by Dr. Lawrence Davidson
Part I – Zionist Reality

Last month Amira Hass, one of Israel’s best, bravest and most disliked journalists wrote a short piece in Haaretz entitled “When ‘fascist’ is not a rude word.” Here she tells us that “in fascist regimes the state is above all” and then notes that the sort of fascist style bills pouring out of Israel’s Knesset would “make Jean-Marie Le Pen and his daughter [the leaders of the far right party of France] look like amateurs.”

Could this be so? Could that singular country which, for 64 years made every effort to show but one face to the American public, the face of a Dr. Jekyl, be hiding the hideous features of a Mr. Hyde? Could it be that the “only democracy in the Middle East,” the friend and ally that allegedly reflects American values, the mighty dam protecting the West from the flood of Islamic radicalism, the supposed champion of gender equality in the patriarchal East, and the reliable, if indirect, source of financial support for 99% of the U.S. Congress, is morphing into a fascist state?

Deeply indoctrinated Americans are going to need more than Amira Hass’s word on this. They are going to need supporting evidence and so here are some other “experts” they might consult.

Your average pro-Israel Americans might look up Danny Danon, who is a good looking, clean shaven sort of fellow as well as a Likud Party member of the Israeli Knesset. Danon has been working very hard to pass laws that would root out all those who might not be loyal to his Jewish state. It seems that, in his efforts to be “just like us,” he is following in the footsteps of Senator Joseph McCarthy. One can hear the echo when Danon proclaims, “there are many people who act against the State that protects them. Anyone who is not faithful to the State should not be a citizen.” He mainly has in mind that quarter of the population who are not Jewish, but he would also throw into this category those Israeli Jews audacious enough to stand up for political equality for all citizens. In other words, Danon’s aim is to manufacture statelessness. And as both 20^th century European history and Israel’s 45 years in the Occupied Territories attests, statelessness is a one-way road to physical and cultural destruction.

When our figurative American supporters of Israel are done talking to Danny Danon, they might move on to consult Benni Katzover. Katzover is a major figure in the Israeli “settler movement” and a supporter of the terrorist activities of the Zionist “price tag” campaign, a bunch of “patriots” who attack Palestinians and Israeli peace groups whenever the government frustrates their helter skelter expansionist activities on the West Bank. Katzover may well have the same ends as Danon, but he is much more out front about them. “I would say that today, Israeli democracy has one central mission, and that is to disappear. Israeli democracy has finished its historical role, and it must be dismantled and bow before Judaism.” All those leftists who find this proposal frightening are just “against anything that smells of holiness, and…act against the foundations of Jewish faith.” One wonders what American Zionists who see Sharia law undermining the foundations of democracy make of Benni Katzover?

While estimates vary, it is not unreasonable to assume that Danny Danon and Benni Katzover together command the support of at least 25% of the Israeli Jewish population. Otherwise the Israeli Knesset would not look and act as it does and the settler movement would not be so openly aggressive. And this category of Israelis are nothing if not aggressive. According to a recent survey the Danon-Katzover types are mostly young and express their opinions in an “open and unabashed” racist way. They express open hatred for Arabs and a wish that those under Israeli control would die.

Part II – Jewish Humanitarians

Of course, there are other Israelis who represent the opposite point of view. Thus, our figurative American supporters of Israel might also want to interview some of them.

First they should look up Uri Avnery. Avnery is a founding member of Gush Shalom, the Israeli Peace Bloc. Avinery has solid Israeli credentials: he was a heroic fighter in the 1948 war, a well known journalist and was a distinguished past member of the Knesset. However, he has also always asserted that Israel evolved along the wrong path. It should not be a “nationalistic, theocratic ‘Jewish State’” but rather a “modern, liberal state belonging to all its citizens irrespective of national or religious roots.” This position earned him a lot of enemies including Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and his successor Golda Meir. Both considered Avnery a “public enemy.” Subsequently there was an assassination attempt and the office of his newspaper, Haolam Hazeh, was bombed. Avnery is a shining light of humanism in Israel’s dark corner, but he is not the only one.

After talking to Avnery our figurative inquirers should move on to Rabbi Arek Ascherman, the Director of Special Projects for Rabbis for Human Rights in Israel. Ascherman’s position is that the only legitimate way you can have Israel be a Jewish place is by having its institutions uphold Jewish values. For Ascherman that means getting in the way, as best one can, of the “ugly side” of Israeli behavior and policies such as standing against the house demolitions, land confiscations, settler encroachments, arbitrary arrests, beatings, and killings of Palestinians, etc. For his efforts Ascherman and his organization have suffered the same sort of attacks as has Avnery. Asherman’s car has been stoned (by Israelis), he has been arrested and beaten up. His fate reminds one of the treatment received by civil rights workers in the 1960s U.S. This seems to be another way that Israel is “just like us.”

Avnery and Ascherman are but drops in a very shallow bucket. They and the other Israeli Jewish men and women who fight for human decency in the a country falsely rumored to be “a light unto the nations” probably command the support of, at most, 15% of the Israeli Jewish population.

Part III – The Indifferent

And what of the rest of Israel’s Jews? Well the survey mentioned above found that the other 60% are indifferent to the Palestinians, but in a generally negative way. For instance, many in this category (up to 46%) “would not be willing to live next door to them.” It is actually the negatively tinged indifference of this majority of Israeli Jews that allows the more assertive and aggressive 25% to gain power and assure the country’s status as a truly apartheid state. The 15 % that may support Avnery and Ascherman essentially become social mistakes within the Israeli milieu. They have somehow escaped the full impact of Zionist education and ideology. They have broken free of the conformist pressures of family, community, army and media propaganda. And, having freed themselves from what Gabriel Kolko calls “enforced consensus,” they collectively become a fringe element.

Part IV – Conclusion

It is strange, all countries have such self-aware and active humanitarians and all of them probably have these people in the same relative proportion–about 15%. This is just large enough to remind us of what good humanity is capable of, but just too small to help us realize that good.

ldavidson@wcupa.edu
www.tothepointanalyses.com
www.twitter.com/pointanalyses

********

DR. LAWRENCE DAVIDSON is professor of Middle East history at West Chester University in West Chester, PA, and the author of America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood (University of Florida Press, 2001), Islamic Fundamentalism (Greenwood Press, 2003), and Foreign Policy, Inc.: Privatizing American National Interest (University of Kentuck Press, 2009).

It is time for more diplomacy not less — even if that means offending a powerful lobby that is hell-bent for war.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Ranking Member Howard Berman (D-CA) spearheaded a number of important pieces of legislation

by M J ROSENBERG

Wasting no time after its success in getting the administration to oppose Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and still celebrating the UNESCO funding cut-off, AIPAC has returned to its #1 priority: pushing for war with Iran.

The Israelis have, of course, played their own part in the big show. In the last few weeks, it has been sending out signals that it is getting ready to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities (and embroil the United States in its most calamitous Middle East war yet).

But most observers do not believe an Israeli attack is imminent. (If it was, would Israel telegraph it in advance?) The point of the Israeli threats is to get the United States and the world community to increase pressure on Iran with the justification that unless it does, Israel will attack.

Naturally, the United States Congress, which gets its marching orders on Middle East policy from the lobby which, in turn, gets its marching orders from Binyamin Netanyahu, is rushing to do what it is told. (If only Congress addressed joblessness at home with the same alacrity and enthusiasm.)

Accordingly the House Foreign Affairs Committee hurriedly convened this week to consider a new “crippling sanctions” bill that seems less designed to deter an Iran nuclear weapon than to lay the groundwork for war.

The clearest evidence that war is the intention of the bill’s supporters comes in Section 601 which should be quoted in full. (It is so incredible that paraphrasing would invite the charge of distorting through selective quotation.)

It reads:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. — No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that — (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. — The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.

What does this mean?

It means that neither the president, the Secretary of State nor any U.S. diplomat or emissary may engage in negotiations or diplomacy with Iran of any kind unless the president convinces the “appropriate Congressional committees” (most significantly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee which is an AIPAC fiefdom) that not engaging with Iranian contacts would present an “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.”

To call this unprecedented is an understatement. At no time in our history has the White House or State Department been restricted from dealing with representatives of a foreign state, even in war time.

If President Roosevelt wanted to meet with Hitler, he could have and, of course, he did repeatedly meet with Stalin. During the Cold War, U.S. diplomats maintained continuous contacts with the Soviets, a regime that murdered tens of millions and, later, with the Chinese regime which murdered even more. And they did so without needing permission from Congress. (President Nixon was only able to normalize relations with China by means of secret negotiations which, had they been exposed, would have been torpedoed by the Republican right.)

But all the rules of normal statecraft are dropped when it comes to Iran which may, or may not, be working on developing a nuclear capacity. Of course if it is, it is obviously even more critical that the American government officials speak to Iranian counterparts.

But preventing diplomacy is precisely what Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Howard Berman (D-CA), leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee which reported out this bill, seek. They and others who back the measure want another war and the best way to get it is to ban diplomacy (which exists, of course, to prevent war).

Think back, for example, to the Cuban missile crisis. The United States and the monstrous, nuclear armed Soviet regime were on the brink of war over Cuba, a war that might have destroyed the planet.

Neither President Kennedy nor Premier Khrushchev knew how to end the crisis, especially because both were being pushed by their respective militaries not to back down.

Then, at the darkest moment of the crisis, when war seemed inevitable, an ABC correspondent named John Scali secretly met with a Soviet official in New York who described a way to end the crisis that would satisfy his bosses. That meeting was followed by another secret meeting between the president’s brother, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and a Soviet official in Washington. Those meetings led to a plan that ended the crisis and, perhaps, saved the world.

Needless to say, Kennedy did not ask for the permission of the House Foreign Affairs Committee either to conduct secret negotiations or to implement the terms of the deal. In fact, it was decades before the details of the deal were revealed.

It is this latitude to conduct diplomacy that the lobby and its cutouts on Capitol Hill want to take away from the White House. And it’s latitude that is especially essential if it is determined that Iran is trying to assemble a nuclear arsenal.

Writing in the Washington Post last week, Fareed Zakaria explained that the best way to approach Iran is not to ban diplomacy but to intensify it, nukes or no nukes.

Obama should return to his original approach and test the Iranians to see if there is any room for dialogue and agreement. Engaging with Iran, putting its nuclear program under some kind of supervision and finding areas of common interest (such as Afghanistan) would all be important goals…

Strategic engagement with an adversary can go hand in hand with a policy that encourages change in that country. That’s how Washington dealt with the Soviet Union and China in the 1970s and 1980s. Iran is a country of 80 million people, educated and dynamic. It sits astride a crucial part of the world. It cannot be sanctioned and pressed down forever. It is the last great civilization to sit outside the global order. We need a strategy that combines pressure with a path to bring Iran in from the cold.

In other words, it is time for more diplomacy not less — even if that means offending a powerful lobby that is hell-bent for war.

Source: HuffPost

MJ Rosenberg Since 1998, M.J. Rosenberg has been the Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum (IPF). He heads the organization’s Washington, D.C. office and writes IPF FRIDAY, a widely-circulated weekly opinion column which focuses upon U.S. Middle East policy and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Proir to joining IPF, Rosenberg worked for 14 years on Capitol Hill as an aide to Representatives Jonathan Bingham (D-New York), Edward Feighan (D-Ohio), Nita Lowey (D-New York) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan). From 1982 to 1986, Rosenberg edited NEAR EAST REPORT, the American Israel Public Affair Committee’s (AIPAC’s) biweekly publication on Middle East Policy. He is Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network (http://politicalcorrection.org/)

Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg

Tim King Salem-News.com

Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, U.S. Congress and redefined rocket science…

Courtesy Salem-News.com

(SALEM) – In a violent world where a genocide can claim as many as six million human lives in a single ‘program’, it seems unimaginable that the deaths of 29 people could, in modern times, hugely impact the future of all human beings.

That’s right, the world’s safety and World War Three itself, hinges on the reaction to the deaths of 29 innocent people. Is your child’s future worth the honor of 29 people?

One day in 1994, an Israeli doctor entered a Muslim place of worship and opened fire with an assault rifle. He had several magazines but eventually ran out of ammo and the survivors killed him.

Heinous and utterly cold blooded and cruel, this ‘doctor’ is a martyr today among Israeli settlers, who live in colonies built specifically on stolen Palestinian land.

This pre-meditated crime was committed during the Intifada when fragile peace negotiations were underway, and as the Website Palestine Facts explains, the tragic bloody shooting was a political disaster:

Mass Murderer Baruch Goldstein

…the best known, and most serious incident of Israeli violence against Arabs was in February 1994, when Dr. Baruch Goldstein, a resident of Kiryat Arba, opened fire with a Galil assault rifle on Muslim worshippers at the Machpelah Cave, murdering 29 and wounding 125…

…it seriously impacted the peace process and led to the installation of an international observer force in Hebron…
- From the article, Palestinians Shot in Hebron, 1994

The crime in Hebron that history would recall as the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre, was fully denounced by the Israeli government and religious leaders.

That is good, but made little difference for the 29 dead and 125 people injured while praying, by a man who was a physician no The shot of irony is that, as it turns out, this mass murdering Jewish settler terrorist was an American. Americans, the millions of hard working people whose tax dollars that are given by their politicians to Israel, ensure that every Jewish Israeli is guaranteed a college education. Isn’t that something? Americans, they are so good to the Israelis that Congress recently offered the leader of the Israeli regime, Benjamin Netanyahu, exactly 29 standing ovations… what?

Baruch Goldstein- Jewish Terrorist, Doctor of Death

Baruch Kopel Goldstein (Hebrew: ברוך קופל גולדשטיין‎; December 9, 1956 – February 25, 1994) was an American-born Jewish Israeli physician and mass murderer who perpetrated the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in the city of Hebron, killing 29 Palestinian Muslim worshipers and wounding another 125.

The Israeli government condemned the massacre and responded by arresting followers of Meir Kahane, forbidding certain settlers from entering Arab towns and demanding that those settlers turn in their army-issued rifles. Goldstein was denounced by mainstream Orthodox Judaism and was widely described as insane by Israelis.

Goldstein’s gravesite became a pilgrimage site for Jewish extremists. In 1999, after the passing of Israeli legislation outlawing monuments to terrorists, the Israeli army dismantled the shrine that had been built to Goldstein at the site of his interment.
- From the Wikipedia page on Baruch Goldstein

less; raised on western values and right-wing Zionist ideology.

Special Thank to our friends at Salem-News.com

********

Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com’s Executive News Editor. Tim spent the winter of 2006/07 covering the war in Afghanistan, and he was in Iraq over the summer of 2008, reporting from the war while embedded with both the U.S. Army and the Marines. Tim holds numerous awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing, including the Oregon AP Award for Spot News Photographer of the Year (2004), first place Electronic Media Award in Spot News, Las Vegas, (1998), Oregon AP Cooperation Award (1991); and several others including the 2005 Red Cross Good Neighborhood Award for reporting. Tim has several years of experience in network affiliate news TV stations, having worked as a reporter and photographer at NBC, ABC and FOX stations in Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. You can send Tim an email at this address: newsroom@salem-news.com

Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Jan 3 (IPS) – President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are engaged in intense maneuvering over Netanyahu’s aim of entangling the United States in an Israeli war against Iran.

Netanyahu is exploiting the extraordinary influence his right-wing Likud Party exercises over the Republican Party and the U.S. Congress on matters related to Israel in order to maximise the likelihood that the United States would participate in an attack on Iran.

Obama, meanwhile, appears to be hoping that he can avoid being caught up in a regional war started by Israel if he distances the United States from any Israeli attack.

New evidence surfaced in 2011 that Netanyahu has been serious about dealing a military blow to the Iranian nuclear programme. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, who left his job in September 2010, revealed in his first public appearance after Mossad Jun. 2 that he, Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) chief Gabi Ashkenazi and Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin had been able to “block any dangerous adventure” by Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak.

The Hebrew language daily Maariv reported that those three, along with President Shimon Peres and IDF Senior Commander Gadi Eisenkrot, had vetoed a 2010 proposal by Netanyahu to attack Iran.

Dagan said he was going public because he was “afraid there is no one to stop Bibi and Barak”. Dagan also said an Israeli attack on Iran could trigger a war that would “endanger the (Israeli) state’s existence”, indicating that his revelation was not part of a psywar campaign.

It is generally agreed that an Israeli attack can only temporarily set back the Iranian nuclear programme, at significant risk to Israel. But Netanyahu and Barak hope to draw the United States into the war to create much greater destruction and perhaps the overthrow of the Islamic regime.

In a sign that the Obama administration is worried that Netanyahu is contemplating an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Defence Secretary Leon Panetta tried and failed in early October to get a commitment from Netanyahu and Barak that Israel would not launch an attack on Iran without consulting Washington first, according to both Israeli and U.S. sources cited by The Telegraph and by veteran intelligence reporter Richard Sale.

At a meeting with Obama a few weeks later, the new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Martin Dempsey and the new head of CENTCOM, Gen. James N. Mattis, expressed their disappointment that he had not been firm enough in opposing an Israeli attack, according to Sale.

Obama responded that he “had no say over Israel” because “it is a sovereign country.”

Obama’s remark seemed to indicate a desire to distance his administration from an Israeli attack on Iran. But it also made it clear that he was not going to tell Netanyahu that he would not countenance such an attack.

Trita Parsi, executive director of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who has analysed the history of the triangular relationship involving the United States, Israel and Iran in his book “Treacherous Alliance”, says knowledgeable sources tell him Obama believes he can credibly distance himself from an Israeli attack.

In a Dec. 2 talk at the Brookings Institution, while discussing the dangers of the regional conflict that would result from such an attack, Panetta said the United States “would obviously be blamed and we could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, sinking our ships, striking our military bases.”

Panetta’s statement could be interpreted as an effort to convince Iran that the Obama administration is opposed to an Israeli strike and should not be targeted by Iran in retaliation if Israel does launch an attack.

Parsi believes Obama’s calculation that he can convince Iran that the United States has no leverage on Israel without being much tougher with Israel is not realistic.

“Iran most likely would decide not to target U.S. forces in the region in retaliation for an Israeli strike only if the damage from the strike were relatively limited,” Parsi told IPS in an e-mail.

The Obama administration considers the newest phase of sanctions against Iran, aimed at reducing global imports of Iranian crude oil, as an alternative to an unprovoked attack by Israel. But what Netanyahu had in mind in proposing such an initiative was much more radical than the Obama administration or the European Union could accept.

When Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is closely aligned with Netanyahu’s Likud Party, pushed the idea of sanctions against any financial institution that did business with Iran’s Central Bank, the aim was to make it impossible for countries that import Iranian crude to continue to be able to make payments for the oil.

Dubowitz wanted virtually every country importing Iranian crude except China and India to cut off their imports. He argued that reducing the number of buyers to mainly China and India would not result in a rise in the price of oil, because Iran would have to offer discounted prices to the remaining buyers.

Global oil analysts warned, however, that such a sanctions regime could not avoid creating a spike in oil prices.

U.S. officials told Reuters Nov. 8 that sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank were “not on the table”. The Obama administration was warning that such sanctions would risk a steep rise in oil prices worldwide and a worsening global recession, while actually increasing Iranian oil revenues.

But Netanyahu used the power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) over Congressional action related to Israel to override Obama’s opposition. The Senate unanimously passed an amendment representing Netanyahu’s position on sanctions focused on Iran’s oil sector and the Central Bank, despite a letter from Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner opposing it. A similar amendment was passed by the House Dec. 15.

The Obama administration acquiesced and entered into negotiations with its European allies, Saudi Arabia and the UAE on reducing imports of Iranian crude oil while trying to fill the gaps with other sources. But a number of countries, including Japan and Korea, are begging off, and the EU is insisting on protecting Greece and other vulnerable economies.

The result is likely to be a sanctions regime that reduces Iranian exports only marginally – not the “crippling sanctions” demanded by Netanyahu and Barak. Any hike in oil prices generated by sanctions against Iran’s oil sector, moreover, would only hurt Obama’s re- election chances.

In an interview with CNN in November, Barak warned the international community that Israel might have to make a decision on war within as little as six months, because Iran’s efforts to “disperse and fortify” its nuclear facilities would soon render a strike against facilities ineffective.

Barak said he “couldn’t predict” whether that point would be reached in “two quarters or three quarters or a year”. The new Israeli “red line” would place the timing of an Israeli decision on whether to strike Iran right in the middle of the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Netanyahu, who makes no secret of his dislike and distrust of Obama, may hope to put Obama under maximum pressure to support Israel militarily in a war with Iran by striking during a campaign in which the Republican candidate would be accusing him of being soft on the Iranian nuclear threat.

If the Republican candidate is in a strong position to win the election, on the other hand, Netanyahu would want to wait for a new administration aligned with his belligerent posture toward Iran.

Meanwhile, the end of U.S. Air Force control over Iraqi airspace with the final U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq has eliminated what had long been regarded as a significant deterrent to Israeli attack on Iran using the shortest route.

*********

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, “Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam”, was published in 2006.

Nour Rida

Its 2012, the presidential battle in the United States of America started its real warm up. Since the current US President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he has only been adding up more stories to the “Tell some Obama administration memoirs”. He has spent his term collecting the scattered US administration and people, who had suffered a lot during the Bush era, but not too long before he even did worse.

The failing health care plan, the ballooning nation’s debts reaching past $15 trillion, the expansion of US military activity worldwide-including the drones buzzing over several countries and aiming for haphazard targets under the pretext of counter-terrorism, the ongoing financial support for “Israel’s” Iron Dome and War system at the time some Americans still live in tents upon loss of their homes during the Global financial crisis back in 2009, and the list of O’bummer achievements is endless. Oh and did we forget to mention the oil spill in the Mexican gulf that has led to a natural disaster? All that among claims that economy is on the mend…

In his May 2011 speech on the Middle East, President Obama described the US commitment to “Israel’s” security as “unshakeable”. Also in 2011, the Obama administration requested $3 billion in Foreign Military financing for “Israel”, the highest level since 2003. According to the State Department, the assistance is aimed at maintaining “Israel’s” “qualitative military edge” and ensuring “the security it requires to make concessions necessary for comprehensive regional peace.”

Today, after all the relentless efforts Obama has made to support “Israel”, nearly all Republican presidential candidates have expressed resentment towards the Obama administration for what they said is waning support for “Israel”. They also have expressed strong backing for “Israel”, as quotes the Council on Foreign Relations.

Beginning with Representative Michele Bachmann, she cites her Christian background as the foundation of her support for “Israel”. “”Israel” is not merely the cradle of my faith; it’s the greatest strategic asset the United States has in the region.” She says, stressing that “the United States should ensure that “Israel” gets “stronger and stronger” so that it is able to defend itself “at all times and under all circumstances.”

Bachmann said she would “fully recognize al-Quds (Jerusalem) as “Israel’s” undivided capital, and will be the first administration to finally implement the laws passed by Congress requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy to al-Quds (Jerusalem).”

As for Newt Gingrich, in his remarks to the Republican Jewish Coalition in December 2011, former speaker of the House Gingrich said the greatest obstacle is that “Israel” should not be expected to negotiate with any Palestinian coalition that includes Hamas, “an organization dedicated to its destruction.” Gingrich, criticizing Obama’s stance on pre-1967 borders as a basis for negotiations during his May 2011 speech on the Middle East, said it is “a suicidal step for “Israel”.”
Gingrich supports the recognition of Jerusalem as the “undivided capital of a Jewish state,” and has also vowed, if elected, to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to al-Quds (Jerusalem).

In a December 2011 interview, Gingrich questioned the historical basis of a distinct Palestinian people, stating “remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community.”

As for Jon Huntsman, he believes “the foundation of a successful US policy in the Middle East rests upon a strong US-”Israel” relationship.”
Huntsman says the “best chance for peace is for “Israel” to know that America stands shoulder-to-shoulder beside her and for the Palestinians and “Israelis” to negotiate with each other.”

Writing in the National Review Online, Huntsman referred to the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN as a “cynical, counterproductive ploy.”
In the short term, he says, “We must work to regain the confidence of our friends in Israel so that meaningful work toward an enduring peace can begin.”
Representative Ron Paul, for his part, calls for a reduced US diplomatic role in Arab-”Israeli” affairs, including cutting off foreign aid to “Israel” and other countries in the region. Perhaps being less diplomatic on “Israel” would help him arrive in office… He says the United States buys “Israel’s” allegiance and “they sacrifice their sovereignty to us.”

Paul has also been critical, referring to the 2009 “Israeli” invasion of Gaza as a “sad day” that demonstrated the “unfortunate” spread of preemptive war.
He has described conditions in Gaza as a “tragedy” similar to that of a concentration camp. He opposed House Resolution 34, a 2009 congressional motion formalizing U.S. support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. Paul said he was “appalled by the longstanding Israeli blockade of Gaza–a cruel act of war–and the tremendous loss of life that has resulted from the latest “Israeli” attack.”
Now Texas Governor Rick Perry, a strong advocate of U.S.-”Israeli” relations, describes the latter as a special partner and the US’s “oldest and strongest ally in the Middle East.”

Perry condemned the White House for suggesting the 1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations, and described the Palestinian insistence on the “right of return” of refugees as “a disturbing sign that the ultimate Palestinian ‘solution’ remains the destruction of the Jewish state.”
Perry says the Obama administration has encouraged Palestinians to “take steps backward” from the peace process by demanding an Israeli settlement freeze in late 2010.

Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition Forum in December 2011, Perry said, “I support the goal of a Palestinian state, but it should be the Palestinians who meet certain preconditions,” These preconditions include a statehood “directly negotiated between “Israeli” and the Palestinian leaders; second, a Palestinian recognition of “Israel’s” right to exist as a Jewish state; and third, Palestinian leaders must renounce the terrorist activities of Hamas.”

Under the title “An American Century”, which outlines his foreign policy strategy, Republican candidate Mitt Romney describes “Israel” as the closest US ally in the Middle East, and said he will work to maintain “Israel’s” “strategic military edge.” He iterated that “The key to negotiating a lasting peace is an “Israel” that knows it will be secure.”

Romney said he will oppose “any measure,” such as a moratorium on Jewish settlements, “that would frustrate direct negotiations” between the two parties.” In the November 2011, foreign policy debate, Romney said, “My first foreign trip will be to “Israel”, to show the world we care about that country and that region.”
Just like his fellow candidates, Lawyer and former United States Senator from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum has denied the existence of a Palestinian people, stating that “All the people who live in the West Bank are “Israelis”, they are not Palestinians. There is no Palestinian. This is “Israeli” land.”

In a November campaign stop, the candidate also strongly condemned the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN, describing the move as “an embarrassment to this country,” and “an offense to the state of “Israel”.”
In the National Review Online in May 2011, Santorum wrote that “Israel” “has never been in more danger of disappearing” and described it as “surrounded by an armed alliance of Jihadist fundamentalists and nationalists.”

The 57th quadrennial United States Presidential Election will be held on November 6, 2012, and it will be expected to feature the incumbent, President Barack Obama for the Democrats, against a yet to be decided Republican candidate all “Israel”-friendly.

All Republican candidates have exploited the stuttering economy, runaway public debt and the lack of viable solutions as well as the rise to the Occupy Wall Street movement, especially in light of a Democratic administration under which the gap between the rich and poor has widened.

By Nour Rida.  Article originally posted here http://www.english.moqawama.org/.

For eight months, Western leaders and some public media have been agitating for a war in Syria. The extremely serious accusations leveled against Assad intimidate those who question the justification for a new military intervention. But not everyone, because – on the initiative of Voltaire Network – some came to Syria to investigate for themselves and were able to measure the extent of NATO’s propaganda. Thierry Meyssan reports on the state of the media war.

Created in Paris under French sponsorship, the Syrian National Council aims to overthrow the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. It is chaired by Burhan Ghalioun, professor of sociology at Sorbonne University (he is seen here with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé, 23 November 2011)

by Thierry Meyssan  –   Voltairenet.org

In 1999, during the Kosovo war, Voltaire Network was outraged that France could be going to war alongside NATO without a vote from the National Assembly, with the passive complicity of the parliamentary group leaders. We considered that the refusal by the President and the Prime Minister to hold an open debate portended the opacity with which this war would be conducted. So, we took the initiative of publishing a daily bulletin on the conflict. The Serbian government websites having been immediately destroyed by the Atlantic Alliance, we had no access to the Serbian version of events. In the absence thereof, we took out subscriptions to news agencies in the region (Croatian, Bosnian, Greek, Cypriot, Turkish, Hungarian etc.).

Throughout the conflict, we presented a daily summary of NATO’s press conferences in Brussels and a summary of the reports by journalists from neighboring countries, some of which were engaged in a serious dispute with Serbia, but whose governments gave a mutually consistent account of the events. Eventually, NATO’s version and that of the local journalists drifted apart to the point of having nothing in common.

In the end, we were dealing with two radically different stories. We had no way of knowing who was lying and whether one of the two sources was telling the truth. Our readers had the impression of being schizophrenic, especially since the West European media were relaying exclusively NATO’s version; our readers, therefore, were only exposed to the two parallel versions when reading us. We continued this exercise for the three months of fighting.

When the guns fell silent and it was possible for our colleagues and friends to go there, they noted with astonishment that the “propaganda was not on both sides.” No, NATO’s version was entirely false, while that of the local journalists turned out to be entirely true.

In the months that followed, parliamentary reports were released in several Member States of the Alliance establishing the facts. In addition, several books were published on the method developed by Tony Blair’s media adviser that enabled NATO to manipulate all of the Western press: the “story telling“.

Indeed, it is possible to intoxicate Western journalists en masse and to hide the facts from them if they are told a children’s tale, provided the narrative is never interrupted, that it is charged with references stirring up buried emotions, and that its consistency is maintained.

I did not have the reflex to visit Serbia before the war started and I could not do so after the fighting broke out. However, dear reader, today I am in Syria, where I took the time to investigate and from where I am writing this article. With full knowledge of the facts, I can say that NATO’s propaganda is currently operating in the same way Syria as it did in Serbia.

The Alliance began telling a story out of touch with reality, which aims to justify a “humanitarian military intervention,” according to the oxymoron coined by Blair. The parallel ends there: Slobodan Milosevic was a war criminal who had to be portrayed as a criminal against humanity so that his country could be dismembered; Bashar al-Assad is an opponent of imperialism and Zionism, who backed Hezbollah when Lebanon was under attack and supports Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in their quest for the liberation of the Palestinian homeland.

Four NATO lies

1. According to NATO and its Persian Gulf allies, for eight months mass demonstrations have taken place in Syria to demand more freedom and the departure of President Bashar al-Assad.

Not true. There have been demonstrations against President Bashar al-Assad’s, in some cities, at the call of Saudi and Egyptian preachers speaking on Al-Jazeera, but which rallied only some 100 000 people at the most. They were not claiming more freedom, but the establishment of an Islamic regime. They demanded the resignation of President al-Assad, not because of his politics, but because these protesters adhere to a sectarian strand of Sunni power, Takfirism, and they accuse Assad of being a heretic (he is Alawi) and of usurping power in a Muslim country, which they claim can only be legitimately governed by a Sunni from their theological school.

2. According to NATO and its Persian Gulf allies, the “regime” responded by using live ammunition to disperse the crowd, leaving at least 3,500 dead since the beginning of the year.

Not true. In the first place, it is not possible to suppress demonstrations that never existed. Then, from the outset, the authorities realized that efforts were afoot to provoke sectarian strife in a country where secularism has been the mainstay of the state since the eighth century. Consequently, President Bashar al-Assad prohibited security, police and army forces from using firearms in any circumstance where civilians might get hurt. The purpose is to prevent that the injuries, or even death, of a person belonging to one creed or the other, be exploited to justify a war of religion. This prohibition is respected by the security forces at the risk of their own lives, as we shall see later. As for the dead, their number should be cut in half. The majority are not civilians, but soldiers and police, as I was able to observe during my visits to hospitals and morgues, both civilian and military.

3. After we managed to break the wall of silence and got the big Western media to acknowledge the presence in Syria of death squads from abroad, setting up ambushes against the army and murdering civilians in the heart of the cities, NATO and its Gulf allies reported on the existence of an army of deserters. According to them, a group of military (not police) who had received the order to fire on the crowd allegedly rebelled. They apparently went underground and constituted the Free Syrian Army, already 1500 men-strong.

Not true. The deserters are only a few dozen, having fled to Turkey where they are supervised by an officer associated to the Hakim Rifaat el-Assad/Abdel Khaddam clan, famously linked to the CIA. There is, however, an increasing number of young people who refuse to do military service, more often under pressure from their families than by personal decision. Indeed, those soldiers who are caught in an ambush don’t have the right to use their firearms to defend themselves if civilians are on the scene. They have no choice but to sacrifice their lives if they are unable to escape.

4. According to NATO and its Persian Gulf allies, the cycle of revolution/repression has paved the way for the start of a “civil war“. 1.5 million trapped Syrians would be suffering from hunger. It is therefore essential to set up “humanitarian corridors” to deliver food aid and allow civilians to flee the combat zones.

Not true. Considering the number and the cruelty of the attacks by death squads from abroad, population displacement has been minimal. Syria is agriculturally self-sufficient and its productivity has not declined significantly. On the other hand, with most of the ambushes taking place on major roads, traffic is frequently interrupted. Moreover, when attacks spring up inside the cities, merchants shut down their shops immediately. This results in serious distribution problems, including food. The real issue lies elsewhere: economic sanctions have wrought disaster. While for the past decade Syria had registered a growth of around 5% per year, it can no longer sell its oil to Western Europe and its tourist industry has been hit hard. Many people have lost their jobs and income, having to save on everything. They are subsidized by the government, which distributes free food and heating fuel. Under such circumstances, it would be more fitting to say that if it were not for the Al-Assad government, 1.5 million Syrians would be suffering from malnutrition because of Western sanctions.

Ultimately, while we’re still in the stage of unconventional warfare, with the use of mercenaries and special forces to destabilize the country, the narrative spewed out by NATO and its Persian Gulf allies has already strayed from reality. This gap will widen more and more.

As far as you are concerned, dear reader, there is no reason why you should believe me rather than NATO, since you are not on the spot. However, there are several elements that should send up a red flag.

Bernard-Henry Levy, who boasted of having embroiled France in the war on Libya to serve Israel’s interests, told "Le Parisien" that he has a hit list of countries.

Four clues carefully hidden by NATO

1. One would think that the charges concerning the alleged repression and the number of victims were carefully looked into. But not at all. They originated from a single source: the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights, based in London, whose leaders demand anonymity. What is the validity of such grave accusations if they are not cross-checked and why do institutions such as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights rubber stamp them without verifying their authenticity?

2. Russia and China vetoed a draft Security Council resolution meant to pave the way for an international military intervention. NATO political leaders have forlornly explained that the Russians are protecting their naval base at Tartus and that the Chinese will do anything to scrape together a few barrels of oil. Should we accept the Manichean view that Washington, London and Paris are guided by good intentions, while Moscow and Beijing are essentially selfish and insensitive to the martyrdom of the population? How to avoid noticing that Russia and China have much less of an interest in defending Syria than Westerners have in destroying it?

3. It is somewhat bizarre to observe who makes up the coalition of so-called well-intentioned states. How can it escape anyone’s notice that the two main sustainers of the Arab League and promoters of the “democratization” of Syria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are puppet dictatorships in lockstep with the United States and the United Kingdom? Should not one wonder how credible the West can be – after having successively ravaged Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and killing more than 1, 2 million people in ten years, thus showing how little value they attach to human life – when it waves a humanitarian banner?

4. To avoid being manipulated on the events unfolding in Syria, the best thing is to put them in context. For NATO and its Persian Gulf allies, whose armies invaded Yemen and Bahrain to savagely quell peaceful demonstrations, the “Syrian Revolution” is an extension of the “Arab spring“, perceived by them as peoples in the region who dream of a market democracy and the comfort of the American Way of Life. On their part, the Russians and Chinese, apace with the Venezuelans and the South Africans, recognize the events in Syria as the continuation of Washington’s plan “to remodel the Greater Middle East“, which has already claimed 1.2 million lives and which anyone truly concerned about protecting human lives must strive to put an end to. They haven’t forgotten that on 15 September 2001, President George W. Bush green-lighted a plan to wage seven wars.

Preparations for the attack on Syria formally began on 12 December 2003 with the adoption of the Syrian Accountability Act in the wake of the fall of Baghdad. Since that day, the president of the United States – today Barack Obama – is under an order from Congress to attack Syria and is dispensed from any further clearance before launching hostilities. Therefore, the question is not whether NATO has found a divine justification for going to war, but whether Syria will find a way out of this situation, in the same way she outmaneuvered all the previous pitfalls and defamatory accusations leveled against her, such as the assassination of Rafik Hariri and the Israeli raid against an imaginary nuclear military plant.

Western mainstream media testify

At the end of this article, I would like to underscore that Voltaire Network facilitated a press visit to Syria, organized at the initiative of the Catholic Information Center of Middle East Christians, as part of the opening towards Western media announced by President al-Assad at the Arab League. We assisted mainstream journalists to travel to combat zones. At first, our colleagues were wary of our presence, both because they had negative preconceived ideas about us to us and because they thought we were trying to brainwash them. They eventually came to realize that we are normal people and that the fact of having chosen our camp did not mean we had renounced our critical spirit. In the end, though still convinced of NATO’s benevolence and while failing to share our commitment to anti-imperialist, they opened their eyes and ears to the truth.

Currently, their reports honestly reflect the actions perpetrated by the armed gangs that are terrorizing the country. Of course, they have refrained from openly contradicting the Atlantic version and tried to reconcile it with what they saw and heard, which called for some awkward contortions around the concept of a ’civil war’ allegedly pitting the Syrian army against foreign mercenaries. Nevertheless, reports by Télévision Belge (RTBF) and La Libre Belgique, to name a few, now clearly reveal that for eight months NATO has masked the actions of death squads and falsely attributed their crimes to the Syrian authorities.

 *******

Thierry Meyssan is French intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.

“They destroyed our country and now they want us to pay them to rebuild it. I wish we could rebuild without one NATO country profiting.”

by FRANKLIN LAMB /Intifada-Palestine.com

 (Sirte, Libya) This observer, with his sandaled feet comfortably dug into the sand of a chilly Mediterranean beach and huddled next to a camp fire with a congenial and bright group of still heavily armed “NATO rebels,” is learning that the past eight months’ experiences for many Libyans who fought with or for NATO were rather different from what the western mainstream media portrayed. And what many of us who spent last summer in the Western Libya Gadhafi stronghold were inclined to believe about them.

Two of my new acquaintances are from the Law Faculty of re-named Benghazi University (following the 1969 Fatah Revolution its name was changed to Garyounis), and six others who fought in most of the battles in Libya between February and October 2011.  The meeting was arranged by a rebel commander named “Samal.”  I first met Samal quite by chance at the central bus station in Alexandria Egypt, where as in Cairo, many “NATO rebels” are currently being feted with R & R.  His visit to Egypt was Samal’s first break from eight months of rough military duty, he explained. In his other life he is a part time university librarian who plans to return to his studies once the new academic year begins in January.  Like most students in Libya, he lost a full academic year as schools were closed due to the Libyan uprising and he wants to catch up with his degree program in computer science.

Samal readily admits that he, like many Libyans, was not as opposed to Muammar Gadhafi personally as they were to many of those around “the leader” who took advantage of their positions, connections and immunity and committed serial crimes against the public. Understanding this observer’s interest in this subject, and once back in Misrata, Samal arranged a meeting a few days later with some of his friends at a café on the Mediterranean shores of the Gulf of Sirte.  “Abu Nasser’s” is located on the outskirts of the village of Qasr Abu Hadi where Muammar Gaddhafi was born in a tent and where the youngster was raised until his parents sent him  to secondary school for five years down south in Sabha.  It was in Sabha where the budding Nasserite revolutionary reportedly relished his history studies, joined a local scout troop and later the Libyan armed forces.

After a terrific meal of spicy Libyan couscous with big junks of lamb on the bone at “Abu Nasser’s” and as it began to get dark, I noticed Samal gazing toward the northeast horizon deep out into the Gulf of Sirte.  As the full moon rose he suggested we make a campfire on the beach and continue our discussion under the stars.   Truth be told, Samal could not have proposed anything more perfect for this Oregonian, who as a kid passed many an evening beside beach campfires on the often cold and stormy Oregon coast or on the banks of Kellogg Lake near the Lamb family home on Lake Road, in Milwaukie.

One of the lecturers at the Benghazi College of Law told us that “our leader”, and then he quickly and self-consciously corrected himself and said “the tyrant” used to enjoy camping exactly where Samal had brought us on this beach. He to us that Gadhafi would explain to visitors about “Great Sirte Bay” as he called it, where he liked to swim. Gadhafi would explain to visitors about the Gulf of Sirte’s historic role in defeating the American military during the mid-1980’s when the Libyan air force chased away US aircraft sent by President Reagan to contest Gadhafi’s famous drawing of his red line (Gadhafi called it the “Line of Death”). The Libyan leader’s straight line ran across the mouth of “Great Sirte Bay” at 32 degrees, 30 minutes north between a point near Benghazi and the western headland of the Gulf at Misrata.  The red line signaled Libya’s claim to an exclusive 62 nautical miles (115 km) fishing zone (Sirte bay has the world’s largest population of tuna which explains why during Ramadan this year when there was no fresh food at our hotel due to the fighting EVERY Iftar meal to break the fast consisted of a mountain of canned tuna which this observer can no longer even stand the sight of).

At the UN Libya declared that given its natural configuration, the Gulf of Sirte was in fact Libyan territorial waters as Gadhafi first claimed in 1973.  According to Gadhafi, Libya’s historic victory in “Great Sirte Bay” resulted “from the 1984 expulsion of the US military from the area.” The US government rejected what it considered Libya’s illegal appropriation of the high seas, yet decided it was not worth a war and let the matter slide.

Some of my beach party interlocutors had been fighting since late February 2011. Samal and two others fought in six of the key battles including, Brega, Misrata, Zawieh, Tripoli, Bani Walid and Sirte.  I asked the group when the rebels first began to believe that they might defeat their adversaries.  Immediately Ahmed replied, “After the third battle of Brega we could tell that the Gadhafi forces did not have their hearts in this fight. By July 20^th I would guess.”

Ahmed’s colleagues agreed and one added, “It was like a repeat of when the Israeli forces gave up and lost against Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. Israeli forces clearly did not believe in their mission. Many of these Gadhafi guys did not either.  When you are on the battlefield you can sense your enemy’s psychology even when you can’t see him. During the third battle for Brega we were fighting at close range in residential areas and most of Gaddafi’s forces retreated to Ras Lanuf.  Some were still in a few buildings but they were no threat to us.”

Rashid interjected, “After Brega we knew that sooner or later we would win because we kept asking ourselves, in battle after battle, where is the regular Libyan army?  We knew some of them personally but we never saw them.  What happened to them, we wondered. Finally we realized that Gadhafi’s authority and his troops had melted.  That was made clear on August 23 when we found little resistance as we arrived to Tripoli.  Actually we were shocked. His army had abandoned him.”

Samal, added, “Yes but remember, and for sure we admit this, without NATO we would not have lasted one month.  Please don’t think we are in love with NATO although many Libyans seem to want our country to join NATO and some in NATO and our interim government wants this also.  NATO knows that our country could be a perfect AFCOM base to re-colonize Africa and end progressive projects for African countries. Please do not think we are not aware of what NATO countries want from Libya and our neighbors. They want from Libya and this whole region oil and natural resources, they want military bases on our soil, and they want us to accept Israel.  How they plan to achieve all this is by getting Arabs to fight and kill Arabs and Muslims to fight and the Muslims.”

One of the law professors added: “As we saw these past months the US and their allies will try to limit the Western countries role to providing support from the sky with bombs and drones and special units and without sending their regular troops. This is the NATO plan and we saw it clearly in our country and perhaps we will see it again in Syria in a different form.”

Kamal, a medical lab technician added, “Many Gadhafi loyalists in Tripoli and Western Libya who saw civilians killed by NATO bombs do not realize that NATO also killed plenty of us rebels, and civilians in our areas of Eastern Libya.  We are not allowed to mention it but NATO made many mistakes.  We called them ‘the gang that can’t bomb straight’ and many of our forces, a few hundred I would say, were bombed by NATO. An even higher number of civilians were killed in our areas by NATO. Often we feared NATO more than we feared the Gadhafi fighters.  Human rights groups should investigate what happened to us because the NTC will not.”

Under the big full moon hanging above “Great Sirte Bay” and deep into the night, these observers’ hosts shared some candid views on a variety of subjects, some of which were the following:

They predicted that Algeria will be the next regime to face an ‘Arab Spring’ uprising. The rebel fighters reported that some Libyan and foreign Islamists, mainly Saudi-paid salafists, are leaving Libya for Algeria where since 1992 the Algerian government has been repressing Islamists. Between 1988 and the late 1990’s more than 200,000 civilian were killed, 20,000 were disappeared and never heard from again,  and scores of thousands were wounded.  These figures dwarf the casualty rates in Libya and the Arab Spring countries to date. The coming uprising combined with the expected Algerian government’s reaction may be horrendous.

One of the reasons is that there is great anger at the Bouteflika government over the massive arms Algeria sent to the Gadhafi regime and Algeria’s granting of protection to members of the Gadhafi family and his regime.  Algeria continues to have chilly relations with the new Libyan government and there are suspicions regarding its intentions about aiding the growing resistance to the new regime. The NTC may support an uprising in Algeria, according to Samal and his friends.

Samal and his friends discussed their frustration with the fact that the UK, France, US and other NATO countries are swarming like locusts around Libya and seeking very lucrative contracts to rebuild Misrata, Brega, Sirte, after they and their NATO allies destroyed them.  “That’s Haram!”, Ahmad insisted. “They destroyed our country and now they want us to pay them to rebuild it. I wish we could rebuild without one NATO country profiting. It’s like that crazy American woman running for President of your country who wants Iraq to pay for the death of US occupation soldiers who were killed.  The US must pay the Iraqi families for every one of the more than one million Iraqis the US killed and for all the damage its bombs did to Iraq.”

They discussed the possibility that Libya may experience what the Congo went through after the fall of the dictator Mobutu. Samal noted some parallels and the possibility that Libyans may actually regret Gadhafi’s departure as many in the Congo have misgivings regarding the absence of the 33 year rule of strong man Mobutu, since Gadhafi also gave his fractionalized country a sort a unity, a sense of being Libyan, free education, free medical aid, subsidized housing and woman’s rights — all of which could now be in jeopardy.  Ahmed explained:  “OK, we are “free” now what?  Everyone says we are rich.  Then why do we feel so poor? What kind of government will we have?  I favor a strong unitary government like Patrice Lumumba did in the Congo.  Many want a federal system. We have to build.  Now our biggest challenge is our leadership vacuum. Are we going to regret that Gadhafi is gone? For sure many will.  Not all  rebels hated Gadhafi but they hated his henchmen who were out of control and had created their own small empires.  That is why many are now saying that the new government must not include any Gadhafi former henchmen.   They were the main problem, not Gadhafi himself.”

This observer’s hosts shared many amazing photos they had taken on their camera phones over the past months.  Showing a photo of beaded fighters Ahmad commented that western media saw these beards and immediately concluded “Al Qaeda!” “This is not true at all and we laughed when we saw these false reports”, he continued, “The reason the media saw so many beards is for the simple reason that we did not have time to shave.  If I have some free time I will clean my weapon or rest, not shave.  Now as you see I have no beard.  Same thing with many of my friends.  Yes there are plenty of Al Qaeda among us.  And I want to add that each Al Qaeda fighter is worth 100 of us during battles.  They are very well trained and very expert with explosives.  I don’t know how they can do what they do with simple devices, plus they are not afraid to die. But they are not in control here in Libya.  Whether they will be eventually, time will tell.”

They all expressed concerned about the growing influence of the Persian Gulf country of Qatar which they acknowledge sent the rebels millions of dollars, weapons, and fighters and used their aircraft against Gadhafi loyalists while they favored the Salafist groups.

My hosts expressed their exasperated concern over what they see as the deep political vacuum in Libya that is considered harmful and dangerous for national unity. Their strongly presented opinions were that a new legislative assembly needed to be launched within the next several months and much sooner than the NTC is suggesting with multi-party elections put off until 2013.

The fighters thought there was no possibility that any rebel militia would give up its arms anytime soon. One of the group insisted, “I will not turn in any of my weapons, and I, like my friends, have hidden a lot of them including shoulder-fired missiles. I will keep them until I am convinced that the new government  truly serves the people.”

They discussed who will command the new national army and that it will be a difficult decision and may lead to internal armed conflict.

They reflected on the fact that Gadhafi still has lots of supporters both in Libya and throughout Africa and my hosts all thought that the newly formed loyalist “Libya Liberation Front” (see my recent report) could become a major force in the coming months. They recommended dialogue with the LLF, something the Obama administration and NATO consistently vetoed with the Gadhafi regime over the past eight months. They acknowledged that dialogue between the Libyan government and the rebels during March could have avoided the tragedy that unfolded during the subsequent seven months.

The following week, additional confirmation was received by this observer from multiple credible sources confirming that between 11/10/11 and 11/16/11 the 28 NATO member countries had been instructed by NATO HQ that if their embassies received a visa application from any Libyan citizen seeking to  visit their country  that the NATO country Embassy is instructed to freeze the application. Within 24 hours the Embassy is to send a copy of the visa application and one of the two required photos submitted with the application to INTERPOL for the possible issuing of a “red notice” meaning arrest and detention of the applicant, preliminary to a decision from the NTC with respect to an extradition request for the person to be sent back to Libya.  Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, deputy chairman of Libya’s National Transitional Council is the force behind this decision according to Tripoli sources. This NATO project clearly demonstrates that NATO has not ended its aggression against Libya, and it is fundamentally illegal and constitutes refoulement, which under international law is the forced return of a person to a country where he or she faces persecution. To date, international human rights organizations have been mute on this project.

Khaled Al-Hamedi on the grave of his wife and children.

One such affected person, with whom this observer recently visited outside of Libya, is subpoenaed to attend a 11/27/11 Court hearing in Brussels as a witness against NATO for that organization’s June 20, 2011 slaughter of the Khaled Hamidi family from Sorman, Libya. The family home was obliterated by three American MK-83 1000 lb. bombs and two missiles. The reason according to NATO, without offering a scintilla of evidence to support its spurious allegation, was that this family’s home was a Command and Control center for Gadhafi loyalists (One of 49 unproven C & C Centers claimed by NATO Brussels-Naples media briefings over a seven month period). Those murdered on June 20, 2011 by NATO included:

Khaled Hamedi’s  pregnant wife Safa, their three years and one day  old son Khweldi and their four and one half year old daughter Khaleda, as well as their six year old nephew Salam and 13 family members and friends who were all staying overnight at their home following the celebration of their son’s third birthday.

Meanwhile, in the US Congress on 11/15/11, Senators John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John McCain and Marco Rubio, co-sponsored Senate Bill 317, the purpose of which is to praise US and NATO forces for their “extraordinary bravery and professionalism.”

As the horizon cracked with red rays from the rising sun, our group dispersed.  I walked alone through some of the streets of Sirte among the totally obliterated buildings where not even a feral cat was to be seen. Still stunned from what I had heard from the “rebels” overnight and the similarity of their views with what I learned this summer in the pro-Gadhafi western parts of Libya, I felt numb.

And I wondered, “What for the love of God were these months of gratuitous and immoral NATO carnage all about?”

A bad moon is rising over Great Sirte Bay.

Graphics: Alex – Uprooted Palestinian

 ************

Dr. Franklin Lamb

Franklin Lamb is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

The American 'Foreign Policy' Household Book

“You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad” Aldous Huxley

The Council for The National Interest

The Israel Lobby is one of the most powerful and pervasive special interest groups in the United States. It began its activities many decades ago and played a major role in the creation of Israel.

It consists of a multitude of institutions, many of them extremely well-funded, that work to influence Congress, the Presidency, academia, the media, religious institutions, and the American public on behalf of Israel. It also includes influential individuals.

Below are a few examples.

AIPAC Policy Conference 2010

AIPAC: The most prominent governmental lobbying organization is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Fortune Magazine typically rates this as the second most powerfully lobbying organization in the U.S. AIPAC frequently writes the legislation that members then introduce, and that extraordinarily large majorities of both parties then endorse.
AIEF: A subsidiary of AIPAC is the American Israel Education foundation (AIEF), which takes Congressional Representatives on all-expense-paid trips to Israel. In August 2011 they took 81 representatives on trips led by the leaders of both parties to Israel. (The legality of this is being challenged.)
WINEP: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) works to influence media coverage of Israel.
ADL:The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) regularly works to promote Israeli interests.Jewish Community Relations Councils, Jewish Federations, Hillels, Hadassahs (Click on each title to see an example), and similar organizations regularly promote Israeli interests in virtually every city in the United States.
Political Action Committees (PACs): There are numerous PACs around the money that raise money for candidates based on their stands on Israel. Almost all have deceptive names that hide their focus, and combined they raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for candidates. One of the best books on the topic reports “in 1988, Israel’s lobby had 78 PACs spending more than $5.5 million to bribe Congress to vote more aid for Israel. That was more than total contributions together of the two next largest special interests in the United States—the real estate lobby and the teamsters.” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs reports on this topic frequently. To learn more see their list of pro-Israel PAC contributions to candidates in 2010.

The Emergency Committee for Israel: The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretzreports: “Washington observers may feel there is no obvious shortage of pro-Israel lobbyists in the city – but a group of leading American conservatives thinks otherwise and has set up a new campaign group to attack President Obama over his “anti-Israel” stance, U.S. website Politico reports.

Support for Israel drives all US policies — U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro

The Emergency Committee for Israel presents a potent combination of Republican Party neoconservatives and Evangelical Christians. The new group’s board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, a former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values, as well as Rachel Abrams, a conservative writer and activist.”

Influential pro-Israel Individuals: An example of such an individual is the current US Ambassador to Israel, Daniel Shapiro, who gave a speech in which he detailed his extremely close, life-long ties to Israel, concluding:

“… as a committed Jewish American, with deep roots in the American Jewish community and warm bonds of affection with Israel, I will have an opportunity to draw on those associations to help make the U.S.-Israel relationship, strong as it is, even stronger in the years ahead.”

He stated that “ensuring Israel’s future” drives all US policies.

Alison Weir, President of The Council for The National Interest on Al Jazeera discussing AIPAC during their annual policy conference

CNIFoundation

ALISON WEIR -- CNI PRESIDENT

CNI seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values, protects our national interests, and contributes to a just solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is CNI’s goal to restore a political environment in America in which voters and their elected officials are free from the undue influence and pressure of foreign countries and their partisans.

Purchase Book on Amazon.com: The Israel Lobby and U.S Foreign Policy

Edited by: Debbie Menon
________________________________________________

by Wayne Madsen

Israel’s all-powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organization composed of Israeli collaborators, infiltrators, and outright traitors to the United States, is steamrolling through the House of Representatives H.R. 1905, which would prohibit the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, members of the U.S. Foreign Service, or any special envoy from engaging in any sort of diplomatic contact, official or unofficial, with any member or agent of the government of Iran. Only when the President informs the requisite committees may he proceed with engaging on diplomatic contact with Iran. Israel has de facto control over the foreign affairs committees of Congress, so any White House notification of the need to contact Iranian officials would be instantly transmitted to Binyamin Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem and Israel would then circumvent any U.S.-Iranian contact. AIPAC, with its resolution, is further making the United States a vassal of the Jewish state.

Israel’s strategy is to make certain that its plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and, perhaps other targets, meet no opposition from diplomatic circles in the United States… Israel has placed its own interests well beyond and in contravention of those of the United States.

Faced with the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran, backed by Saudi Arabia – Israel’s secret ally in the region – has had ripple effects across the Middle East and Asia.

Countries in Asia are scrambling to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as full members. Confronted by a belligerent United States, NATO, and Israel intent on toppling the governments of Syria and Iran, the economic, cultural, and de facto collective security pact that comprises Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan announced after its prime ministers’ summit in St. Petersburg that SCO would soon be opening its doors for full membership for Pakistan, Iran, and India. The Asian nations want to freeze the United States out of interference in Asia.

Ahead of the St. Petersburg summit, Russia and China strongly warned the West against any military attack on Iran. The words being used in international diplomacy are reminiscent of the Cold War era, however, it is the West that is playing to role of the aggressor, albeit an aggressor led around by Israel and its intelligence spies and assets embedded in the upper echelons of governments in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, and within the United Nations hierarchy.

Even America’s vassal state of Afghanistan, eager to break free of the bonds of NATO and Washington, has attained observer status in SCO. Recent comments by the deputy commander of NATO training in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Major General Peter Fuller, that the Afghan government leadership is erratic, ungrateful, and isolated from reality because President Hamid Karzai said Afghanistan would side with Pakistan in an American war on Pakistan, resulted in Fuller’s firing. Fuller’s comments also resulted in Karzai asking for observer status in SCO as American aggression against the Muslim world and opposition to sovereignty for Palestine has seen Washington’s standing around the world plummet.

Another nation where the CIA, Pentagon, has their agents creeping and crawling, Mongolia, is also a SCO observer. There are also SCO “partners in dialogue” — nations that could attain SCO observer or membership status in the future. Partners in dialogue nations include Belarus, Sri Lanka, and one that should worry Tel Aviv and Washington, Turkey, a NATO member. Moscow and Ankara agree that Turkey should eventually become a full SCO member. Turkey has close historical and cultural links with the Turkic nations of central Asia and with many of the autonomous Turkic republics of Russia, including Tuva, Bashkortostan, and Adygeya.

Turkey has grown tired of Israeli interference in its internal and external affairs, as witnessed by the vicious and bloody Israeli attack on the Turkish Gaza aid vessel, the Mavi Marmara; Mossad support for Kurdish PKK terrorist attacks in Turkey; and covert Israeli entanglement in the Ergenekon “deep state” network in Turkey.

Iran has now seen Israel’s most-open secret ally, Saudi Arabia, appoint the former Egyptian intelligence chief and close Netanyahu friend, Omar Suleiman, as an adviser to Saudi heir apparent, Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, who is also the Interior Minister. The Jerusalem-Riyadh axis is being further cemented as the Obama administration is shifting 4,000 troops from Iraq to Kuwait and beefing up other U.S. military assets in Bahrain — home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet – and Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Oman. The CIA and Pentagon have set up Predator drone bases in Djibouti, Seychelles, Ethiopia, and, reportedly, Saudi Arabia.

The president-elect of Kyrgyzstan, Prime Minister Almazbek Atambaev, has announced he wants the U.S. and NATO to leave the Manas Transit Center airbase in his country after the current lease expires in 2014. Already, Soros-funded non-governmental organization (NGO) agents in Kyrgyzstan are attempting to suggest that under the new Kyrgyz constitution, Atambaev does not have the authority to close the base. It is this type of U.S. interference in the affairs of the nations of Asia that has SCO readying an expansion of its membership to include two nations that have received direct U.S. military threats: Iran and Pakistan. Suspicion of U.S. intentions and military plans has also made Washington’s request to enter SCO as a partner in dialogue a dead issue. Washington’s interest in attending SCO summits as a “partner” says more about the CIA’s inability to crack into the inner workings of SCO, even through erstwhile “allies” like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Mongolia, than in having any great desire to “dialogue” with SCO members and observers. After all, AIPAC and its minions have managed to jam through the U.S. House a law that prohibits any U.S. diplomatic contact with Tehran’s officials.

President Obama is under tremendous pressure from the Israel Lobby during an election year to support an Israeli military strike on Iran, action that will inevitably lead the United States military in the Gulf region into war against Iran on behalf of the Tel Aviv/west Jerusalem regime. At the G-20 summit in Cannes, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was overheard telling Obama, “I cannot bear Netanyahu, he’s a liar.” To which Obama replied, “you’re fed up, but I have to deal with him every day.”

The Sarkozy-Obama interchange is instructive. Obama did not disagree that Netanyahu is a patent liar who will do anything or say anything to advance Israeli and global Zionist interests over all else, even to the point of lying about a bogus Iranian nuclear weapons threat to promote a military attack on Iran.

Israel, using its agents of influence in the UN delegations of the United States, Britain, Germany, Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands, has ensured that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano has tainted his agency’s report on Iranian nuclear developments in a manner that would have never been tolerated by his predecessor, Mohammed ElBaradei. Amano certainly took no interest in the fact that his own nation, Japan, was secretly producing nuclear weapons at the Fukushima nuclear complex in contravention of IAEA rules. The aftermath of the destructive earthquake in Japan laid open the secret work going on at Fukushima. Amano is perfectly willing to act as a cipher for Israel and the Israel Lobby in “discovering” IAEA violations by Iran.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist’s “Doomsday Clock,” a measure of how close the world is to nuclear war, now stands at six minutes until midnight. With the machinations of Israel toward Iran, the internal meltdown of Obama’s White House staff with the demotion of chief of staff Bill Daley, and the invitation by SCO to Iran to come under the protective security umbrella of Russia and China, the clock has just jumped ahead several minutes.

Source: Global Research.ca

“We don’t know if both Houses of the US Congress, whose members gave Netanyahu over sixty standing ovations during a speech filled with lies earlier this year, share Sarkozy’s opinion.”

A media frenzy followed the publication of French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s description of Benjamin Netanyahu as “a liar” during a private discussion with US President Barack Obama. The exchange took place shortly before a press conference with the two leaders on the sidelines of the G20 summit.

The French president’s comment revealed absolutely nothing new; there is something of a consensus, both inside and outside Israel, on Netanyahu’s expertise in the ways and means of deception. Palestinians who over the years have been burned by Netanyahu’s lies could provide a reference for his expertise.

What stands out is that Obama, who said nothing to dispel Sarkozy’s description of the Israeli Prime Minister, complained that he was forced to deal with this deceitful Israeli leader on a daily basis.

We don’t know if both Houses of the US Congress, whose members gave Netanyahu over sixty standing ovations during a speech filled with lies earlier this year, share Sarkozy’s opinion. What is clear is that even if they do agree with the French President, they are still likely to repeat their obsequiousness the next time that Netanyahu stands before them. The current Congress is the most supportive of Israel in American history, and particularly of Netanyahu “who speaks English with an American accent”, to the extent that it has adopted Israeli positions and diktats without discussion.

Obama, whose election created waves of optimism among Arabs and Muslims with his ethnic and cultural background, and fiery speeches, has become a puppet in Netanyahu’s hands and, indeed, the greatest endorser of his lies. The US President has made himself public enemy number one for the Palestinians and the foremost obstacle to their ambitions of obtaining international recognition through their illusory state’s membership of the United Nations and its agencies.

It was shameful for Obama to admonish his French counterpart for not consulting him and then opposing his position when France voted for Palestine’s full membership of UNESCO. Despite being submissive to Netanyahu for what are said to be electoral reasons, Obama could have been expected to support the moral French stand if it had not been a public vote.

It is to be hoped that President Sarkozy, having expressed his views courageously regarding Netanyahu and his lies, will not put pressure on the Palestinian Authority and its president to return once again to the fruitless negotiating table facing a deceitful “partner for peace” who does not keep his word. Netanyahu is the head of a government considered to be the most extremely right-wing in Israel’s extreme history and cannot be trusted to conclude a peace deal.

Logic dictates that the US and the West, specifically the leaders of the free world, ought to punish their deceitful Israeli ally for his lies rather than punish the victims of those lies, the Palestinian people. It is they who are besieged, beaten and deprived of their most basic rights to dignity and to a state. This is what the US threat to use the veto in the Security Council to prevent the recognition of a Palestinian State actually means. The freeze of all US financial assistance to UNESCO for accepting Palestine as a member is just the beginning. The whole UN structure is threatened by America’s fit of pique.

Netanyahu will continue to lie and there will be those in Europe, the White House and the US Congress who believe him, confirming the hypocrisy and deceit in the Western psyche when it comes to matters Israeli and Palestinian.

This could be in part due to the fact that in Netanyahu they see a kindred spirit. For didn’t President George W Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Didn’t Bill Clinton lie when he denied having “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky? Didn’t former British Prime Minister and current Middle East Envoy, Tony Blair, lie when he spoke of a file confirming Saddam Hussein’s ability to deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes?

Benjamin Netanyahu may well be “a liar”, as Sarkozy claimed, but he is not alone on the world stage. The only difference is that he has had the courage to say it out loud for us all to hear, albeit unintentionally.

Source: Al Quds Al-Arabi