic communication is a huge part of the bin Laden killing; taking advantage of that, getting the message out, framing it in the right way to get some benefit from it.

GJELTEN: If before his death bin Laden had lost some control over his followers, the al-Qaida movement could be in real turmoil now.

Michael Doran, who served under President Bush, says he'd be emphasizing that point if he were still in his old job as the Pentagon's strategic communications specialist.

Mr. MICHAEL DORAN: There's one main message that you want to hammer home at every opportunity, and that's basically al-Qaida is on the ropes. The organization is going down.

GJELTEN: The White House has in fact been making that point. Christopher Paul of RAND, who studies strategic communication efforts, says administration officials have generally risen to the strategic occasion in talking about bin Laden's death.

Mr. PAUL: They got a solid B or B+. They planned ahead, they did a lot of things right, they grappled with some hard issues, and there were a few things that didn't go perfectly.

GJELTEN: The most notable faux pas was on the day after the bin Laden raid, when White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan suggested that bin Laden, the jihadi hero, resided in a mansion and stood behind a woman as a shield when Navy SEALs came after him.

Mr. JOHN BRENNAN (White House Counterterrorism Adviser): Here is bin Laden, living in this million-dollar-plus compound in an area that is far removed from the front, hiding behind women who were put in front of him as a shield. I think it really just speaks to just how false his narrative has been over the years.

GJELTEN: U.S. officials later corrected their own narrative, saying bin Laden did not use a woman as a human shield. They did later put out a video of bin Laden sitting on his floor, wrapped in a blanket, watching himself on television. The idea there may have been to portray him as vain and obsessed with his own image.

But some pious Muslims may actually have seen him appearing humble, and Michael Doran points out that bin Laden's residence, if anything, appeared a bit shabby.

Mr. DORAN: It didn't look like a mansion. The pictures of him, the video of him in front of the television, didn't look like he was living in luxury. If you're inclined to follow bin Laden and to respect him, I don't think that anything that you saw there is going to make you not respect him.

GJELTEN: When government spokesmen exaggerate in their eagerness to score a propaganda point, their credibility suffers. Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, says the Obama Administration knows that, and he points out that any administration misstatements about the bin Laden raid were quickly corrected.

Mr. BEN RHODES (Deputy National Security Adviser): What was important in those initial days was getting the facts out and then insofar as they needed to be corrected, very forthrightly and immediately coming forward and saying, we've learned additional information. Here's what we understand the facts to be. As long as we are being consistently clear and factual, you can retain your credibility.

GJELTEN: Propaganda and spin are generally seen as efforts to manipulate or even deceive people. But in this media age, there is little disputing the notion that any organization - from Al-Qaida to the U.S. presidency - needs to have a message and put it out clearly.

Ben Rhodes says a strategic communications goal of the Obama administration has long been to challenge the al-Qaida argument that the United States is at war with Islam or the Muslim world.

Mr. RHODES: Around his death, I think we saw it as an important opportunity to say Osama bin Laden in many ways had already become irrelevant in parts of the region. His narrative of violent resistance and violent change had actually been eclipsed by the peaceful protests that we see in many parts of the Arab world.

GJELTEN: And that strategic message is one we'll likely hear next week, when President Obama makes a speech about recent developments in the Middle East.

Tom Gjelten 5/14/11, NPR News Washington.

A recent example of "Strategic Communications", i.e. STRATCOMM, was the 5/9/11 announcement by General Electric/NBC Comcast, delivered by Brian Williams & Chuck Todd that "72% of the American people want to maintain our war against Afghanistan".  NO WAY!

A variation of STRATCOMM was exhibited by Thomas L. Friedman and Zalmay Khalilzad in successive OP-EDs 5/11/11 (Friedman) & 5/12/11 (Khalilzad), the latter a well-paid ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration.  This ambassador states "the United States should conclude a longer-term agreement with Afghanistan to maintain a SMALL, enduring military presence".  Can you imagine our maintaining a "SMALL, enduring" military presence?  Never happen!

Friedman, the day before, had written his regular lengthy column, twelve packed columns, entitled "Bad Bargains", on the Middle East.  NO MENTION OF ISRAEL!  Not one word on the cause of the turmoil in the Middle East, the 1948 attack and invasion of a peaceful Palestine, and the Israelis' refusal to even accept the June '67 borders which the Palestinians have offered.  No, that's not the Zionist way.  THEY WANT IT ALL!  THE TOTAL EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN!  WE ARE IN A MÉNAGE À TROIS WITH ISRAEL AND AIPAC!!!

 

* Madness, In Person! *

Glenn Beck, the erratic/erroneous former creature of Roger Ailes' FOX, { ...who also gave us Rush Limbaugh [ ...who made possible the  initial success of Newt Gingrich ( ...who guided the Contract on America )]} , this Mr. Beck, now on radio waves provided, in part, by the infamous billionaire Las Vegas Venetian Hotel/Casino owner Sheldon G. Adelson, is promoting all expenses paid week-long August '11 trips to Israel, including an 8/24/11 package to the Arab East Jerusalem "Old City", which features a gathering, limited to 600, on what Jews call the "Temple Mount", known to Muslims as their most sacred site, the "Dome of the Rock".  It stands to reason that such an excursion to Israel, in this time, would surely be funded by Adelson, part of the Jewish money/foreign policy mechanism which is meant to ensure that Netanyahu's pronouncement that Israel "would not accept a return to the boundaries that existed before the war in 1967", in which the Jews conquered the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza, an occupation which, to this day, is branded as illegal by the International Court of Justice.

"ISRAELI LEADER REBUFFS OBAMA ON '67 BORDERS

WASHINGTON - STEVEN LEE MYERS

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told President Obama on Friday that he shared his vision for a peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and then promptly listed a series of nonnegotiable conditions that have kept the two sides at an impasse for years.

Sitting at Mr. Obama’s side in the Oval Office, leaning toward him and at times looking him directly in the eye, the Israeli leader bluntly rejected compromises of the sort Mr. Obama had outlined the day before in hopes of reviving a moribund peace process. Mr. Obama, who had sought to emphasize Israel’s concerns in his remarks moments earlier, stared back.

In his public remarks, delivered after a meeting that lasted more than two hours, Mr. Netanyahu warned against “a peace based on illusions,” seemingly leaving the prospect for new talks as remote as they have been since the last significant American push for peace collapsed last fall. Officials said that the meeting was productive, but that there were no plans for formal negotiations or any mechanisms in place to push the two sides forward.

Most significant among his public objections, Mr. Netanyahu said that Israel would not accept a return to the boundaries that existed before the war in 1967 gave it control of the West Bank and Gaza, calling them indefensible." - Steven Lee Myers N Y Times 5/21/11

Balance of article

 

Fortunately, Helene Cooper is covering this key issue, the foreign policy debacle of our time, the inordinate power which Israel and its foreign agency AIPAC, the determinate American Israeli "Public" Affairs Committee ( which operates behind closed doors ) , i.e. the unchallenged power which AIPAC maintains over our Congress of these United States.

Man in Middle (?):  Obama Aide is Friend of Israel:  WASHINGTON

Five days ago, during a closed-door meeting with a group of Middle East experts, administration officials, and journalists, King Abdullah II of Jordan gave his assessment of how Arabs view the debate within the Obama administration over how far to push Israel on concessions for peace with the Palestinians.

From the State Department, “we get good responses,” the Jordanian king said, according to several people who were in the room. And from the Pentagon, too. “BUT NOT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE, AND WE KNOW THE REASON WHY IS BACAUSE OF DENNIS ROSS” — PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CHIEF MIDDLE EAST ADVISER.

MR. ROSS, KING ABDULLAH CONCLUDED, “IS GIVING WRONG ADVICE TO THE WHITE HOUSE.”

By almost all accounts, Dennis B. Ross — Middle East envoy to three presidents, well-known architect of incremental and painstaking diplomacy in the Middle East that eschews game-changing plays — IS ISRAEL’S FRIEND IN THE OBAMA WHITE HOUSE AND ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL BEHIND-THE-SCENES FIGURES IN TOWN.

His strategy sometimes contrasts sharply with that of a president who has bold instincts and a willingness to elevate the plight of the Palestinians to a status equal to that of the Israelis.

BUT NOW, AS THE PRESIDENT IS EMBARKING ON A COURSE THAT, ONCE AGAIN, PUTS HIM AT ODDS WITH ISRAEL’S CONSERVATIVE PRIME MINISTER, THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH OF A SPLIT THE PRESIDENT IS WILLING TO MAKE NOT ONLY WITH THE ISRAELI LEADER, BUT WITH HIS OWN HAND-PICKED MIDDLE EAST ADVISER.

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel reacted sharply to the president’s proposal, the reality is that the course Mr. Obama outlined Thursday was MUCH MORE MODEST THAN WHAT SOME OF HIS ADVISERS INITIALLY ADVOCATED.

During the administration’s debates over the past several months, Mr. Ross made clear that he was opposed to having Mr. Obama push Israel by putting forth a comprehensive American plan for a peace deal with the Palestinians, according to officials involved in the debate.

George J. Mitchell, who was Mr. Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, backed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, argued in favor of a comprehensive American proposal that would include borders, security and the fate of Jerusalem and refugees.  BUT MR. ROSS BALKED, ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS SAID, ARGUING THAT IT WAS UNWISE FOR THE UNITED STATES TO LOOK AS IF IT WERE PUBLICLY BREAKING WITH ISRAEL.

Mr. Netanyahu and Israel’s backers in the United States view Mr. Ross as a key to holding at bay what they see as pro-Palestinian sympathies EXPRESSED BY MR. MITCHELL; MR. OBAMA’S FIRST NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, GEN. JAMES L. JONES; AND EVEN THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.

HAS ISRAEL, THROUGH RAHM EMANUEL, DETERMINED UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY?

“Starting with Mitchell and Jones, there was a preponderance of advisers who were more in tune with the Palestinian narrative than the Israeli narrative,” said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a friend of Mr. Ross. “Dennis balanced that.”

Dennis B. Ross, right, with Benjamin Netanyahu in 1997. Mr. Ross has served as a Middle East envoy for several presidents.

Mr. Ross is the most senior member of a coterie of American diplomats who have advised presidents stretching back to Ronald Reagan. Unlike many of his colleagues, Mr. Ross has thrived in Republican and Democratic administrations.

“Dennis is viewed as the éminence grise, a sort of Rasputin who casts a spell over secretaries of state and presidents,” said Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert who has worked with him over several administrations and says he is an admirer. “But in the end, it’s the president who makes the ultimate decisions.”

Denis R. McDonough, the deputy national security adviser, said: “Dennis brings to the discussion a recognition of the vital importance of peace to the parties, but also to the United States. He’s in many ways dedicated much of his professional life to getting there.”

Mr. Ross initially began his tenure in the Obama administration as a senior Iran policy maker at the State Department. But in the summer of 2009, just a few months into his job at State, Mr. Ross moved to the White House, where he kept his Iran portfolio and eventually assumed a broader role that has allowed him to take part in developing Mr. Obama’s response to the upheavals in the Arab world.

His move came as the White House and Mr. Netanyahu were in a standoff over settlement construction. Over time, administration officials say, Mr. Ross took more of a role over Arab-Israeli policy. In September 2009, Mr. Obama abandoned his insistence on a settlement freeze in the face of Israeli recalcitrance.

“If Dennis Ross was in the inner circle in the early days, this administration would not have made that colossal settlements error,” Mr. Foxman said. “He would have said, ‘Don’t go there.’ ”

Once at the White House, Mr. Ross became invaluable, administration officials said, because of his close relationship not only with Mr. Netanyahu, but with the Israeli prime minister’s top peace negotiator, Yitzhak Molcho.

Mr. Ross demonstrated his growing influence last October, when the administration was pressing Mr. Netanyahu to agree to a three-month extension of his moratorium on settlement construction. Mr. Netanyahu balked.

So Mr. Ross devised a generous package of incentives for Israel that included 20 American fighter jets, other security guarantees, and an American pledge to oppose United Nations resolutions on Palestinian statehood. Many Middle East analysts expressed surprise that the administration would offer so much to Israel in return for a one-time, 90-day extension of a freeze.

In the end, Mr. Obama abandoned the effort, concluding that even if Mr. Netanyahu persuaded his cabinet to go along with the extension, it was unlikely to produce the kind of progress in talks that the United States hoped for. Direct talks between Mr. Netanyahu and the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, soon petered out, and Mr. Abbas made plans to go to the United Nations in September for a vote on Palestinian statehood.

In April, Mr. Mitchell, who, one Arab official said, often held up the specter of Mr. Ross to the Palestinians as an example of whom they would end up with if he left, sent Mr. Obama a letter of resignation. By some accounts, one reason was his inability to see eye to eye with Mr. Ross.

“Mitchell wanted something broader and more forward-leaning, and Dennis seems to be taking a more traditional stance,” said David J. Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has written about the National Security Council.

But, Mr. Rothkopf said, Mr. Obama must now take into account the emerging realities in the Arab world, including a new populism brought by the democratic movement that may make even governments that were not hostile to Israel, like Egypt and Jordan, more insistent on pushing the case of the Palestinians.

“Experience can be helpful, but it can also be an impediment to viewing things in a new way,” he said. - Helene Cooper & Landler N Y Times 5/21/11

- The public responds. -

To the Editor:

Many may trumpet President Obama’s brave, if belated, call for a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders as the much-anticipated arrival of the Arab Spring in Jerusalem.

But even those boundaries would represent a concession for Palestinians, many of whom were driven from their homes on the Israeli side of those borders in 1948.

Regardless of where the new lines are drawn, the state-crafting process will demand a confrontation of history. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has inflicted profound trauma upon the personal and cultural psyches of both Palestinians and Israelis, and resolving it will require a mutual healing process consisting of truth-seeking, reconciliation and, ultimately, rehabilitation.

Geography is easier to remedy than memory. Only by working together in an honest and participatory process will Palestinians and Israelis find common ground upon which to share a fertile future. - JEFFREY D. STEIN New York 5/20/11

The writer is the editor in chief of the New York University Journal of International Law and Politics.

MARTIN INDYK WAS ENLISTED TO ANALYZE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!

ASSOCIATED WITH MR. INDYK'S EFFORTS:

Additionally, this question: Is there no limit to the incessant "fund raising" for OPB (Oregon Public Broadcasting) that billionaires Arlene (Director) and Harold Schnitzer insert into their Public Broadcasting daily programming, programming which coincides with a collateral damaging, as it were, collateral reduction in timely "Hard News", conspicuously led by the absence of the threat to Middle East peace exemplified by Netanyahu & Lieberman's Israel?!?! In actuality, OPB under the Schnitzers has degenerated into OPPB, Oregon Public Propaganda Broadcasting, on a track developed in our age by Roger Ailes (who originated 'FOX' broadcasting) and his protege' Rush Limbaugh. Shameful.

What is often forgotten is that the notorious Schnitzer family of Oregon [which is responsible for the desecration of OPB (Oregon "Public" Broadcasting)] invited the war monger Benjamin Netanyahu to Portland, Oregon in July of 2002 to campaign for Republican Senator Gordon Smith (for whom the phrase "empty suit" was coined), i.e. Democrats for Smith, whose sub rosa supporters surely included Senator Ron Wyden. Netanyahu, whose Israeli acolyte Yigal Amir assassinated the genuine Soldier/Statesman Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in November of 1995, this Netanyahu, through the notorious Israeli political apparatus, became the Israeli prime minister 1996-99! And it is this Netanyahu who the Schnitzers invited to Oregon to campaign for Gordon Smith. In all of this there exists (moreso today) , a fanatic, frenetic thread of sordid madness, a true threat to world peace as Netanyahu has demonstrated in the Middle East, and a diminishing informed American public here at home, as the Schnitzers are demonstrating with Oregon Public Broadcasting. We should have known. Netanyahu and the Schnitzers are COUSINS!, and on 7/19/10 Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow informed our ignorance, again.

"A newly revealed tape shows Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once openly discussed his intent to attack the Palestinian government, undermine the Oslo peace accords, and manipulate the United States to ensure its approval. The 2001 recording shows Netanyahu meeting with Israeli SETTLERS in the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu was then out of government after serving his first stint in office. Apparently unaware he was being recorded, Netanyahu talks openly of a 'broad attack' on the Palestinian government, saying, 'The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one blow, but blows that are so painful that the price will be too heavy to be borne.'

"Netanyahu also outlines how he would undermine the 1993 Oslo accords, he said, which established the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, by declaring any West Bank land that Israel wants to retain as 'military' and 'security zones.' Addressing potential US opposition to Israeli expansionism, Netanyahu says, 'I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. THEY WON’T GET IN THE WAY.'" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 7/19/10

Notation - As of 4/27/11 Harold Schnitzer has passed on.  God rest his soul.

Having just completed a week, 5/22-28/11, in which the AIPAC controlled Congress of the United States honored the megalomaniac Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that body bestowed "a grand platform" for his joint House/Senate address in the House chamber of the Capitol on Tuesday May 24, in which "Bibi" was cheered with more standing ovations than the President - ( Mr. Netanyahu's speech was greeted with "many of the trappings of a presidential State of the Union address" ) , all of which caused some onlookers to question the fealty of these lawmakers to their Oath of Office, specifically their pledge to "defend the Constitution of the United States."

One could opine that this blessed "Arab Spring" could bring to an end a most tortured half Century, that began with President Eisenhower's overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, which surely would have pleased the Israelis, who classify Iran as another of their "EXISTENTIAL" threats.  Might it occur to the Israelis that they, themselves, are the problem?

In the last three to five years Jewish interests have completed the truly clandestine (except if you are Jewish) plan, that began with the November '95 assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who was dedicated to achieving a just peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Their plan was entitled "A Clean Break:  A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (Israel)", the first step of which was the elimination of Saddam Hussein, and the second step would be the invasion of Syria (...if you've been wondering why the Syrians and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad seem to have been "invaded" by scores of protesters demanding Al-Assad's ouster).  All of this was foretold in 2004 in James Bamford's Pulitzer-denied "A Pretext For War:  9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies (beginning on Page 262).  Michiko Kakutani was alone in reviewing Mr. Bamford's masterpiece:

 

"What he does focus on is the role that Israel has played in shaping American policy. Mr. Bamford contends that 'the blueprint for the new Bush policy' on the Middle East 'had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors' (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser) for the Israeli prime minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu (who rejected the plan), and that when they entered office in January 2001, all these hawks needed was 'a pretext' for war against Iraq. Citing a report from the British newspaper The Guardian, Mr. Bamford adds that the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit set up by Mr. Feith, 'forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence unit within Ariel Sharon's office in Israel,' which 'was designed to go around the country's own intelligence organization, Mossad.'"

 

Finale

In its 5/31/11 issue, page D-4, The New York Times publishes an article by one William J. Broad, headlined "Inspectors Pierce Iran's Cloak of Nuclear Secrecy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency last week presented a report to its board that laid out new information on what it calls “possible military dimensions” of Iran’s nuclear program, clarifying the central issue in the long clash between Tehran and the West over nuclear technology".

It leaves for the final quarter of the piece:  "It describes the sources of the information as 'many member states' as well as its own efforts. Nuclear experts assume that much intelligence comes from Israel... ...though the I.A.E.A. in total, has 151 member states."

 

- A BREAKING ( "the point at which a situation becomes critical" ) BOMBSHELL -

* Seymour Hersh answers the Preceding N Y Times piece by William J. Broad *

- Immediate Background -

Fareed Zakaria the editor at large of TIME, was afforded the hour with "Charlie" Rose 5/31/11:

Let's start with the Camp, with the Clinton Camp David Plan, when we say, look, this is what we all know roughly where we are going to be, why don't we start with this.

Rose: It is essentially the plan of the Arab League, it's essentially the plan of the Geneva Accord.

Zakaria: Right, right, and say, what are the minor modifications that you people wanted to do along these lines, and let's now have a conversation.

Rose: But should you put it all on the table, including Jerusalem, or should you try to get to some of the parts, and save say the return of refugees, and Jerusalem to the end?

Zakaria:  Look, people say, people more experienced at this than I, say you should leave those things to the end.  I say WE'VE BEEN TRYING THAT FOR TWENTY YEARS.

Rose:  But that's what Clinton did at Camp David with Barak and with Arafat, let's put it all on the table.

Zakaria:  Well, effectively they came pretty close, and I think what you then do, if you can manage it, is you take it to the two peoples.  You go over the leaders, because the leadership in both places is dysfunctional at this point.  I think that in Israel you will probably find a majority that will support this, because the Israeli public is actually much more willing to accommodate themselves to something like this than Bibi Netanyahu is.

Amy Goodman on DemocracyNow 6/2/11 remarked on the one year anniversary of the unprovoked Israeli commando attack, in international waters, on the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, a vessel bringing basic foods and medicine to the isolated, virtually imprisoned ( by Netanyahu's Israel ) Gazans:

Palestinians Mark First Anniversary of Israeli Flotilla Attack

Palestinians have marked the first anniversary of the Israeli attack on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla that killed nine people and left dozens wounded. In Gaza, Palestinian residents boarded boats and carried the Palestinian and Turkish flags in honor of the Turkish ship raided by Israeli commandos. Palestinian solidarity activists are preparing a new aid flotilla sailing to Gaza for later this month. - DemocracyNow 6/2/11

Here the response by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan 5/11/11:

"Charlie" Rose: Let me move to the, what's going on between Hamas and Fatah. Do you approve this?

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (translated): Yes I am very pleased with what had happened. I am very pleased. Let me express it very clearly, because this is what we wanted to see for many years and this is, I spent a lot of efforts as Prime Minister for many years, to bring them together, and now I am very happy to see that this happened and we don't want, we want this to continue like this, because Palestine, if peace will come to Palestine, if peace will come to Middle East, this will start from the internal peace in Palestine. And then, and this target ahead will be discussed much more effectively. Now they came together, they are in peace now and I hope they continue this peace among themselves and then by way of holding elections within less than one year, a democratic process will work. Here, the western support is essential here. The West, i.e. Obama's United States, should support this process.  If West does not support it, again it will be pity for the Middle East.

Rose: Secretary Clinton as you know said that they would not rule out talking to Hamas if they would recognize the right of Israel to exist and not engage in any terrorist activities.

Erdogan: Well, let me give you a very clear message. I DON'T SEE HAMAS AS A TERROR ORGANIZATION. Hamas is a political party, it emerged as a political party that appeared as a political party and, plus it is an organization, it is a resistance movement trying to protect its country under occupation. So we should not mix terrorist organizations with such an organization. They entered into elections, they won the elections, they had ministers and they had parliament speakers who were imprisoned by Israel. Now about there are thirty five ministers and members of parliament in Israel prisons. What is, where is terrorism? They enter into elections, and after the elections this is how they were reacted. I mean, calling them terrorists this would be disrespecting the will of the Palestinian people.

Rose: Mr. Meshal has said he is not who I've interviewed, he is not prepared to recognize, at this time, the right of Israel to exist ( NOT SO ) , you know, and he says that the resistance will end, when the occupation ends. And he set up what he believes are the requirements for the resistance to end. Which as you know is the right of return, CAPITOL IN JERUSALEM, the '67 borders, and elimination of the settlements.

Erdogan: As you know, many of them were accepted before. '67 borders were accepted, and by accepting '67 borders Hamas will have no problem. They say yes to that, and that was already gained before. But a lot of the issues are possible to solve and we, as Turkey, we said we are ready to intervene here. We are ready to take part in this and we can take it a lot of distance, and I believe in Khaled Meshal and in both him and Ismail Haniyeh. They are, they respect us, they rely on us in the steps to be taken, and I believe that we can solve it, with them. And these developments in Palestine, this politicization process, will give an end to violence. But of course there is the need for mutual understanding. Israel should get rid of the present understanding, with its present mind set. Because Israel in many of their steps, THEY ARE TERRORIZING. This is what they did in international waters. They attacked our humanitarian assistance flotilla. They did not apologize for that. And they did not accept to pay compensation for our nine martyrs and they still do not approve of bringing construction materials to Gaza, and there, Charlie, how can you put all Palestines in Gaza like in an open prison. Of course they will rebel. And if we say we are peace volunteers, if we say we respect human rights, they should not be kept in open prison. If Israel does not allow, you cannot bring in one case of tomatoes. Maybe with the opening of the border with Egypt they will be. So we have to start a new period. If you want peace to prevail, we should take this stuff. Here there are duties for United States, there are duties for the European Union countries, in short the quartet should assume a very active role, and we as Turkey, we are ready for everything.

Rose: Are you still demanding that Israel, with respect to its relationship with Turkey, apologize and provide compensation?

Erdogan: This is absolutely certain, I mean to disembar three things, apology, compensation and lifting of embargo on Gaza. The attack policy to be lifted. So it has to be lifted. We in the Middle East, we are a country that accepted the statehood of Israel and Palestine. And we recommend this to everybody, and we defend this. And we bring together the sides, and we believe that we can, but of course, we need everybody should know their limits and their borders, and then we can take these steps. - "Charlie" Rose with Prime Minister Erdogan 5/11/11

 

- And on June 3, 2011, Amy Goodman and DemocracyNow are the selected venue which Seymour Hersh has chosen for his revelational exposé ( in the June 6, 2011 issue of The New Yorker, editor David Remnick ) of the Israeli Netanyahu / United States Bush Obama deadly con to deceive the world regarding the nuclear weapon intentions of the Iranians, so as to cloak the threat that the treacherous Isrealis currently manifest to the Middle East.

"In his latest article for The New Yorker magazine, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says the United States might attack Iran based on distorted estimates of Iran’s nuclear and military threat—just like it did with Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq. Hersh reveals that despite using Iranian informants and cutting-edge surveillance technology, U.S. officials have been unable to find decisive evidence that Iran has been moving enriched uranium to an underground weapon-making center.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh assesses the popular uprisings sweeping the Middle East and North Africa amidst ongoing U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Despite touted gains and an upcoming U.S. military withdrawal deadline in Iraq, Hersh says, 'Whatever you’re hearing, Iraq is going bad... It’s sectarian war. And the big question is going to be whether we pull out or not.' On the uprisings, Hersh says Saudi Arabia, fearing an overthrow of the regional order, is driving the embattled regimes’ attempts to crush the protests." - Amy Goodman & DemocracyNow 6/3/11

JUAN GONZALEZ: The Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is back in the news this week with another explosive article that is ruffling some feathers at the White House. During the Bush administration years, Hersh was widely criticized by White House officials for his exposés on the torture at Abu Ghraib, secret U.S. operations overseas, and U.S. policy in Iran. Now it is the Obama White House upset with an article from Hersh.

Earlier this week, The New Yorker magazine published his latest investigation titled "Iran and the Bomb: How Real is the Threat?" Hersh writes, quote, "There is a large body of evidence, however, including some of America’s most highly classified intelligence assessments, suggesting that the United States could be in danger of repeating a mistake similar to the one made with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq eight years ago—allowing anxieties about the policies of a tyrannical regime to distort our estimations of the state’s military capacities and intentions."

AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh reveals that despite using Iranian informants and cutting-edge surveillance technology, U.S. officials have been unable to find decisive evidence that Iran has been moving enriched uranium to an underground weapon-making center.
Hersh quotes Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying he has not seen, quote, "a shred of evidence" that Iran was—has been weaponizing, in terms of "building nuclear-weapons facilities and using enriched materials."

The Obama White House, meanwhile, has repeatedly cited Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to the world. President Obama raised the issue last month during his speech before AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: So let me be absolutely clear: we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Its illicit nuclear program is just one challenge that Iran poses. As I said on Thursday, the Iranian government has shown its hypocrisy by claiming to support the rights of protesters while treating its own people with brutality.

AMY GOODMAN: Joining us now in Washington is Seymour Hersh, investigative reporter at The New Yorker and author of many books, including Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, currently working on a book looking at the Dick Cheney vice presidency.

Welcome to DemocracyNow!, Seymour Hersh. Lay out what you have found.

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, very simply, it’s—you know, you could argue it’s 2003 all over again. Remember WMD, mushroom clouds. There’s just no serious evidence inside that Iran is actually doing anything to make a nuclear weapon. You know, making a weapon is a big deal. You have to have fabrication facilities. You have to convert a very toxic gas into a metal and then mold it into a core. It’s big stuff, and there’s no sign of any of it.

We’ve been looking—Cheney was convinced, Dick Cheney, the former vice president, there was a secret facility à la what we probably saw in the movie Bananas. Remember Woody Allen’s movie, the little robots running underground? He was convinced there was an underground facility somewhere. And we had special forces units in there since '04, really, perhaps as late as—early as ’05, maybe, looking. We've been paying off people—the Kurds, the Azeris, the opposition groups. We’ve been giving a lot of money to various defectors. We’ve been looking with satellites for telltale signs, air holes, air vents, somewhere in the desert or somewhere in an arid area. And we’ve found nothing, not for lack of trying. We looked very hard. And there’s just no evidence on the inside.

And it’s not only here, it’s known in Europe. It’s a much easier situation, at least for a journalist, to go to Europe, because the European intelligence officials are much more open about it. "Yes, we are very skeptical," they will say, "but we’ve found nothing." So, the fact is, we have a—the evidence is pretty strong—I mean, very strong—that we have a sanctions program that’s designed to prevent the Iranians from building weapons systems they’re not building.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Sy Hersh, your article details some extraordinary efforts by the United States. You talk about the special forces operations actually replacing street signs in Tehran with radiation detectors and replacing bricks in buildings. Could you talk about some of that? I mean, because that’s enormous risk that they’re taking actually going into the country and doing that.

SEYMOUR HERSH: Oh, it’s amazingly complicated. And I will tell you, obviously, I hate to write about operational stuff, but let me just say that whatever we were doing, we have a new generation now that’s more sophisticated. But in those early days—early days being '05, 2005, 2006—there was a tremendous concern that various buildings, laboratories and academic buildings in the city of Tehran were being used as secret facilities to enrich uranium to a high degree. Right now the Iranians are absolutely within the law. It turns out they're signatories to the NPT, Non-Proliferation Treaty. And there’s no evidence whatsoever that—the IAEA, the group that Mr. ElBaradei headed, International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors nuclear developments, they consistently report that there’s no evidence of any diversion of any of the enriched materials they now have.

We’re enriching—the Iranians are enriching to about 3.7 or so percent to run civilian power plants. There’s one small pilot project for medical research that gets up to 20 percent. But everything that’s being enriched is under camera, under watch, by the IAEA. There’s just no sign of any diversion. There’s just no evidence. This doesn’t mean we can go to intent. It doesn’t mean that there’s a lot of concern in the United States and appropriate concern about the Iranian intent. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t watch what they do. But it does mean that we’re sort of beating a dead horse here.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about your sources, Sy Hersh.

SEYMOUR HERSH: Thanks a lot, Amy. Look, there’s been two very secret studies done, called National Intelligence Estimates, NIEs, and these are the most sort of sacrosanct internal studies done by the community. Almost all the time they’re private. There are studies going on, NIEs going on all the time—the situation now in Ecuador, for example, other issues. Venezuela is always looked at. The situation in the war, war-peace stuff, is constantly being looked at by groups of people in the intelligence community. And these documents are promulgated without anybody knowing it.

For some reason, in 2007 there was an NIE put out about the Iranian nuclear weapons program, and the White House wanted a summary made. And I think at that point 16 intelligence agencies were involved in the final conclusions. And internally, the guys running it, to their credit, voted 16 to nothing to say what they said, which is that, in a summary put out about the NIE—as I say, unprecedented summary—saying there’s no evidence they had done any weaponization since 2003.

And there’s a new study that was just done. It was published in February of this year. And it—we knew about it, but nobody has actually—you’re getting me in a tricky area, but I can just say, people that have worked on the study and have read the study will attest—have attested that it doesn’t take us any further. There’s no further evidence of any weaponization.

And what’s even more important that I write is that this, the latest study, was actually supposed to be promulgated—is the word they use in the community—last fall, and it was delayed because the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon intelligence agency, had an assessment that was—knocked everybody’s socks off. Their assessment was, the only reason Iran even looked at weaponization—and we’re not talking about building anything, we’re talking about doing studies, paper studies—was because they were frightened of Iraq. They had had an eight-year war, as many in your audience will remember, between 1980 and 1988, with Iraq, a terrible, brutal war. And when they—their worry was, in the early—in the 2001, 2002 period, that if Iraq went nuclear, they might need some deterrent. So what they even looked at, the papers they did, was aimed not at us or the Israelis, but aimed at the Iraqis. That didn’t get into the final judgment, but it affected the debate in a pretty positive way.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Sy Hersh, one of the things you say in your article is that these latest intelligence assessments—that a lot of the career intelligence people in the government now have pushed back a lot more against political pressure, after the debacle with Iraq and the pressure on the intelligence community to skew intelligence assessments about weapons of mass destruction, that now the career people are a lot more willing to buck any political pressure.

SEYMOUR HERSH: You know, it really depends on who’s running the agency. The Defense Department, the DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, has a career general named Burgess who’s been in a lot of tough places. You know, he was in the Joint Special Operations Command. And he really has, all I can say is—again, I’m getting into—the people who work for him will tell you that they’re no longer afraid to go up against the established judgment. And so, what we really have been happening, in an amazing way—and I have to say this about the American government because I’m always very critical—but we do have an enormous number of people in the government and the intelligence community who don’t take—who take an oath of office to the Constitution, and not to the general who’s in charge of them or to the president. And we’re seeing more and more of that kind of attitude coming out inside. I can’t tell you why, but there’s more people really—there’s a lot more concern about where we are in the world right now. And the last decade has been a pretty horrible one for the United States, and I think the future is very, very sort of frightening, too, in terms of what’s been going on in the Middle East, etc. So there’s more integrity in the process. It doesn’t mean the White House likes it.

AMY GOODMAN: Sy, I wanted to ask you about the new International Atomic Energy Agency report that came out Tuesday, just after your article was published. This is what the New York Times reported, quote: "The world’s global nuclear inspection agency, frustrated by Iran’s refusal to answer questions, revealed for the first time [on] Tuesday that it possesses evidence that Tehran has conducted work on a highly sophisticated nuclear triggering technology that experts said could be used for only one purpose: setting off a nuclear weapon."

"The nine-page report raised questions about whether Iran has sought to investigate seven different kinds of technology ranging from atomic triggers and detonators to uranium fuel," the New York Times reporting on the IAEA report. Your response, Seymour Hersh?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, the word "evidence" was not in what the IAEA said. What the IAEA said is something it’s been saying repeatedly, even under ElBaradei. And I must say, the new director general, Mr. Amano, is, I think, more willing to please us than ElBaradei was, just in terms of speculating more. There was nothing new in that report. They’ve been saying repeatedly that they have concerns about certain information they have. They don’t describe it as evidence.

The new trigger is a very complicated device that was used by us maybe 30 years ago to trigger a hydrogen—a fusion weapon, and it went nowhere. And it’s a, as I say, extremely complicated device that there’s no evidence that anybody in their right mind would want to use that kind of a trigger. It would involve creating a different kind of reactor. The technical problems with that kind of a complicated device are enormous. And anyway, are you really going to be—are you going to make a trigger before you know what kind of gun you have?

I mean, it’s just—the word "evidence" was nowhere in the report. It’s been going on a long time. And what’s been going on is the IAEA has put out—this is even under ElBaradei. For about six, seven, eight years now, they’ve put out report after report that say one thing, that’s the most important thing: no evidence of any diversion of enriched materials, no evidence that they’re squirreling away enriched uranium to make a secret bomb. They have a lot of uranium enriched, the 3.7 percent, yes, but there’s no evidence they’re doing anything more than storing it up to run a civilian nuclear reactor. They have two in the process now. They’re having a lot of technical troubles. But eventually they’re going to need that fuel. It takes an enormous amount of fuel to drive a reactor. And so, it’s the same thing that’s been going on. You can look at the questions raised and lead your story with that, or you can look at the fact they say consistently that there’s been no diversion. There are outstanding questions. The Iranians don’t like being asked a lot of questions about third-party information. They keep on coming back to the IAEA and saying, "Give us some reason to answer a question. We’re not going to answer questions about third-party gossip," that most of which they believe comes from fabrications.

And there’s been some evidence that some of the material—particularly there’s a famous laptop incident, where there was material given to us, the providence of which wasn’t known, that we made a big fuss about, allegedly a laptop belonging to an Iranian scientist, nuclear scientist. There were very crude drawings in it. They weren’t at all near the level of anything serious. And that, for years, back about four or five years ago, fueled all sorts of debate.

There’s just—the word "evidence"—I’ll just say again, the word "evidence" was not in what the IAEA said. Yes, there are outstanding questions. They’ve been—the same questions have been asked and answered for years. This particular trigger device was written about in a London newspaper two or three years ago, a major story. It’s not new. There’s nothing known about it that hasn’t been said before. This is what happens. You know, alas, you know, one thing about a free press is you don’t have to like everything you read.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Sy, I wanted to ask you—you mentioned earlier the uprisings in the Arab world, and I wanted to ask you about the impact of those uprisings both on the theocracy in Iran and also on Israel’s attempts to constantly encircle Iran or portray it as the source of danger to the rest of the world and to the region.

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, just to get away from Iran for a second, what you’re having now is you’re having a—you had it in Tunisia, and you had Egypt, spontaneous people’s revolts, if you will. Your former colleague was in Tahrir Square doing great stuff on it, and still in Cairo, I understand.

AMY GOODMAN: Sharif, yes.

SEYMOUR HERSH: And so, you had something amazing—yes, you had something amazing going on. And what you have now—and that of course spread. That spread throughout the Gulf regions. And what you have now is a very, very—it’s sort of unremarked upon by the press here in America—you have a counterrevolution going on, fueled largely by the Saudis and their panic. You see the implication of that in Bahrain, where the unbelievable things are happening to the Shiites, the minority Shiites there. They may be a majority in terms of population, but certainly a minority in terms of power. And you have that regime brutalizing its people in a way that’s beyond, I would argue, anything going on elsewhere, including in Syria. As bad as it is in Syria, it’s much worse in Bahrain. And the United States, of course, for a lot of reasons, is ignoring that.

You have the Gulf states in a state of sort of controlled panic now. They’re all sort of locally owned oil combines, owned by various one-time Bedouin—you know, Bedouin desert livers, now suddenly owners of huge complexes of oil billionaires, all of them, and they want to stay in power in the Gulf—Oman, even Qatar. You can see a lot of problems with Al Jazeera’s coverage, particularly of Bahrain. Al Jazeera, for example, is always calling me, didn’t call me for this story because everybody wants to point fingers at Iran. The United States has essentially equated Iran’s upset and encouragement of some of the—encouragement of the stuff going on with Bahrain as—for the United States, this is as much of a sin as the Al Khalifa family beating the hell out of everybody and doing worse than that—particularly doctors and nurses—in Bahrain. So there’s a huge—

AMY GOODMAN: And it’s the home of the U.S. Navy Fifth Fleet, Sy.

SEYMOUR HERSH:—counterrevolution going on.

Yes, absolutely, it is the home. And, of course, the Fifth Fleet often, wisely, will move a lot of their vehicles offshore when trouble gets going. Yes, it’s the home of our—Bahrain is an important base. It’s an important facility. But we could go other places, too, I’m sure. It’s just we have a lot of things there.

So you have the American response to—you have this GCC, the Gulf Cooperation Community or Committee. It’s probably the only defense organization in the world that’s designed for all the countries getting together to ward against internal dissent, not external threat, but internal threats. And so, we have this amazing institution. Morocco just joined the GCC. So, this is going on before our eyes, and we’re not paying enough attention to it.

And what we do is we focus on Iran as the bad guy: Iran is responsible, they’re shifting gear to the Syrians to help the Syrian Mukhabarat control its society, as if the Baathist Party in Syria needs outside help in doing that. They’re pretty good at it. We’ve made Iran into a bogeyman. And my own guess is, the reason we’re so intent on the sanctions and keeping them going, when there’s no evidence of any weaponization, there’s no real threat at all—even the Israelis—I was in Israel last in June—rather, in April, two months ago now. And I can’t—they have crazy, strange rules, ground rules, on what you can report. But I can tell you right now, the Israelis understand, the more sophisticated ones and serious people in the intelligence community there, they understand that that Iran doesn’t have a bomb now. If it decides to get one and they get a bomb, they’re not going to throw it against Tel Aviv, because they know that’s annihilation. They understand that, despite the fact they say different things and they raise the threat. So we’re making the Iranians sort of the people responsible for what’s going on, in terms of the revolutions, and we’re really on the wrong side of history on that, the United States.

It’s really the Saudis we should be looking at quite a bit. And when you get to that question, you then say, here are the Saudis, who obviously—we know from reports and from everything I’ve been told—are very angry at us. They feel that our support for Mubarak undercut them. You know, they like to keep rigid control over a population that includes, certainly in Saudi Arabia, many Shiites who work the oil fields. And so, you have the Saudis in full panic, refusing—in anger at us, refusing to increase the oil output, so the price of oil stays—gasoline is $4 or more a gallon. And then, here we have a president whose reelection is going to depend not on killing Osama bin Laden—hooray, he did it—but more on what the price of gasoline is going to be next year. And we have the Saudis stiffing us.

And here you have Iran, which is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the world, also has a lot of oil—its fields are diminishing, but it’s got a lot of stuff. The sanctions aren’t working. The Iranians are selling stuff to India, to China, Pakistan. They’re doing a lot of business. You think—I mean, dumb and dumber. You think maybe we would start doing what a lot of people in the article I published—Tom Pickering, the former secretary—under secretary of state, a longtime ambassador, very serious guy, is among those who’s been doing—involved in secret contacts with the Iranians and has been telling us for years, he and his group, "Get off this nuclear business. There’s a lot of other issues you could deal with the Iranians. They want to be respected. You could really get some progress," and maybe even getting to the point where we can—we don’t have to—we’re not interested in changing the regime there. That’s impossible. We do know that. Unlike Bush and Cheney, Obama doesn’t want to. Maybe we can get to the point where you can start getting some of the energy that they have to produce. Instead, we’re trying to keep them from the market. It just doesn’t make sense. And sanctions, you know, go ask Castro how well they work. We’ve been sanctioning Cuba, what, since 1960, ’61, ’62, and, you know—and as far as I know, Cuba is still there, and so is Castro.

AMY GOODMAN: Sy Hersh, very quickly, we haven’t spoken to you in a while, and—

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, I’m sorry, my earphone popped out. Hold on a second.

AMY GOODMAN: OK, we’re talking to—

SEYMOUR HERSH: Say again.

AMY GOODMAN:—the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Seymour Hersh. Sy, we haven’t talked to you in a while. Your assessment of President Obama’s war in Afghanistan and Pakistan?

SEYMOUR HERSH: A disaster. Stupid. I do think that the White House really wanted the bin Laden raid, about which I’ve been doing a lot of work. There’s always—things are always more interesting than they seem. I’m not suggesting he wasn’t killed or anything like that, but just more interesting. And I think the getting of bin Laden will give Obama the freedom to make a serious cut in this war in Afghanistan that everybody on the inside—everybody on the inside, believe me—I don’t know about Petraeus, General Petraeus, who for some reason is going to the CIA, just as for some reason Panetta, who doesn’t really know much about the Pentagon is going to the Pentagon. I don’t quite understand what they’re doing.

But this is a war that has nothing to do with American national security. And the obvious way out is to actually find a way to start talking to Mullah Omar. Instead, we keep on isolating him. And we’re driving Pakistan crazy with this war. We’re increasing the jihadism there. We’re increasing the terrorism there. We’re sticking it to the Paks in very direct ways. It’s a totally counterproductive system. We have our guys going out doing night raids. We always call them NATO, and the press goes along with calling them NATO. But our Joint Special Operations Command is still going out. I don’t fault the guys doing it. Let me make it clear, they’re very, very competent guys. They’re under orders, and they do what they do. They just do it very well. But there’s no way you’re going to make strikes at night and not kill an awful lot of noncombatants—"collateral damage," they call it. And it’s just—we’re hated. We’re outsiders. We don’t have to be doing the bombs to be hated by the Pashtun. That’s been the society all along. The Pakistanis are in terrible fear of what’s going to happen in Afghanistan. They always see Afghanistan as bulwark against India. They’re afraid of our relationship with India.

And I’ll tell you the biggest problem he has, as awful as those things are, as counterproductive, and as much as he’s following, oh, yes, Bush and Cheney in those policies—and I think the President—I’ll be writing about this—I think he was really sandbagged by the Pentagon after he got into office, when he was new and innocent. And I still think—I think right now—I would almost use the word "cult" to describe what’s going on in the White House. Everything is political...

HE'S ISOLATED.  VERY GOOD PEOPLE SAY THEY'VE NEVER SEEN A PRESIDENT THIS ISOLATED, IN TERMS OF BEING UNABLE TO GET TO HIM WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS, ETC.  SO HE'S REALLY CAPTIVE OF A FEW PEOPLE THERE.

...I know this may sound strange, but I know what I’m talking about. You can’t get to the guy—and even, for example, Pickering, as competent as he is. And Pickering has done some wonderful stuff for the United States intelligence community undercover, and so he’s known as a trusted guy. Those guys who have been involved in talking to Iran off the record, Track II policy talks, for years can’t get to the President. He may not even know they’re looking for him. I just don’t know.

And so, here we have this very bright guy continuing insane policies that are counterproductive, do nothing for the United States, and meanwhile the real crisis is going to be about Iraq, because, whatever you’re hearing, Iraq is going bad. Sunnis are killing Shia. It’s sectarian war. And the big question is going to be whether we pull out or not. And there’s going to be a lot of pressure to keep them—we’ve got 40,000 or 50,000 Americans there—to keep them there. I don’t know how it’s going to play out, but I’ll tell you right now, there are Sunni Baathist groups in Damascus, in various places, in the United Kingdom—Leeds is one place—ready, as soon as we get out, to declare an alternative government, a provisional government, and announce that they’re going to retake Iran from the Shiites and from—Iraq from the Shiites, who they believe are totally tied in to the Iranians, which probably isn’t true, but that’s always been the fiction we have, or the fear we have: Iran controls Iraq. There’s a mutuality of interests, but Maliki is a very tough customer. You know, Maliki worked for 21 years in Syria as a cop for the Mukhabarat, for the secret police. He was working as a sergeant there for 21 years in Syria, before he went back as an exile after we kicked out Saddam. He is nobody’s patsy. But there’s going to be a holy hell there. It’s going to be probably the biggest problem the President has next year, along with gas, along with the crazy Republicans that are running against him. He’s going to—and along with Afghan and along with Iran, it’s going to be Iraq. We’re going to be back looking at Iraq, as that country goes berserk.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Sy Hersh, I want to—

SEYMOUR HERSH: That’s very cheerful. I’m really Mr. Happy News, huh?

JUAN GONZALEZ: I want to get back to the Arab Spring for a moment and ask you, do you think that in Egypt—for example, the uprisings that led to the overthrow of Mubarak and now to the trial, apparently, the trial of Mubarak, it is understandable why the Egyptian people would want to put this ruthless leader on trial. But do you think that the trying of Mubarak has had repercussions throughout the rest of the region, with all these other dictators who say, "Well, I better fight to the end, because if not, I will end up like Mubarak, will be immediately put on trial by my people"?

SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, you know, I can’t say that about the trial, because I haven’t actually talked to anybody about whether the trial makes a difference. But before that, I would say what you’re saying is absolutely right. The moment the United States—the waffling that the President did—if you remember, he was with the kids, he was against the kids, and we had the Secretary of State saying the same thing, with, against. There’s no question that the fear—there’s an enormous fear in the Arab world, in the Gulf, in the Gulf region. And right now they’re very angry at us. They’re terrified of Iran. And they’re very worried about internal security.

They’re worried about—what’s going on in Bahrain is, I’m telling you, it’s a sensationally underreported story. The brutality there is beyond—it’s shocking. And again, the Saudis are directly involved, sort of with our OK. Again, if you don’t think Saudi Arabia has enormous control over Saleh in Yemen, you’re not paying attention. He’s got enormous control over him. The Saudis—if the Saudis wanted to, they could play a very positive role there. They’re not. He’s their guy. And so, you have this counterrevolution fed by the Saudi billions. And the Saudis went recently in the—Prince Bandar, my favorite dark prince, was recently in Pakistan, and the Pakistanis are supplying some thuggery, some arms, some muscle, in Bahrain. And I think the Pakistanis are also helping out in internal security inside Saudi Arabia itself. And so, everybody is muscling up now to beat up the kids who want to do something.

And meanwhile, if you look at it, the single biggest blow against al-Qaeda, I would argue—bin Laden, of course, was great, wonderful, I’m glad he’s gone and all that stuff—but the other big blow was the Arab Spring, because once you lose the sense of humiliation among the Arab population and the sense of fear—you’re seeing that in Syria right now, although that’s also complicated, because the Saudis are deeply involved in trying to get rid of—or certainly make it more difficult for Bandar—for Bashar Assad to exist. That’s a more complicated position. But once the fear is gone, al-Qaeda is gone.

So, the one thing we had going for ourselves, in terms of getting rid of these terrorists who prey on the frustrations of the Arab young, wow, instead, we’re going the wrong way. And it’s a horrible mistake. It’s happening right in front of us. It’s not being seen, but it’s right there to be seen. And it’s just this country, this president—traditionally, we’ve been unable to pull the trigger on the Saudis. Even now, when confronted with heinous activity, we still can’t pull the trigger on the Saudis, because of the need for oil. And again, this is a country, Saudi Arabia, that is not lifting—not agreeing to lift two or three more billion barrels a day. They’re at eight-and-a-half billion. We’d love them to go to 11, 10-and-a-half and 11. That would take pressure off the price. And it’s politically useful for the President not to—for the President to have it happen. It’s not going to happen.

So, Arab Spring is being undercut enormously. There’s still some hope in Egypt, because the kids are so strong, the movement there is so strong. But I can tell you, Suleiman, the leader of the intelligence service, is still there. I think an awful lot—I would look at Libya as part coming out of Arab Spring. An awful lot of it comes out of Libyan intervention. There’s been a longstanding American CIA role and opposition to Gaddafi. And one of the things Gaddafi drove everybody crazy with, just to show you how silly the world is, every oil deal he wanted 20 percent on the top of. And so, there was a lot of corporate anger at him, too. He was getting 20 percent kickback. Even Saddam, in the heyday, only wanted 10 percent. It all comes down sometimes to money. And I don’t know what’s going to happen there.

AMY GOODMAN: Sy, we have 30 seconds.

SEYMOUR HERSH: I just don’t know what’s going to happen. I don’t quite—

AMY GOODMAN: We have 30 seconds.

SEYMOUR HERSH: OK.

AMY GOODMAN: But I want to ask you a last question. You made headlines a few years ago when you said President Bush operated an executive assassination ring. Has that policy continued under President Obama?

SEYMOUR HERSH: What I said was that in the early days under Cheney, in the first days after—you know, '03, ’04, ’05, yes, there was a direct connection between the vice president's office and individuals getting hit. That got institutionalized later in a more sophisticated way. There’s no question that—look, there’s an enormous military apparatus out there that isn’t seen. That’s what I’m writing about. We’re not seeing it. We don’t know it exists. Cheney built up a world that still exists. And it’s a very ugly, frightening world that has not much to do with what the Constitution calls for.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there. Thank you very much, Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist. His piece appears in The New Yorker magazine, and we will link to it. It’s called 'Iran and the Bomb.'" - Amy Goodman & Juan Gonzalez DemocracyNow 6/3/11

THE SATURDAY, JUNE 4, THE NEW YORK TIMES REMOVES ITS ISRAELI BLINDFOLD, AND RETURNS TO "ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO PRINT".

"A Former Spy Chief Questions The Judgement of Israeli Leaders

JERUSALEM - The man who ran Israel’s Mossad spy agency until January contends that Israel’s top leaders lack judgment and that the anticipated pressures of international isolation as the Palestinians campaign for statehood could lead to rash decisions — like an airstrike on Iran.

The former intelligence chief, Meir Dagan, who stepped down after eight years in the post, has made several unusual public appearances and statements in recent weeks. He made headlines a few weeks ago when he asserted at a Hebrew University conference that a military attack on Iran would be “a stupid idea.”

This week Mr. Dagan, speaking at Tel Aviv University, said that attacking Iran “would mean regional war, and in that case you would have given Iran the best possible reason to continue the nuclear program.” He added, “The regional challenge that Israel would face would be impossible.”

Mr. Dagan went on to complain that Israel had failed to put forward a peace initiative with the Palestinians and that it had foolishly ignored the Saudi peace initiative promising full diplomatic relations in exchange for a return to the 1967 border lines. He worried that Israel would soon be pushed into a corner.

On Thursday he got more specific, naming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, but this time through a leaked statement to journalists. The statement had to do with his belief that his retirement and the retirement of other top security chiefs had taken away a necessary alternative voice in decision making.

In recent months, the military chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi, and the director of the Shin Bet internal security agency, Yuval Diskin, have also stepped down. Mr. Dagan was quoted in several newspapers as saying that the three of them had served as a counterweight to Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Barak.

“I decided to speak out because when I was in office, Diskin, Ashkenazi and I could block any dangerous adventure,” he was quoted as saying. “Now I am afraid that there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak,” he added, using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname.

Journalists recalled that Mr. Dagan, who had refused contact with the media during his time in office, called a news briefing the last week of his tenure and laid out his concerns about an attack on Iran. But military censorship prevented his words from being reported.

“Dagan wanted to send a message to the Israeli public, but the censors stopped him,” Ronen Bergman of the newspaper Yediot Aharonot said by telephone. “So now that he is out of office he is going over the heads of the censors by speaking publicly.”

- From an ex-insider, fears about responses to Iran and the Palestinians. -

Mr. Dagan’s public and critical comments, at the age of 66 and after a long and widely admired career, have shaken the political establishment. The prime minister’s office declined requests for a response, although ministers have attacked Mr. Dagan. He has also found an echo among the nation’s commentators who have been ringing similar alarms.

“It’s not the Iranians or the Palestinians who are keeping Dagan awake at night but Israel’s leadership,” Ari Shavit asserted on the front page of the newspaper Haaretz on Friday.

“HE DOES NOT TRUST THE JUDGEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU AND DEFENSE MINISTER EHUD BARAK.”

It was Mr. Shavit who interviewed Mr. Dagan on stage at Tel Aviv University this week. And while Haaretz is the home of the country’s left wing, Mr. Shavit is more of a centrist.

“Dagan is really worried about September,” Mr. Shavit said in a telephone interview, referring to the month when the Palestinians are expected to ask the United Nations General Assembly to recognize their state within the 1967 border lines. The resolution is expected to pass and to bring new forms of international pressure on Israel. “He is afraid that Israel’s isolation will cause its leaders to take reckless action against Iran,” he said.

Nahum Barnea, a commentator for Yediot Aharonot, wrote on Friday that Mr. Dagan was not alone. Naming the other retired security chiefs and adding Amos Yadlin, who recently retired as chief of military intelligence, Mr. Barnea said that they shared Mr. Dagan’s criticism.

“This is not a military junta that has conspired against the elected leadership,” Mr. Barnea wrote. “These are people who, through their positions, were exposed to the state’s most closely guarded secrets and participated in the most intimate discussions with the prime minister and the defense minister. It is not so much that their opinion is important as civilians; their testimony is important as people who were there. And their testimony is troubling.”

Meir Dagan, left, the former chief of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, said he feared that in his absence there would be no counterweight to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right.

This concern was backed by a former Mossad official, Gad Shimron, who spoke Friday on Israel Radio.

Mr. Shimron said: “I want everyone to pay attention to the fact that the three tribal elders, Ashkenazi, Diskin and Dagan, within a very short time, are all telling the people of Israel: take note, something is going on that we couldn’t talk about until now, and now we are talking about it. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and that is the decision-making process. The leadership makes fiery statements, we stepped on the brakes, we are no longer there and we don’t know what will happen. And that’s why we are saying this aloud.”

Neither Mr. Ashkenazi nor Mr. Diskin has made any public statements, and one high-level military official said he did not believe that they shared Mr. Dagan’s views.

While in office, Mr. Dagan served three prime ministers, was reappointed twice and oversaw a number of reported operations that Israelis consider great successes — forcing delays in Iran’s nuclear program through sabotaging its computers and assassinating scientists; setting the groundwork for an attack on a nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007; and assassinating Imad Mughniyeh, a top Lebanese Hezbollah operative, in 2008.

When Ariel Sharon, the prime minister in 2002, appointed Mr. Dagan, he was reported to have told him he wanted “a Mossad with a knife between its teeth.” Mr. Dagan is widely thought to have complied and is not seen as a soft-hearted liberal.

Although Mr. Dagan is barred by law from elected office for three years, some suspect that he is laying the foundation for a political career. Others, like Yossi Peled, a government minister from the Likud party and a former military commander, think he is doing more harm than good.

“It damages state security,” Mr. Peled said on Israel Radio. “There is no need to give the other side directions of thought, activity or readiness. I am sure he is very worried and is acting out of good intentions, but I still think there are things that shouldn’t be declared in public.” - Ethan Bronner N Y Times 6/4/11

 

THE NEW YORKER
JUNE 6, 2011

- by SEYMOUR M. HERSH - IRAN AND THE BOMB

Is Iran actively trying to develop nuclear weapons?  Members of the Obama Administration often talk as if this were a foregone conclusion, as did their predecessors under George W. Bush.  THERE IS A LARGE BODY OF EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, INCLUDING SOME OF AMERICA'S MOST HIGHLY CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS, SUGGESTING THAT THE UNITED STATES COULD BE IN DANGER OF REPEATING A MISTAKE SIMILAR TO THE ONE MADE WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ EIGHT YEARS AGO - ALLOWING ANXIETIES ABOUT THE POLICIES OF A TYRANNICAL REGIME TO DISTORT OUR ESTIMATIONS OF THE STATE'S MILITARY CAPACITIES AND INTENTIONS.  THE TWO MOST RECENT NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES (N.I.E.s) ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRESS, representing the best judgment of the senior officers from all the major American intelligence agencies, HAVE STATED THAT THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT IRAN HAS MADE ANY EFFORT TO BUILD THE BOMB SINCE 2003.

Despite years of covert operations inside Iran, extensive satellite imagery, and the recruitment of many Iranian intelligence assets, the Unites States and its allies, including Israel, have been unable to find irrefutable evidence of an ongoing hidden nuclear-weapons program in Iran, according to intelligence and diplomatic officials here and abroad.  One American defense consultant told me that as yet there is "no smoking calutron," although, like many Western government officials, he is convinced that Iran is intent on becoming a nuclear state sometime in the future.

The general anxiety about the Iranian regime is firmly grounded.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly questioned the holocaust and expressed a desire to see the state of Israel eliminated, and he has defied the 2006 United Nations resolution calling on Iran to suspend its nuclear-enrichment program.  Tehran is also active in arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.  Iran is heavily invested in nuclear technology, and has a power plant ready to go online in the port city of Bushehr, with a second in the planning stage.  In the past four years, it has tripled the number of centrifuges in operation at its main enrichment facility at Natanz, which is buried deep under ground.  On the other hand, the Iranian enrichment program is being monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Natanz and all Iran's major declared nuclear installations are under extensive video surveillance.  I.A.E.A. inspectors have expressed frustration with Iran's level of cooperation and cited an increase in production of uranium, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT ENRICHED URANIUM HAS BEEN DIVERTED TO AN ILLICIT WEAPONS PROGRAM.

National Intelligence Estimates, whose preparation is the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence, Lieutenant General James Clapper, of the Air Force, are especially sensitive, because the analysts who prepare them have access to top-secret communications intercepts as well as the testimony of foreign scientists and intelligence officials, among others, who have been enlisted by the C.I.A. and its military counterpart, the Defense Intelligence Agency.  In mid-February, Clapper's office provided the House and Senate intelligence committees with an update to the N.I.E. on the Iranian nuclear-weapons program.  The previous assessment, issued in 2007, created consternation and anger inside the Bush Administration and in Congress by concluding, "with high confidence," that Iran had halted a nascent nuclear-weapons program in 2003.  That estimate added, "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."  The Bush White House had insisted that a summary of the 2007 N.I.E. be made public - an unprecedented move - but then President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney quickly questioned its conclusions.  PETER HOEKSTRA, A REPUBLICAN FROM MICHIGAN WHO HAD BEEN CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, CHARACTERIZED THE N.I.E. AS "A PIECE OF TRASH."

The public dispute over the 2007 N.I.E. led to bitter infighting within the Obama Administration and the intelligence community over this year's N.I.E. update - a discrepancy between the available intelligence and what many in the White House and Congress believed to be true.  Much of the debate, which delayed the issuing of the N.I.E. for more than four months, centered on THE DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY'S ASTONISHING ASSESSMENT THAT IRAN'S EARLIER NUCLEAR-WEAPONS RESEARCH HAD BEEN TARGETED AT ITS OLD REGIONAL ENEMY, IRAQ, AND NOT AT ISRAEL, THE UNITED STATES, OR WESTERN EUROPE.  One retired senior intelligence official told me that the D.I.A. ANALYSTS HAD DETERMINED THAT IRAN "DOES NOT HAVE AN ONGOING WEAPONS PROGRAM, AND ALL OF THE AVAILABLE INTELLIGENCE SHOWS THAT THE PROGRAM, WHEN IT DID EXIST, WAS AIMED AT IRAQ.  The Iranians thought Iraq was developing a bomb."  The Iranian nuclear-weapons program evidently came to an end following (1) the American-led invasion of Iraq in early 2003, and (2) the futile hunt for the Iraqi W.M.D. arsenal.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists that Iran, like Libya, halted its nuclear program in 2003 because it feared military action.  "The more Iran believes that all options are on the table, the less the chance of confrontation," Netanyahu told a joint session of Congress last week.

THE D.I.A. ANALYSTS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE 2011 ASSESSMENT WOULD BE POLITICALLY EXPLOSIVE.  "IF IRAN IS NOT A NUCLEAR THREAT, THEN THE ISRAELIS HAVE NO REASON TO THREATEN IMMINENT MILITARY ACTION," the retired senior intelligence official said.  "The guys working on this are good analysts, and their bosses are backing them up."

The internal debate over the Iran assessment was alluded to last fall by W. Patrick Lang, a retired Army intelligence officer who served for years as the ranking D.I.A. analyst on the Middle East and contributed to many N.I.E.s.  "Do you all know what an N.I.E. is?"  Lang said to an audience at the University of Virginia.  "The National Intelligence Estimate is the ground truth of the American government hammered out on the anvil of the Lord. . . Then, once things are approved, people stand up at meetings and wave them and point to them and say, 'See here, it says here that Saleh'" - Ali Abdullah Saleh, the President of Yemen - "'is a fink.'  And then everybody has to agree that Saleh is a fink."

LANG TOLD HIS AUDIENCE THAT THERE WAS "ENORMOUS PRESSURE" ON INTELLIGENCE ANALYSTS IN 2002 TO PRODUCE AN N.I.E. THAT BUTTRESSED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S CLAIMS ABOUT THE THREAT POSED BY IRAQ'S SUSPECTED NUCLEAR ARSENAL BEFORE THE INVASION OF IRAQ.  AFTER THE DISASTER OF IRAQ, THE ATMOSPHERE SHIFTED.  "ANALYSTS IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ARE JUST REFUSING TO SIGN UP THIS TIME FOR A LOT OF BALONEY," LANG SAID.  "I REGARD THAT AS A HIGHLY ENCOURAGING SIGN."  THE D.I.A. ANALYSTS INSISTED THAT THE UPDATED N.I.E. DEAL PRIMARILY WITH THE FACTS ABOUT IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM, LANG TOLD ME LATER, AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD L. BURGESS, JR., THE DIRECTOR OF THE D.I.A. SUPPORTED THIS APPROACH.  "THESE GUYS ARE NOT DRINKING THE KOOL-AID," LANG SAID.  "THEY STOPPED THE N.I.E. COLD."

Burgess, whose long career in Army intelligence includes two years with the Joint Special Operations Command, has repeatedly stressed his belief that Iran would be capable of building a bomb at some point in the future.  But Burgess also told the Voice of America in January, 2010, that "the bottom-line assessments of the (2007) N.I.E. still hold true.  We have not seen indication that the government has made the decision to move ahead with the program.  But the fact still remains that we don't know what we don't know."  (A SPOKESMAN FOR GENERAL BURGESS TOLD ME THAT "BECAUSE OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION IN THE N.I.E., IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR US TO ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION WITH YOU.")  A GOVERNMENT CONSULTANT WHO HAS READ THE HIGHLY CLASSIFIED 2011 N.I.E. UPDATE DEPICTED THE REPORT AS REINFORCING THE ESSENTIAL CONCLUSION OF THE 2007 PAPER:  IRAN HALTED WEAPONIZATION IN 2003.  "THERE'S MORE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT ASSESSMENT," THE CONSULTANT TOLD ME.

THE D.I.A.'s CONCLUSION THAT IRAN'S ULTIMATE TARGET WOULD HAVE BEEN IRAQ, AND NOT ISRAEL OR A WESTERN POWER, WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FINAL VERSION OF THE 2011 REPORT, AS PRESENTED TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN FEBRUARY.  "IT WAS IN, AND THEN GOT TAKEN OUT, BECAUSE, AS THEY, - THE ANALYSTS IN GENERAL CLAPPER'S OFFICE - "TOLD THE D.I.A., "THERE'S NO HARD PROOF, AND WE CAN'T KNOW BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE INFORMATION WE'RE GETTING,'" THE RETIRED SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL SAID.  "'But the implications of Iran's getting nuclear weapons are so dire and the benefits to them are so great that it will compel them to continue pursuit of a nuclear capability.  And you'" - meaning the D.I.A. analysts - "'cannot disprove there is a weapons program.'"

"It's the same old shit:  the N.I.E. does not say absolutely or unequivocally that Iran has a nuclear program that is going to be deployed," the retired official continued.  "The important thing is that nothing substantially new has been learned in the last four years, and NONE OF OUR EFFORTS - INFORMANTS, PENETRATIONS, PLANTING OF SENSORS - LEADS TO A BOMB."

The N.I.E. makes it clear that U. S. intelligence has been unable to find decisive evidence that Iran has been moving enriched uranium to an underground weapon-making center.  In the past six years, soldiers from the Joint Special Operations Force, working with Iranian intelligence assets, put in place cutting-edge surveillance techniques, according to two former intelligence officers.  Street signs were surreptitiously removed in heavily populated areas of Tehran - say, near a university suspected of conducting nuclear enrichment - and replaced with similar-looking signs implanted with radiation sensors.  American operatives, working under cover, also removed bricks from a building or two in central Tehran that they thought housed nuclear enrichment activities and replaced them with bricks embedded with radiation-monitoring devices.

High-powered sensors disguised as stones were spread randomly along roadways in a mountainous area where a suspected underground weapon site was under construction.  The stones were capable of transmitting electronic data on the weight of the vehicles going in and out of the site; a truck going in light and coming out heavy could be hauling dirt - crucial evidence of excavation work.  There is also constant satellite coverage of major suspect areas in Iran, and some American analysts were assigned the difficult task of examining footage in the hope of finding air vents - signs, perhaps, of an underground facility in lightly populated areas.

THIS YEAR, WHEN INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS PRESENTED THE N.I.E. ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR CAPACITY TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES, THEY DID NOT ISSUE A SUMMARY FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION.  THE BRIEFINGS WERE CLOSED, BUT, AS ALWAYS, A FEW LEGISLATORS AND OFFICIALS PROVIDED BACKGROUND ACCOUNTS TO THE PRESS.  THE ACCOUNTS WERE INCOMPLETE, AND DID NOT RELAY THE ESSENTIAL FINDING OF THE ESTIMATE:  THAT NOTHING SIGNIFICANTLY NEW HAD BEEN LEARNED TO SUGGEST THAT IRAN IS PURSUING A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

The few official statements at the time made it clear that U. S. intelligence officials simply did not know whether Iran would become a nuclear state.  General Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 16th, in his annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, that Iran was "keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so.  We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."  He added that Iran was technically capable of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in the next few years, "if it chooses to do so."

A month later, in public testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, the committee's chairman, asked Clapper about his conclusion that Iran had not decided to re-start its nuclear weapons work:  "Is that correct?"  Clapper said yes, but added that he would prefer to speak more fully in a classified hearing.  Levin persisted:  "O.K., but what is the level of confidence that you have? . . Is that a high level?"  Clapper responded, "Yes, it is."

Joseph Lieberman, an Independent who is conservative on security and foreign-policy issues and one of Israel's strongest supporters in the Senate....

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, AN INDEPENDENT, "i.e. DEFEATED AS A DEMOCRAT, HE RAN AS AN 'INDEPENDENT' IN CONNECTICUT, AND INCURRED THE WRATH OF ALL."

....chose to speak publicly about Iran after the hearing.  "I can't say much in detail," Lieberman said, according to Agence France-Presse, "BUT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY'RE CONTINUING TO WORK SERIOUSLY ON A NUCLEAR-WEAPONS PROGRAM."

Lieberman's statement reflected the view of many in Congress and in the Obama Administration.  As Presidential candidates in 2008, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had warned of an Iranian nuclear arsenal, and occasionally spoke as if it were an established fact that Iran had decided to get the bomb.  In Obama's first prime-time news conference as President, in early February, 2009, he declared that Iran's "financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon, or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon - that all of these things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace."

- To Be Continued -

 

NON FILTERED NEWS

 

- To Senator Lieberman, of "International Peace", the RECORD prevails -

In the midst of growing U. S. public demand to pursue lasting peace in the Middle East and end our ill-advised warfare against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Neal Conan of "Talk of the Nation", has sought out for his 6/13/11 "Opinion Page" the disgraced Fouad Ajami, from the babbling tower of the "conservative" Hoover Institute, familiar to the backers of GOPBIAS.INFO from Daniel Pipes, an earlier creature of the Hoover, (...who waged an insidious undercover propaganda war against Iran which included his boosting of the traitor Neal Rosen ) via The Jerusalem Post!

- - First, Fouad Ajami -

NEAL CONAN, host: Now the Opinion Page. Over the past few weeks, government response to protests in Syria escalated from billy clubs and warning shots to tanks and assault helicopters. Activists report at least 1,400 dead and another 10,000 in custody. The northwestern city of Jisr al-Shughur is reported under siege and more than 6,000 refugees have fled across the border to Turkey.

In an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami says the world now has no choice but to confront its illusions about a regime where massacre is a family tradition. Fouad Ajami is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the John Hopkins School of School of Advanced International Studies. He joins us now on the phone from his home in New York. Nice to have you on again.

FOUAD AJAMI: Thank you very much, Neal.

CONAN: And when you say a regime where massacre is a family tradition, you were referring to the massacre of at least 10,000 people in Hama in 1982.

AJAMI: Of course, in many ways, I think the Syrian regime, the circle has been closed. The old man, Hafez al-Assad, the father, had been a cruel man. But maybe an argument could now be made that Bashar al-Assad, his Western-educated son, the ophthalmologist, the young man, the man on whom many hopes were pinned in Syria that he would be a different kind of man, he may even be more cruel than his father. So I think the Syrians are confronting the reality of their history, this incredibly rotten dynasty, this Assad family and the intelligence there and the killers around the family. And there is no exit for anyone in this situation.

CONAN: And the international community, you write, has to, well, see through the illusions that colored its - their relations with Syrian for so many years.

DAVID LEONHARDT: Well, you know, if you compare, Neal, the - if you look at Libya and how easy it was to isolate Moammar Gadhafi, if you look at the way the Arab League broke with Moammar Gadhafi and singled him out as a brigand and called for a Western intervention against him; a remarkable development for the League of Arab States.

AJAMI: And then you compare the silence of the League of the Arab States toward Syria, the greater deference accorded to the Syrian state. When you compare to the fact that the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was passed in condemning the Libyan regime and asking - authorizing the protection of the Libyan population, and when you all the games that the U.N. and the difficulty of coming out with a resolution condemning the Syrian regime, you can see that the Syrian regime has had much more running room than the Libyans.

CONAN: To this date, the Russians and the Chinese seem very reluctant to approve anything that would be critical of the regime in Damascus.

AJAMI: Well, the Chinese and the Russians - you know, you're exactly right. The Chinese and the Russians were willing to let the Security Council resolution on Libya pass. But they have been very reluctant to, you know, to do the same thing in the case of Syria.

Part of it - in the case of the Russians, they've had enormously long history and long traffic with the Assad family and the Assad regime in Syria. So decades of dealings between the Russian state during the Soviet Union and even the post-Soviet states in Russia and Syria, I think, have a lot to do with that.

CONAN: I was interested, though, in Syria's relationships with some of its neighbors and two are very different. One of which, of course, is Turkey, its neighbor to the north. And it has had sometimes rocky relationships with Turkey, better of late. Though in the past few weeks, the regime in Acra seems to have taken pause.

AJAMI: Well, I think the - I have a little problem here. You know, there's some problem with the connection. But, you know, on the issue of the relations between Syria and Turkey, these are very interesting. And I think the Turks now really fully understand what this Syrian regime is all about as they watch thousands of Syrians spill over into the border of Turkey.

Prime Minister Erdogan now admits that he misjudged the Syrian regime and he misjudged Bashar al-Assad. He now admits that he was lied to by Bashar al-Assad. And the Turks are talking about having tried to reform Bashar al-Assad, having tried to teach him better ways and to underline to him that you can't kill your people, you can't run this kind of regime. The Turks are even telling us that they even sent a booklet to Bashar al-Assad about the way they have done their politics and reform their politics.

But it's idle because I think that the Assad regime and the dynasty and the barons and the intelligence people around Bashar al-Assad are very different breed.

CONAN: Another important Syrian ally, strategic ally, is Iran, which with Syria, supports a lot of groups in Lebanon and, of course, Hamas in Gaza.

AJAMI: Well, the Iranians will stay with the Syrians. There is no other choice. They depend on the Syrians. They need the Syrians. I mean, I think it's interesting to think of Iran as now a power of the Mediterranean, that the influence of Iran reaches the Mediterranean - to Lebanon through Hezbollah, to the Palestinian territories through Hamas. But all this access to the Mediterranean has granted them, granted the Iranians by the Syrians. So I think they are in the same ditch. They are very close. And I think the Iranians will stand by the Syrians, through thick and thin.

I think the interesting change is - as we talk, just mentioned - the interesting change is the change in the attitude of Turkey towards Syria. That is a fundamentally important change.

CONAN: You mentioned Lebanon, of course, Hezbollah, a client of Iran, a client of Syria as well. And in the new government formed today, the majority of the cabinet positions are filled by Hezbollah.

AJAMI: Well, Hezbollah, basically, in fact, as you said, it relies both on the support of Syria and the largesse of Iran. And I think that what has happened in Lebanon is a tragedy because, in fact, Lebanon has slipped out of the western orbit, into the orbit of Syria and Iran. There was a fleeting hope. There was a moment after 2005, when the Syrians were forced out of Lebanon by the Cedar Revolution and by the pressure of the United States and the pressure of France combined. There was a hope that somehow or another that some new democratic order, some moderate order, would prevail in Lebanon.

But I think these hopes have come to naught. I think so long as Hezbollah has a dominant role or a seminal role in the affairs of Lebanon, pity Lebanon and pity the Lebanese, because Hezbollah is a radical organization. Hezbollah is not really, fundamentally, in my opinion, is not a Lebanese organization. It is really an arm of the Iranian regime, and it does Iran's bidding.

CONAN: There is also, you write in your piece in The Wall Street Journal today, among those who've had the illusions about Syria is the administration of Barack Obama.

AJAMI: Absolutely. I think we have to be honest about this because our president, President Obama, came to office in 2009 and offered engagement, offered an olive branch, both to the regime in Tehran and to the regime in Damascus. And there was a whole lobby, led for the most part, by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator John F. Kerry from Massachusetts. I mean, he is an influential figure in the Democratic Party, and with this administration.

And it was the argument was made, and it was made over and over again by Senator Kerry directly, that Bashar al-Assad is a secular man, is a modern man, that he's eager to break with Iran and eager to break with Hezbollah. And that we - if we offer him the right deal, if we send an envoy, an ambassador to Damascus, that somehow another Bashar al-Assad will see the light of day.

And the Obama administration insisted that Bashar is capable of change. He was a reformer. I mean, even our own Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, normally a very, very levelheaded person, made the same arguments and made the same observations about Bashar.

CONAN: And this has all come to naught in the developments in the Arab Spring, where these protests started and were seen almost immediately as a threat to the stability of the regime and put down as if there was insurrection?

AJAMI: Well, absolutely. What happened in this Arab Spring and its meaning for Syria? We will recall that the Arab Spring began in Tunisia and then immediately in Egypt. And then it made its way to both Yemen and Libya. If you notice, the Syrians came later. They came to it - if the Tunisians and the Egyptians came to it in January of 2011. In the case of the Syrians, the - their evolution that - the trouble in Syria, the eruption against Bashar al-Assad, began in March.

And it began in a very interesting way, in a very small way, in a very limited way. A bunch of boys in a small town of Daraa in southern Syria, scribbled some graffiti on the walls. And a regime that's so brittle and so cruel basically went after the children, went after Daraa. And in a way, the dynamics are very interesting. The more cruel the regime, the more brutal the regime, the more the Syrian people were offended by it, and the more they went out onto the street to challenge this regime.

CONAN: And it, as you say, started in the most provincial of places and grew outside of the major cities of Damascus and Aleppo until recently.

AJAMI: Absolutely. And it came - when it came to the interesting city that people were looking at was the city of Aleppo. It's a commercial city. It's a very prosperous city. And the argument was made that Aleppo would never break with the regime. That it did so well by the regime, economically, that it would tolerate this regime. But I think what the Syrian people really are telling us in a clear way as they could, with all the sacrifices and all the ordeal, is they had grown weary of this Assad tyranny. They have grown weary of Bashar al-Assad. They have grown weary of his younger brother Maher, who does the killing and does the dirty deeds of the regime.

They've also grown weary of the Makhlouf family, who are basically the cousins of the Assads and who loot the economy. So what you have is this regime of completely a kleptocracy. They are both killers and thieves at the same time. And the people went out because they had grown desperate. And 40 years of the Assads, 40 years of authoritarian rule, 40 years of economic decline and economic backwardness had done their work.

CONAN: We're talking with Fouad Ajami, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, director of the Middle East Studies Program at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. You're listening to TALK OF THE NATION from NPR News.

Yet, arguments we heard from Syria, they may sound familiar to those who have been following the situation in Yemen and those who followed it earlier in Egypt. After me, the deluge, the leadership said, if the stability of this regime goes, there will be chaos and sectarian warfare and anarchy.

AJAMI: Well, you're so right, Neal. That's exactly the selling point of the regime. It knows no other argument. What it basically tells the world, what it tells the Arab states, what it tells Israel, what it tells the United States, what it told France as well; is that, look, we are a secular tyranny, we are an authoritarian regime, we admit to a certain measure of authoritarian regime. But we are ruling a critical piece of real estate in the region. We are ruling this country.

And the alternative to our tyranny is a regime led by the Muslim fundamentalists, is a regime that would kill the Christians in Syria, that would go after the Alawites, who are the ruling community thus far, that would go after the Druze and so on. So I think for quite a number of years, we have to grant the Syrian rulers their due. They did a very able job frightening everyone with the alternative to their tyranny.

And I think gradually and slowly, whether it's in Ankara, whether it's in Paris, whether it's in Washington, people are coming to a recognition, policymakers are coming to a recognition that this regime is as bad as any that Syria could spawn and come forth with.

CONAN: One of the places that may not yet be convinced though, is in Tel Aviv, where we're told the Israeli government is quite nervous over the prospect of a change of - if the Assad regime should fall.

AJAMI: Well, I think they are nervous. I think they are nervous because if you look back at the history of the Assad regime, both father and son, they kept the peace on the Israel-Syria border, until very recently, when they were able and they were willing and they were keen to send Palestinian refugees across the border, to the Golan Heights, in order to challenge Israel across the Golan Heights.

But gradually and slowly, the way I read Israeli opinion now, is that they, too, are beginning to understand the dark side of this regime and to appreciate it more fully - that they understand that this regime, even though it maintains a certain measure of peace across the Syria-Israel frontier, it is also a patron of Hamas and it's a patron of Hezbollah, and that the regime in Damascus is very sly and very wicked.

It keeps the peace across the border, its own border with Israel, but then uses the Lebanese border with Israel to ferment all kinds of troubles. So the game is up, and I think, gradually and slowly, among policymakers in Israel, among the military in the in foreign office, you're beginning to see a recognition of this dark side of the Assad regime.

CONAN: As this started, we have to remember that Syria was being considered for a position on the human rights panel at the United Nations. No matter what happens - and one has to believe that in the short run the military is gonna be able to keep the government in power - but it will be changed, you would think, forever.

AJAMI: Well, I think everything has changed in Syria. I think what - no the Syrian people now see Bashar for what he is. When he - when Bashar inherited the job from his father in the year 2000, the Syrians saw him as a young man, they saw hope in him. They were told that he was the head of the Syria computer society. That he love the music of Phil Collins. That his wife is a very trendy young woman, et cetera, et cetera. They pinned their hopes on him. And I think these souls have been shattered beyond any repair.

So I think what you have now, is this incredibly brutal standoff between a population that doesn't want this regime but can't yet overthrow it, and a regime that can't frighten the Syrian people back into submission. Because what Bashar really wants, what he's eager to do, what he's keen to do, is to scare the Syrian people back into their old submission. Because he and the people around him and the intelligence people around him - his brother, his brother-in-law - all this intelligence functionaries, I think they were shocked by the fact that the Syrian people shook off their fear and went out in a determined effort to challenge, and if possible, to overthrow this regime.

CONAN: We just have a few seconds left. You mentioned some of the minorities in Syria, the Druze, the Alawites, the...

AJAMI: Right.

CONAN: ...family of the ruling, of the ruling family, the Kurds, the Christians, they are said to be supporters of Bashar al-Assad for fear of regime that would follow.

AJAMI: Well, I think that's the, you know, I wish I knew more, in greater detail. I wish the evidence was more persuasive, that the minorities are keen to stick with Bashar because of their fear of Sunni fundamentalism, or the Muslim Brotherhood were to come to power. But my own sense is that I think now all segments of Syrian society understand the cruelty of this regime.

And I think, even the minorities that would have sought shelter under the banner of Bashar al-Assad, now fully know what this regime is all about, whether it's the merchants in Aleppo, whether it's the minority communities. The brutality of this regime, the war against the children, and the mutilation of this young boy Hamza al-Khathib ( One of the several brutalities falsely attributed to the supporters of Bashar al-Assad ) , I think, more and more Syrians of all walks of life...

CONAN: Fouad Ajami, I'm afraid we're gonna have to leave it there. Thank you very much. This is NPR News.

 

- Second, Pipes and Rosen -

 

Significant that non-Christians Leslie Moonves, who runs CBS; one of his reporters Jim Axelrod, who seldom hosts the CBS Evening News; and former Secretary of State, 1997-2001, Madeleine Albright collaborated, so to speak, on Christmas, as Mr. Axelrod explained that Ms. Albright had been raised a Roman Catholic but later discovered she was Jewish; collaborated on the central foreign policy item of the program to eviscerate Muslim and Iranian "extremists" with respect to the Middle East, but not a word regarding the actual source of the turmoil in the Middle East, indeed in much of the world; not a word concerning the EXTREMIST regime of Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman in Israel.  And a reminder.  Palestinians sent no Jews to Auschwitz!

- Amy Goodman DemocracyNow -

45 Killed in Bombing at WFP Site in Pakistan

In Pakistan, a suicide attack on a World Food Program distribution center has killed 45 people and left tens of thousands without food aid. The attack came in the district of Bajaur, where some 300,000 have recently returned after being displaced by U.S.-backed Pakistani operations against Taliban forces.

In other news from Pakistan, at least 18 people were killed in a suspected U.S. drone strike earlier today. The attack came in the North Waziristan tribal region near the Afghan border. According to the Washington Post, the CIA has carried out at least 112 drone strikes in Pakistan this year. Earlier this month, the U.S. recalled the CIA station chief in Pakistan, Jonathan Banks, after a Pakistani journalist revealed Banks’ identity in a lawsuit over a fatal drone strike. The journalist, Kareem Khan, is seeking millions in compensation for the killing of his 18-year-old son and brother.

Afghan Civilian Casualties Up 20%

New figures show the number of civilians killed or wounded in the Afghan war has increased by 20 percent this year. According to the U.N., militant groups were responsible for killing or injuring over 4,700 civilians during the first 10 months of the year, while Afghan and U.S.-led NATO forces were responsible for the deaths and injuries of 742 civilians. At least 162 people were killed and 120 wounded in U.S. air strikes.

 

- Banks and WikiLeaks

The whistle-blowing Web site WikiLeaks has not been convicted of a crime. The Justice Department has not even pressed charges over its disclosure of confidential State Department communications. Nonetheless, the financial industry is trying to shut it down.

Visa, MasterCard and PayPal announced in the past few weeks that they would not process any transaction intended for WikiLeaks. Earlier this month, Bank of America decided to join the group, arguing that WikiLeaks may be doing things that are 'inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments.'

The Federal Reserve, the banking regulator, allows this. Like other companies, banks can choose whom they do business with. Refusing to open an account for some undesirable entity is seen as reasonable risk management. The government even requires banks to keep an eye out for some shady businesses — like drug dealing and money laundering — and refuse to do business with those who engage in them.

But a bank’s ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect. A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy.

The fact of the matter is that banks are not like any other business. They run the payments system. That is one of the main reasons that governments protect them from failure with explicit and implicit guarantees. This makes them look not too unlike other public utilities. A telecommunications company, for example, may not refuse phone or broadband service to an organization it dislikes, arguing that it amounts to risky business.

Our concern is not specifically about payments to WikiLeaks. This isn’t the first time a bank shunned a business on similar risk-management grounds. Banks in Colorado, for instance, have refused to open bank accounts for legal dispensaries of medical marijuana.

Still, there are troubling questions. The decisions to bar the organization came after its founder, Julian Assange, said that next year it will release data revealing corruption in the financial industry. In 2009, Mr. Assange said that WikiLeaks had the hard drive of a Bank of America executive.

What would happen if a clutch of big banks decided that a particularly irksome blogger or other organization was 'too risky'? What if they decided — one by one — to shut down financial access to a newspaper that was about to reveal irksome truths about their operations? This decision should NOT be left solely up to business-as-usual among the banks." - N Y Times' Editorial 12/26/10

* MIGHT WE ASK, "WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A CLUTCH OF BIG MEDIA/PRESS NEWS ORGANIZATIONS, OR SMALLER (?) LIKE OPB, DECIDED TO SHUT DOWN ACCESS TO 'IRKSOME TRUTHS' REGARDING THE NETANYAHU & AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN REGIME IN ISRAEL, VERSUS THE PLIGHT OF THE PALESTINIANS?  HM-M-M? - - - AND IRAN?

The Latest From Occupied Palestine!

* From Ali Abunima of Electronic Intifada 12/27/10

(1) Gaza families recall horror two years after Israel's assault!

(2) Activism roundup: world to commemorate Gaza massacre anniversary.

(3) Two years after Gaza massacre, a demand for justice!

(4) Outrage continues over Israeli rabbis' racist decree!

(5) The Gaza massacre and the struggle for justice.

 

A Closer Look

"Israel's Support Of Torah Study Ruptures Anew

JERUSALEM - Chaim Amsellem was certainly not the first Parliament member to suggest that most ultra-Orthodox men should work rather than receive welfare subsidies for full-time Torah study. But when he did so last month, the nation took notice: He is a Rabbi, ultra-Orthodox himself, whose outspokenness ignited a fresh, and fierce, debate about the rapid growth of the ultra-religious in Israel.

'Torah is the most important thing in the world,' Rabbi Amsellem said in an interview. BUT NOW MORE THAN 60 PERCENT OF ULTRA-ORTHODOX MEN IN ISRAEL DO NOT WORK, compared with 15 percent in the general population, and he argued that full-time, state-financed study should be reserved for great scholars destined to become rabbis or religious judges.

'Those who are not that way inclined,' he said, 'should go out and earn a living.'

In reaction, he was ousted from HIS OWN ULTRA-ORTHODOX SHAS PARTY, WHOSE LEADERS VILIFIED HIM WITH SUCH VENOM THAT HE WAS ASSIGNED A BODYGUARD.  The party newspaper printed A SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT DESCRIBING RABBI AMSELLEM AS 'AMALEK,' THE BIBLICAL EMBODIMENT OF ALL EVIL.

The intensity of the attacks from his own ranks appeared to underscore their own fears about a growing backlash to the privileges and subsidies long granted to the ultra-religious. The issue is not just the hundreds of millions of dollars doled out annually for seminaries and child allowances. Worry — and anger — is deepening about whether Israel can survive economically if it continues to encourage a culture of not working.

Already, there are an increasing number of programs to prod the ultra-Orthodox to join the work force and to serve out the military duties required of all other Jewish Israelis. But critics say these are not enough: RABBI AMSELLEM SAYS WHAT IS NEEDED IS NOTHING LESS THAN 'REVOLUTION.' - Kershner N Y Times 12/29/10

...balance of article

Ultra-Orthodox men and boys at a synagogue in Jerusalem this month. More than 60 percent of ultra-Orthodox men do not work.

 

"MIDDLE EAST

Israeli Army Kills Militant in Gaza -

The Israeli Army killed a 21-year-old member of a militant group loyal to the Hamas leaders of Gaza and wounded three others on Tuesday. The army said it had been aiming at militants planting explosives near the border, according to The Associated Press. BUT RESIDENTS SAID THE MAN HAD BEEN WATCHING THE SECURITY FENCE SEPARATING GAZA AND ISRAEL; MILITANTS WATCH THE FENCE SO THEY CAN GIVE WARNING IF ISRAELI FORCES APPEAR READY TO ATTACK. - FARES AKRAM N Y Times 12/29/10

"INTERNATIONAL

A Newspaper in Lebanon Dares to Provoke

Al Akhbar, a five-year-old newspaper, has become the most dynamic and daring in Lebanon, and perhaps anywhere in the Arab world.  In a region where the news media are still full of propaganda, Al Akhbar is required reading, even for those who abhor its politics, which include championing gay rights, feminism and other leftist causes, as well as WHOLEHEARTED SUPPORT FOR HEZBOLLAH, THE IRANIAN-BACKED SHIITE MOVEMENT. - N Y Times 12/29/10

Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 12/30/10

*What do President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have to say about THIS??

 

* What further damage can these Israelis inflict on the MIDDLE EAST?

"Gas Field Confirmed Off Coast Of Israel", according to Ethan Bronner in Jerusalem, via The New York Times 12/31/10, supported by the United States Geological Society's estimate "this year" of "more than 120 trillion cubic feet of recoverable gas reserves" . . "beneath the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean."

It is clear by now, that if any agency of the current United States Government, dominated as it is by supporters of the in-office regime of Netanyahu/Lieberman has discovered such a find in the Eastern Mediterranean, the "government" of Netanyahu/Lieberman were the first to know.  Yes!  A "Closer Look" is mandatory!

As Amy Goodman again makes clear, as well as the following lengthy extended exchange 1/3-4/11 of "Charlie" Rose with Columbia University's Rashid Khalidi and Israeli observer Aluf Benn with Haaretz news, this standing Israeli Regime, which actually began with the assassination of Soldier - Statesman Yitzhak Rabin on November 4, 1995 ( Charlie Gibson on one of his last nightly broadcasts for ABC played his conversation with Rabin's widow, wherein she named the man responsible as Benjamin Netanyahu, and that the act took place at a PEACE! rally! ), the Rose - Khalidi - Benn exchange tells all.  First, recent background.

Amy Goodman - DemocracyNow 1/4/11 -

Amy Goodman - DemocracyNow 1/5/11.  Ms. Goodman records Netanyahu in Hebrew, and translated.  Is this an order, to President Obama?

Netanyahu in Hebrew, calls for the release of Jonathan Jay Pollard

For what it's worth, the N Y Times' Isabel Kershner writes 1/5/11 that the release of Jonathan Jay Pollard has been termed "unlikely" by the Obama Administration.

A panorama of our relationship with Israel in recent years, provided by the devil himself, the Stanford Hoover Institute's Daniel Pipes, AKA Some of the Traitors Responsible, via The Jerusalem Post.

Rose, Khalidi, Benn

 

- Further Evidence -

"SHOOTING BY ISRAELI SOLDIERS

Israeli soldiers shot and killed an unarmed 65-year-old Palestinian in his bedroom, in bed, in the West Bank, in what appeared to be a case of mistaken identity!

HEBRON West Bank - Israeli soldiers shot and killed an unarmed 65-year-old Palestinian man in his bedroom in this tense city early Friday, in what appeared to be a case of mistaken identity.

The man’s wife said he was sleeping and she was praying when soldiers burst into the apartment before dawn, entered the bedroom and immediately opened fire. Afterward they asked her for his identity card. She gave her account a few hours later, standing next to the bed, whose mattress, sheets and pillows were soaked in blood. The headboard, an adjacent wardrobe and the ceiling were also spattered with blood and bits of what appeared to be brain matter.

The Israeli military expressed regret but offered NO EXPLANATION beyond saying that it had been carrying out an arrest operation. It said the West Bank division commander had been ordered to carry out a speedy investigation, with conclusions to be presented as early as next week.

On Sunday, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian man as he approached a checkpoint in the northern West Bank. The military said that he was holding a glass bottle, and that he had approached the checkpoint in an unauthorized lane and failed to heed orders to stop." - Kershner N Y Times 1/8/11

OUTRAGEOUS!

WASHINGTON — INVESTIGATIVE DOCUMENTS IN THE WIKILEAKS PROBE SPILLED OUT INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN SATURDAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, POINTING TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S DETERMINATION TO ASSEMBLE A CRIMINAL CASE NO MATTER HOW LONG IT TAKES AND HOW FAR AFIELD AUTHORITIES HAVE TO GO.

Backed by a magistrate judge's court order from Dec. 14, the newly disclosed documents sent to Twitter Inc. by the U.S. attorney's office in Alexandria, Va., demand details about the accounts of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who's in custody and suspected of supplying WikiLeaks with classified information.

The others whose Twitter accounts are targeted in the prosecutors' demand are Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic parliamentarian and one-time WikiLeaks collaborator; Dutch hacker Rop Gonggrijp; and U.S. programmer Jacob Appelbaum. Gonggrijp and Appelbaum have worked with WikiLeaks in the past.

Justice Department Matt Miller declined comment on the disclosure in the case, which intensified following WikiLeaks' latest round of revelations with the posting of classified State Department diplomatic cables. The next day, Nov. 29, Attorney General Eric Holder vowed that anyone found to have violated U.S. law in the leaks would be prosecuted.

Assange said the U.S. move amounted to harassment, and he pledged to fight it.

"IF THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT WAS TO ATTEMPT TO COERCIVELY OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION FROM JOURNALISTS AND ACTIVISTS OF FOREIGN NATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS AROUND THE WORLD WOULD SPEAK OUT," HE TOLD THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IN AN E-MAIL. - Satter Yost THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 1/9/11

And a day later, the God-awful attempted assassination of thrice-elected Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords, the ever-popular Democratic Congresswoman from Tucson, Arizona, in a directed hail of gunfire from an insane 22-year-old Jared Loughner that left twenty wounded and six dead, including Judge John M. Roll, the most dedicated and hard-working member of the enduring Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Buried within the melee of voices excusing the actions and rhetoric of Alaskan Sarah Palin, chosen by Arizona's John Sidney McCain III to be the Vice President of the United States, there were voices of reason, including notably, the informed Sheriff of Pima County, Clarence W. Dupnik, who had the courage to tell it like it is:  Arizona (which is led by its two Republican Senators Jon Kyl and the aforementioned John Sidney McCain III), is "the mecca for prejudice and bigotry", which makes Congresswoman "Gabby" Giffords, one of the targets of Ms. Palin's vitriol, all the more remarkable.  We no longer have the distinguished Eric Sevareid's commentary, nor has any Media/Press entity since his passing possessed either the wisdom or the courage to find a replacement.  NBC General Electric's Universal (do we now add Comcast?) might have thought about John Sidney McCain III's buddy Tom Brokaw, but Brokaw flamed out when he interviewed Judith Miller, in jail, but asked her nothing about "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, or her possible exchanges with columnist Robert Novak, all of which was brought into focus by Ambassador Joseph Wilson's 7/6/03 OP-ED piece in the N Y Times, in which Mr. Wilson described the ridiculous nature of the Cheney-backed claim that there were to be tons of Niger yellowcake uranium ore transferred in mid-ocean to feed Saddam Hussein's WMD program (i.e. Weapons of Mass Destruction), therefore requiring the U. S. led invasion of Iraq, not dissimilar to the present day charge against Iran, which we expose with our current presentation of Daniel Pipes' piece in the 5/12/09 The Jerusalem Post.

However, there are others among us who use the limited time allotted them by our Media/Press to inform the American people about the most critical issues of our time.  Obviously, overall it hasn't been enough, to which the recent national election attests.

[ Can you recall that hilarious scene when the Feds were transporting Ms. Miller to jail (to be "interviewed" by Tom Brokaw) and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. was running alongside the car, banging on it, shouting "Judy!  It's Artie!"  You had to be there. ]

[[ Three months later the relentless Katharine Q. Seelye was, and with the assistance of photographer Marilynn K. Yee, records a possible end point for the Dick Cheney-led scam to justify the U. S./Brit September '01 plot to invade and occupy Iraq.  Author James Bamford's 2004 "A Pretext For War:  9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies", on Pages 260-262, describes in researched detail, this most inflammatory decision by major powers since Dwight Eisenhower in 1953 signed off on the U. S./Brit decision to remove the democratically elected Premier of Iran Mohammed Mossadegh so as to control Iran's oil reserves, and Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964 made the decision to attack an occupy North Vietnam, in the infamous Gulf of Tonkin fabrication, again, for the oil resources in the South China Sea.

Here are the principals, minus Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.  Are they central to the protection of AIPAC, the American Israel Public  Affairs Committee, ( otherwise known as the "Protective Alignment" Cabal ) ? ]]

Judith Miller was greeted in the New York Times newsroom Monday by John M. Geddes, managing editor, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the publisher, left, and Bill Keller, the executive editor.

 

In any event, there is at least one national commentator, an informed and steadfast Marine (There are no ex-Marines) who makes a regular Friday night appearance on PBS NewsHour [formerly the Lehrer (another Marine) NewsHour], and that is Mark Shields who, it must be said, may be the lone voice of reason and courage in the Sevareid tradition.

Here is Mr. Shields on the PBS NewsHour 1/10/11 program, but preceding is Marine Jim Lehrer's timely presentation of Rush Limbaugh, bombast that made its first appearance of note in 1994, ushering in the unbelievable success of the "flawed" (understated) Newt Gingrich (and he's still, unbelievably, around).

Audio of Rush Limbaugh, introduced by Jim Lehrer 1/10/11.

Jim Lehrer: "Conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh shot back today that calls to tone down rhetoric are actually a backdoor way of stifling debate."

Rush Limbaugh:  "When these types of events happen, I don't recall and I'm not aware of one conservative, one Republican, one conservative blogger making a mad dash to a microphone, a camera or a computer to blame a Democrat or liberals for what happened in Arizona on Saturday.

But a mad path was beaten. Now, don't kid yourself. What this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it, criminalizing policy differences, at least when they differ from the Democrat Party agenda." - Lehrer presentation of Rush Limbaugh 1/10/11.

Jim Lehrer: "Not germane, Mark?"

Mr. Mark Shields:  "I disagree.

I think, Jim, that we have seen the deterioration of our public debate and the climate that has been fostered and nurtured by what could only be called hate speech. And I think that hate speech basically depersonalizes and demonizes political adversaries. You're not an adversary, not an opponent. You're an enemy.

And I think -- I don't know of a causal relationship here with this individual, but one should not be surprised that, when you do demonize to the degree that we have done in our politics and has been done, whether it's calling George Bush Hitler or calling Barack Obama Hitler, or saying as Glenn Beck did, that he knows he's a racist (President Obama), something happens.

And what happens most of all is that this kind of speech is seen as, not simply acceptable, but appropriate, when it's repeated over and over again by people on major broadcast outlets and in major positions of power.

And I really do think that and I hope that this will come to a pause. It did after the assassination of Martin Luther King. There was a moderating of what had become then equally as ugly a speech as we have now.

JIM LEHRER: Now, Mark, you believe this is a legitimate debate then?

MARK SHIELDS: I do think it's a legitimate debate, Jim. I don't think there's any question that the coarsening and debasing of our public debate...

JIM LEHRER: What about David's (Brooks) suggestion, though, that this is being used for political purposes?

MARK SHIELDS: Oh, I don't think there's any question.

JIM LEHRER: Democrats are the ones who are leaping on Sarah Palin.

MARK SHIELDS: Well, I don't think it's simply Democrats.

JIM LEHRER: OK.

MARK SHIELDS: I think it's being used.

JIM LEHRER: All right. OK.

MARK SHIELDS: I think all things are being used.

And I think the Sarah Palin thing is a reach far beyond a bridge too far. I really do. I mean, the (GUN) sights on the thing, just really targeting a district, and that this led to it, no.

But what I'm saying is this. David is a member of Congress, and so am I. This is what has happened to our language. And this is what's happening to our democracy. Instead of saying David on an issue on the other side is misinformed or mistaken, I say David doesn't love America. He's evil. He obviously doesn't believe in the same God we believe in. He doesn't believe in the same country that we believe in. He's owned by other people and other interests, probably foreign interests.

And when this happens, this not only debases our debate; what it does is, it forecloses democracy from working. It means that we won't be able to be allies in a future event or on a future issue, because I would then be trucking with somebody...

JIM LEHRER: Consorting with the enemy.

MARK SHIELDS: That's right, somebody who obviously doesn't love America.

I think this is it. Civility, John Kennedy said, is not a sign of weakness. It has become a sign of weakness.

I will just tell you one quick anecdote. When Dan Rostenkowski died last summer, I pointed out...

JIM LEHRER: Illinois congressman...

MARK SHIELDS: The congressman, Democratic congressman, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Chicago.

JIM LEHRER: Yes.

MARK SHIELDS: I pointed out on a discussion that he had -- it was a different Congress. They only had one paid trip home a year. So, they used to have to drive back and forth to Chicago.

And he drove back with Bob Michel, the Republican House leader, from the Battle of the Bulge, and Harold Collier, another Republican, in a station wagon. They switched turns driving, OK? And they had a cot in the back. One of them slept.

When I raised this, a conservative, you know, pundit, whatever you want to call him, authority, said this proves that Michel wasn't a real Republican. This just proves that he was, you know, a house puppy or whatever else.

And, I mean, that's what is happening to our politics. And the language has contributed to this climate. And it's just debased it.

 

The American People Register

January 11, 2011 -

To the Editor:

As one of Representative Gabrielle Giffords’s constituents, I attended a health care forum she held at a local school. The event was packed with anti-Obama people, and the tone was ugly: shouting, rude, menacing individuals who failed to show, at a minimum, common courtesy to Ms. Giffords or other speakers. It was a chilling experience, even for one who had grown up during the bitter politics of the 1960s.

Therefore, the events in Tucson this weekend, which have torn our community apart, are somehow not shocking to me. Americans — and particularly Arizonans — need to remember that all societies have deranged individuals, but most lack the two key ingredients needed to fulfill their dark fantasies: incitement and unfettered access to weapons. - Ronnie Bergen Tucson 1/10/11

To the Editor:

Re “Bloodshed and Invective in Arizona” (editorial, Jan. 10):

When it comes to political controversy and vitriol, Arizona has occupied a premier position in national headlines in the last year. When the state passed the nation’s harshest law against illegal immigrants, it embraced and encouraged the anger of extremists. This most recent expression of intolerance is likely an act of individual insanity; while not deliberately instigated by right-wing politicians and media personalities, their posturing to score political points is likely to have had an influence.

As your editorial noted, it would be simplistic and erroneous to label either the G.O.P. or Tea Party as an outright catalyst to this tragedy. But there has been exploitation of fear, anger and unrest by interests seeking to benefit politically (and financially).

There are several ironies present in the events leading to this catastrophe in Arizona. It’s ironic that the state that proposed the strictest law on illegal immigration is also the state with some of the most lenient laws on gun control.

Another irony: Opposed to the perception disseminated by the G.O.P., it’s not the liberal elite exploiting the insecurities of the masses to gain and retain power, but a group of conservative elite playing the populist to those ends. - Wayne Trujillo Denver 1/10/11

To the Editor:

Paul Krugman (“Climate of Hate,” column, Jan. 10) is on the mark, but he does not go far enough. It is not merely “eliminationist rhetoric” that is poisoning our atmosphere. It is the concerted, consistent effort by the right wing to delegitimize those it sees as political adversaries.

When a political movement preaches that government itself is the enemy; when it argues that the president of the United States may not be a citizen; when it brands political adversaries as “un-American” and serving a “socialist agenda”; when it asserts that citizens may take up “Second Amendment remedies” against a “tyrannical” government, and so forth, we have gone far past the point of heated political debate.

When this rhetoric is condoned and embraced by candidates and officeholders of a mainstream political party (and its media allies), it gets a national platform and an aura of legitimacy. We ought to worry about the possible consequences.

We certainly don’t know what motivated the obviously disturbed individual facing charges in Arizona. But we ought not to be shocked if it turns out that somewhere, at some time, some lunatic takes this rhetoric seriously and acts on it in some unthinkable way. - Jonathan F. Horn New York 1/10/11

 

January 12, 2011 -

To the Editor:

David Brooks accuses me, among others, of “political opportunism.” No, Mr. Brooks. I said that “words have consequences,” and that to place public figures in cross hairs is to invite violence.

That isn’t political opportunism, nor does it represent, as you claim, “vicious charges.” That is a fact. Few doubt that inflammatory rhetoric has prompted mass violence in the past. - Gary Hart Kittredge Colo 1/11/11

The writer was a Democratic senator from Colorado from 1975 to 1987.

To the Editor:

I take exception to David Brooks’s efforts to separate the climate of political hate from the shooting rampage in Tucson. If Jared L. Loughner had staged his rampage at his workplace, or in his neighborhood or in some other place devoid of political implications, Mr. Brooks would be right — another senseless mass killing by a man in need of treatment in a country in need of better gun control.

But Mr. Loughner was not, as Mr. Brooks contends, “locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.” Mr. Loughner, even if mentally disturbed, chose his venue — a political gathering — and chose his victim, a Democratic congresswoman.

Furthermore, he made these choices in an atmosphere fired by hate speech, much of it explicitly directed at Democrats. Mr. Brooks is correct that we don’t know whether the Tea Party or Sarah Palin’s targeting of Gabrielle Giffords using cross hairs played any explicit role in influencing Mr. Loughner’s choice of victim, but his heinous act, however irrational, was inescapably political. - Mary-Lou Weisman Westport Conn 1/11/11

To the Editor:

In “A Turning Point in the Discourse, but in Which Direction?” (Political Times column, Jan. 9), Matt Bai seems to equate the vitriol arising from powerful conservative forces (Sarah Palin, Fox News, the Tea Party movement) with a comment posted on the progressive Daily Kos blog, where a constituent declared Representative Gabrielle Giffords “dead to me”, after she voted against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader.

It’s not just that the latter hardly commands public attention to the degree of the former, but Mr. Bai has misconstrued the Kos comment. To be “dead to me” is an expression used by some observant Jews to separate themselves from, for example, a child who has married outside the faith (and Ms. Giffords is Jewish). It has nothing to do with wanting to see a life ended, and is hardly comparable to Sharron Angle’s “Second Amendment remedies.” - Steven Volk Oberlin Ohio 1/9/11

 

January 13, 2011 -

To the Editor:

Re “Palin Calls Criticism ‘BLOOD LIBEL’ ” (The Caucus, The New York Times on the Web, Jan. 12):

None of the outrageous comments by Sarah Palin have been more disturbing to me than her use of “BLOOD LIBEL” to describe media reports blaming overheated political rhetoric for the tragedy in Tucson.

I doubt that Ms. Palin has any understanding of the significance of the phrase, or why it is laden with emotion for Jews. Nevertheless, it represents a new low in American political rhetoric.

The media should be uncompromising in condemning this for what it is: a blatant attempt to stir up hate, bigotry and mindless passion at a time when there is a need for balance, reason and self-reflection. - George Dargo Brookline Mass 1/12/11

Note:  One of the latest quirks of the Schnitzer's OPB/NPR is the replacement of the BBC's "World Have Your Say", with the innocuous "Here & Now", which on 1/14/11 had a conversation with the gentleman who speaks for the Glock 19 sales people in Phoenix and Tucson, in which the huckster described as how he gets "uncomfortable" when people begin to question the use of an oversized clip which allows this pistol to fire bullets at the speed of assault weapons, which were illegal from 1994 to 2004, until the Bush administration refused to continue the ban.  Was "W" "uncomfortable" with talk of banning the equivalent of assault weapons?

 

And the formidable David Remnick, without an equal in the current periodical publication genre, this courageous editor of The New Yorker, who GOPBIAS recognized several years ago, made a distinctive appearance on the 1/11-12/11 "Charlie" Rose program, unequaled except by the appearance of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Mr. Remnick giving full voice to what has become, led by Rush Limbaugh, THE most exclusively right-wing Republican barrage of non compos mentis (i.e. deranged) hate speech since that of Joe McCarthy in the 1950's.

David Remnick:   Well I'm in no position to command, but I, God knows, but I do think it's interesting that he's ( President Obama ) in this position now. In this tragic moment, and maybe even a decisive moment about political rhetoric. It's an incredibly complicated political decision he faces in terms of what he says or doesn't say, but it's also an incredibly complicated issue of what we are to make of the madness that happened a few days ago. We can't say for certain what happened inside this man's fevered mind. What sickness contributed to it, what rhetoric contributed to it, but if we look historically we know that fevered political talk that goes unanswered, can have consequences.

If you look at the mid-nineties in Israel, when BIBI NETANYAHU would speak to large crowds, and in those crowds, not a majority, but a sizable minority would sometimes hold up pictures of Yitzhak Rabin in a Nazi outfit, and you would hear chants of DEATH TO RABIN.

* Charlie Gibson on one of his last nightly broadcasts for ABC played his conversation with Rabin's widow, wherein she named the man responsible ( for Rabin's death ) as Benjamin Netanyahu, and that the act took place at a PEACE! rally! *

This contributed to a fevered atmosphere that led to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, and we saw it in Pakistan just recently as well. When the leaders of major groups get up and talk about killing or getting rid of or purging that particular politician, Aleem Maqbool on Salman Taseer.

What happened in Tucson I think is something that the president would be wise to put a name to it precisely. But we should remember also that one of Obama's great virtues, those who supported him thought, was his temperament. Was his attention to political rhetoric. And he was mocked for it at times, for being haughty and above it all and the rest. But I think that tonally, at least, it would be a good thing to have a reset dial here. Again, I don't want to say that this contributed, that it was the absolute reason that this man went off and did this horrendous thing in Tucson. I'm not sure that we can know this at all. But there's no question that the combination of technology, fevered politics, and I have to say that I see it more on the right than I see on the left, although nobody has an absolute monopoly on it, has contributed to a really unfortunate atmosphere.

David Brooks:  Yeah I guess I disagree. I do think fevered rhetoric had SOMETHING TO DO with Rabin's assassination. I don't see any evidence that it had anything to do with what we had in Tucson.

Undoubtedly, Mr. Brooks would also take exception to The New Yorker Editor David Remnick's position earlier, 3/29/10, which, by now, had it been implemented might well have contributed to an ongoing peace in much of the Middle East:

March 29, 2010 -"(key excerpts) The essential question for Israel is. .whether Netanyahu remains the arrogant rejectionist that he was in the nineteen-nineties,...

[ The PBS NewsHour moguls Howard and Arlene Schnitzer, who control the OPB franchise (Oregon Public Broadcasting), under the Schnitzers OPB is that one NPR/PBS franchise, particularly the NPR radio segment, which has been successful in leading the way removing most of the "Hard News" on NPR and PBS, again, particularly regarding Israel ("Hard News" which is so essential for an informed American public), it's the Schnitzers who early on, and with much fanfare, brought Netanyahu to Oregon! ]

...the loyal son of a radical believer in Greater Israel, forever settling scores with the old Labor e'lites and making minimal concessions to ward off criticism from Washington and retain the affections of his far-right coalition partners.

Without the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state. .and with East Jerusalem as its capital, it is IMPOSSIBLE to imagine a Jewish and democratic future for Israel." - David Remnick Editor The New Yorker 3/29/10.

 

* As it is . . . The incredulity of "Charlie" Rose & Bernard-Henri Lévy sharing their thoughts on the weekend, 1/16-17/11, dedicated to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (Mr. Rose on 1/17-18/11 did replay a 2008 video of his conversation with Tom Brokaw on Dr. King), Bernard-Henri Lévy, surely the most vain and, like "Charlie", egotistical of those who, following the 11/4/95 assassination of Soldier/Statesman Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, composed the infamous "A Clean Break (which refers to the assassination!):  A New Strategy For Securing the Realm (Israel)", the first step of which was the elimination of Saddam Hussein, joining with other supporters of the notorious Benjamin Netanyahu, who, as we have seen from Charlie Gibson's piece, might just as well have pulled the trigger himself.

This scenario of bloodshed in the Middle East has been brought into focus again, as it was in June of 2004 when Michiko Kakutani reviewed James Bamford's groundbreaking 2004 masterpiece, diligently annotated, "A Pretext For War:  9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies."  Inexplicably, in Ms. Kakutani's 1/18/11 review of one Peter Bergen's "The Longest War:  The Enduring Conflict Between America ( read Israel! ) and Al-Qaeda", Ms. Kakutani, in crediting "important work of other journalists", most notably a Ricks, a Woodward, a Mayer, a Hersh and a Packer, inexplicably Ms. Kakutani stiffs James Bamford.  It may be that Michiko wants to continue work for The Times.  It is an important book review, but it should have included the following two items:

 

RAY McGOVERN (27-year CIA analyst on 6/6/05 Lehrer NewsHour): "I would go back to an earlier conversation, and this happened on the 20th of September 2001, and this happened nine days after 9/11. This involved Tony Blair, who was in Washington having dinner with the President. How do we know about this? We know this because Christopher Meyer, the UK ambassador was there at that dinner. What does he say? The conversation went like this. President Bush: 'Uh, Tony. Uh, we're going into Afghanistan in a week or two, but that won't take long and we get out of there and we're going right into Iraq. Are you with me, Tony? Are you with me?' And Christopher Meyer says 'My goodness, it was really, and Tony was really sort of nonplussed, but he said 'Yes sir, I'm with you Mr. President.' (Margaret Warner tries to interrupt, but Mr. McGovern continues) So that goes back (a flustered Ms. Margaret Warner) "Mr. McGovern, speed up!" (Mr. McGovern) "so that goes back to 2001" (Ms. Warner) "We're almost out of time. Get to the next part!" (Mr. McGovern) "Okay, that's it." (Ms. Warner, almost shouting) "So, it's not about Iraq, it's about Afghanistan!" (Mr. McGovern) "Well, no. This has to do with Iraq. What the President said to Tony Blair, on the 20th of September (2001) according to the UK ambassador who was there, is 'We're going into Afghanistan in a couple of weeks. It won't take us long there, and we're going right into Iraq right after that. Are you with me?' And Tony Blair said 'Yes!'"

&

Robert Worth 4/21/10 - Beirut - Lebanon’s prime minister has dismissed Israeli accusations that Syria had been providing Scud missiles to the Hezbollah militia in his country, comparing them to (Israel's) CLAIMS THAT IRAQ HAD UNCONVENTIONAL WEAPONS BEFORE THE AMERICAN-LED INVASION IN 2003.

And This

We can begin by revisiting James Bamford's A Pretext For War, pp. 270-350, which details the elaborate Israeli-Jewish American hoax (Saddam with nuclear WMDs) used to justify the invasion and generate public support. From Michiko Kakutani's 6/18/04 review:

"What he does focus on is the role that Israel has played in shaping American policy. Mr. Bamford contends that 'the blueprint for the new Bush policy' on the Middle East 'had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors' (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser) for the Israeli prime minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu (who rejected the plan), and that when they entered office in January 2001, all these hawks needed was 'a pretext' for war against Iraq. Citing a report from the British newspaper The Guardian, Mr. Bamford adds that the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit set up by Mr. Feith, 'forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence unit within Ariel Sharon's office in Israel,' which 'was designed to go around the country's own intelligence organization, Mossad.'"

 

- A Prequel to what follows - From Amy Goodman 1/18/11

56 Killed in Iraq Suicide Bombing

At least 60 people have been killed and another 150 wounded in a suicide attack in the northern Iraqi city of Tikrit. The bomber reportedly detonated an explosive vest in a line of people applying for jobs with the police. It was the deadliest incident in Iraq since October 31, when a siege at a Baghdad church killed at least 53 people. Meanwhile, three U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq on Saturday, making it one of the deadliest days for U.S. forces there in months. This weekend also marked the 20th anniversary of the first U.S. attack on Iraq in what the military named Operation Desert Storm. Estimates of the Iraqi dead reach as high as 3,600 civilians and some 35,000 soldiers.

Former Banker Hands Offshore Account Data to WikiLeaks

A former Swiss banker has handed over a trove of data on offshore banking to the online whistleblower WikiLeaks. At a news conference in London, Rudolf Elmer gave WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange two compact discs containing information on some 2,000 offshore account holders.

Rudolf Elmer: "I’m against the system. I know how the system works, and I know that from a day-to-day business. So, from that point of view, I want to let society know what I do know and how this system works, because it’s damaging our society in a way that money is moved back away, for instance, from financial institutions, multinational conglomerates, high-net-worth individuals. The money is hided [hidden] in offshore centers, so secrecy jurisdictions, technically correct."

Elmer headed the Cayman Islands office of the bank Julius Baer until his firing in 2002. He is scheduled to go on trial in Switzerland this week on allegations of breaching bank secrecy. Assange said WikiLeaks would carefully review the material before a potential release.

Julian Assange: "We will treat this information like all other information we get. So, yes, I presume, once we’ve looked at the data, assuming it’s not anomalous, assuming it’s like everything else we receive, yes, there will be a full revelation."

Israel to Build 1,400 New Settlement Homes

The Israeli government is preparing another major settlement expansion in occupied East Jerusalem. Some 1,400 new homes will be added to the Gilo settlement near the West Bank town of Bethlehem. It’s Israel’s LARGEST KNOWN SETTLEMENT EXPANSION since unveiling plans to add 1,600 homes right during a visit from U.S. Vice President Joe Biden last March.

Israeli Gov’t to Probe Human Rights Groups

Thousands of people marched in Tel Aviv this weekend to protest a government probe of Israeli human rights groups. Earlier this month, the Israeli parliament formed a committee to investigate the funding of several left-leaning Israeli NGOs and activist organizations. Adam Keller of the group Gush Shalom denounced the move as a witch hunt.

Adam Keller: "There is a very big danger to Israeli democracy and to the future of this country, because we have a government where there is a very dominant presence of racists and anti-democratic people, and some of them really are outright fascists."  [ In fact, it would seem that the Netanyahu "government" characterizes fascism! ]

Blackwater-Linked Firm Awarded U.S. Contract in WEST BANK

A firm closely tied to the private military giant Blackwater has won an $84 million U.S. government contract in the occupied WEST BANK. Former Blackwater affiliate International Development Solutions has been awarded a one-year deal that could be extended up to 2016. Although the contract calls for guarding U.S. personnel, there are rumors operatives will be used to train other contractors as well as the U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority security force. Blackwater now goes by the name Xe Services.

Protesters Rally in Support of Manning and Targeted Activists

Peace activists also rallied outside the FBI building in Washington, D.C., Monday to protest the targeting of antiwar and Palestine solidarity activists as well as the imprisonment of alleged military whistleblower Bradley Manning. Kevin Zeese of the group Voters for Peace hailed Manning as a hero.

Kevin Zeese: "If we had real leadership in this country rather than holding Bradley Manning in confinement, solitary confinement, for the last five months, they would be standing with Bradley Manning and saying 'Bradley Manning is showing us what we're doing. We need to rejudge our policy, rethink our foreign policy. We need to move to become a country that obeys the law, not one that violates the law.’ Bradley Manning has provided the American people an opportunity to know what their country is doing." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 1/18/11

 

Words for the Wise

- Amy Goodman 1/17/11:  "While Dr. King is primarily remembered as a civil rights leader, he also championed the cause of the poor and organized the Poor People’s Campaign to address issues of economic justice. Dr. King was also a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy and the Vietnam War.

In his 'Beyond Vietnam' speech, which he delivered at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4th, 1967, a year to the day before he was assassinated, Dr. King called the United States, quote, 'the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.' Time magazine called the speech 'demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi.' The Washington Post said King, quote, 'diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people.'

- April 4, 1967 REV. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.:  "After 1954, they ( the North Vietnamese ) watched us conspire with Diem to prevent elections which could have surely brought Ho Chi Minh to power over a united Vietnam, and they realized they had been betrayed again. When we ask why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered.

Also, it must be clear that the leaders of Hanoi considered the presence of American troops in support of the Diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the Geneva Agreement concerning foreign troops. And they remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies into the South, until American forces had moved into the tens of thousands.

Hanoi remembers how our leaders refused to tell us the truth about the earlier North Vietnamese overtures for peace, how the President ( LBJ )...

[ This is the same President Johnson who, on this fateful trip to Dallas, informed his longtime mistress Madelane (sp) Brown, mother of his illegitimate son Steven, now deceased ( whom LBJ supported, along with mistress Madelane, until LBJ's death ) informed her that they wouldn't have to worry about the "Kennedy boys" any longer. ]

...claimed that none existed when they had clearly been made. Ho Chi Minh has watched as America has spoken of peace and built up its forces, and now he has surely heard the increasing international rumors of American plans for an invasion of the North. He knows the bombing and shelling and mining we are doing are part of traditional pre-invasion strategy. Perhaps only his sense of humor and of irony can save him when he hears the most powerful nation of the world speaking of aggression as it drops thousands of bombs on a poor, weak nation more than 8,000 miles away from its shores.

At this point, I should make it clear that while I have tried in these last few minutes to give a voice to the voiceless in Vietnam and to understand the arguments of those who are called "enemy," I am as deeply concerned about our own troops there as anything else, for it occurs to me that what we are submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing process that goes on in any war where armies face each other, and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of death, for they must know after the short period there that none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really involved. Before long, they must know that their government has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the wealthy and the secure, while we create a hell for the poor.

Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of Vietnam. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed...

[ not unlike our proxy Israel ( or, are we Israel's proxy? ) in Palestinian land being laid waste, and Palestinian homes being destroyed ]

...whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America, who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption in Vietnam. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours.

This is the message of the great Buddhist leaders of Vietnam. Recently one of them wrote these words, and I quote: "Each day the war goes on, the hatred increases in the heart of the Vietnamese and in the hearts of those of humanitarian instinct. The Americans are forcing even their friends into becoming their enemies. It is curious that the Americans, who calculate so carefully on the possibilities of military victory, do not realize that in the process they are incurring deep psychological and political defeat. The image of America will never again be the image of revolution, freedom and democracy, but the image of violence and militarism,” unquote.

We continue, there will be no doubt in my mind and in the mind of the world that we have no honorable intentions in Vietnam. If we do not stop our war against the people of Vietnam immediately, the world will be left with no other alternative than to see this as some horrible, clumsy and deadly game we have decided to play.

The world now demands a maturity of America that we may not be able to achieve. It demands that we admit that we have been wrong from the beginning of our adventure in Vietnam, that we have been detrimental to the life of the Vietnamese people. The situation is one in which we must be ready to turn sharply from our present ways.

In order to atone for our sins and errors in Vietnam, we should take the initiative in bringing a halt to this tragic war and set a date that we will remove all foreign troops from Vietnam in accordance with the 1954 Geneva agreement.

Part of our ongoing—part of our ongoing commitment might well express itself in an offer to grant asylum to any Vietnamese who fears for his life under the new regime, which included the Liberation Front. Then we must make what reparations we can for the damage we have done. We must provide the medical aid that is badly needed, making it available in this country, if necessary.

Meanwhile, we in the churches and synagogues have a continuing task, while we urge our government to disengage itself from a disgraceful commitment. We must continue to raise our voices and our lives if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam. We must be prepared to match actions with words by seeking out every creative method of protest possible.

These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest.

Now, there is something seductively tempting about stopping there and sending us all off on what in some circles has become a popular crusade against the war in Vietnam. I say we must enter that struggle, but I wish to go on now to say something even more disturbing. The war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit, and if we ignore this sobering reality—and if we ignore this sobering reality, we will find ourselves organizing clergy- and laymen-concerned committees for the next generation. They will be concerned about Guatemala and Peru. They will be concerned about Thailand and Cambodia. They will be concerned about Mozambique and South Africa. We will be marching for these and a dozen other names and attending rallies without end, unless there is a significant and profound change in American life and policy. So such thoughts take us beyond Vietnam, but not beyond our calling as sons of the living God.

In 1957, a sensitive American official overseas said that it seemed to him that our nation was on the wrong side of a world revolution. During the past ten years, we have seen emerge a pattern of suppression, which has now has justified the presence of U.S. military "advisers" in Venezuela. This need to maintain social stability for our investments accounts for the counterrevolutionary action of American forces in Guatemala. It tells why American helicopters are being used against guerrillas in Cambodia and why American napalm and Green Beret forces have already been active against rebels in Peru. It is with such activity in mind that the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago, he said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments.

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

A true revolution of values will lay a hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing, except a tragic death wish, to prevent us from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.

These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wombs of a frail world new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. "The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light." We in the West must support these revolutions.

It is a sad fact that, because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, and our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has the revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism and militarism. With this powerful commitment, we shall boldly challenge the status quo and unjust mores and thereby speed the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain."

A genuine revolution of values means, in the final analysis, that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft-misunderstood, this oft-misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man.

When I speak of love, I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response, I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I’m speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the First Epistle of Saint John: “Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.”

Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says, "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word," unquote.

We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam writes, "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..." We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.

We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world, a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.

Now, let us begin. Now, let us rededicate ourselves to the long and bitter—but beautiful—struggle for a new world. This is the calling of the sons of God, and our brothers wait eagerly for our response. Shall we say the odds are too great? Shall we tell them the struggle is too hard? Will our message be that the forces of American life militate against their arrival as full men, and we send our deepest regrets? Or will there be another message, of longing, of hope, of solidarity with their yearnings, of commitment to their cause, whatever the cost? The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history.

As that noble bard of yesterday, James Russell Lowell, eloquently stated:

Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God’s new Messiah,
Off’ring each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
Twixt that darkness and that light.

Though the cause of evil prosper,
Yet 'tis truth alone is strong;
Though her portion be the scaffold,
And upon the throne be wrong:
Yet that scaffold sways the future,
And behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow
Keeping watch above his own.

And if we will only make the right choice, we will be able to transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of peace. If we will make the right choice, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. If we will but make the right choice, we will be able to speed up the day, all over America and all over the world, when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream." - Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The Riverside Church NYC 4/4/67

 

Fifty years ago today (1/20/11), that would be 1/20/61, John Fitzgerald Kennedy took the oath of office to become the President of the United States.  The Marine Jim Lehrer ( Kennedy had saved one of his men off PT 109 ) introduces Senator, now President, Kennedy's stellar Inaugural Address

JIM LEHRER: Finally tonight: It was 50 years ago today that John F. Kennedy delivered one of the most famous and most quoted inaugural addresses in history. His call for engagement and public service resonates even today.

"Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens:

We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge -- and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge: to convert our good words into good deeds, in a new alliance for progress, to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support -- to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective, to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak, and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course -- both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms, and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed, in all corners of the earth, the command of Isaiah -- to 'undo the heavy burdens, and [to] let the oppressed go free.'

And, if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor -- not a new balance of power, but a new world of law -- where the strong are just, and the weak secure, and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days; nor in the life of this Administration; nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again -- not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need -- not as a call to battle, though embattled we are -- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, 'rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation,' a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility -- I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it. And the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own." - President John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address January 20, 1961

- And this notation for what follows, i.e. the world wide effort of current, hurried, worldwide Jewish - Israeli interests to smother any hope for a reasonable, fair and just settlement of the catastrophe for Palestine that began in 1948 with the Jewish attack and invasion of Palestine, that now has been expedited by, for example, the propagandist David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a group not unlike Daniel Pipes' the Rosen & Weissman apparent creation of AIPAC, Makovsky, along with Daniel Pipes, a former "reporter" for the Jerusalem Post.

An ( Israeli ) Institute's Views

[ To the Editor:

Your otherwise fine article about David Makovsky’s study on potential solutions to the territorial aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (“Trying to Break Logjam, Scholar Floats an Idea for a Palestinian Map,” Diplomatic Memo, Jan. 23) twice referred to the Washington Institute as “pro-Israel.” This characterization is woefully insufficient.

While the institute is not shy about its view that strong United States-Israel ties advance American national security interests ( Most forthright observers would maintain the exact opposite position, that "American national security interests", devoted since June of 1967 to the blind support of Israel, these "interests", have inflicted devastating and longlasting damages to these United States, not the least of which is the elimination of a sound Media/Press. ) , the moniker “pro-Israel” projects two false impressions — first, that the institute does not value American interests above special pleading for a foreign power ( The Rogue State of Israel! ) , and second, that the institute must be “anti” others in the region (Palestinians, Arabs).

This shorthand terminology perpetuates “old thinking” that views the Arab-Israeli conflict as the key dividing line in a region where the division between moderates versus radicals is a more accurate prism through which to understand local politics.

On the personal level, this one-dimensional description of the institute’s quarter-century of research ( "research" by Steven J. Rosen? ) does a disservice to the many current and former United States government officials and military officers at the institute over the years as well as the numerous institute scholars from Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco and other Middle Eastern countries ( But Not Israel? ) over the years who have undertaken impeccable research on a broad array of topics.

ROBERT SATLOFF Executive Director The Washington Institute for Near East Policy Washington N Y Times 1/26/11 ]

 

By Mark Landler WASHINGTON - It speaks to the paralysis in the Middle East peace process that the most noteworthy development of the past week came when a mild-mannered ( THE MOST ADAMANT PRO-ISRAEL PROPAGANDIST ON AMERICAN TELEVISION IN THE LAST TEN YEARS! ) analyst at a pro-Israel think tank unfurled three color-coded maps.

The analyst, David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, wanted to show, in concrete terms, how negotiators could create a new Palestinian state in the West Bank, using the pre-1967 boundaries of Israel as a baseline, while taking into account the roughly 300,000 Jewish settlers ( WHAT ABOUT THE ORIGINAL PALESTINIAN INHABITANTS? ) who now live there.

The goal, Mr. Makovsky said, is to “demystify” the territorial hurdles that divide Israelis and Palestinians, and to debunk the notion that there is no way to reconcile the Palestinian demand for sovereignty over the West Bank ( AND Arab East Jerusalem! ) with the Israeli demand for control over a majority of the settlers ( THE TERM "DEMYSTIFY" GIVES MR. MAKOVSKY AWAY! ) .

 -THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH SAYS IT ALL! -

"'In my view, it is definitely possible to deal with each other’s core demands,' he said. 'There are land swaps that would offset whatever settlements Israel would retain ( Mark & David - Including Arab East Jerusalem?  We think not. ) . The impossible is attainable.'" - Landler N Y Times 1/23/11

COMPLETE ARTICLE

BREAKING NEWS?  Perhaps not since 9/11 has The New York Times devoted eighty percent of its OP-ED page ( 1/26/11 ) to a single piece, in this instance the collapse of Israeli/Palestinian peace efforts, this in response to Al Jazeera's release of classified documents exposing the feted Palestinian Authority's clandestine agreement with Israel to cede portions of Palestine, including Arab East Jerusalem, to conform with the Jewish-dominated Obama administration's call for a settlement of key peace effort questions within a year.  This is a critical time, and the inclusion of Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg requires vigilance.

 

Until a better one comes along ( ...and there are sure to be many ) , THIS (Page A-10 N Y Times 1/24/11) must be THE classic exposition of Israeli artifice as 2011 progresses:

"'I hope that all those who rushed to judgment against Israel and against its soldiers will read these reports and learn the truth about what happened', Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said (1/23/11) Sunday.  'The truth is that our soldiers were defending our country and defending their very lives':

Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued a statement saying that the conclusions 'prove that Israel is a law-abiding country that is capable of examining itself and that it respects the norms and rules of the international system.'"

"Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan" ( who, in recent years, has been much exposed to Israeli chicanery ) "dismissed the report, saying Sunday that it had 'no value or credibility.'"

These paragraphs are available on Isabel Kershner's 1/24/11 article in same N Y Times, the article is entitled "Panel Finds Israel's Actions Justified in Fatal Flotilla Raid".

 

- Amy Goodman 1/24/11

"Attorney: Manning Abuse Worsens; 2 Visitors Detained at Base

The attorney for alleged army whistleblower Bradley Manning is accusing the military of intensifying their harsh treatment of Manning as he remains behind bars. The lawyer, David Coombs, says Manning was placed on a stricter suicide watch last week despite psychiatric reviews showing he is not a suicide risk and should even be taken off a less restrictive "prevention of injury watch." According to Coombs, the military revoked Manning’s lone hour of exercise and stripped him of all his clothing except for his underwear. Manning was ultimately returned to "prevention of injury" status after Coombs complained. The military is also cracking down on Manning’s visitors. On Sunday, Manning’s friend David House and progressive blogger Jane Hamsher were detained and prevented from visiting him at the Quantico military base in Virginia. They had brought with them a 42,000-signature petition protesting Manning’s prison conditions. House has publicly alleged that Manning’s mental and physical health has declined under 23-hour-a-day solitary confinement. The pair were detained for two hours and released only after Manning’s allotted visitation period had expired.

LEAKED FILES SHOW PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY OFFERED ISRAEL EAST JERUSALEM ANNEXATION

Newly released documents show Palestinian Authority negotiators have agreed to give up large tracts of West Bank land in peace talks with the Israeli government. The disclosure is among many contained in what is being called the "Palestine Papers"—over 1,700 files from inside Israeli-Palestinian negotiations dating from 1999 to 2010. The news network Al Jazeera began publishing details of the documents on Sunday. Minutes from a 2008 meeting indicate Palestinian negotiators offered to allow Israel’s annexation of ALMOST ALL OF EAST JERUSALEM, without receiving any concessions in return. Al Jazeera says forthcoming documents will reveal new details about compromises the Palestinian Authority was prepared to make on refugees and the right of return, as well as on the PA’s security cooperation with Israel and its correspondence on the U.N. inquiry into the late-2008 attack on the Gaza Strip. Palestinian Authority officials have challenged the documents’ veracity. Chief negotiator Saeb Erekat called their contents "a pack of lies."

Israeli Inquiry Clears Military, Gov’t in Flotilla Attack

The documents’ release comes as an Israeli inquiry has absolved the government and military in any wrongdoing on the deadly attack on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last year. Nine people were killed when Israeli troops stormed the Mavi Marmara ship on May 31st. Inquiry chair Jacob Turkel unveiled the panel’s conclusion.

Jacob Turkel: "The commission’s conclusion is that the imposition of the naval blockade over the Gaza Strip was lawful and complies with international law, considering Israel’s security concerns and its efforts to fulfill humanitarian obligations. This commission’s conclusion is that the entire action taken by Israel on May 31st, 2010, to enforce the naval blockade, despite a small number of incidents in which force was used, and their details are still not fully clear, were legal and in accordance with international law." - Amy Goodman 1/24/11

- Amy Goodman 1/25/11

Report: U.S. Failing to Prove WikiLeaks-Manning Link

U.S. military investigators are reportedly faltering in their effort to prove a direct link between WikiLeaks and the alleged U.S. Army whistleblower Bradley Manning. According to NBC News, investigators have found no evidence Manning passed classified U.S. documents directly to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange or that the two had any contact. The U.S. government has scrambled to find a direct link as part of an effort to indict Assange for prosecution. Manning is currently imprisoned at the Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, in solitary confinement. On Monday, the human rights group Amnesty International wrote the Pentagon to protest what it called Manning’s "inhumane" treatment.

22 Killed in Iraq Bombings

In Iraq, at least 22 people were killed and 75 wounded in two separate car bombings on Monday. At least 151 people have died in a number of bombings to hit Iraq over the past week.

Hezbollah-Backed Candidate Wins Support in Lebanon

Lebanon’s political crisis is intensifying over a pending vote on a new government. On Monday, a prime-ministerial candidate backed by Hezbollah won enough parliamentary votes to form a new cabinet. Supporters of Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri have taken to the streets in protest. In Washington, U.S. Department of State spokesperson P.J. Crowley said a Hezbollah victory could endanger U.S. aid to Lebanon.

P.J. Crowley: "We will reserve judgment until a government is formed. Our view of Hezbollah is very well known: we see it as a terrorist organization. And we’ll have great concerns about a government that—you know, within which Hezbollah plays a leading role." - Amy Goodman 1/25/11

- Amy Goodman 1/27/11

Palestine Papers: Palestinians Acceded to U.S. Demand for Goldstone Delay

The latest disclosures from leaked Palestinian documents show the United States encouraged Palestinian officials to help delay a U.N. vote on the Goldstone inquiry into Israel’s three-week attack on Gaza beginning in December 2008. The inquiry found that Israel committed a range of war crimes during the assault, with a far smaller number committed by Hamas. The Palestinian Authority initially backed a delay to the vote but relented under popular pressure. At the time, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he had wanted to gain more international support. But leaked documents in the "Palestine Papers" show the United States told Abbas that delaying the vote would be necessary to relaunch negotiations with Israel. Appearing on Al Jazeera, the former U.S. ambassador to Qatar, Patrick Theros, said the Obama administration had sought the delay to help advance "other foreign policy objectives" ( ...i.e. The Vilification of Iran? ) in the Middle East.

Patrick Theros: "The United States at the time was trying to seek other foreign policy objectives in the area ( Ultimately, the additional protection for Israel? ) , and I think there was a decision made in Washington that moving the Goldstone Report forward too fast would be unhelpful. AND THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY HAS A CONSIDERABLE HISTORY OF TRYING TO ACCOMODATE U.S. INTERESTS ( In that, like Egypt under Mubarak, The Palestine Authority is paid by the U. S. ), ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ONLY FORCE OUTSIDE, THAT CAN BRING THE ISRAELIS RATIONALLY TO THE TABLE ( i.e. because we, these United States, now for over thirty years have given Israel OVER THREE BILLION DOLLARS, each and every year! ) , WOULD BE THE UNITED STATES." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 1/27/11

NEWLY REVISED
( to January 9, 2011 )

Ye have plowed wickedness,
Ye have reaped iniquity.  Hosea 10:13

With our ceaseless, interminable funding of this rogue state of Israel, created November 4, 1995 with the Benjamin Netanyahu driven assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, coupled with the thirty year, 50 billion dollar bribe of Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, all to provide protection for this Israeli menacing force willing to create a worldwide holocaust with their removal of Palestinian Arabs from PALESTINE (including Arab East Jerusalem, "annexed" from Jordan in 1967) and the unleashing of mindless armed "settlers";  with all of this, these United States have wrought chaos, the whirlwind, despite the particulars made available since 2004 by the courageous James Bamford with his "A Pretext For War:  9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies".  That's right.  We invaded Iraq for Israel!  And there is a price to pay.  Not by the Israeli's, nor AIPAC, nor the Anti Defamation League, ET CETERA!  A price exacted not from the Israeli malefactors, but from the rest of the world.

- Integral associated items -

White House CBS reporter "Chip" Reid, probably out of "deference" to former actor Les Moonves, who led the destruction of a legitimate correspondent, the esteemed Dan Rather, "Chip" enunciated the concern for the "Middle East Peace Process" (a non sequitur since Obama's first meeting with Netanyahu in our White House, not that there has been a "Middle East Peace Process" since 12/12/00, the date of the infamous Rehnquist Supreme Court decision) Reid's concern as a result of the "Chaos in Egypt".

- The leading propagandist for Israel, "Charlie" Rose, is working overtime trying to salvage what remains of a structure of support for this, actually illegal, Israeli regime.  Evidenced by thugs of Egypt, aboard their camels to save Mubarak, "Charlie" knows that there is no shortage of funds from either our United States, Great Britain or France, to "save" Netanyahu's Israel.  We have "given", under duress by AIPAC, 1.5 billion to Egypt ( Egypt's bribe is exceeded ONLY by the in excess of THREE BILLION TO ISRAEL - that's now for THIRTY YEARS! ).  We Americans under George W. Bush and, to date, Barack Obama have placed the Israeli Star of David above our Stars and Stripes this country over.

 

- On Christiane Amanpour's ABC This Week, Sunday 1/30/11 broadcast, Ms. Amanpour, in Egypt, had the steadfast Zbigniew Brzezinski bringing into focus our challenge with Iran, in which Ronald Reagan's campaign manager William Casey [ who hoped for the Secretary of State position, but settled for CIA Director ( A disaster! ) arranged for the sixty three American State Department hostages to be held a full 444 days, until Mr. Reagan had taken the Oath of Office ] and in that debacle with Iran we incurred the life long wrath of the Iranians ( we had overthrown their legitimately ELECTED Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953 ) incurred their fury by installing the hated and brutal Shah, hence the "problem" with Iran; further, Dr. Brzezinski extolled our relationship with Turkey, an example of a Middle East country with whom we should deal.

Some force at ABCDisney took offence, and Brzezinski was disconnected, there was dead air, until Jake Tapper attempted to shift to George Will.

The Broadcast:

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: And to delve deeper into this very issue, we're joined now by a man who has helped navigate U.S. foreign policy, way back during the Iranian revolution. He is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who used to be President Carter's national security adviser, joins us now. Thank you for being with us. I want to start by asking you, does Mubarak have to go? Or, as the administration seems to hope, he can implement enough reforms to get through this moment? Is that realistic?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: I don't think that's realistic. What could be realistic is that Mubarak himself becomes convinced, with outside advice, that it is in his interest, as well as in Egypt's interests, that he goes and that he sets in motion a process which facilitates that.

I think the alternatives otherwise are much tougher. Either the army cracks down and the populace increasingly turns to fundamentalism, radicalism in reaction to the crackdown, or the regime perpetuates itself and an explosion comes later and even more violently.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you then, because clearly the administration is grappling with a decades-long problem, how to have democracy in this part of the world without fundamentalism filling the vacuum. Do you think that is still -- particularly as you watch what happened in Tunisia, secular, young -- here in Egypt, it's mostly secular. We don't see the Islamic forces right now. Do you think that is still a fear?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, it still is a fear, but there are some examples which are a warning to us, and there are some examples which are a possible source of encouragement. The warning is, of course, what happened in Iran, the takeover by theological fundamentalist regime hostile to the outside world, and particularly to us.

The other alternative -- and it's also an equally important historical nation -- is Turkey, where the army has played a role of the guarantor of democracy, a guarantor of democracy, even sometimes in an authoritarian transition. And the army has made possible the evolution of Turkey.

Now, if you look at the region in which you are now present, there are three great nations in that region: Egypt, with enormous history and civilization and culture; Iran, similarly so; and Turkey, with an imperial past of enormous impression.

Now, Turkey, certainly, I think provides the most relevant example. And Mubarak I think could play still a constructive role by accepting the reality and making that change possible himself....

BRZEZINSKI: Hello?

Dead air

TAPPER: We lost Christiane for the time being.

- And Amy Goodman, a few days later, 2/3/11, returns with Robert Fisk, with a similar understanding of what transpires in the Middle East -

Amy Goodman: I want to turn now first, though, to Robert Fisk. The longtime Middle East correspondent of The Independent newspaper in London has been voted best correspondent by reporters and editors in Britain for years. He’s the author of a number of books, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. Writing from the streets of Cairo, he wrote, "One of the blights of history will now involve a U.S. president who held out his hand to the Islamic world (6/4/09), and then clenched his fist when it fought a dictatorship and demanded democracy."

We reached Robert Fisk just hours before the broadcast and asked him his reaction to the unfolding events in Egypt, as well as the U.S. response.

Robert Fisk: Now, of course, the great drama is this. The Americans want the military to control the situation and get rid of Mubarak, but then are we going to have Mubarak’s vice president? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE AN EGYPT LED BY THE FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICER FOR MUBARAK, A CHIEF NEGOTIATOR WITH ISRAEL, ISRAEL’S FAVORITE EGYPTIAN, RUNNING THIS COUNTRY, AND RUNNING THE ARMY TO RUN THIS COUNTRY? We’re going to have just another benevolent military dictator running another army which runs another country in the Arab world, which is basically what we’ve had all along. So, the protesters, who tend to be about 24 hours behind in working this sort of thing out—they’re awful tired, and they’re trying to stay alive and so on—they’re going to have to struggle hard to make sure that the political future belongs in their hands and not in another bunch of generals who grew up under Mubarak and got tired of his rule. Because the army is against Mubarak, which I think it pretty much is now, does not mean that the army is going to support wonderful, free, open elections in Egypt. It will be nice to think so, but I can’t think of an army that’s ever actually done that in history, certainly not in Egypt. So I think that these are the questions that are going to come up.

And it’s been interesting watching the behavior. I mean, I’m right up right next to the tanks and, you know, where stones are falling and so on. Yesterday, for example, a young soldier was standing in tears as the stones went in both directions past him. And he was obviously torn apart by what he should do between his duty as a soldier and his duty as an Egyptian. And in the end, he jumped down from the tank, right in front of me, crying and throwing his arms around one of the protesters. And that—you know, that was a very significant moment, I thought, in this. You know, if big history is made on the streets, this was a little tiny microcosm of what was actually going over. The army are against Mubarak. I think that’s what’s going to come across in the next 24 hours. - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 2/3/11

- Lastly, for now, Steve Inskeep on Monday's 1/31/11 NPR/OPB Morning Edition has a longtime connection, who assures Steve, that the U. S. doesn't have to worry about the "continuing" Israeli/Palestinian Peace Process.

INSKEEP: What do you think of the response of the United States, to this situation? Most recently, U.S. diplomats, including Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, have spoken of urging an orderly transition to democratic rule more democratic rule.

Dr. IBRAHIM: Well, yes, it came a little bit hesitantly, but better late than never. And the best that the U.S. can do now, is to stand by the Egyptian people. Yes, smooth transition, fine. But to demand that Mubarak steps down to spare Egyptians further bloodshed, and that is a call. And I'm going to Congress and that will be, also, the message. It will prevail on Mubarak to step down. After all, America has supported him for 30 years. It's about time, support the Egyptian people, even for one year.

INSKEEP: Are you in a position, having spoken to opposition leaders, to reassure the United States, to say to American officials look, we know Mubarak has been your ally, but you have nothing to fear in this situation, you can whole-heartedly support a change?

Dr. IBRAHIM: Yes.

INSKEEP: Very simple answer. You can tell Americans, directly, don't worry about your security interests; don't worry about Egypt's peace treaty with Israel...

[ As if these Israelis under Netanyahu had not caused enough mayhem in the Middle East, they are now intent on subverting Egypt's struggle for modernity.  Obviously, NPR/OPB's Steve Inskeep knows well that, as Amy Goodman informed us, through the iconic Robert Fisk (Voted best correspondent in Britain for years! ), the Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman is "Israel's favorite Egyptian". ]

...don't worry about what the next government is going to look like, everything's going to be fine?

Dr. IBRAHIM: Absolutely. Even the candidate for replacing Mubarak, Doctor ElBaradei, who is now poised to be the next president...

INSKEEP: Mohamed ElBaradei.

Dr. IBRAHIM: ...said that, yesterday, in an interview.

INSKEEP: He said, yesterday, in a television interview, that Egypt's security situation, security agreements with Israel ( A clear example of Inskeep - Ibrahim wishful thinking. ) and others will remain as they have been.

Dr. IBRAHIM: Absolutely. Yes.

Again, there is not, and there has not been, an Israeli/Palestinian Peace Process, since the 12/12/00 Rehnquist Supreme Court decision to halt the counting of ballots in Florida, thereby stealing the presidential election from Albert Arnold Gore Jr. and granting the 2000 presidential election to George Walker Bush.

- And regarding issues of national urgence and importance, i.e. National Health Care and that proliferation of assault-weapon caliber personal weapons, any and all critical issues headed to the Bush-John 11/23/05 Roberts Supreme Court [ as the country knows well, John Kerry was elected president in 2004 ( except for the rampant electoral fraud in John Boehner's Ohio ) and had the Media/Press pursued that fraud, Roberts could well have been replaced by a Court which would have revisited the Second Amendment, e.g., which specifies "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state".  That does not include cowboys with loaded weapons on their hips!

- All of this, the American people understand.

To the Editor:

It was only a question of time before the “moderate” Arab states in Israel’s neighborhood, a k a stable dictatorships at peace with Israel, would have their comeuppance (“Israel Shaken as Turbulence Rocks an Ally,” front page, Jan. 31).

But Israel has stubbornly ignored this ticking bomb, as well as a recent generous offer by the Palestinians and less than energetic prodding by the United States on its settlement policy, and it now faces the possibility that radical elements will take over Egypt, and possibly Jordan, Yemen and others over time.

President Obama did not even mention our intentions about reviving the Israel-Arab peace process during his State of the Union address. If a major Middle East disaster is to be avoided, he needs to exert pressure on Israel now before a two-state solution slides off the table. - Gustav Ranis New Haven 1/31/11

The writer is professor emeritus of international economics at Yale and former director of its Center for International and Area Studies.

To the Editor:

Why do the people of Egypt have to place themselves in danger of being shot and tear-gassed by the riot police before the United States realizes that it has a “moral responsibility to stand with those who have the courage to oppose authoritarian rulers” (editorial, Jan. 29)? The United States government has been aware of the nature of President Hosni Mubarak’s regime for decades and has sustained it through generous foreign aid, but for whose “national security concerns”? America’s or Israel’s?

It’s time to come down off the fence and stand up for justice. That’s what Americans claim they are good at, and now is the time to prove it, across the Middle East. - Ibrahim Hewitt London 1/29/11

The writer is senior editor of Middle East Monitor.

To the Editor:

The turmoil sweeping the Middle East is a welcome movement toward a more democratic Arab world. While we don’t know yet how it will end, the United States and Israel would do well to support the movement and encourage the institution-building necessary for true democracies.

Understandably, Israel is shaken by these events, which have made clear that basing Israel’s security on peace treaties with leaders who do not represent their people is like building a house of cards on shifting sands.

Real peace must be founded on ending the occupation ( locating the Palestinian Capital in Arab East Jerusalem ) and implementing measures to ensure the human rights of all Palestinians and Israelis.

Israel has the opportunity to do so and become a true beacon of democracy in a Middle East that is grappling to attain it. - Hanan Watson New York 2/2/11

Unfortunately, our Media/Press is equal in bias (Hence, this title GOPBIAS.INFO), to, for example, AIPAC or The Jerusalem Post (formerly owned by the international felon Conrad Black), and on Sunday, 2/6/11, Leslie Moonves (husband of the ravishing Julie Chen) has Martin Indyk, former U. S. ambassador to Israel, on his "Face the Nation".  Mr. Indyk sees himself as the coolest of Israeli propagandists, but historian Norman Finkelstein had little difficulty exposing him.  Mr. Obama are you listening?

To the Editor:

In “Hosni Mubarak Agonistes” (column, Feb. 4), Roger Cohen writes: “The U.S. can no longer advance its interests through double standards apparent to every thinking Arab. Ambivalent U.S. prodding for political opening has produced ‘nothing, nothing, nothing,’ in the words of one frustrated observer. It’s time to be clear: Mubarak’s time is up.”

I couldn’t have put it better. What is happening in Egypt is a key to peace in the Middle East: no more American double standards for Israel and the Arabs; no more supporting dictatorships that are betraying their populations to satisfy Israel. This is not a way to bring peace.

For the moment, the only just stance toward the Egyptians is to push President Hosni Mubarak out of power. The only just stance toward the Palestinians is to give them their rights, as recognized by so many United Nations resolutions.

THE ONLY JUST STANCE TOWARD THE ISRAELIS IS TO FORCE THEM TO STOP THE SETTLEMENTS AT ONCE AND NEGOTIATE PEACE WITHIN THEIR 1967 FRONTIERS, WHILE FINDING AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION FOR THE 1948 REFUGEES.

With faith and reason it is possible. - ROGER AKL Paris 2/4/11

The writer is a former assistant attaché at the Lebanese Embassy in Washington.

 

Several years ago David Remnick wrote it was time for Israel to relent and accept a fair and just two-state settlement of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, including the Palestinian Capital to be located in Arab East Jerusalem.  Now, the crisis in Egypt gives credence to that position of the editor of "The New Yorker".  Over the last thirty years we have given the Egyptian regime of Hosni Mubarak over forty-five billion dollar$ to maintain his "peace treaty" with Israel and, at the same time an amount double that to Israel.  That's a total of over $150 billion dollars!  And, if you are familiar with the several editions of GOPBIAS, you know, for example, that this site, with its early introduction of James Bamford's "A Pretext For War", detailed the Israeli - AIPAC - Pentagon Office of Special Plans evolution of the invasion and occupation of Iraq ( As we have just seen, also the Daniel Pipes/Steven J. Rosen attempt to hobble any effort by Iran to produce nuclear power! ).

Linked to Mr. Bamford's book was the esteemable review by Michiko Kakutani:

"What he does focus on is the role that Israel has played in shaping American policy. Mr. Bamford contends that 'the blueprint for the new Bush policy' on the Middle East 'had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors' (Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser) for the Israeli prime minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu (who rejected the plan), and that when they entered office in January 2001, all these hawks needed was 'a pretext' for war against Iraq. Citing a report from the British newspaper The Guardian, Mr. Bamford adds that the Office of Special Plans, a Pentagon unit set up by Mr. Feith, 'forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence unit within Ariel Sharon's office in Israel,' which 'was designed to go around the country's own intelligence organization, Mossad.'" - Ms. Kakutani 6/18/04

For over fifty years the Middle East has been subjected to a menacing crowd of brigands, i.e. Israel, backed by the treasure and blood of our United States.  As we have also seen, the instigator of the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, Benjamin Netanyahu is on record "energizing" "settlers" in 2001; also, in the present time frame this same Netanyahu is now responding to the efforts being made to develop a Middle East moving to democracy.  The N Y Times on 2/3/11 gauges the position of the Israelis.

In much the same way as he revealed himself in the classic exposition from 2001, which Amy Goodman included in her DemocracyNow 7/19/10, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, once again, this time from Tel Aviv, according to Isabel Kershner in the 2/3/11 N Y Times, stated, in Hebrew:  "The basis for our stability, for our future [ Both the direct result of hundreds of billions of United States Treasury dollars AND American (and Iraqi!) blood! ], and for PRESERVING THE PEACE OR WIDENING IT ( This man, clearly, is the modern day Ananis! ) particularly at a time of instability, lies in BOLSTERING THE MIGHT OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL".  This man, and his war-mongering Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, know only hostility, but paid for by others.  As we state elsewhere, there has not been a legitimate Israeli/Palestinian Peace Process since George W. Bush stole the American presidency from Albert Gore.

To repeat, as if these Israelis under Netanyahu had not caused enough mayhem in the Middle East, they are now intent on subverting Egypt's struggle for the elusive modernity.  Obviously, NPR/OPB's Steve Inskeep knows well that, as Amy Goodman informed us, through the iconic Robert Fisk (voted best correspondent in Britain for years!).  The Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman is "Israel's favorite Egyption."

- Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 2/7/11 -

U.S. Envoy: "Mubarak Must Stay in Office"

On Saturday, President Obama’s special envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, openly called for President Hosni Mubarak to stay in office. In a statement, Wisner said, “Mubarak must stay in office in order to steer those changes through. This is an ideal moment for him to show the way forward." The White House has attempted to back away from Wisner’s comments, but the Obama administration has refused to call for Mubarak’s immediate resignation ( Mr. Wisner is employed by a lobbying firm which is retained by Hosni Mubarak. ) . President Obama spoke last night on Fox News.

President Obama: "Egypt is not going to go back to what it was. The Egyptian people want freedom, they want free and fair elections, they want a representative government, they want a responsible government. And so, what we’ve said is, 'You have to start a transition now.' Mubarak’s already decided he’s not running for re-election again. His term is up this year. And what we’ve said is, ’Let’s make sure that you get all the groups together in Egypt, let the Egyptian people make a determination on what’s the process for an orderly transition, but one that is a meaningful transition.’"

Facing Possible Torture Probe, Bush Cancels Swiss Trip

Former U.S. President George W. Bush has been forced to cancel a planned trip to Switzerland after human rights attorneys threatened to take legal action against him for sanctioning the use of torture. The trip to Geneva was supposed to be Bush’s first to Europe since leaving office. He was scheduled to speak next Saturday at a dinner in honor of United Israel Appeal. The Center for Constitutional Rights said they had planned to bring a complaint against Bush under the Convention Against Torture on behalf of two men who were tortured by U.S. interrogators and held at the military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. In addition, Amnesty International said it had sent a detailed analysis to Swiss prosecutors, claiming there was sufficient information to open a criminal investigation against Bush.

Matthew Pollard, attorney with Amnesty International: "Well, what we’re specifically bringing to the attention of the Swiss authorities are statements that Mr. Bush himself made in early November 2010, both on broadcast television in the United States and also in print in his memoirs that were published also at the end of2010, in which he, without any apology, admits that he authorized specifically the waterboarding of several identified individuals in particular cases."

Wife of Justice Thomas Forms Tea Party-linked Lobbying Firm

The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has started a lobbying firm in an effort to become the “ambassador to the Tea Party movement.” Virginia Thomas has promised to use her “experience and connections” to help clients of her new firm Liberty Consulting raise money and increase their political impact. Legal experts say the news could raise a number of ethical questions for Justice Thomas.

- WIKILEAKS’ JULIAN ASSANGE RETURNS TO LONDON COURT -

The founder of the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, is back in a London court today fighting extradition to Sweden for questioning about alleged sex crimes. - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 2/7/11

WikiLeaks Cables Reveal Extended Israeli Support of Egyptian Vice President

Newly released classified U.S. diplomatic cables from WikiLeaks reveal that Israeli officials have long hoped that newly appointed Egyptian vice president, Omar Suleiman, would eventually succeed Hosni Mubarak as president of Egypt. In an August 2008 cable, a U.S. diplomat wrote, "THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT ISRAEL IS MOST COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROSPECT OF OMAR SOLIMAN (SULEIMAN).” The cable reveals that Suleiman’s deputies spoke to Israeli military officials several times a day via a "hotline." The cable also shows that Suleiman wanted Hamas "isolated" and thought Gaza should "go hungry but not starve." The Obama administration has already embraced the longtime ally. Suleiman played a key role in the U.S. extraordinary rendition program. He also underwent training in the 1980s at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare School and Center at Fort Bragg in North Carolina.

LAILA AL-ARIAN: "Well, I think the killing of Ahmed Mohamed Mahmoud is, like I said, the most extreme example of a crackdown against the media by the Egyptian government, by the state security forces, who have detained journalists. Mubarak supporters have physically attacked journalists. The Egyptian army has detained journalists, as well, for a number of hours at a time. And this is a way for the Egyptian government to really control the message that’s going out there about what’s happening.

And in contrast to that, you have state television, which is really giving people a very skewed perception of and a very skewed narrative of actually what’s happening, everything from the assertion, the claim that’s completely unsubstantiated, that foreign elements, from Iran to Hamas to Hezbollah, are behind the protests in Tahrir Square, that there are no Egyptians involved, to the rumor that the protesters are all receiving free meals of Kentucky Fried chicken. I mean, you really see all sorts of things being put out there on state television that don’t really correspond to reality. They’re also being told that Mossad is behind the protests in Egypt. So, I think what they’re trying to do is control the message by skewing it, by completely misrepresenting what’s happening, and also by cracking down on independent journalists, journalists coming from outside of the country who want to cover it, as well as their own Egyptian journalists. So, you see with Ahmed Mahmoud’s killing, there was no mention by any state media that he was even shot, until the day that he died, basically six days later. So, the journalists there told me, 'We didn’t even know our own colleague was shot for six days.' They had no idea. So there’s also a censorship that’s going on. And they believe it’s because of the very close relationship between state media and state security services, as well as all these efforts that are being made to control the message." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 2/8/11

 

Margaret Warner 2/8/11 manages an eye-opening and insightful interview (which she balances with a mind boggling closed view the following evening) with Ahmed Zewail, Egyptian American chemist and Nobel Laureate -

MARGARET WARNER: Dr. Zewail, thank you for joining us.

AHMED ZEWAIL, unofficial negotiator: It's a pleasure.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, here we sit Tuesday, two weeks since these demonstrations started. You have got the protesters in the square. You've got the government holding these other meetings. You're kind of shuttling between them.

Is this negotiation for real?

AHMED ZEWAIL: Well, I guess your first question is a good one, because my level of optimism -- I'm -- by nature, I'm an optimist, but my level of optimism has been going up and down and up and down.

It seems to me that it's very clear that the young people are demanding a major change. They are not really talking about superficial or cosmetics. And, therefore, the business as usual is just simply not accepted to them. What they really want to see is a new Egypt.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, at least publicly, the protesters in the square are saying, Mubarak must go now, period. Then they have a laundry list. The government is saying, no, Mubarak and Suleiman are going to run this transition until the elections.

Are both sides being inflexible here?

AHMED ZEWAIL: Well, I think -- I think the reason the youth say that for President Mubarak to depart now is because there is a mistrust with the system.

What they don't want to do -- to see is the same status quo sugared in certain ways in order to make it appear very good. So, from my point of view, what I'm trying to -- my role here is to say also to the government, there should be an immediate action and real action.

If we have a substantial action coming in, maybe the -- these young people then will listen to the people that they trust. But I don't think you can do it as a tranquilizer. Really, the response from the government should be immediate and -- and -- and very clear.

MARGARET WARNER: So, give us an example, something that President Mubarak and Vice President Suleiman could do right now that would say to you and to Egypt and to these young people, we really are going to make fundamental change.

AHMED ZEWAIL: One thing very clear to me is to immediately, immediately stop the martial law, for example, in the country. Everybody is bothered by this.

And there is no reason for Egypt to -- it's a great civilization -- to be under martial law. Secondly, the constitution, for example -- there are certain articles in the constitution is not acceptable to me, is not acceptable to the youth, is not acceptable to the Egyptians who want to see a new life.

And I would think that this immediately has to change, these articles which basically would not allow anybody to run, to be a president. The last election in the Parliament, for example, was close to 90 percent from the governing party.

MARGARET WARNER: Ninety-seven percent, I think.

AHMED ZEWAIL: Right.

So, these concepts, if transformed immediately -- and what immediately, I mean week time. I'm not talking about six months' time.

MARGARET WARNER: What's the risk if this doesn't happen quickly?

AHMED ZEWAIL: I think they are so determined, and they will continue. And I think that it is not good for Egypt from the point of view of the economic problem. To a large part, Egypt depends on, for example, tourism, investment.

Then you have the issue of security also. My worry is that there will be a tipping point at which all of this will be gone, and we might see chaos.

MARGARET WARNER: Meaning it could spin out of control?

AHMED ZEWAIL: Yes, yes.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, Vice President Suleiman said in an interview on ABC on Sunday, Egypt would have democracy, he said, "when the people have the culture of democracy," implying they don't.

AHMED ZEWAIL: There are people who believe that you can't have democracy in certain cultures, all this.

I just like to remind people, Egypt has three revolutions until now over the last 100 years. Egypt had the first constitution in the Middle East that allowed for liberty. And it had democracy. So, I think this is not right to say that the people are not ready for democracy.

Everybody in the world is -- is ready for liberty. It's a question of how you do it.

MARGARET WARNER: Now, the government has taken certain steps. Do you see a commitment on the part of the government, even if maybe not at the pace you're suggesting, but to get to a full democracy, or do you think, as the protesters think, that they're just stalling, buying time?

AHMED ZEWAIL: The changes are fine, and it's OK. As of this morning, they are continuing with some changes.

But if you -- if the people of Egypt want to change a system, that's different. I think that it is not a personal fight with Mubarak. It is actually a fight for a new, democratic Egypt. And the changes in many ways are slow or superficial is not going to satisfy the Egyptian masses.

MARGARET WARNER: And you think that's what's happening now?

AHMED ZEWAIL: I think it's too slow.

And, so, therefore, my advice is to do that in this very critical time for history's sake, and for really his legacy's sake, to do it promptly and swiftly and in a very, very clear way.

MARGARET WARNER: You are Egyptian and American, dual citizen. Is there a coherent message? Do you hear a coherent message from Washington? And what do Egyptians you speak with -- and you're speaking to all the big players -- what are they hearing?

AHMED ZEWAIL: This is an Egyptian problem. It is not an American problem.

I don't think that the Egyptians in this particular case is looking at the American government to come here and help them in Tahrir Square. I think what the -- America can do is to maintain a consistent policy of saying: We are friend, would like to be friend of Egypt, and we would like to support liberty in Egypt.

MARGARET WARNER: And do you hear that consistent policy?

AHMED ZEWAIL: I think, the liberty issue, I do hear it. But I think the key thing here really is not to interfere too much.

MARGARET WARNER: As you know, the big concern in many quarters in the United States is that, if Egypt has a full -- fully open system, that the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group, will, in fact, gain all kinds of power here.

What do you say to that?

AHMED ZEWAIL: There is too much exaggeration about the issue of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I think, in a democracy, in a true democracy, where they can speak, and they are not underground, and they are not fighting in the system, the Egyptian people will either accept them or not accept them. If they are really in a country that follows the rule of law, then I don't believe we will have a problem, and including elections, including the Parliament and so on. So...

MARGARET WARNER: So you think there's nothing to fear?

AHMED ZEWAIL: No.

I can see that certain groups will have a much stronger influence. But suppose even that they are stronger at that point. And I can tell you that the majority of the Egyptians I know, they think of a much wider spectrum of people than the Muslim Brotherhood.

So, I don't think -- I think the key here in this equation is Egypt being -- making the transition to democracy. If it's a true democracy, I'm not worrying. And, on this note, I think President Mubarak will be the first Egyptian or the first Arab leader to the biggest country in the Arab world that he will be witnessing the changing of the guards.

MARGARET WARNER: As opposed to being in exile?

AHMED ZEWAIL: Yes, correct.

MARGARET WARNER: Dr. Ahmed Zewail, thank you so much.

AHMED ZEWAIL: Thank you, Margaret. And welcome to Egypt.

MARGARET WARNER: Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

AHMED ZEWAIL: Thank you.

GWEN IFILL: That interview took place before the government's announcement creating committees to look into changing the constitution, which, this evening, Dr. Zewail told Margaret, today's moves were too partial a step and not sweeping enough to meet the protesters' demands.

But, late today, Vice President Suleiman warned the government can't put up with long-term protests. - PBS NewsHour 2/8/11

 

- Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 2/10/11 -

WikiLeaks Docs: Torture-Linked Egyptian Police Trained in U.S.

Newly released classified U.S. diplomatic cables from WikiLeaks have shed more light on the key U.S. support for human rights abuses under Mubarak’s regime in Egypt. The cables show Egyptian secret police received training at the FBI’s facility in Quantico, Virginia, even as U.S. diplomats in Egypt sent dispatches alleging extensive abuse under their watch. Coincidentally, Quantico also hosts the military base where alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning is being held in solitary confinement. A cable from October 2009 cites allegations from "credible" sources that some prisoners were tortured "with electric shocks and sleep deprivation to reduce them to a 'zombie state.'" One cable from November 2007 shows then-FBI deputy director John Pistole praised the head of Egypt’s secret police for "excellent and strong" cooperation between the two agencies. Pistole currently heads the Transportation Security Administration in the United States.

Investigators Failing to Link Manning to Assange

In WikiLeaks news, reports continue to emerge that federal investigators are failing to establish proof U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning acted in concert with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The U.S. government has scrambled to find a direct link as part of an effort to indict Assange for prosecution. The Wall Street Journal reports investigators have found no evidence Assange induced Manning to leak the hundreds of thousands of classified documents obtained by WikiLeaks.

Firms Planned Attacks on WikiLeaks, Supporters

Leaked emails show three private intelligence firms developed a plan to attack WikiLeaks and its supporters following reports WikiLeaks had obtained embarrassing internal documents on Bank of America. According to the Tech Herald, the companies Palantir Technologies, HBGary Federal and Berico Technologies hatched a plan to target Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald, a vocal supporter of WikiLeaks. The plan also called for a public smear campaign against WikiLeaks, cyberattacks on its websites, and efforts to spark divisions among its volunteers. There is no direct evidence Bank of America knew of the proposal, but it was developed at the request of a law firm that met with Bank of America in December.
27 Killed in Pakistan Suicide Bombing

At least 27 people have been killed and more than 40 injured in a suicide attack on a military training school in Pakistan. It was the second attack against the Punjab Regime Center in 18 months.

Israel Destroys Palestinian MEDICINE Factory

In Israel and the Occupied Territories, the Israeli military has destroyed a Palestinian medicine factory in the Gaza Strip. The factory was among three Gaza targets attacked by U.S.-made Israeli war planes on Wednesday. The strike left the factory in flames and also wounded eight Palestinian civilians.

Justice Thomas Urged to Recuse Himself from Healthcare Law Cases

A group of 74 lawmakers has signed a letter urging Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases involving the federal healthcare law because of his family’s financial ties to groups seeking its repeal. Thomas’s wife Virginia Thomas has started the lobbying firm Liberty Consulting in an effort to become the "ambassador to the Tea Party movement." Justice Thomas has also been accused of failing to report his wife’s income of more than $600,000 from the right-wing groups Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central.

Keith Olbermann Joins Current TV

In media news, former MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann is moving to the Al Gore-owned network, Current TV. Olbermann will host a new nightly news program and oversee Current’s news division. Olbermann left MSNBC last month after eight years just after its parent company, NBC Universal, was taken over by the media giant Comcast. - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 2/10/11
 

Sixty years of the Jewish unbridled intimidation of the Levant may be coming to an end.  Despite the efforts of such organizations as AIPAC, ADL, CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum at the Hoover Institute, and the near clandestine efforts of NBCUniversal Comcast to twist the news (God Bless Julian Assange!), ancient Egypt may be equal to the task, and the constant drain on the blood and treasure of our United States, and its ignoble reputation abroad, all could cease, and be made available for more worthy endeavors.

 

What the Muslim Brothers Want

By Essam al-Eryam - Cairo

"THE Egyptian people have spoken, and we have spoken emphatically. In two weeks of peaceful demonstrations we have persistently demanded liberation and democracy. It was groups of brave, sincere Egyptians who initiated this moment of historical opportunity on Jan. 25, and the Muslim Brotherhood is committed to joining the national effort toward reform and progress.

In more than eight decades of activism, the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently promoted an agenda of gradual reform. Our principles, clearly stated since the inception of the movement in 1928, affirm an unequivocal position against violence. For the past 30 years we have posed, peacefully, the greatest challenge to the ruling National Democratic Party of Hosni Mubarak, while advocating for the disenfranchised classes in resistance to an oppressive regime.

We have repeatedly tried to engage with the political system, yet these efforts have been largely rejected based on the assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood is a banned organization, and has been since 1954. It is seldom mentioned, however, that the Egyptian Administrative Court in June 1992 stated that there was no legal basis for the group’s dissolution.

In the wake of the people’s revolt, we have accepted invitations to participate in talks on a peaceful transition. Along with other representatives of the opposition, we recently took part in exploratory meetings with Vice President Omar Suleiman. In these talks, we made clear that we will not compromise or co-opt the public’s agenda. We come with no special agenda of our own — our agenda is that of the Egyptian people, which has been asserted since the beginning of this uprising.

We aim to achieve reform and rights for all: not just for the Muslim Brotherhood, not just for Muslims, but for all Egyptians. We do not intend to take a dominant role in the forthcoming political transition. We are not putting forward a candidate for the presidential elections scheduled for September.

While we express our openness to dialogue, we also re-assert the public’s demands, which must be met before any serious negotiations leading to a new government. The Mubarak regime has yet to show serious commitment to meeting these demands or to moving toward substantive, guaranteed change.

As our nation heads toward liberty, however, we disagree with the claims that the only options in Egypt are a purely secular, liberal democracy or an authoritarian theocracy. Secular liberal democracy of the American and European variety, with its firm rejection of religion in public life, is not the exclusive model for a legitimate democracy.

In Egypt, religion continues to be an important part of our culture and heritage. Moving forward, we envision the establishment of a democratic, civil state that draws on universal measures of freedom and justice, which are central Islamic values. We embrace democracy not as a foreign concept that must be reconciled with tradition, but as a set of principles and objectives that are inherently compatible with and reinforce Islamic tenets.

The tyranny of autocratic rule must give way to immediate reform: the demonstration of a serious commitment to change, the granting of freedoms to all and the transition toward democracy. The Muslim Brotherhood stands firmly behind the demands of the Egyptian people as a whole.

Steady, gradual reform must begin now, and it must begin on the terms that have been called for by millions of Egyptians over the past weeks. Change does not happen overnight, but the call for change did — and it will lead us to a new beginning rooted in justice and progress." - Essam al-Eryam 2/10/11

Essam al-Eryam is a member of the guidance council of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

( Not endorsed by Aaron David Miller, longtime figure working with the notorious Council on Foreign Relations. )

All Hail Egypt

 

February 12, 2011

On this the two hundred and second anniversary of the birth of our sixteenth president of these United States, Abraham Lincoln:  "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in..."

- And the wheel turneth...

In Portland, Oregon a local radio program, "Think Out Loud" 2/11/11, featured one Joel Rosenberg, an American communications strategist familiar with Media Matters for America and their talent for addressing what is missing in the Media/Press treatment of significant events.  The host of the program is Emily Harris.

Ms. Harris:  Let’s bring in MJ Rosenberg into the conversation. He’s a senior fellow at Media Matters Action Network for US foreign policy and he wrote an article earlier this week about the affect of what’s happening in Egypt on the rest of the world. MJ Rosenberg thank you for joining us.

So what’s your take, does this change of leadership in Egypt, how does this affect the rest of the world?

Rosenberg:  I understand that we don't know how it's all gonna turn out.  But we do know that Mubarak left and he left without, well there's hundreds of people, I guess we'll find out in the end about how many, but around several hundred people died in this revolution, but the fact is that had Mubarak wanted to, there could have been a blood bath.

Harris:  We heard from a member of the pariliament ( Knesset ) in Israel saying 'people in Israel will feel there'd no point in a peace treaty if after thirty years it can be broken' and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said 'that Israel needs to keep its eyes open'.  MJ Rosenberg what do you think will be the impact on Israel and the Middle East peace process because of the change in Egypt?

Rosenberg:  Well, first of all, it's an odd thing for an Israeli to say.  The Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo agreement with the then PLO Chief Yasser Arafat, and had a whole series of steps to achieving peace between the two countries.  Three years later Rabin, the Israeli leader, was assassinated.  He was replaced by Netanyahu who went . . and then repudiated every part of the Oslo agreement.  Which shouldn't happen in a democratic government.  Democratic governments do believe in this kind of continuity.  On the other hand, its interesting, in Egypt, Sadat was assassinated, he was assassinated precisely because he had signed that agreement.  He was replaced by Mubarak and the treaty has held for thirty years.

I don't know where Israelis get the nerve to talk about there being a lack of continuity when it comes to international obligations when Egypt is seen to maintain its obligations, whereas Israel didn't after Rabin's assassination.  So that to me, that argument is totally bogus.

As far as the peace itself, the peace is going to hold because the last thing the Egyptian people are gonna want after what they've gone through is a war with Israel.  The fact is, well there are many reasons they wouldn't want a war with Israel, starting with the fact that the Egyptian people, and most people in the world, don't want wars and Israel is a very powerful country and obviously thousands of people would, tens of thousands on both sides would probably die.  I don't worry about that.  I don't think the Israelis are worried so much that the Egyptians will repudiate the peace treaty.  What they are worried about, and have every right to be worried about, is that they will no longer be able to dictate the terms of the relationship with Egypt to Egypt, the way they did under Mubarak.  In other words, instead of the Israeli Egyptian peace treaty being something where they are at peace and to maintain US support Egypt has to do WHATEVER Israel wants in terms of the Palestinians, I think those days are over.

I think that Egypt will now be able to express itself forcefully.  On what's going on in Gaza.  What's going on in the West Bank.  What's going on with the Palestinians.  That doesn't mean war.  It just means that the two countries will be more or less equal partners and the Egyptians will have a say.  Mubarak and Suleiman were basically in the Israeli's pockets.  Now it's going to be a much more equal relationship and as I said that doesn't mean war and it doesn't mean the Israelis are afraid of war.  What they are afraid of is the fact that Egypt is going to have a say and that's really a good thing. - Think Out Loud 2/11/11

 

And The New York Times audience 2/12/11 response to "The Day Mubarak Was Driven Out" -

To the Editor:

Regarding the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt on Friday:

In addition to their glorious and ancient civilization, the wise, freedom-loving and peace-loving people of Egypt have now yet another extraordinary reason to be proud.

May all their dreams of peace and prosperity come true, and may they finally assume their place, not just in the Middle East, but also on the world stage, as a beacon of freedom, tolerance and nonviolence, and as true citizens of the world. Congratulations! - Sid Thakar Ottawa 2/11/11

To the Editor:

The military as a governing force is a very old tradition in Egypt. The commander of the army under King Tutankhamen, Horemheb, took the throne around 1320 B.C. and ruled for some 28 years. There are other such examples. So this move is familiar to Egyptians.

Gamal Abdel Nasser, Anwar el-Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, military men all, were in charge since the fall of King Farouk in 1952. What is alien is democracy.

Egypt has always been led by powerful central rulers, be they kings, pashas or army generals. Whatever the makeup of the new government, we can only hope that the reforms that have been promised will, in fact, make a difference in the lives of average Egyptians. May this rebellion lead Egypt to a soft, stable landing. - Charles B. Hayward East Longmeadow, Mass. 2/11/11

To the Editor:

I don’t know what lies in store for Egypt, whether a military dictatorship or some kind of far-sweeping democratic revolution. I don’t know if its new government will be an ally or enemy to the United States. I do know that in this moment, I feel ecstatically happy for the Egyptian people. Today, a little more freedom has come into this world. - Carrie Huffaker Bologna, Italy 2/11/11

To the Editor:

After President Hosni Mubarak’s speech on Thursday night, I went to bed with every nerve tensed over what the Egyptian people might face the next day. I knew they would go on, taking the next step and the next, perhaps even marching to the presidential palace.

I awoke here in California to the news that he had resigned, and I wish the Egyptian people could feel the lines of joy stretching from here over to there. Today we are all dancing. - Nancy Wilson Berkeley 2/11/11

To the Editor:

Daniel Gordis (“A Friendship of Values, Not Convenience,” Op-Ed, Feb. 9) writes that Israel shares the democratic political values of the United States, and complains that the Obama administration has not insisted that the Palestinians recognize Israel as “a Jewish state.”

But in the Jewish state of Israel, Jews have rights and privileges that others do not have. In law and in practice, this means that Jews and non-Jews are treated differently in terms of immigration, acquiring citizenship, where one can live and build, how much money the state will spend on educating one’s children, public investments in neighborhood development and who is required to serve in the military.

Such distinctions based on ethnicity are quite alien to American political values. - Jesse Larner New York 2/9/11

 

* The Up Side...

"CAIRO - Perhaps the most effective antidote to 9/11 will prove to be 2/11, the day Hosni Mubarak conceded the game was up with his 30-year-old dictatorship and left town under military escort for the beach.

We’ve tried invasions of Muslim lands. We’ve tried imposing new systems of government on them. We’ve tried wars on terror. We’ve tried spending billions of dollars. What we haven’t tried is tackling what’s been rotten in the Arab world by helping a homegrown, bottom-up movement for change turn a U.S.-backed police state into a stable democracy.

This is the critical opportunity Egypt now presents. Islamist radicalism has thrived on the American double standards evident in strong support for the likes of Mubarak’s regime. It has prospered from the very brutal repression that was supposedly essential to stop the jihadists. And it has benefited from the reduction of tens of millions of Arab citizens to mere objects, shorn of dignity, and so more inclined to seek meaning in absolutist movements of violence.

If Westernized Egyptians and the Muslim Brotherhood can coexist in Egypt’s nascent Second Republic, and if a long-subjugated Arab people can show that it’s an actor of history rather than its impotent pawn, the likelihood of another Mohamed Atta walking the streets of Cairo will recede.

In 18 riveting days, Egypt has become a key to the unresolved 9/11 conundrum, the one President Obama promised to tackle by building bridges to the Muslim world, before Afghanistan diverted him.

“If we get Egypt right, it could be the best medicine to get rid of radicalism,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize-winning opposition figure, told me.

In the Middle East you expect the worst. But having watched Egypt’s extraordinary civic achievement in building the coalition that ousted Mubarak, having watched Tahrir Square become cooperation central, and having watched the professionalism of the Egyptian army, I’m convinced the country has what it takes to build a decent, representative society — one that gives the lie to all the stereotypes associated with that dismissive shorthand “The Arab Street.”

In fact, post-Tahrir, let’s retire that phrase.

Speaking of streets, I watched them get cleaned the morning after the revolution. All the sweeping, dusting and scrubbing tempted me to suggest that there was no need to get carried away and try to turn the glorious metropolis of dust, Cairo, into Zurich. But Marwa Kamal put me right.

Kamal, 26, looked proud in her purple hijab. She was next to a sign saying, “Sorry for disturbance, we build Egypt.” I asked why she swept. “All the dirt’s in the past,” she said. “We want to clear out the old and start clean.”

A retired chemist, Mahmoud Abdullah, stepped in: “This is a very precious generation,” he told me, pointing at her. “They did what we failed to do.”

A sense of nationhood, forged in eighteen days.

Right now Egypt has no president, no vice president, no constitution, no parliament and no significant police presence on the streets. But it has the meeting of generations between these two Egyptians; and it has a new sense of nationhood forged through countless other barrier-breaking discoveries of 18 shared revolutionary days.

Perhaps it was a good thing that, cocooned with his yes men, Mubarak proved so stubborn, locked in the prison of his formal Arabic and his hubris while language and nation unloosed themselves. I think it was over once the army declined to shoot. But by lingering, Mubarak gave Egyptians time to get to know each other.

Revolutions, like wars, have their interludes of boredom. They were filled with chat. And what did Egyptians find? Here’s one scene: Marwa Kassem, 33, Westernized, living in Geneva, talking to bearded Magdy Ashour of Muslim Brotherhood sympathies. She’d rushed to Cairo after the uprising began. He’d joined the protests after a friend was killed. If they’d passed each other in the street a month ago, each would have pulled back from the other, divided by fear.

He tells her he was arrested at regular intervals. How often? Sometimes twice a month. And? Ashour’s 14-year-old son is watching. He asks him to leave, saying “I want to show him freedom, not my cowardice.”

A frisson of tension stirs. Ashour stands up. They stripped me naked, he says, blindfolded me. He links his hands behind his back: this is how Mubarak’s security goons shackled him. They hung me from a hook on the wall, he says. Then came the electric shocks: to his toes, nipples, genitals.

There are tears in his eyes now. There are tears in Kassem’s, too. He pulls up his pants to his knee, revealing a terrible black scar on his calf. She cannot look. Why this treatment? “They wanted to know if I knew Osama bin Laden.”

What they both want now, this secular woman and this religious man, these two Egyptians, is a state of laws and rights.

OVERCOME 9/11 THROUGH 2/11: THE ROAD TO RECONCILIATION LEADS NOT THROUGH BAGHDAD OR KABUL BUT THROUGH TAHRIR (FREEDOM!)." - ROGER COHEN OP-ED N Y Times 2/14/11

...The Down Side.

"Jews in U.S. Are Wary In Happiness For Egypt

Across the political spectrum, American Jewish leaders say that when they consider the future in Egypt and what it means for Israel, it is as if they are standing on a shaky tightrope stretched between poles of hope and dread.

In many ways, the collapse of the 30-year regime of President Hosni Mubarak is being welcomed by the leaders of American Jewish organizations as a historic moment worthy of rejoicing. After all, they said in interviews on Sunday, they can identify with the rebellion in Egypt because thousands of years ago the Jewish people rebelled against enslavement by an Egyptian pharaoh.

'I can’t help but look at them and see people rising up and saying, We want to be free,' said Rabbi Steve Gutow, president and chief executive of the JEWISH COUNCIL FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, AN UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS 140 NATIONAL AND LOCAL JEWISH GROUPS.

'Certainly there are things to worry about,' Rabbi Gutow said, 'but this has to be a moment to be supported and celebrated and looked at with a sense of awe.' But he, like other leaders, said he was watching warily to see who takes power in Egypt, whether the new government respects human rights, how it relates to the United States and WHETHER IT WILL PRESERVE THE LONGSTANDING PEACE TREATY WITH ISRAEL." - Laurie Goodstein N Y Times A-15 2/14/11

...And Amy Goodman Keeps Pace:

- "Israel to Build Army Base in East Jerusalem

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is reporting the Israeli military has decided to build an army base in East Jerusalem beyond the pre-1967 war green line. The base construction is expected to spark international criticism. Israel has disputed Haaretz’s report.

- "Friend of Suspected WikiLeaks Source Alleges Torture

A friend of the alleged whistleblower, U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, says the U.S. government’s treatment of Manning amounts to torture ( Like That of Jose Padilla? ). David House is one of the few people who have been allowed to visit Manning, who is being held at a military base in Quantico, Virginia.

David House: "I went and saw him again in December, this last December, and it was completely alarming, this transition that happened to him. He was ashen-faced, had huge bags under his eyes, and he had trouble keeping up with topics of conversation, something that had never been a problem for him. So it’s—this confinement, this solitary confinement, has really taken a huge toll on him, definitely. From meeting with Bradley, from getting to know him and from watching his state degrade over time, the only conclusion I can reach is that this is torture."

- Clarence Thomas, placed on the Supreme Court by George Herbert Walker Bush  ( Read Kitty Kelly's Blockbuster 2004 Expose' "The Family, the Real Story of The Bush Dynasty"! ), Clarence Thomas Connected to Tea Party Funders

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is coming under scrutiny over his participation in a 2008 political retreat organized by Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who have helped bankroll the Tea Party movement. A court spokeswoman originally said he had only made a brief drop by at the event. But newly disclosed financial records show that the FEDERALIST SOCIETY had reimbursed Thomas for four days of “transportation, meals and accommodations” over the weekend of the retreat. The watchdog group Common Cause has questioned whether Thomas should have disqualified himself from last year’s landmark CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION because of his ties to the Koch brothers. The news comes just a week after Thomas’s wife formed a right-wing lobbying group in an effort to become the “Ambassador to the Tea Party movement.”

- Arizona Bill Would Require Hospitals Check Citizenship Status of Patients

In news from Arizona, Republican lawmakers are pushing a bill that would require doctors and nurses to check on the citizenship status of their patients. Under the bill, hospitals would be required—when admitting non-emergency cases— to confirm that a person seeking care is a U.S. citizen or in the country legally. The bill has sparked outrage in the medical profession." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 2/15/11

 

* THE UP NOTATION -

"But there are certain problems for Egyptians. There’s no doubt if you talk to people down there, they are very aggrieved about the fact that Egypt has been part of the Israeli siege of Gaza, the fact that Egypt has put this wall up, at the request, demand of the Israelis by the Americans, of course, means that they are participating in the siege of Palestinians who many of them regard as their brothers.

Now at some point America’s got to grow up -- which it probably won’t do -- and realize this is an Egypt that knows what’s going on in the West Bank and Gaza. This is an Egypt which will not tolerate continued colonization of the occupied West Bank for Israelis and Israelis only on land stolen from Arabs." - The Indomitable Robert Fisk with "Charlie" Rose 2/14-15/11

 

- Chomsky -

Noam Chomsky:  Well, you know, the Middle East is an important area. It goes back to almost 90 years, since oil was discovered, especially since the Second World War. Take a look at internal documents. The Middle East oil was regarded as the most important and strategic—the strategically most important area of the world, because it’s got the major oil reserves. And if you think what’s happened in the Middle East over the years, the big—the United States and Britain have traditionally supported radical Islamic fundamentalism. The core of radical Islamic fundamentalism is Saudi Arabia. That’s also the main fundamental of jihadi terror. That’s our main ally. In fact, in 1967, when U.S. relations with Israel took on their current form, the primary reason was that there was a war going on, literally, between Saudi Arabia and Egypt in Yemen. And Saudi Arabia is the center of radical Islamic fundamentalism. Egypt was the center of secular nationalism. And secular nationalism is frightening, because—it wasn’t democratic, it was autocratic, but it was secular and it was nationalist. And Nasser was talking about using the resources of the region for their own populations, not to enrich Western oil companies and, you know, the Saudi elite. Well, that’s frightening. So there was this conflict going on, the U.S. and Britain of course supporting radical Islamism. Israel won that battle for them ( i.e. Their requirement to support Israel, regardless of the abuse and confiscation, by the Israelis, of established Palestinian lands, orchards and residences, for centuries now! ) .  That’s when relations were established in their current form, and that, unfortunately, continues.  It’s not 100 percent, but substantially the U.S. and Britain have supported and continue to support radical Islam, because it’s a barrier against democracy ( for Palestine, and protection of that oil resource ) .  If it goes the wrong way, they don’t like it, but as long as it’s going your way, fine.

Actually, during this entire crisis, I thought one of the most astute comments was a two-sentence comment by Marwan Muasher. He’s a former high Jordanian official ( the people of Jordan are about to declare for Palestinians ) who’s head of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment.  He said, "There’s an operative principle in the Middle East." He said, "The principle is, as long as people are quiet and passive, we’ll do whatever we like." That’s a general principle of statesmanship that applies here, too. As long as people are quiet and passive, we’ll do whatever we like. Now, of course, if they stop being quiet and passive, we’ll have to adjust somehow ( ALL HAIL EGYPT! ) .  Maybe they’ll even throw us out, but we’ll try to hang on as much as we can. And that’s what we see going on in the Middle East. That’s what we saw going on in Latin America. It’s what we see right here. - Noam Chomsky DemocracyNow 2/17/11

 

- Amy Goodman 2/18/11 -

Iraq Asks U.S. for $1 Billion in Damages

The Iraqi government is calling on the United States to pay $1 billion for damages to the capital city, Baghdad. The bill is not for the destruction caused by years of bombings dating back to the first U.S. invasion of Iraq in 1990, but for wrecking Baghdad’s infrastructure in the years since the 2003 invasion. The Iraqi government says the U.S. government’s Green Zone, blast walls and military convoys have inflicted serious damage on Baghdad, turning much of the historic city into a dilapidated war zone.

 

Key Developments
for
Middle East Peace

I ** NETANYAHU RULES!

* Avigdor Lieberman Provokes Efforts For Middle East Peace!

"JERUSALEM — Israel warned on Wednesday that two Iranian warships were poised to pass through the Suez Canal en route to Syria, something it called a provocation that had not happened in years.

The first word came from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in an address to a group of American Jewish leaders in Jerusalem. The speech, which hinted at a possible response, was closed to reporters, but Mr. Lieberman’s office issued a statement afterward with a partial text of what he said.

“Tonight, two Iranian warships are meant to pass through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean Sea and reach Syria, something that has not happened in many years,” Mr. Lieberman said.

He noted that the move came on top of another provocation, an October visit to southern Lebanon by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Ahmadinejad was warmly welcomed there by Hezbollah, the militant Shiite group that is one of Israel’s main enemies.

“Unfortunately, the international community is not showing readiness to deal with the recurring Iranian provocations, ( e.g. pursuing nuclear power for ELECTRICITY! ),” Mr. Lieberman said. “The international community must understand that Israel cannot ignore these provocations forever.”

Later, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in a somewhat lower-key statement from his office, added: “Israel is closely monitoring the movement of the Iranian ships and has updated friendly states on the issue. Israel will continue to monitor the movement of the ships.”

A member of the Suez board said that warships could pass through the canal only on the approval of the Egyptian Defense and Foreign Affairs Ministries, and that the canal authority had received no notice of such expected movement. However, he added that notice sometimes came only hours in advance.

Asked about the Israeli comments, Philip J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman, acknowledged that there were “two ships in the Red Sea” that the United States was watching. But he declined to say more, hedging when asked directly if the ships belonged to Iran.

Reuters reported a possible purpose for the ships’ movement, noting that Iran’s semiofficial Fars news agency reported on Jan. 26 that Iranian Navy cadets had been sent on a yearlong training mission to defend cargo ships and oil tankers against Somali pirates. The Fars report said they would travel via the Gulf of Aden into the Red Sea and on through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean.

Mr. Lieberman said the movement of Iranian warships through the canal added to the decline in regional security. He said Israel’s fight against Iranian-sponsored violence was not its alone, but the responsibility of the entire Western world.

** This Avigdor, along with his Connecticut counterpart Joseph Isador, is a madman.  These Israelis, with their arsenal of nuclear weapons are, in fact, a threat to the ENTIRE WORLD!  The proof is in the billion$ that we have squandered warring against Islam, the world over.  READ BAMFORD'S "A PRETEXT FOR WAR!"  **

Israel has long accused Iran and Syria of providing missiles to Hezbollah, with which it fought a war in 2006. Israeli military officials said recently that Hezbollah had some 45,000 rockets and missiles buried underground that could be fired at Israel." - Bronner N Y Times online 2/16/11

II AP Read -

CAIRO - "Iranian Ships Ask Egypt for Canal Passage -

Egypt has agreed to allow two Iranian naval vessels to transit the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean, a military official said Friday, ending several days of confusion over their planned passage, which Israel's foreign minister has labeled a provocation.

An Iranian diplomat has said the vessels were heading to Syria for training and that the request to move through the canal is in line with international regulations.

It would be the first time since Iran's clerical rulers came to power in the 1979 Islamic Revolution that naval vessels from the country have passed through the canal to the Mediterranean.

The movement of Iranian naval ships past Israeli shores is of concern there because Israel considers Iran an existential threat. Those fears stem from Iran's disputed nuclear program, ballistic missile development, support for militants in the region and its threats to destroy Israel.

* In a sense, Israel has already declared war on Iran by directing the Stuxnet virus to destroy the Iranian centrifuges, so as to prevent Iran from developing, even that ability to generate nuclear power! *

The White House said the U.S. was also closely monitoring the progress of the ships, now in the Red Sea. Their passage comes as the region is being swept by anti-government unrest, including the protests that toppled Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak a week ago and left the military in charge of the country.

It was not clear exactly when they would pass the canal, which was already closed for the day when the approval was announced on state media.

The vessels, a frigate and a supply ship, received the approval after routine procedures to check there was nothing illegal on board, said an Egyptian military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue with the media.

The approval had been expected. CANAL OFFICIALS SAY THAT UNDER INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS REGULATING TRAFFIC THROUGH THE WATERWAY, EGYPT CAN ONLY DENY TRANSIT IN CASE OF WAR OR IF THE SHIPS DO NOT MEET SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.

Still, contradictory statements earlier in the week on whether Egypt was considering the request for passage appeared to signal that Egypt's military rulers might be grappling with their first diplomatic dilemma.

Egypt is also wary of Iran's growing influence in the Middle East and has not had diplomatic relations with the country since the 1979 revolution.

An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman refused to comment on Friday's announcement. On Wednesday, Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had called the plan "a provocation that proves that Iranian audacity and INSOLENCE are increasing."

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters traveling with President Barack Obama on Air Force One that the U.S. was keeping an eye on the ships.

"We also would say that Iran does not have a great track record of responsible behavior in the region. It's always a concern to us," Carney said.

? What is Mr. Carney's assessment of ISRAEL'S behavior regarding the Peace Process ?

Syria's official news agency carried a statement Thursday from Iran's ambassador to Syria saying the two ships planned to travel there for training and that the visit would be "carried out according to international laws and norms."

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said he was "highly skeptical" of that explanation.

"If the ships move through the canal, we will evaluate what they actually do. It's not really about the ships. It's about what the ships are carrying, what's their destination, what's the cargo on board, where's it going, to whom and for what benefit," Crowley told a news conference.

He said the U.S. has "ongoing concerns about Iranian weapons being supplied to bad actors in the region."

Commercial vessels intending to transit the Suez Canal, which links the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, must give the waterway's authority at least 24-hour notice before entering the canal.

On Friday evening, Ahmed al-Manakhly, a senior Suez Canal official in the operation room, said he had not yet received the approval for the ships' passage from Egyptian defense officials. "It is not for me to deny or approve. Once I get an approval, I carry it out," he said.

Al-Manakhly said the waterway was closed to traffic for the day.

He said he could not recall any Iranian naval vessel ever transiting the canal.

He identified the two vessels as the Alvand, a frigate, and the Kharq, a supply ship." - Associated Press 2/18/11

! Despite its credo "All the News That's Fit to Print", The New York Times stiffed the passage, without incident, of the Alvand and Kharq through the Suez Canal, on its way to Syria.  There is a God in Heaven !

III U. S. Misread -

"Lone 'No' Vote, by U.S., Blocks Security Council Censure of Israeli Settlements

UNITED NATIONS — The Obama administration vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution on Friday condemning Israeli settlement building in occupied territory as illegal, choosing not to alienate Israel and risking the anger of Arabs.

THE LOPSIDED VOTE IN THE COUNCIL, WHERE AMONG THE 15 MEMBERS ONLY THE UNITED STATES VOTED NO, WHILE MORE THAN 100 CO-SPONSORS OF THE MEASURE UNDERSCORED THE ISOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL ON THE ISSUE.

But the American ambassador, Susan E. Rice, said the veto should not be misconstrued as American support for further settlement construction, which the United States opposes. The issue should be resolved through peace negotiations, she said, and not mandated by a binding resolution.

Brazil’s ambassador, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, who holds the Council’s rotating presidency this month, summed up the mood of the body by saying NOT ONLY THAT SETTLEMENTS WERE AN OBSTABLE TO PEACE, BUT ALSO THAT ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION, WHICH CALLED FOR AN IMMEDIATE HALT TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION, WOULD HAVE “SENT SOME KEY URGENT MESSAGES.”

Among the messages, she said, were that further settlement construction threatens peace in the region, and that HALTING CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN MISREPRESENTED AS AN ISRAELI CONCESSION, WHILE IN FACT INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRES IT." - Neil MacFarquhar N Y Times 2/19/11

complete article

 

- Amy Goodman Follows up -

"Citizen’s Arrest Attempted on Israeli FM in Belgium

In Belgium, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman came under protest Tuesday when a demonstrator attempted a citizens’ arrest".

Protester: "Mr. Lieberman, this is a citizen’s arrest. You are charged with the crime of apartheid. Please come with me to the nearest police station. Free Palestine! Free Palestine! Apartheid is a crime! Israel is an apartheid state, is a criminal state!" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 2/23/11

 

February 24th of 2011 proved to be a significant date in this recent history of the quandary in the Middle East, brought about by the bravery of the people of the remarkable Egypt ( ALL HAIL EGYPT! ) , home of the world's first library, located in Alexandria, which was founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great.

On this day Neil Conan's Talk of the Nation, the host, as he has done before, provided a venue for Ted Koppel, desperate for acknowledgement by way of his in-home studio in Maryland, Mr. Koppel declaring that our attack and occupation of Iraq was a huge diversion away from OUR (?) "existential" enemy, Iran ( the Israelis' overuse of that term "existential" is most notable ) , Ted apparently referring to that which we have already marked, via Bamford's "A Pretext For War".  The Israelis and their supporters insist on characterizing Iran as THE threat to peace in the Middle East, inverting the actual circumstances, substantiated by the major problem in the Middle East for these last forty four years, i.e. the Weapons of Mass Destruction-laden rogue state of Israel!  People across the globe, know it!  From Mumbai, India; to Baghdad, Iraq; to Kabul, Afghanistan!  And that includes our Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; and the Commander of International Security Assistance Force (NATO) & Commander of U. S. Forces-Afghanistan, General David Petraeus.  Both Gates and Petraeus have made it clear.  This is their last year in this fiasco.  And their reason may have something to do with the Daniel Pipes/Steven J. Rosen arrogant expose' of a decades-long Jewish program to defame Iran, an historic and distinguished nation of the Middle East, shown in all its glory in a classic Rick Steves' program now prohibited on NPR/OPB.

- The New York Times INTERNATIONAL notation Friday, February 25, 2011 - page A-13

"Tumult Around the Region

WEST BANK - MORE THAN 1,000 PALESTINIANS CONVERGED ON A SQUARE IN RAMALLAH FOR A RALLY IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL UNITY.  THE DEMONSTRATORS URGED AN END TO THE SCHISM BETWEEN FATAH, WHICH CONTROLS THE WEST BANK, AND HAMMAS, WHICH CONTROLS GAZA.

YOUNG PALESTINIANS ADOPT CAUSE OF ENDING WEST BANK AND GAZA SCHISM". - Kershner N Y Times 2/25/11

 

* February 26, 2011 Edit *

- Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald Clear Julian Assange -

"British Court OKs Assange Extradition to Sweden

A British court has ruled WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden to face questioning on allegations of sexual crimes. Assange has been fighting extradition to Sweden since December, when he was arrested and held for nine days in a London jail. His defense team had argued against the extradition, in part by citing the potential he could wind up being sent to face the death penalty in the United States for publishing classified government documents. Assange says he plans to appeal and has been released on bail under the same conditions as before."

- Glenn Greenwald on Julian Assange

JUAN GONZALEZ: A British judge ruled this morning that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be extradited to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault. The decision comes after two days of hearings. Assange has been fighting extradition to Sweden since December, when he was arrested and held for nine days in a London jail.

AMY GOODMAN: Today, the judge dismissed Assange’s defense claims that the Swedish allegations are not offenses under English law and ruled Sweden does have authority to issue an arrest warrant for Assange. The Swedish trial will be heard behind closed [doors]. Afterward, Assange could be extradited to the United States to face allegations he published classified documents. If convicted, he would face the death penalty.

To discuss these developments, we’re joined by Glenn Greenwald, constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com.

Glenn, it’s nice to have you here in the United States.

GLENN GREENWALD: Nice to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about this ruling.

GLENN GREENWALD: Sure. I don’t think it’s particularly surprising, in the sense that typically when contesting extradition, a defendant needs to be able to argue that there’s not just something unfair about the process, but something that’s so fundamentally flawed in the justice system of the country seeking extradition that it would offend the notions of basic justice and due process of the extraditing country. And when you’re talking about a country like Sweden, that is part of multiple conventions and treaties and other systems of justice with the British, it’s a very uphill battle to try and convince a British judge that Sweden would be so radically flawed. Additionally, this decision is going to be appealed multiple times to high British courts and ultimately to the European Human Rights Court, and so it’s going to be quite a long time before there’s any resolution with finality. He’s not going to be shipped off to Stockholm anytime soon.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Mark Stephens. He spoke to reporters in Britain just outside the courthouse in London. He is Julian Assange’s attorney.

MARK STEPHENS: We still remain very optimistic about our opportunities on appeal. The judge made a very important finding in relation to both the fact of the secret trial, which—in Sweden, which is an anathema to the open justice principle which we, in this country, and I think in most civilized countries of the world, hold very dear.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Mark Stephens, Assange’s attorney.

GLENN GREENWALD: That, I think, for me, is the key point. There is a lot of improprieties and oddities about how the Swedish authorities have handled this case, in particular that the first prosecutor who looked at it decided that there was nothing to warrant any further proceedings, then it was sort of taken away by a prosecutor who’s known to be somewhat zealous in this area, who then reversed that initial ruling. But these are the kinds of improprieties that are quite common, especially in a case that’s controversial and that involves difficult allegations of sexual assault, like this one does.

The thing that I think is really quite disturbing is this aspect of Swedish law that essentially says that almost all rape trials are presumptively secret—not just that the victim’s testimony is in secret, but that the entire proceeding is in secret—so that, essentially, it’s like a Star Chamber, where one day, out of the blue, Swedish authorities will emerge and could essentially say the defendant has been found guilty and sentenced to this amount of time in prison. And that really does offend basic notions of justice in the Western world. And that’s, I think, the most likely issue to be contested vigorously on appeal.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Glenn, you’ve been writing extensively about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, but now you’ve become part of the story yourself, in terms of efforts by a law firm tied to Bank of America to begin to target key supporters of WikiLeaks. Could you talk about that?

GLENN GREENWALD: Sure. What essentially happened is that this group calling itself Anonymous announced several months ago that it would target any companies that terminated services with WikiLeaks in response to government pressure. And numerous large companies, such as MasterCard and Visa, Amazon, PayPal, did exactly that. And then Anonymous targeted those companies with denial of service attacks and other what turned out to be fairly minor disruptions to their internet commerce.

And in response, various internet security firms decided that they would try and investigate Anonymous in order to attract government attention, get government contracts, curry favor with law enforcement authorities. And one of them in particular, a firm called HB Gary, that does a lot of work for the government, started publicly boasting that they had infiltrated Anonymous, that they had uncovered the identities of some of the key individuals involved. And in retaliation, Anonymous then targeted HB Gary and hacked into its email system and published 50,000 or so emails from HB Gary online.

And among those emails were various proposals that HB Gary and other companies, serious players in this internet security industry, had been circulating on behalf of both Bank of America and the Chamber of Commerce to target critics of the Chamber of Commerce and supporters of WikiLeaks, both in the media and in political activism, with some very nefarious, threatening and probably illegal measures. And the key cog in this whole process is this large and very well-connected lobbyist and legal firm, Hunton & Williams, that represents both entities and was coordinating these proposals.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And they specifically mentioned you as a key supporter that needed to be dealt with?

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. Well, ironically, there have been so few people in the American media who have been willing to defend WikiLeaks, notwithstanding the fact that what they’re doing is core journalism and that the threats to prosecute and otherwise harm them would be as grave a threat to press freedoms in this country as anything we’ve seen in a long time. There have been so few members of the media who have been willing to stand up and support WikiLeaks that being one of the very few people who have been vocal—and that they did identify me, as well as several other people, as needing specific targeting. The phrase they used was forcing us to choose between, quote, "preservation of career over cause," meaning threatening our careers if we continue to speak out in favor of WikiLeaks.

AMY GOODMAN: Again, just to summarize, Julian Assange has not been charged with anything at this point. And what could happen—he has 10 days to appeal this—if he goes to Sweden, to do with the United States, why he might find himself, perhaps—could he?—imprisoned near Bradley Manning?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, this is what is so interesting to me about the whole Assange extradition struggle. And you’re absolutely right, he has not even—not only has he not been convicted, obviously, and therefore should be presumed guilty by nobody, but he’s not even been charged. They just simply want him for interrogation at this point. I think it’s assumed that the Swedish authorities intend to prosecute.

But what is so interesting about this is that the reason he’s contesting the extradition so vehemently is because what he fears most is being turned over to American authorities. And interestingly, I’ve spoken with a lot of people who have been involved in WikiLeaks, both previously and currently, and all of them, to the person, no matter what their nationality is, the thing they fear most is ending up in the hands of the American authorities and in the American, quote-unquote, "justice system," which is really quite telling that that’s now the great fear that people around the world have, given that, as foreign nationals, they know that when things like national security is involved and threats of secrecy are involved, they end up in black holes, where they’re denied all justice. And so, that’s what’s driving Assange is the fear that he will end up in the hands of the American authorities.

And in reality, if you just look at the law, it actually should be more likely that Britain would be willing to extradite him rather than Sweden, because Britain actually has much broader laws criminalizing the disclosure of classified information, whereas in Sweden it’s probable that what he did would never be a crime, and therefore they wouldn’t extradite him. But being that Sweden is a small country, that it has shown in the past that it’s captive to American dictates when it comes to these sorts of things, I think the reality is, is that Sweden would have—would lack the ability to resist American demands, while the British public would probably demand that their government stand up to the United States. And so, the law just gets completely disregarded, because the law should be more favorable to him in Sweden.

AMY GOODMAN: And the grand jury that was convened in the United States, what has happened with that?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, grand juries, of course, are in secret. So, what we know is that the Justice Department has said that they are vehemently pursuing the prospect of prosecution. We also know that the government has done things like—

AMY GOODMAN: For WikiLeaks.

GLENN GREENWALD: For WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. And what we also know is that the government has done things like subpoena the records of various individuals associated with Twitter—with WikiLeaks, including Twitter and other places, including of a sitting member of the Icelandic parliament that caused a diplomatic crisis, essentially, between Iceland and the United States. And so—and we know that they’re targeting WikiLeaks supporters at airports and taking their laptops and other things, the way they do, as you reported a couple weeks ago, with journalists, as well. So there’s obviously a very active criminal investigation and a clear intent on the part of the United States government to prosecute and—indict and prosecute WikiLeaks for pure journalism.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the impact on WikiLeaks itself of this enormous campaign against it? There have been some reports of defections of some of the key supporters involved with WikiLeaks. Do you think it’s having a debilitating effect on its ability to continue to function as this whole new arm of openness in government?

GLENN GREENWALD: I mean, you know, there’s no question that, without being charged with anything, WikiLeaks has been—I don’t know if I’d say crippled, but severely disabled as a result of government pressure. I mean, we just talked about how the government successfully pressured virtually every large financial company to terminate its services with the organization, meaning that they can no longer raise funds or it’s very difficult for them to raise funds.

I know that even before the controversy started—this was one of the things that first really alerted me to how serious this issue was—when I first wrote about WikiLeaks a year ago or so and encouraged people to support it and to donate money to it, there were all kinds of people, American citizens, who said to me in various forums that they actually feared donating money to WikiLeaks because they thought they would end up on some kind of a list, that they might ultimately be accused of giving material support to terrorists. So here you have a climate in the United States that was created even before all of the real leaks, the controversial leaks, where people are afraid to associate and to donate to political causes in which they believe, because they believe that they could end up liable. And, of course, people who look at what has happened to Bradley Manning, the way he’s been held in solitary confinement, would be petrified of leaking to WikiLeaks, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Before we break, talking about Bradley Manning, talk about where he is right now. You have written about his solitary confinement as torture. Talk about Wired magazine, what they have. And also, I just want to let people know the latest is Assange has been bailed out on the same terms as before.

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. So, Bradley Manning is where he’s been for the last nine months now, which is he’s in a brig in Quantico, Virginia, being held under extraordinarily oppressive conditions that Amnesty International has now condemned as inhumane, that the U.N. high official on torture is actively investigating. He’s being held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day in his cell. The only time he’s let out is one hour a day to walk around in a room by myself, shackled. The minute he stops walking, he’s returned to his cell. His attorney has raised—intends to raise the issue that he’s being punished in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which he is. But essentially, this is the kind of treatment that psychologically breaks people and renders them in capable of functioning normally. And his visitors have said that there’s a clear deterioration both in his physical and psychological state.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back. Glenn Greenwald is our guest. Glenn Greenwald, constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for Salon.com. Just on the Bradley Manning part, the Wired story?

GLENN GREENWALD: Right. So, one of the—really, the only thing that we know at all about what Bradley Manning has done, the only thing that anyone knows, comes from chat logs that were released by Wired magazine, that purport to be a conversation—a series of conversations between Manning and a former convicted hacker turned government informant, Adrian Lamo, who has a long and complex relationship with a Wired reporter named Kevin Poulsen. Lamo provided Poulsen and Wired magazine with these chat logs, and rather than releasing all of them or describing what was in them, they released very selected snippets of them, roughly 20 to 25 percent. At first they said there’s nothing else that is in it that is newsworthy, it’s all just personal and privacy invading. But then, in response to inquiries and other things, they began releasing slowly other snippets. Further snippets have been released by some newspapers that clearly were newsworthy. And so, Wired is clearly concealing the substantial majority of the conversations between Manning and Lamo, which is the only source of the allegations against Manning, at least public. And despite calling themselves journalists, they refuse either to release these materials or to account for what’s in them or to allow a third party to review them. They’re acting as anything but journalists.

AMY GOODMAN: Glenn Greenwald, we’ll be back in a minute.

 

"JUAN GONZALEZ: On Wednesday, a blogger named Ian Murphy revealed that he had impersonated David Koch in a recorded phone conversation with an unsuspecting Governor Walker. Murphy said he pulled the prank after learning that Walker was refusing to return phone calls from Democratic senators.

During the 20-minute conversation, Walker admitted that he had considered disrupting opposition to his anti-union bill by planting "troublemakers" among the protesters. This clip begins with Ian Murphy impersonating David Koch.

IAN MURPHY: [as David Koch] We’ll back you any way we can. But what we were thinking about the crowds was planting some troublemakers.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: You know, well, the only problem with—because we thought about that. The problem with—or my only gut reaction to that would be right now the lawmakers I’ve talked to have just completely had it with them. The public is not really fond of this.

AMY GOODMAN: During another point in the phone call, Governor Walker appears to urge Koch—the man he thinks is Koch—to provide outside support to Republican lawmakers who are backing the controversial bill.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: After this, the coming days and weeks and months ahead, particularly in some of these more swing areas, a lot of these guys are going to need—they don’t initially need ads for them, but they’re going to need a message out reinforcing why this was a good thing to do for the economy and good thing to do for the state. So, the extent that that message is out over and over again, that’s obviously a good thing.

JUAN GONZALEZ: The Public Campaign Action Fund says Governor Walker may have violated a law that forbids politicians from coordinating with political donors. The prank phone call ended with the David Koch impersonator inviting Governor Walker to visit him in California.

IAN MURPHY: [as David Koch] Well, I’ll you what, Scott. Once you crush these bastards, I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Alright, that would be outstanding. Thanks for all the support and helping us move the cause forward, and we appreciate it. We’re doing it, the just and right thing, for the right reasons. And it’s all about getting our freedom back.

IAN MURPHY: [as David Koch] Absolutely. And, you know, we have a little bit of vested interest, as well.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Well, that’s just it. The bottom line is we’re going to get the world moving here, because it’s the right thing to do.

IAN MURPHY: [as David Koch] Alright, then.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Thanks a million.

IAN MURPHY: [as David Koch] Bye bye.

GOV. SCOTT WALKER: Bye, now." - Goodman & Gonzalez DemocracyNow 2/24/11

 

- Added beneficent exposé from the Egyptian people; A coup de grâce ?

Here we have Ethan Bronner, the N Y Times' Bureau Chief in Jerusalem deeply engaged with the leading pro-Israel propagandist, "Charlie" Rose --

"'CHARLIE' ROSE: The other argument that you often hear and have been hearing back to Sharon, is there a certain point where a two state solution will be impossible and therefore you will have this powerful demographic argument having to do with comparisons to apartheid.

ETHAN BRONNER: I think that there’s no question that that is a serious risk. The question is, when do you reach it? If you ask people on the right of Israel today, you have 500,000 people now Israeli Jews living beyond the green line, are we beyond the point of two states? They say we can fix it. LOOK AT WHAT WE DID IN GAZA and Sinai.

You say, when do you think you will be beyond it? You can’t get a clear answer. But I am certain that we are approaching a point, if we haven’t passed it. It’s impossible to know. But what we do know is even if the most liberal plan, which would involve moving, let’s say, 80,000 Israeli Jews out of the West Bank to create a state of Palestine, 80,000 people being taken from their homes by a small society, it’s going to rip that society apart.

And Netanyahu knows it and he is not rushing out to do it. And I think that there is a portion of the government out of the people that sort of think, well, IF WE JUST KEEP WAITING, WAITING, WAITING ( AS 'SETTLERS' TAKE OVER ) , WE WON’T HAVE TO CUT A DEAL!" - "Charlie" Rose & Ethan Bronner 2/23-24/11

 

* February 27, 2011 Edit *

Now we have the Israeli Stuxnet, with impunity, disabling the Iranian nuclear power plant which Israel and their American "underwriters" ( in the amount of some $3.5 billion U S Treasury dollars, annually, for some fifty years ) have used to generate the false claim that Iran was in pursuit of nuclear weaponry which the rogue state of Israel maintains in abundance!  As the Obama administration uses its clout to add to the justifiable international focus on Libya, when, we must ask, will it join the rest of the international community ( including responsible Jewish efforts ) in its quest for justice in Palestine.  This latest outrage by Israel clearly exposes an abusive policy run amok!  What was bypassed following the massacre in Gaza, must now, without delay, be adjudicated by the world community.

The New York Times' William J. Broad and the pro-Israel David E. Sanger present the story in the Times 2/26/11:  "'Setback' (''s by GOPBIAS.INFO) Is Reported at an Iranian Nuclear Plant, as Fuel Rods Are Removed!.

Iran told atomic inspectors this week that it had run into a serious problem at a newly completed nuclear reactor that was supposed to start feeding electricity into the national grid this month, raising questions about whether the trouble was sabotage, a startup problem, or possibly the beginning of the project’s end.

In a report on Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran told inspectors on Wednesday that it was planning to unload nuclear fuel from its Bushehr reactor — the sign of a major upset. For years, Tehran has hailed the reactor as a showcase of its peaceful nuclear intentions and its imminent startup as a sign of quickening progress.

But nuclear experts said the giant reactor, Iran’s first nuclear power plant, now threatens to become a major embarrassment, as engineers remove 163 fuel rods from its core.

Iran gave no reason for the unexpected fuel unloading, but it has previously admitted that the Stuxnet computer worm infected the Bushehr reactor. On Friday, computer experts debated whether Stuxnet was responsible for the surprising development.

In October, Iranian officials said the Stuxnet worm had infected the reactor complex, but they played down the issue. Mohammad Ahmadian, an Iranian Atomic Energy Organization official, said the affected computers had been 'inspected and cleaned up.'

Later in October, as the fueling at last got under way, after three decades of delay, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, called the Bushehr reactor 'the most exceptional power plant in the world.'

In an interview on Friday, a European diplomat familiar with Iran’s nuclear program called the fueling problem a major setback, even if the technical cause proves to be less than monumental.

'It’s clearly a significant setback to the startup of the reactor,' said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic delicacy of the matter.

He said that engineers at Bushehr had identified a technical failure, but were struggling to understand its cause.

'IT’S TOO EARLY TO KNOW,' THE DIPLOMAT SAID. 'I’M SURE THE IRANIANS ARE STUDYING THAT QUESTION QUITE DESPERATELY.'" - Broad Sanger N Y Times 2/26/11

Here we present the COMPLETE ARTICLE, with the advisory that it is replete with sentiments, similar to those of Mr. Sanger, i.e. replete with, essentially, the propensities of most Jewish supporters who, understandably, are designed to protect the interests of Israel.  Understandable, except an Israel dominated by the leadership of a Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, THAT Israel is replete with policies that threaten the peace of the entire world.

 

* March 2, 2011 Edit *

IN THAT CHARLES FERGUSON'S ACADEMY AWARD WINNING DOCUMENTARY "INSIDE JOB" IS LESS THAN TWO HOURS LONG, HOW IS IT THAT SOME ENTERPRISING "PUBLIC" TELEVISION PROGRAM, SAY THE PBS NEWSHOUR, OR FRONTLINE, ETC., INCLUDING THE SEVERAL CHANNELS AVAILABLE ON OREGON "PUBLIC" TELEVISION BROADCASTING, HOW IS IT THAT THIS MONUMENTAL FILM IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AMERICAN VIEWING PUBLIC?

The New York Times for February 28, 2011, may be trying to "clean up its act" at this late date (along with Netanyahu/Lieberman), but it's a little late with "An inquiry finds flaws, but no crimes, in a Gaza airstrike"!  We're talking about an Israeli airstrike IN 2002 that dropped a ONE-TON BOMB on a densely packed residential neighborhood in Gaza, that killed a minimum of 15 innocent civilians ( non-humans to Israelis ) .  The last two paragraphs of the Isabel Kershner article (page A-6) describes what has become routine in Palestine today, the annihilation of Palestinians, for some forty years now...

"Later Sunday, Palestinian news reports said that a militant in Gaza had been killed in an Israeli strike after forces opened fire against a group of fighters. Israeli military officials said they were not aware of any Israeli attack. Tensions have risen along the Israel-Gaza border in recent days, with Israel bombing several sites that it SAID were used by militants of Hamas and other groups. Israel described its strikes as a response to increased rocket and mortar fire from Gaza against southern Israel."

Ms. Kershner's story includes this phrase:  "according to the rules of Israeli and international law, (the report) “unequivocally” removed any suspicion that the Israelis responsible for the attack committed a criminal offense (HUH?)".

On the very next page (A-7) of this N Y Times mea culpa is an article by one Dina Kraft, a piece we've all been anxiously awaiting, i.e. is the blue color on the Star of David flags which are popping up all over the world, is that blue authentic?  Is it majestic?  ( the bottom half of page A-7 is a colorful ad for CHEVRON, in which the top chevron is a shade of blue very close to the David blue.  Is there a significance here? )  In any event, enough for The New York Times, and the Sulzbergers.

The Times does not have the corner on Jewish newspapers.  In Israel, for example, is the admirable "Haaretz", owned and published by Amos Schocken, a man far more responsible than the Sulzbergers, and a man who editor David Remnick has profiled and honored in his fourteen page 2/28/11 The New Yorker article.

While the fundamentalist sector in Israel (and the like-minded "journalists" in the United States), and their supporters, were all shook up by the demise of the AIPAC designed protector of Israel Mubarack, Mr. Shocken's paper took issue.

"But the voices that predominated in Haaretz were in praise of the Egyptian democracy movement. Bradley Burston, a former Berkeley radical whose first job in Israel was as a shepherd, wrote a column thanking the Egyptians for jolting Israelis out of fixed ideas. “It is beginning to dawn on my people, the Israelis, that freedom for Arabs may have nothing to do with annihilation for Jews,” Burston wrote. 'Here and there, people here are recognizing that the Arab world, and this grand nation which is its cultural epicenter, is vastly more complex than this view of a vast sea of blood-eyed fanatics barely restrained by the brittle dikes of a heavily subsidized corps of despots.' AND, HE INSISTED, 'BENJAMIN NETANYAHU AND AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN'—ISRAEL’S FOREIGN MINISTER—'INCREASINGLY RESEMBLE THE RULERS OF UNAPOLOGETICALLY NON-DEMOCRATIC MIDEAST REGIMES.'

Finally, the paper published an unsigned editorial reflecting the consensus opinion of the owner and publisher, Amos Schocken, and the editorial board:

Israeli leaders have always preferred to do business with Mubarak and his ilk, on the assumption that they would 'preserve stability' and forcibly repress the radical forces seeking change in the region. This view led Israel to disregard the citizens of neighboring countries, viewing them as devoid of political influence in the best case and as hostile Israel-haters in the worst case. Israel viewed itself as a Western outpost and displayed no interest in the language, culture and public opinion of its immediate surroundings. Integration into the Middle East seemed like a trivial, if not a downright harmful, fantasy.

But that era was over, the editorial concluded. The time had come for Israel’s foreign policy to 'ADAPT ITSELF TO A REALITY IN WHICH THE CITIZENS OF ARAB STATES, AND NOT JUST TYRANTS AND THEIR CRONIES, INFLUENCE THE TRAJECTORY OF THEIR COUNTRIES’ DEVELOPMENT.'" - David Remnick Amos Shocken The New Yorker 2/28/11

 

Postscript I - Tom Friedman's "expose'" of Israel in 3/2/11 N Y Times:  (1) previous prime minister Olmert took money from a Jewish-American backer (comment:  They all do!) (2) former president Katsav convicted of rape (a recent decision, years in the making, meant to show an Israel now with a workable court system) (3) a General Galant appointment rescinded for absorbing land around his house, a practice begun initially by Ariel Sharon.

What's missing?  The INHERENT PRACTICE, i.e. a habitual performance, of indiscriminate killing of Palestinians!

Postscript II - A Ron Rosenbaum, 3/2/11 appearance on Neil Conan's Talk Of The Nation, accusing Iran of producing and threatening a nuclear holocaust, informing his audience that Israel now has nuclear-armed submarines at the ready, in his "How the End Begins: The Road to A Nuclear World War III".

- Amy Goodman 3/3/11 brings us "UP TO DATE" -

"U.S. Attacks Kills 9 Afghan Boys

Nine Afghan boys have been killed in a U.S.-led NATO attack in Afghanistan. The boys were gathering firewood in the northeastern province of Kunar when a helicopter opened fire. On Wednesday, U.S. commander, Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, issued a public apology.

Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez: "On behalf of the coalition and based on the initial findings of a combined assessment team, I want to offer my sincere apology for the killing of nine children in Dara-I-Pech district in Kunar province yesterday morning."

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has condemned the killings as "merciless." It’s the third reported killing of Afghan civilians by NATO troops in two weeks. A resident of Kabul said those responsible should be tried in an Afghan court.

Enatatullah Khan: "An apology is not enough. It is not the first time that they have killed our poor and innocent people. We don’t accept their apology. They must go on trial in Afghanistan. If it is not possible in Afghanistan, they must be tried in the international court for their action. They have apologized in the past but continue killing our people again and again.""

"Manning Faces 22 Additional Charges in WikiLeaks Case

Alleged military whistleblower, Army Private Bradley Manning, has been charged with 22 additional counts in connection with the leaking of U.S. military and government documents to the group WikiLeaks. On Wednesday, the military said Manning has been charged with new offenses including "aiding the enemy." The charges carry the potential sentence of the death penalty, but military officials say they will not seek an execution. Manning remains imprisoned at the Quantico military base in Virginia under conditions that supporters have denounced as torture."

"Israeli Diplomat Resigns over "Wrong" Foreign Policy

A veteran Israeli diplomat has resigned in protest of what he calls Israel’s "wrong" foreign policy. The diplomat, Ilan Baruch, spent more than 30 years in the Israeli government, most recently as ambassador to South Africa. Baruch says he stepped down in opposition to the occupation of Palestinian land. He also criticized Israeli government officials for LONGTIME EFFORTS TO LABEL OPPOSITION TO ISRAELI POLICIES AS "ANTI-SEMITISM.""

"Newburgh 4 Prisoner: Money Motivated Involvement with Informant

One of four New York prisoners jailed in what critics have labeled a government entrapment case is speaking out for the first time. Last year, a federal jury found four men guilty of plotting to bomb a synagogue and a Jewish community center in the Bronx. All four were from Newburgh, one of the poorest cities in New York. Defense attorneys argued the men were entrapped by government agents and not predisposed to commit a terrorist crime. According to The Village Voice, one of the prisoners, David Williams, now says he only went along with the government informant who organized the bomb plot, Shahed Hussain, because he saw an opportunity to cheat Hussain out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. In a letter to a friend, Williams writes: "We all said lots of things only to either impress [Hussain] or make him think he found a band of real killers. WE NEVER MEANT ONE WORD OF WHAT WE SAID.""

"Charges Dropped for Silent Protest at Clinton Speech

Charges have been dropped against a career CIA officer-turned-peace activist who held a silent protest against U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last month. Ray McGovern was accused of disorderly conduct after he stood up and turned his back to Clinton during a speech in Washington, D.C. McGovern was seized by government agents who assaulted him as they removed him from the room. McGovern spoke to Democracy Now! about the incident last month.

Ray McGovern: "I was standing up in silent witness to the fact that Hillary Clinton is responsible, partly responsible, for countless thousands of Iraqis, Americans, Afghans and, God help us, Iranians—I hope not—and that she should not get the idea that everybody is going to sit down and applaud politely when there are so many of us that are usually excluded from these sessions who are feeling very, very, very sad and very angry at THE FOREIGN POLICY OF OUR GOVERNMENT."" - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 3/3/11

 

**  THE OVERWHELMING "THE DISSENTERS: HAARETZ PRIDES ITSELF ON BEING THE CONSCIENCE OF ISRAEL.  DOES IT HAVE A FUTURE?"  BY DAVID REMNICK 2/28/11 THE NEW YORKER!

 

Regarding the above, the sixty-first paragraph includes the following:  "In the spring of 2000, when a final rapprochement between Ehud Barak and Yasir Arafat seemed possible" . . somehow "negotiations" ended "in failure and political convulsions".  "The second intifada soon commenced" and "Ariel Sharon replaced Barak as Prime Minister".  What happened?  It is a mix.

The pattern had been established on November fourth of 1995 by the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, following which the so-called neocons coined "A Clean Break:  A New Strategy For Securing the Realm (Israel)", the first step of which was the elimination of Iraq's Saddam Hussein.  Perhaps the key factor was the 12/12/00 5-4 conspiratorial decision by the William Rehnquist Supreme Court, buttressed by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and the twosome, Antonin Gregory Scalia & the silent Clarence Thomas; the result was the George Walker Bush (his father, George Herbert Walker Bush had nominated Thomas) stolen United States' presidency from Albert Arnold Gore, which, as we might have anticipated from the four years that George H. W. Bush produced as president, the Junior, with his gift to the wealthy, broke the back of the financial system of the entire Western World.

And there was this on Page 265 of Jim Bamford's stellar "A Pretext For War":  "We're going to correct the imbalances of the (Clinton) administration on the Mideast conflict", Bush told his freshly assembled senior national security team in the Situation Room on January 30, 2001.  "We're going to tilt it back toward Israel!"

"Bush was going to reverse the Clinton policy, which was heavily weighted toward bringing the bloody conflict between Israel and the Palestinians to a peaceful conclusion.  'I'm not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon', Bush told his newly gathered national security team".  If you can recall, it was during his early meeting with his Principals that Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill registered surprise after those meetings with President Bush focused on Iraq, tying in with the "A Clean Break:  A New Strategy For Securing the Realm (Israel)", a phrase that deserves aphorism status, in that it describes the total of United States foreign policy for the last near twenty God-awful years, years which, in fact, have bankrupted this great country, financially ("Inside Job") and morally.  All for the classic Rogue State of Israel.

 

* March 8, 2011  Amy Goodman Wraps *

"Israel May Seek Another $20 Billion in Military Aid from U.S.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has told the Wall Street Journal that Israel may soon seek an additional $20 billion in military aid from the United States in light of the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Barak told the paper, "It might be wise to invest another $20 billion to upgrade the security of Israel for the next generation or so. A strong, responsible Israel can become a stabilizer in such a turbulent region." Israel already receives $3 billion in military aid a year from the United States." - Amy Goodman DemocracyNow 3/8/11

* March 12, 2011 -

What follows is a precise example of why the United States should terminate our devil's mandate of billion$ to the Rogue State of Israel, which, of course, AIPAC demands, an arrangement which benefits the most criminal leadership, Netanyahu & Lieberman, in that pariah state's sixty-plus year history.

DATELINE GAZA - "Israel Holds Gaza Engineer, Relatives Say -

Relatives of an engineer from Gaza who disappeared last month in Ukraine said Thursday that he had been kidnapped by Mossad agents and transferred to an Israeli prison.

The engineer, Derar Abu Sisi, is the OPERATING MANAGER OF THE ONLY POWER PLANT IN GAZA, the Palestinian enclave that is controlled by Hamas, the Islamic militant group. He is married to a Ukrainian woman and was in the country applying for citizenship, relatives said.

Israeli officials have not commented on the case, which is subject to a court-imposed gag order in Israel. But an Israeli human rights organization, HaMoked, which assists Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons, received confirmation this week from the Israel Prison Service that Mr. Abu Sisi HAS BEEN IN DETENTION SINCE FEB. 19 and was currently in Shikma prison near the Israeli coastal town of Ashkelon, just north of Gaza.

A lawyer from Israel’s public defender’s office, Michal Orkaby-Danziger, who is representing Mr. Abu Sisi, was unable to comment because of the gag order.

Mr. Abu Sisi’s relatives heard from an Israeli lawyer about 10 days ago that he was in an Israeli prison, was in good health and had not been charged with a crime.

A spokeswoman for Ukraine’s Interior Ministry said that Mr. Abu Sisi, 42, disappeared “under unknown circumstances” in the early hours of Feb. 19 after boarding a train in the eastern city of Kharkiv that was bound for Kiev, the capital, The Associated Press reported.

Mr. Abu Sisi had traveled to Ukraine with his wife, Veronika, but she had returned to Gaza to look after their six children by the time he disappeared. Relatives said that his wife lost contact with him on Feb. 18 when he did not answer his cellphone. Friends in Ukraine told her by telephone that they had dropped him off at the train station, where he was supposed to board a train. He was planning to meet his brother, who was flying into Kiev’s airport that night. Mr. Abu Sisi’s wife has returned to Ukraine to search for him, his sister, Susan Abu Sisi, said.

In a telephone interview, Ms. Abu Sisi said her brother was not a Hamas activist. She noted that he had been working at the power plant FOR NEARLY A DECADE, LONG BEFORE HAMAS TOOK CONTROL OF GAZA IN 2007.

Colleagues at the Gaza power plant said Mr. Abu Sisi was a professional engineer who was respected by all parties, including Hamas. They were speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment on the case.

While the reasons for Mr. Abu Sisi’s detention were unclear, it was widely assumed in Gaza that it was somehow linked to his position at the power plant and THE SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS OF HAMAS TO REDUCE THE STATION’S DEPENDENCY ON INDUSTRIAL DIESEL FUEL IMPORTED FROM ISRAEL.

In January, the Hamas authorities said that they had managed to adjust the station’s turbines to run on regular diesel fuel, which is smuggled into Gaza from Egypt, saying that ISRAEL WAS NOT LETTING IN SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF FUEL. Mr. Abu Sisi left Gaza twice last year, for a work conference in Egypt and to perform a pilgrimage to Mecca, according to his relatives. - Fares Akram N Y Times 3/11/11

On the front page of the Times which includes the Akram piece is an analysis by Mark Landler and Helene Cooper - "Leaning Away From Idealism - Pragmatic Emphasis For Obama in Mideast".

According to Mr. Landler and Ms. Cooper "There are two Barack Obamas:  The Transformative Historical Figure and the pragmatic American president."  They continue with "the president is trumping the trailblazer".

In their second paragraph they write "that American national security interests weigh as heavily as idealistic impulses."

No statement could be farther from the truth.  As our Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has entreated, "Let's call a spade a spade".

The wars in which we are engaged (in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan...) have less to do with material gains, than with our unholy alliance with Israel.  And our antagonism toward Iran is primarily in behalf of that insatiable Israeli beast.  In other words:  There is nothing idealistic in American Middle East policy, nor in the interests of our national security.  It is, in fact, the opposite in all cases.

 

Israel to Step Up Pace of Construction

in ( OCCUPIED ) West Bank Areas

 

A development in the Middle East, promptly evolving in the shadow of ( i.e. hidden by ) the MARCH ELEVENTH 8.9 earthquake near the coastal city of Sendai, Japan, is in keeping with the series of nefarious actions which the Israelis have perpetrated against the Palestinian people for the last sixty-plus years ( they began the massacre of Gaza in December of 2008, on the day after Christmas. ) .

This ghastly 3/14/11 Isabel Kershner N Y Times' story regards the early Saturday morning MARCH TWELFTH knifing to death of the settler Fogel family in their beds:  Udi 36, Ruth 35, and three of their children; Yoav 11, Elad 4, and Hadas 3 months.  The "settlement" is "clinging to a hill" Itamar, and the crime has given Netanyahu/Lieberman the opening to "build hundreds of new housing units" in the "settlement blocs" of the occupied Palestinian West Bank locales of Gush Etzion, Maale Abumin, Ariel (over the largest Palestinian fresh water aquifer in the West Bank) and Modiin Ilit.  It also negates the February resolution of fourteen of the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council "CONDEMNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS IN OCCUPIED TERRITORY AS ILLEGAL, AND DEMANDING THAT IT BE HALTED".  Additionally, this atrocity cries out for explanation, in that Ms. Kershner's third followup story contained such detail...

..."two infiltrators, widely THOUGHT to be local Palestinians, traversed the perimeter fence, waited patiently for lights out, then, after finding the next-door house empty, slipped in to the Fogel family's home.  They (then) stabbed five members of the family to death in their beds"...

And no one in this closely knit "settlement" outpost sensed, or heard anything?  And the very next day, Sunday, there is a huge turnout for the funerals in Jerusalem?  One might dismiss the questioning of the timing of these events in Israel as typical anti-Semitic ruminations, except for the famous 2/23-24/11 exchange of Ethan Bronner and "Charlie" Rose on Mr. Rose's television program.

The scene of the original crime, the "clinging to the hill" "settlement" of Itamar, is "part of the territory occupied by Israel after the 1967 war", a war initiated by Israel and, as a result, "most of the world considers the "settlements" ( "'s supplied by GOPBIAS.INFO )" "A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW".

It is this occupied West Bank to which the "Charlie" Rose-Ethan Bronner 2/23-24/11 television exchange referred:

"IF WE JUST KEEP WAITING, WAITING, WAITING ( AS "SETTLERS" TAKE OVER ) WE WON'T HAVE TO CUT A DEAL"!

 

WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN!

Now certainly feels like one of those moments when the world needs to be explained to us, and Random House believes it has found just the writer to do it: Al Gore, the former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner, will write a new book about what he calls “the drivers of global change,” that connects the dots among social, economic and political forces shaping our times, Random House said on Tuesday. The book, which is planned for release next year and does not yet have a title, is the first acquisition for the publishing house by Jon Meacham, the author and former Newsweek editor, who was named an executive vice president at the Random House Publishing Group in January.

Mr. Meacham, a Pulitzer Prize-winner for his Andrew Jackson biography “American Lion,” and, like Mr. Gore a Tennessean, said in a telephone interview that the former vice president’s best-selling books “An Inconvenient Truth” and “The Assault on Reason” had established him as an author who “has been early and right” on anticipating global trends.

“He’s proven over the last decade or more that he’s a man worth listening to,” Mr. Meacham said. “And he’s bringing now decades, plural, of thinking and experience to this book, to take his arguments beyond climate change and really look at the global future.”

In a statement, Mr. Gore said he intended for the book to “start a conversation about the large-scale drivers of change that are defining and shaping our future — from the rapid development and integration of radically new technologies to the planet-changing impact of the climate crisis, to poverty, globalization and the democratization of knowledge accompanying the emergence of a ubiquitous Internet linking ever-more-intelligent devices.”

 

It is clearly evident that GOPBIAS.INFO is not among the "ever-more-intelligent devices" that Mr. Gore mentions, but INFO and its precedent-setting GOPBIAS.ORG partner before it, can take some credit for exposing some facts which multiple national political sites assiduously avoided, so as to escape the wrath of Republican/pro-Jewish media which dominates the American information arbiter.  Here a forerunner of what GOPBIAS.COM, .ORG and .INFO have become.

"An informed former journalist Alison Weir, executive director of If Americans Knew, is even more thorough in her "The Truth About Israel":

In his op-ed "If there were no Israel" (March 15), Edward Glick asks what the Middle East would look like if Israel had never existed.

Instead of answering this, however, he simply gives his own xenophobic distortion of the region today. Worse still, he doesn't explore how many of the region's real woes are attributable to Israel's violent creation 60 years ago and of its actions since.

This is as though 9/11 attackers had not only destroyed the Twin Towers but had also remained occupying Manhattan, and as though a columnist asked what New York would be like without 9/11 and went on to describe ruins, layers of dust, and traumatized, angry survivors, suggesting that Americans are inherently inferior -- sloppy, lazy, neurotic, violent citizens.

Glick asserts that without Israel "Palestinians would still be unemployed and unemployable." However, in 2007 the World Bank reported that "Palestinian businesses have the craftsmanship, ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit to succeed. They are reliable, committed and hard-working suppliers of high-quality products."

Glick states, "East Jerusalem and the West Bank would be still ruled from Amman," and goes on to claim that "the Gaza Strip would still be ruled from Cairo." However, none of this was the case for pre-Israel Palestine, which had been under the Ottomans for centuries, and then under the British. Jerusalem was undivided, and Muslims, Christians and Jews were living side-by-side without strife.

When Christian denominations could not decide who should hold the keys to Jerusalem's ancient Church of the Holy Sepulchre, they were entrusted to a Muslim family.

Into this multicultural mix came Zionist immigrants with the goal of creating a Jewish-only state -- which meant pushing out the Muslims and Christians who made up 95 percent of the population. As former Time magazine Senior Editor Donald Neff wrote, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "began as a conflict resulting from immigrants struggling to displace the local majority population. All else is derivative from this basic reality."

In Israel's founding war of 1947-49, Zionist forces committed 33 massacres and expelled 800,000 people -- many of these before Arab armies, their combined numbers smaller than Israeli forces, belatedly entered the fray.

Israel refused to allow these refugees to return, appropriating their land and wealth. United Nations analysts estimate that 80 percent of Israel's total area belonged to these refugees, stating that this extremely valuable property was "one of the greatest contributions toward making Israel a viable state."

These now-destitute Palestinian refugees filled the Middle East, forming a desperate, politically destabilizing element in post-colonial nations working to modernize. When they tried to return to their cities and farms, Israel labeled them "infiltrators," shot them and attacked the countries they came from.

Israel, fearing its neighbors might defend Palestinians' rights and wishing to maintain regional hegemony, used a combination of military attacks, divide-and-conquer tactics and great power manipulation to undermine their development. In all of its wars except one, Israel attacked first.

Since it is impossible to know what the Middle East would look like if this violent injustice had not been stabbed into its heart, a more useful effort might be to ponder present possibilities.

What would happen if Americans -- whose $7 million per day to Israel funds Israel's continued, ruthless and systemic violence not only against Muslims but also against descendants of the world's very first Christians -- finally decide to keep our money home? - Alison Weir 4/5/09"

Fast forward two years and one finds this article by Fares Akram, but supervised by Ethan Bronner of the infamous 2/23-24/11 "WE WON'T HAVE TO CUT A DEAL" television exchange with "Charlie" Rose:

"Israeli Attack on Militants Kills Four Civilians in Gaza

By Fares Akram-Gaza -

An Israeli attempt to hit Palestinian militants who had fired rockets at Israel went horribly WRONG on Tuesday, with mortar shells killing three youths playing soccer and a 60-year-old grandfather leaving his house.

Later, in an unrelated attack, the Israeli Air Force killed four militants in a car, all members of Islamic Jihad, the organization and the Israeli military said. The army said the men had been on their way to launch rockets at Israel.

Tuesday’s violence came amid a sharp increase in tensions along the Israel-Gaza border in recent days. Hamas has fired more than 60 rockets at Israel since Saturday, and Israeli warplanes and artillery units have carried out repeated attacks. Both sides claim they are retaliating and not seeking an escalation in the conflict, BUT FEARS OF A REPEAT OF THE ISRAELI WAR HERE TWO YEARS AGO WERE PALPABLE.

HAMAS APPEARS TO HAVE ENDED A TWO-YEAR CEASE-FIRE THAT HAD HELD SINCE THE THREE-WEEK ISRAELI MILITARY OPERATION IN GAZA ENDED IN EARLY 2009. But it was unclear if policy had shifted; there have been signs of a rift between Hamas’s hard-line military wing and the government, which may have led to the escalation. Hamas statements have said the recent attacks are a response to “ongoing Israeli crimes.”

Abu Obaida, a spokesman for the military wing, told reporters on Tuesday that his men “cannot be deterred” by Israeli attacks.

He said that Hamas respected the cease-fire with Israel and had tried to enforce it, but that “the resistance cannot control itself forever.” He added that if Israel stopped its attacks on Gaza, Hamas would hold back as well.

Overnight on Monday, Israeli F-16s carried out eight airstrikes, hitting a Hamas training camp, a brick factory, a metal workshop and a mechanic’s garage. Local reports said that at least five people, including a woman and two children, sustained moderate injuries. - Akram N Y Times 3/23/11

Ethan Bronner CONTRIBUTED reporting from Jerusalem.

 

What with the sudden reappearance . . first of Paul Wolfowitz on Christiane Amanpour Sunday 3/20/11 ABC's This Week . . and then Richard Perle's French partner, in plugging for the Invasion of Iraq, Bernard-Henri Lévy on "Charlie" Rose's 3/18-21/11 television program ( in which the "philosopher" Lévy spoke by phone of his back to back phone conversations all night with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and the Libyan rebels, this Jewish Sarkozy who yearns to keep himself prominent "as the driver of the Libyan intervention" ) it may be evident that another Massacre in Gaza is about to take place, to finally ( i.e. a "Final Solution", as it were ) remove Palestinians from East Jerusalem AND any meaningful presence in the West Bank.  We've had fair warning.

ENCORE

- COMMENT -A MAN, A PLAN

Psychobiography in politics is ordinarily a mug’s game. Sometimes, though, an assessment of inherited traits and ideologies can be telling. For years, Israeli and American commentators have been waiting for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to leave behind the right-wing Revisionist ideology of his father, Benzion, a historian of the Spanish Inquisition, and, like Nixon leaving for China, end the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Just as Nixon set aside decades of Cold War ideology and Red-baiting in the interests of practical global politics, Netanyahu would transcend his own history, and his party’s, to end the suffering of a dispossessed people and regain Israel’s moral standing.

This waiting game is a delusion. The stubborn ideological legacy that, in part, blocks such a transformation runs deep. During Netanyahu’s first term as Prime Minister, in the late nineteen-nineties, I met with him in his office, in Jerusalem, and he fondly recalled how his father encountered David Ben Gurion, in 1956, not long after Israel captured the Sinai. Ben Gurion had vowed to keep the Sinai for a thousand years, but Benzion was convinced that he would lose it. Why? Ben Gurion asked.

“Because the U.S. will force you to,” the elder Netanyahu said.

“Of course, he was right, unfortunately,” the son said. “That was the first and last time an Israeli Prime Minister succumbed to an American diktat.” This ingrained wariness toward Israel’s most stalwart ally and benefactor is just part of Netanyahu’s inheritance. On that same trip to Israel, Benzion, who is now a hundred and one, invited me to his house for lunch, and I am not sure that I have ever heard more outrageously reactionary table talk. The disdain for Arabs, for Israeli liberals, for any Americans to the left of the neoconservatives was chilling. The bitter ideological resentments were deepened by genuine loss: another of Benzion’s sons, Yoni, was the Israeli commando killed in the extraordinary rescue of the hostages at Entebbe, in 1976. In books, speeches, and action, Benjamin Netanyahu has proved himself his father’s son.

Now in his second term and ruling in a coalition government that includes anti-democratic, even proto-fascistic ministers, such as Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu has stubbornly refused the appeals of Washington and of the Palestinian leaders Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, who have shown themselves willing to make the concessions needed for a peace deal. In the midst of a revolution in the Arab world, Netanyahu seems lost, defensive, and unable or unwilling to recognize the changing circumstances in which he finds himself.

The occupation—illegal, inhumane, and inconsistent with Jewish values—has lasted forty-four years. Netanyahu thinks that he can keep on going, secure behind a wall. Late last month, he called the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to register his displeasure that Germany had voted for a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning the Jewish settlements. According to an account in the Israeli daily Haaretz, a German source said that Merkel could hardly contain her outrage. “How dare you?” she said. “You are the one who has disappointed us. You haven’t made a single step to advance peace.” The U.S. vetoed the resolution, but sources in the Administration say that the vote was debated intensely.

Netanyahu told Merkel that he intends to give a speech in the next few weeks supporting an interim Palestinian state on about half the territory of the West Bank. If that is his plan, it will be unacceptable to the Palestinians, and he knows it. Smug and lacking in diplomatic creativity, Netanyahu has alienated and undermined the forces of progressivism in the West Bank and is, step by ugly step, deepening Israel’s isolation.

It is time for President Obama to speak clearly and firmly. Concentrating solely on the settlements, as he has done in the past, is not enough; he needs a more comprehensive approach. Administration officials talk about “getting it right” in the Middle East, by which they mean finding the right diplomatic levers in order to support the potential democratic elements in such varied countries as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and Bahrain, without moving too far ahead of events or becoming engaged militarily in ways that could lead to disaster. Getting Israel and Palestine right must be part of that effort. The old, wishful habit of waiting for Netanyahu is an abdication of American influence and interests.

If the Administration has been reluctant to put forward a comprehensive peace plan, it’s not because it has any difficulty imagining such a plan. Inevitably, the parameters of a two-state solution would be like those established at Taba, in 2001, and by Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, in 2008. The greater concern is domestic politics, both in the United States and in Israel.

For decades, AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and other such right-leaning groups have played an outsized role in American politics, pressuring members of Congress and Presidents with their capacity to raise money and swing elections. But Democratic Presidents in particular should recognize that these groups are hardly representative and should be met head on. Obama won seventy-eight per cent of the Jewish vote; he is more likely to lose some of that vote if he reverses his position on, say, abortion than if he tries to organize international opinion on the Israeli-Arab conflict. However, some senior members of the Administration have internalized the political restraints that they believe they are under, and cannot think beyond them. Some, like Dennis Ross, who has served five Presidents, can think only in incremental terms.

Obama’s views are not mysterious. His political home is Hyde Park, on the South Side of Chicago, where he came to know liberal Zionists and Palestinian academics, and to understand both the necessity of a Jewish state after the Second World War and the tragedy and the depths of Palestinian suffering.

The President has made mistakes on this issue: it was a mistake not to follow his historic speech in Cairo, in 2009, with a trip to Jerusalem. When it comes to domestic politics in Israel, he is in a complicated spot. For some Israelis on the right, his race and, more, his middle name make him a source of everlasting suspicion. Yet he is also a communicator of enormous gifts, capable both of assuring Israeli progressives and of reaching out to the anxious center. A visit to Israel, coupled with the presentation of a peace plan, would also help structure international support and clarify American interests. The Palestinian question is not an internal matter for Israel; it is an international matter.

The importance of an Obama plan is not that Netanyahu accept it right away; the Palestinian leadership, which is weak and suffers from its own issues of legitimacy, might not embrace it immediately, either, particularly the limits on refugees. Rather, it is important as a way for the United States to assert that it stands not with the supporters of Greater Israel but with what the writer Bernard Avishai calls “Global Israel,” the constituencies that accept the moral necessity of a Palestinian state and understand the dire cost of Israeli isolation. Even as Obama continues to stress his commitment to Israeli security, he has to emphasize the truth that, without serious progress toward an agreement, matters will likely deteriorate, perhaps to the point, yet again, of violence.

One of the myths of Israeli history is that only a few intellectuals on the left could see, in the wake of the 1967 war, that a prolonged occupation of Palestinian lands would be a moral and political calamity. In fact, records of the first cabinet meeting after the war show that the Justice Minister, Yaakov Shimshon Shapira, said, “In a time of decolonization in the whole world can we consider an area in which mainly Arabs live, and we control defense and foreign policy? . . . Who’s going to accept that?”

Ultimately, no one. If America is to be a useful friend, it owes clarity to Israel, no less than Israel and the world owe justice—and a nation—to the Palestinian people. - DAVID REMNICK THE NEW YORKER MARCH 21, 2011

Amy Goodman March 21, 2011

"Israeli Military Intelligence Targets Foreign Activist Groups

The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz is reporting Israeli military intelligence has begun collecting information about left-wing organizations abroad that support the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. The military intelligence unit is also said to be collecting information about groups that attempt to bring war crime or other charges against high-ranking Israeli officials. One military intelligence official told the paper, 'The enemy changes, as does the nature of the struggle, and we have to boost activity in this sphere.'

Amy Goodman March 22, 2011 -

Israel Launches Attacks on Gaza Injuring 20, Including 7 Children

An attack by Israeli warplanes and tanks on the Gaza Strip have injured at least 20 people, including at least seven children. Almost all of the injuries occurred when Israeli warplanes bombed Gaza City. Earlier today, Israeli tanks opened fire on eastern areas of the Gaza Strip, wounding one young man as military vehicles moved into Gaza City. According to an Israeli military spokesman, a total of six targets were attacked in the air raids in response to rocket fire from Gaza into Israel that occurred over the weekend.

U.N. Investigator Accuses Israel of “Ethnic Cleansing”

A top United Nations investigator has called on the U.N. Human Rights Council to investigate Israel’s continued expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, described Israel’s actions as a form of ethnic cleansing.

Richard Falk: “As the report illustrates, the continued pattern of settlement expansion in East Jerusalem, combined with forceful eviction of long-residing Palestinians, are creating an intolerable situation that can only be described in its cumulative impact as a form of ethnic cleansing.”

Amy Goodman March 23, 2011 -

Israel Warns of Gaza Assault, Kills 4 Palestinian Civilians

A top Israeli official is warning of a new full-scale assault on the Gaza Strip after Palestinian rocket fire struck two Israeli towns. One Israeli citizen was wounded after the rockets hit Beersheba and Ashdod earlier today. In response, Israeli Vice Premier Silvan Shalom said Israel should consider renewing the late-2008 assault on Gaza that killed around 1,400 Palestinians, most of them civilians. Silvan said, "I say this despite the fact that I know such a thing would, of course, bring the region to a far more combustible situation." The Palestinian rocket fire came after the U.S.-backed Israeli military killed four civilians and four alleged militants the Gaza Strip. Israel says it was targeting militants when it mistakenly fired on a home in Gaza City, killing three teenage boys and a 60-year-old grandfather. Another 10 people were wounded, including children, some of them seriously. Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri condemned the attack.

Sami Abu Zuhri: "Hamas considers the massacre a war crime, which the Israeli occupation should be held responsible for, along with all the consequences that come with this ugly crime. We stress that this massacre, this escalation in violence and threats, won’t succeed in breaking the willpower of the Palestinian people or deter us from holding on to our national rights and rights to defend ourselves."

Federal Judge Rules Against Google Library Deal

A federal judge has rejected the internet giant Google’s controversial deal with authors and publishers to digitize millions of printed books for the world’s largest online library. Google has partnered with some of the world’s most famous research libraries to scan more than seven million books. In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed lawsuits against Google challenging the company’s right to scan copyrighted material and making it searchable online. A $125 million settlement was reached in 2008. But on Tuesday, U.S. Circuit Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan said that while he recognizes the project’s potential benefits, the agreement would grant Google "significant rights to exploit entire books" without permission. Google has defended its project, saying its goal is to give the public access to millions of out-of-print books. But critics have warned the settlement could result in Google having a monopoly of access to information and giving Google an exclusive license to profit from millions of books.

Amy Goodman March 24, 2011 -

Israeli Strikes Hit Gaza After Bombing in Jerusalem

The Israeli military has launched new air strikes on the Gaza Strip after the bombing of a bus stop in Jerusalem. Israeli warplanes hit smuggling tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border as well as a training cramp linked to the Palestinian group Hamas. A power transformer was also hit, causing blackouts. The strikes come after one person was killed and more than 30 wounded when a bomb exploded at a bus stop in Jerusalem on Wednesday. An Israeli police spokesperson announced the attack.

Micky Rosenfeld: "The explosion took place at the bus stop. All the people that were injured, 24 people were injured at the site itself from, directly from, the explosion. Immediately our units and emergency teams arrived at the scene. Three people have been injured seriously, four moderately, and all the rest lightly."

It was the first such bombing to hit Jerusalem in seven years. Israeli officials say they suspect Palestinian militant groups. The Palestinian Authority immediately condemned the bombing and warned Israel could exploit it to strengthen the occupation of Palestinian land.

Ghassan Khatib: "The Palestinian Authority has condemned this explosion in Jerusalem and explained that all kind of violent activities, regardless of the victims, do not serve the Palestinian cause, but rather is used as an excuse by the Israeli right-wing government in order to further pursue their agendas."

Obama Admin Takes Differing Stance on Killings of Israeli, Palestinian Civilians

The bus bombing in Jerusalem came one day after ISRAELI STRIKES KILLED EIGHT PEOPLE IN GAZA, INCLUDING FOUR CIVILIANS—A GRANDFATHER AND THREE TEENAGE BOYS. ANOTHER 10 PALESTINIANS WERE WOUNDED, INCLUDING CHILDREN, SOME OF THEM SERIOUSLY. The Obama administration has condemned the attack on Israeli civilians but has rejected a similar stance for Israel’s deadlier attacks on Palestinian civilians. In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Palestinian militants for "terrorism and targeting of civilians." But when it came to Palestinian civilian deaths by the U.S.-armed Israeli military, Clinton said only that the U.S. extends "sincere condolences."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "The United States is committed to Israel’s security, and we strongly condemn this violence and extend our deepest sympathies to all those affected. We also strongly condemn recent rocket attacks from Gaza against innocent Israeli civilians and hold fully responsible the militants perpetrating these attacks. And I join President Obama in extending our sincere condolences to the friends and families of the Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza yesterday and appreciate that Israel has expressed regret." - AMY GOODMAN DEMOCRACYNOW 3/24/11

- The Jewish Journal -

Maybe it’s the simple fact that a high-profile film written by a Palestinian is cause enough for Jewish opprobrium. Maybe it’s because the director of the film, Julian Schnabel, is Jewish, and his commitment to any perspective other than the dominant Jewish paradigm is akin to tribal and national betrayal. Maybe it’s because the distributor of the film, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein was reared and raised a New York Jew and should know better – haven’t the Jews and their State of Israel had it hard enough?

Or, maybe a cultural malaise has taken hold that’s made it impossible for Jews to empathize with anyone but each other.

That the film ‘Miral,’ a portrait of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seen through the eyes of an orphaned Palestinian girl is earning the early ire of mainstream Jewish groups is not at all surprising. It makes perfect sense that a film told from the Palestinian perspective would rouse cries of condemnation from the American Jewish Committee, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others for being “one-sided” as AJC’s executive director David Harris wrote earlier this week, protesting the screening of the film for the U.N. General Assembly in New York (since when do Hollywood movies have an obligation to objectivity?). Another knee-jerk reaction came from SWC founder Rabbi Marvin Hier who called the screening of the film “anti-Israel” in a widely- released statement.

But this early condemnation is short-sighted and unfair. And not just to the film itself, but to the conversation American Jews might be having about Israel. That conversation, if it has any hope of pushing past party-line radicalism and a peace process stalemate, demands and deserves more than one perspective, as well as a deeper understanding of the ‘other’ – which a film like ‘Miral’ provides.

The Torah, Judaism’s most sacred text, admonishes again and again ‘love the stranger’, ‘remember the stranger’, ‘be kind to the stranger’ because ‘you were slaves in the land of Egypt.’ Have we forgotten? Or have we become so mired in our own neuroses about anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and general Jewish existentialism that we can’t see past our own noses?

Schnabel doesn’t have that problem. In fact, the making of this film became a bridge both creatively and personally. According to Vanity Fair, he met Italian-Palestinian journalist Rula Jebreal at a party in 2007 and was so taken with her and the semi-autobiographical book upon which ‘Miral’ is based, he left his wife and committed himself to Jebreal and her story. ‘Love your neighbor as yourself…’

At the panel discussion following the screening last night, Rabbi Irwin Kula suggested that that’s exactly what’s missing in the conflict, noting an egregious lack of empathy on both sides.

“After 63 years of conventional diplomatic efforts, we’re pretty far away right now,” Kula, the president of CLAL, The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership said. “The conflict has literally crowded out the possibility of empathy on all sides.”

But film, he said, according to a press release, allows people to experience empathy for a character. “As everyone knows you can’t have understanding without empathy. And this film is fundamentally a meditation on empathy.”

Why is it then that when a respected and talented filmmaker such as Mr. Schnabel says that he feels a personal Jewish responsibility “to tell the story of the other side” he is reproved and not praised? Such an admission makes Schnabel one of those rarefied artists with the courage to challenge established paradigms in his work – which, I might add, is a Jewish thing to do. But instead of averring the dignity of his position, and the openness with which he is broaching the Israeli-Palestinian juggernaut, Schnabel is put on the defensive.

“I love the State of Israel,” he said after the U.N. screening. “I believe in it, and my film is about preserving it, not hurting it. Understanding is part of the Jewish way and Jewish people are supposed to be good listeners. But, if we don’t listen to the other side, we can never have peace.”

Maybe, when it comes to geopolitical conflicts, there is a problem of perennially bad timing. No doubt Schnabel’s film, which is openly and purposely sympathetic to the Palestinian position, will become the subject of even more undue scorn during a week in which Jewish blood was spilled at the hands of a Palestinian terrorist. Days ago, five members of the Fogel family were brutally slaughtered in their home in Itamar, a settlement in the West Bank. The sad fact of this tragedy will make it even harder for Jewish hearts to open. Especially during a week of tremendous heartbreak and grief, a week in which Jewish blood is up and anger is raging.

But even in grief, it’s a mistake to extrapolate blame for the actions of one man upon an entire people – just as Schnabel’s film about a sympathetic character does not render all Palestinians sympathetic characters. ‘Miral’ is primarily a portrait of one life, through which the plight of a people is surmised. THAT’S NOT TO SAY THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PALESTINIAN TERRORISM, BECAUSE THERE IS; OR THAT NO PALESTINIANS DESERVE JEWISH SCORN, BECAUSE SOME DO. BUT THE REVERSE IS ALSO TRUE: ISRAEL HAS DONE WRONG, JEWS HAVE HURT PALESTINIANS.

“As a Jewish American, I can categorically state that I would not be releasing a film that was flagrantly biased towards Israel or Judaism,” Harvey Weinstein said in a statement. “‘Miral’ tells a story about a young Palestinian woman, but that does not make it a polemic. BY STIFLING DISCUSSION OR PRE-JUDGING A WORK OF ART, WE ONLY PERPETUATE THE PREJUDICE THAT DOES SO MUCH HARM.”

Indeed, ‘Miral’ is asking us to pause from our consideration of Palestinians as ‘the other’ and instead to see a people with whom we might partner. It is asking us to consider the millions of Palestinians who are not terrorists, who desire economic opportunity, civil liberties AND A CHANCE TO SWIM IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA.

If, as American Jews, we can’t even watch a movie in peace, I fear what that means for the peace prospects of an entire nation—or rather, two. - DANIELLE BERRIN writes the HOLLYWOODJEW blog at JewishJournal.com

- MORE TO COME! -

- FINI! -

 

* From Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada 1/6/11

On 13 December 2010, Israeli bulldozers, flanked by hundreds of municipal, riot squad and border police forces, demolished seven homes belonging to the Abu Eid family in Lydd, a city a few miles east of Tel Aviv.

The demolition, which took several hours, subsequently displaced 67 members of the entire family, including dozens of children, during one of the worst rainstorms of the season. Dozens of other Palestinian homes have been demolished over the years in Lydd.

Lydd is a so-called "mixed city," as is the neighboring city of Ramle. Both are home to a significant population of Palestinians holding Israeli citizenship living in segregated areas, separated from the Jewish majority. Palestinian residents of these communities have been chronically discriminated against and brutalized by police.

Oren Ziv, a photographer with the ActiveStills photography collective who witnessed and photographed the demolition told The Electronic Intifada: "I've been documenting [home demolitions] for seven years and this was one of the biggest demolitions I've ever seen." Ziv added that when the bulldozers finished demolishing the seventh house, children were starting to come back from school only to find their homes reduced to rubble.

The images included in this photostory were all taken by Ziv on the day of and the day after Israel's destruction of the Abu Eid family's homes in Lydd. - Ali Abunimah Electronic Intifada 1/6/11