"Now the Dubai airport parking lot is filled with the abandoned cars of those fleeing from the bursting bubble" What an absolute load of nonsense!
We must really learn not to believe journalistic hyperbole.
Dubai airport carparks have no more abandoned cars than does Newark. I returned from there yesterday.
PLUS: from today's London Sunday Times
''Despite the shock of last week's announcement, there is no reason it need result in another crisis. The sums involved are relatively small: Dubai's debts of $80 billion compare with the International Monetary Fund's current estimate of $3.4 trillion of global losses on toxic assets. Although Dubai's assets have taken a tumble, they are still worth comfortably more than its debts'.
Sometimes the actual facts are boring.
Posted by GD rive" ]]>Sch an attack, unauthorized by any international authority, will likely signal the start of a nuclear war, initially in the ME that will soon spread to endanger not only Europeans but Americans.
In comparison, the debate on global warming becomes immaterial.
]]>Gaza is now reaching a flash-point as a direct result of Israel's policies of containment, restriction, closure of crossing points and of all access points to Gaza by air, sea and road.
These short-sighted policies that deny most human and civil rights are, astonishingly, endorsed and paid for by a Democratic administration!
There is no other conclusion to be reached other than that AIPAC has ultimate control of both the White House and Congress.
In which case, Professors Mearsheimer and Walt were correct in their conclusions.
]]>Goldberg, Goldstone, Goldhagen, Goldfinger - all are right and all are wrong.
It's not complex. When you have just 5m Israeli Jews, sitting in just 20,000 sq km on the eastern Mediterranean, intent on influencing the foreign policy of the entire global population of 6.5 billion people, over one billion of whom are Muslim, in nearly two hundred countries, and in part, succeeding - they you have a VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM.
The state of Israel needs to recognize who and what she really is, and those who support her - in preference to their own countries of residence - need to step back and reflect and what sort of world they are trying to achieve for their children and grandchildren. That future will be a world of nuclear conflict, brought about by unthinking men who mistakenly thought that they were doing good and helping to crystallize a biblical prophecy, and in doing so would ensure their place in heaven.
How extraordinarily naive can otherwise sophisticated, educated people be, to be working towards such a tragic future?
]]>To Mr. Jeremy Ben-Ami, Executive Director, J Street
'I would like to congratulate you on your inaugural national conference. I believe most American Jews support Israel and want to see it thrive as a Jewish and democratic state.'
However, in the eyes of many, the reality is that Israel is arguably neither Jewish nor democratic.
The state of Israel was established in 1948 by the UN as a Jewish homeland, in the aftermath of the Holocaust in which the majority of European Jews were liquidated by the Nazis in industrial style murder factories.
In the beginning, it served its true purpose and welcomed all those who had suffered from persecution around the world and who were born of a Jewish mother. But in the years that followed, the vision blurred and Herzl's dream of a Jewish agrarian co-operative, set within a Muslim Middle East and living in harmony with its indigenous neighbours, soon turned into a nightmare.
The indigenous Arabs voted, en bloc, against the UN resolution of 1947 that proposed to divide their land to accommodate a Jewish state in Palestine, and when their voices were ignored they attacked the fledgling state immediately upon its birth, which they saw as illegitimate. But the Arab armies, lost, and with that loss the new Israeli state gained an arrogant maturity. If a small Jewish army could defeat the combined armies of the Arabs, then surely God was with them and they could impose their rule at will.
In fact, they succeeded in imposing their will only with the covert, but subsequent overt, help of the United States - or rather, the American Zionist lobby, later to adopt the more benign name of AIPAC, the American Israel Jewish Affairs Committee, that now exerts such a powerful influence on US foreign policy through its control on the voting behaviour of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Throughout the post-war years, as America's power increased worldwide, the tiny Israeli state hung onto its coat-tails, fed and sustained with billions of tax dollars from unknowing Americans. And so, the state of Israel grew exceedingly arrogant and with that arrogance, came brutality. For the grandchildren of the survivors of the Holocaust grew to forget the horrors of war-time Europe that had so decimated their grandparents in Germany, Austria, Poland, France, Holland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
Like an abused child, who in turn abuses his or her own children - Israelis began to oppress and humiliate their neighbours. Then came the killings, which, it was claimed, were in self-defense. But too often it was women and children who died at the hands of the Israeli army. Too often, unarmed civilians.
But the IDF was increasingly composed of young soldiers of Russian or Ethiopian origin, whose parents may, or may not, have been born Jewish.
Israel consistently claims to be the only democracy in the Middle East, but her actions are anything but democratic. She kills, imprisons and tortures many thousands - even up to today. Without trial and without any semblance of justice but with every semblance of inequality.
That the state of Israel is carried on the back of the American tax-payer is common knowledge but it is open to debate whether that small country is entirely Jewish or democratic. Certainly, as a Jewish Democrat, originally from a very old, east European Jewish family, I am exceedingly doubtful.
]]>
Now that the United Kingdom government has dismissed frantic attempts by Israel's prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, to force a vote against the official UNHRC report, by Judge Goldstone, on alleged atrocities, we now look forward to the international community swiftly bringing those answerable for alleged war crimes, in Gaza, before the International Criminal Court in the Hague.
Those responsible for the extreme violation of human rights that killed over 300 children need to face justice.
London. 16 October, 2009
]]>Michael Oren must learn to divorce himself from believing the rhetoric and propaganda put out by his own Foreign Affairs Ministry. He is expected to be part of the international Diplomatic Corps and this entails crediting the average 'Joe' in America with a modicum of common sense. My father always told me never to treat other people as fools.
But that is exactly what Oren is doing.
That the Goldstone Report is accurate in its findings is not in question. Israel is alleged to have carried out war crimes and as a member of the United Nations, Israel must give up those alleged responsible to be brought before the ICC to answer these serious charges. When 320 children are killed in three weeks on the excuse that they were a military threat to a heavily armed force, then the allegation of a war crime must be investigated. It is not an option.
Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza have nothing whatsoever to do with the German Nazi Party of half a century ago - and to try to divert attention away from the key point in the report's finding, is juvenile nonsense - not diplomacy. Grow up, Mr Oren!
]]>A terrifying litany of the violation and abuse of human rights by the Israeli army in Gaza in December and January last.
Extracted for the official United Nations Report of the Fact Finding Mission. April/May 2009
1. Deliberate attacks by the Israeli army on civilians
2. 1400 Gazans killed in three weeks
3. The illegal use of white phosphorus
4. Israeli violations of the right to free movement
5. Dehumanization
6. Torture and punishment
7. Violations of international human rights and humanitarian law
8. The arbitrary deprivation of life
1887. The timing of the first Israeli attack, at 11.30 a.m. on a weekday, when children were returning from school and the streets of Gaza were crowded with people going about their daily business, appears to have been calculated to create the greatest disruption and widespread panic among the civilian population. The treatment of many civilians detained or even killed while trying to surrender is one manifestation of the way in which the effective rules of engagement, standard operating procedures and instructions to the troops on the ground appear to have been framed in order to create an environment in which due regard for civilian lives and basic human dignity was replaced with disregard for basic international humanitarian law and human rights norms.
1889. The repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the
Mission to have been the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them, and not the result of occasional lapses
1891. It is clear from evidence gathered by the Mission that the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity, but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population.
1892. Allied to the systematic destruction of the economic capacity of the Gaza Strip, there appears also to have been an assault on the dignity of the people. This was seen not only in the use of human shields and unlawful detentions sometimes in unacceptable conditions, but also in the vandalizing of houses when occupied and the way in which people were treated when their houses were entered. The graffiti on the walls, the obscenities and often racist slogans, all constituted an overall image of humiliation and dehumanization of the Palestinian population.
1893. The operations were carefully planned in all their phases. Legal opinions and advice were given throughout the planning stages and at certain operational levels during the campaign. There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.
1894. The Mission has noted with concern public statements by Israeli officials, including senior military officials, to the effect that the use of disproportionate force, attacks on civilian population and the destruction of civilian property are legitimate means to achieve Israel's military and political objectives. The Mission believes that such statements not only undermine the entire regime of international law, they are inconsistent with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and, therefore, deserve to be categorically denounced.
1895. Whatever violations of international humanitarian and human rights law may have been committed, the systematic and deliberate nature of the activities described in this report leave the Mission in no doubt that responsibility lies in the first place with those who designed, planned, ordered and oversaw the operations.
1919. The Mission finds that in a number of cases Israel failed to take feasible precautions required by customary law reflected in article 57 (2) (a) (ii) of Additional Protocol I to avoid or minimize incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. The firing of white phosphorus shells over the UNRWA compound in Gaza City is one of such cases in which precautions were not taken in the choice of weapons and methods in the attack, and these facts were compounded by reckless disregard for the consequences. The intentional strike at al-Quds hospital using high-explosive artillery shells and white phosphorous in and around the hospital also violated articles 18 and 19 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. With regard to the attack against al-Wafa hospital, the Mission found a violation of the same provisions, as well as a violation of the customary law prohibition against attacks which may be expected to cause excessive damage to civilians and civilian objects.
1921. The Mission found numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects (individuals, whole families, houses, mosques) in violation of the fundamental international humanitarian law principle of distinction, resulting in deaths and serious injuries. In these cases the Mission found that the protected status of civilians was not respected and the attacks were intentional, in clear violation of customary law reflected in article 51 (2) and 75 of Additional Protocol I, article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In some cases the Mission additionally concluded that the attack was also launched with the intention of spreading terror among the civilian population. Moreover, in several of the incidents investigated, the Israeli armed forces not only did not use their best efforts to permit humanitarian organizations access to the wounded and medical relief, as required by customary international law reflected in article 10 (2) of Additional Protocol I, but they
arbitrarily withheld such access.
Treatment of Palestinians in the hands of the Israeli armed forces
(i) Use of human shields
1925. The Mission investigated several incidents in which the Israeli armed forces used local Palestinian residents to enter houses which might be booby-trapped or harbour enemy combatants (this practice, known in the West Bank as "neighbour procedure", was called "Johnnie procedure" during the military operations in Gaza). The Mission found that the practice constitutes the use of human shields prohibited by international humanitarian law. It further constitutes a violation of the right to life, protected in article 6 of ICCPR, and of the prohibition against cruel and inhuman treatment in its article 7.
1926. The questioning of Palestinian civilians under threat of death or injury to extract information about Hamas and Palestinian combatants and tunnels constitutes a violation of article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits physical or moral coercion against protected persons.
1930. In addition to being violations of international humanitarian law, these extensive wanton acts of destruction amount to violations of Israel's duties to respect the right to an adequate standard of living of the people in the Gaza Strip, which includes the rights to food, water and housing, as well as the right to the highest attainable standard of health, protected under articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
1932. The Mission finds that, despite the information circulated by Israel about the humanitarian relief schemes in place during the military operations, Israel has essentially violated its obligation to allow free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital objects, food and clothing that were needed to meet the urgent humanitarian needs of the civilian population in the context of the military operations, which is in violation of article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
1933. In addition to the above general findings, the Mission also considers that Israel has violated its specific obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, including the rights to peace and security, free movement, livelihood and health.
1934. The Mission concludes that the conditions resulting from deliberate actions of the Israeli armed forces and the declared policies of the Government with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip. The Mission, therefore, finds a violation of the provisions of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
(g) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and acts raising individual criminal responsibility under international criminal law
1935. From the facts gathered, the Mission found that the following grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention were committed by the Israeli armed forces in Gaza: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly. As grave breaches these acts give rise to individual criminal responsibility. The Mission notes that the use of human shields also constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
1936. The Mission further considers that the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.
2. Actions by Israel in the West Bank in the context of the military operations in Gaza from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009
(a) Treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank by Israeli security forces, including use of excessive or lethal force during demonstrations
1936. The Mission further considers that the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed.
2. Actions by Israel in the West Bank in the context of the military operations in Gaza from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009
(a) Treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank by Israeli security forces, including use of excessive or lethal force during demonstrations.
1937. With regard to acts of violence by settlers against Palestinians, the Mission concludes that Israel has failed to fulfil its international obligations to protect the Palestinians from violence by private individuals under both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. In some instances security forces acquiesced to the acts of violence in violation of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
When this acquiescence occurs only in respect of violence against Palestinians by settlers and not vice versa, it would amount to discrimination on the basis of national origin, prohibited under ICCPR.
1938. Israel also violated a series of human rights by unlawfully repressing peaceful public demonstrations and using excessive force against demonstrators. The use of firearms, including live ammunitions, and the use of snipers resulting in the death of demonstrators are a violation of article 6 of ICCPR as an arbitrary deprivation of life and, in the circumstances examined by the Mission, appear to indicate an intention or at least a recklessness towards causing harm to civilians which may amount to wilful killing.
1939. Excessive use of force that resulted in injury rather than death constitutes violations of a number of standards, including articles 7 and 9 of ICCPR. These violations are compounded by the seemingly discriminatory "open fire regulations" for security forces dealing with demonstrations, based on the presence of persons with a particular nationality, violating the principle of non-discrimination in ICCPR (art. 2) as well as under article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
1940. The Mission finds that Israel failed to investigate, and when appropriate prosecute, acts by its agents or by third parties involving serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.
1941. The Mission was alarmed at the reported increase in settler violence in the past year and the failure of the Israeli security forces to prevent settlers' attacks against Palestinian civilians and their property. These are accompanied by a series of violations by Israeli forces or acquiesced by them, including the removal of residential status from Palestinians, which could eventually lead to a situation of virtual deportation and entail additional violations of other rights.
(b) Detention of Palestinians by Israel
1942. The Mission analysed information it received on the detention of Palestinians in Israeli prisons during or in the context of the military operations of December 2008- January 2009 and found those practices generally inconsistent with human rights and international humanitarian law. The military court system to which Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territory are subjected deprives them of due process guarantees in keeping with international law.
1943. The Mission finds that the detention of members of the Palestinian Legislative Council by Israel violates the right not to be arbitrarily detained, as protected by article 9 of ICCPR. Insofar as it is based on political affiliation and prevents those members from participating in the conduct of public affairs, it is also in violation of its articles 25 recognizing the right to take part in public affairs and 26, which provides for the right to equal protection under the law. Insofar as their detention is unrelated to their individual behaviour, it constitutes collective punishment, prohibited by article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Information on the detention of large numbers of children and their treatment by Israeli security forces point to violations of their rights under ICCPR and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
]]>
The nuclear arms reduction as proposed by the US and agreed by existing nuclear weapon states, DOES NOT APPLY TO ISRAEL who still refuses to admit to nuclear arms possession. That means that the US, UK, Russia, France and China, and hopefully India and Pakistan, will start to reduce nuclear weapon stockpiles whilst Israel can continue to increase its massive clandestine arsenal.
We are fast-forwarding to a world where the Middle East could be in flames, international oil supplies cut, stock markets collapsed, economies failing and our living costs escalated to a point that is inconceivable to imagine.
For what reason? So as Israel can extend its illegal occupation of Palestinian land.
Surely, now is the time for all peace-loving people to stand-up and declare that enough is enough! The time for the Israeli lobby to impose its agenda, not only upon the US electorate, but on the entire free world, must be ended!
What we can do is to persuade the European Parliament to immediately SUSPEND the EU-Israel Association Agreement that gives Israel free access to all European markets, and to STOP the bilateral trade that makes up over one third of Israel's GDP.
Only by applying that pressure can we deliver change and ensure that the world economy is not severely damaged as a consequence of the agenda of political Zionism.
Judaism is an ancient religion that prohibits the killing of innocents or the oppression of another people.
Zionism is a secular, political movement barely 100 years old, that seeks hegemony in the Middle East.
Contrary to often misplaced belief - there is little if any commonality between the two. Judaism teaches the sanctity of all life, the essential importance of human and civil rights, the equality of justice and respect for the law.
That both Palestinian and Israeli should have secure, independent states, is a given and there is an imperative to impose, and if necessary to police, a solution now. The world is tired, frustrated and frightened by the consequences of the intransigence of over half a century.
cv
]]>
By Jeff Gates*
On September 24th, U.S. President Barack Obama will preside over a U.N. Security Council session on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. In March 2010, Moscow will host a Global Nuclear Summit that the U.S. has agreed to attend.
The next six months could prove hopeful or harmful-depending on the impact on Israel's nuclear arsenal. With U.S. backing, Tel Aviv has thus far avoided compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-joining North Korea, India and Pakistan.
President John F. Kennedy tried to stop Israel from starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. In a June 1963 letter to Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, he insisted on proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Israel was not developing nuclear weapons at its Dimona reactor facility. Though his letter was cabled to the U.S. embassy, Ben-Gurion resigned (citing undisclosed personal reasons) before the message could be physically delivered.
With Israel's nuclear ambitions under attack
by its key ally, that strategically well-timed resignation duped an
inexperienced young president and denied him a diplomatic victory that might
well have precluded the wars now being waged in the Middle East.
With Ben-Gurion's resignation, JFK was left without an Israeli government with
which he could negotiate. By the time a new government was formed, the Kennedy
threat had been eliminated and Tel Aviv could start haggling from scratch with
successor Lyndon Johnson who was far more sympathetic to the goals of the
Zionist state.
That strategy resurfaced in the recent resignation of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert just as the Road Map gained traction and the threat of peace loomed on the horizon. Olmert's successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, then used the terms of the Road Map as a bargaining chip to start haggling-with an inexperienced young president-over sanctions against Iran.
Democrat Lyndon Johnson proved himself a reliably pliant pro-Israeli president as did his successor, Republican Richard Nixon. Described by Prime Minister Golda Meir as "the best friend Israel ever had," Nixon agreed in 1969 to endorse "constructive ambiguity" as a means for Tel Aviv to obscure its nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile Colonial Zionists brandished the threat of that arsenal to seize land they sought for Greater Israel.
Israeli incursions provoked the reactions one would expect, enabling Tel Aviv to portray itself as a hapless victim in need of U.S. support in a hostile and anti-Semitic neighborhood. Four years after Kennedy wrote to Ben-Gurion, Israel mounted a massive six-day assault on neighboring nations, occupying lands that remain at the heart of the hostilities against which Tel Aviv insists it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself.
With the war in Iraq poised to expand to Iran, the next six months offer a rare opportunity to revisit not only Israel's nuclear arsenal but also-in light of the consistency of its behavior over six decades-the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise.
Managing the Threat to Zionism: JFK, RFK and Fulbright
In 1962, Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, convened hearings to ensure that the American Zionist Council-funded by the Jewish Agency-register as the agent of a foreign government. JFK was then president and brother Robert his attorney general. Edward ("Ted") Kennedy was elected to the Senate that year to fill his brother Jack's seat. In October 1963, the Department of Justice-led by Robert Kennedy-demanded that the Council register as a foreign agent.
Following the Kennedy assassination in November 1963, Nicholas Katzenbach succeeded RFK as Attorney General for Lyndon Johnson. To avoid registration, the Zionist Council morphed into the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). That umbrella organization-still disguised as a domestic lobby-continues to coordinate the efforts of dozens of organizations that sustain a U.S. policy environment favorable to a foreign nation.
The Kennedy brothers shared a little-known insight into the confidence with which Israel wields political influence across party lines. In the closing weeks of his 1960 presidential campaign, candidate Kennedy traveled to New York to seek financial support from Jewish business leaders. On his return to Washington, he called his old friend Charlie Bartlett who had introduced Jack to Jackie.
According to Bartlett, Kennedy was livid after those he met in Manhattan assured him that the funds he sought were available but only if he turned over to them the formulation of U.S. policy in the Middle East. With brother "Bobby" his chief campaign strategist, that experience doubtless came to mind when, in 1963, JFK confirmed that Israel-while portraying itself a U.S. ally-repeatedly lied to him about its development of nuclear weapons.
Israel vs. the Kennedys
At the height an unpopular war in Vietnam, Robert Kennedy emerged to challenge the policies of the Texan who replaced his brother as president in 1963. No one knows for sure that, as president, RFK would have followed JFK's stance on the Zionist state's nuclear arsenal. Nor do we know for certain that he would have renewed his insistence that the Israel lobby register as the agent of a foreign government.
When a second Kennedy threat was eliminated with an assassination in June 1968, Tel Aviv welcomed to the White House Richard Nixon who supported Israel's strategically essential "ambiguous" policy on nuclear arms. Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell was a partner in the same New York law firm (Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander) that Nixon joined in 1963 after his failed bids as president, losing to JFK in 1960, and as governor of California two years later. In honor of Nixon's arrival, the dominantly Jewish firm was renamed Nixon, Mudge, Rose, Guthrie & Alexander.
In 1973, five years after RFK's death, Senator Fulbright could announce with confidence that "Israel controls the U.S. Senate." By 1974, he was replaced in the Senate. Journalist Helen Thomas was then covering Nixon, one of ten presidents in her lengthy career as White House correspondent. In Obama's first press conference, she sought to clarify the ambiguity about just who posed a nuclear threat in the region. Her question for this latest Commander in Chief: which nation in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
In response, Chicagoan Barack Obama did the "Tel Aviv Two-Step." Rather than answer the question, he spoke about the need for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Not since then has Thomas been allowed to ask another question. Instead she was subjected to a withering barrage of personal attacks by pro-Zionist broadcasters who sought to make it appear that she-not the answer to her question-is the problem.
At every opportunity, Tel Aviv insists that Tehran's nuclear energy program poses an "existential threat." That claim is correct though not for the reason that the Israel lobby would have Americans believe. If Israel cannot persuade the U.S. to join (or condone) an attack on Iran, some faint semblance of stability may yet be attained in the Middle East. With stability will come an opportunity to confirm the common source of the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 911.
Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence to mount such a deception inside the U.S. As that fact becomes apparent, an informed American public will insist that its leadership revisit the legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise along with the costs that this "special relationship" has imposed on the U.S. in blood, treasure and hard-earned credibility.
Israel is the Real Threat to Israel
The existential threat to Israel is real but its source is not Iran. The real threat is the facts that Tel Aviv may again obscure if it succeeds in provoking yet another crisis in the region. Those facts confirm the illegitimacy of the Zionist enterprise as a nation state.
The threat to Barack Obama could become existential should he act consistent with his oath of office. As yet he has shown no inclination to address the perils that this entangled alliance with Jewish extremists imposes on U.S. national security and on the prospects for peace.
As the source of the duplicity that induced the U.S. to war becomes known, Americans will insist on accountability. Zionist fanatics may choose another course. A modern-day Masada is a nuclear possibility. With their vast arsenal (estimates range from 200 to 400 warheads), these religious extremists could preempt accountability by creating chaos worldwide while affixing blame on "Islamo" fascists in an attempt to keep their victim status plausibly intact.
To eliminate the existential threat posed by nuclear-armed religious extremists requires that the U.S.-as Israel's key ally-isolate the Zionist enterprise, withdraw its recognition as a legitimate state and reclassify its advocates as foreign agents. That long overdue change in the legal status of the Israel lobby-first sought in 1962-will enable U.S. law enforcement to pursue its operatives for giving aid and comfort to an enemy within.
The focal point for peace in the Middle East should not be those nations that do not have nuclear weapons but the one nation that does. Absent external pressure, Israeli behavior will not change. Those who seek peace in the region must boycott Israeli exports, divest from Israeli firms and insist on sanctions against Israel akin to those it seeks against others. Anything less will ensure that Zionist extremists continue to endanger us all.
*Jeff Gates: A widely acclaimed author, attorney, investment banker, educator and consultant to government, corporate and union leaders worldwide.
]]>
Israel today stands accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Using civilians as human shields to terrorize the population, being one such horrific allegation.
The U N Human Rights Commission report today recommends that the Security Council take this matter before the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.
It is taken for granted that the Obama Government will not seek to protect alleged war criminals by allowing LOBBY GROUPS to exert pressure on it to use its VETO to frustrate international justice, the rule of law and democracy.
That would be condoning war crimes, an act from which no government could recover.
This global play-acting is becoming tedious.
As I have pointed out hundreds of times, LIKUD POLICY IS FOR A GREATER ISRAEL extending from Eilat to just south of Bent Jbail on the Lebanese border. And everything in between.
Again. THAT IS THE LIKUD OBJECTIVE. It always was, from the time of its progenitors, LEHI and the Irgun, through to now, 2009. It has never changed.
All else is commentary and play-acting. The only way to ensure a Palestinian state is either by economic pressure or by force.
Problem is AIPAC who decides US foreign policy, and the massive nuclear arsenal in the Negev.
The optimum methodology would be to stop all US aid and all bilateral trade with the US and the EU.
BUT WHO IS LISTENING? No one! It will come to pass, but probably now only after the nuclear war to come.
Posted by GD riverLikud and Netanyahu have not the slightest intention of co-operating or allowing the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian state. The manifesto of the ultra right-wing Likud party expressly requires movement towards a 'Greater Israel' from Eilat to the Syrian border by the expedient of 'transferring' all Muslims and Christians out of Israel/ Palestine to neighboring countries such as Jordan and Egypt.
Meanwhile little Ehud Barack struts and frets his hour upon the stage. This Barack is quite a warmonger. He wants to attack Lebanon unless he is allowed to determine the composition of the Lebanese parliament. He threatens to attack Iran unless they immediately stop copying Israel in an attempt to build nuclear weapons. Israel has already between 200 and 500 warheads, enough to wipe out the whole of the Gulf and beyond. And he tells Syria that unless they run their country the way he, Barack, wants, they will be targeted by the IAF. Quite a threatening posture for one small politician, who apparently wants to rule the Middle East.
]]>