Israel Must Win
Written by Gilad Atzmon on 22. August 2006, 2213hrs // Part of Gilad Atzmon's adventure in Israel, Lebanon, Opinion, War // Other posts by Gilad Atzmon
“The ceasefire in Lebanon was holding by a thread last night after Israel sanctioned a commando raid in the east of the country. Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, said Israel had violated the truce, and he was ‘deeply concerned’ about it.” The Guardian
For those who are familiar with Israeli aggression, the IDF violation was no surprise at all. For a week or so, every Israeli cabinet member and military official promised publicly that it is just a question of time before there is a ’second round’. Indeed, they must come up with something. Since the end of the hostilities, all Israeli political analysts and polls suggest that Israel’s political and military leadership failed completely. If elections were to be held soon, both Labour and Kadima would simply disappear. It is no secret that with each passing day, Olmert’s and Peretz’s popularity continually slumps to new lows. Jerusalem Post
One may wonder whether the Israelis are changing their spots, do they stop approving Olmert’s policies just because peace is what they really prefer? The influential political commentator Ari Shavit provided an answer two weeks ago. Mr Olmert, so he says, had ‘failed shamefully’ and should resign. Shavit continues,
“You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power.”
As I mentioned more than once before, the Israeli politician has to cope with a demanding, bloodthirsty crowd.
This realisation throws some light over the reasons behind the failed Israeli operation in Lebanon just three days ago. Israelis are simply desperate to win. But it may also explain why Israeli government decided to expand its military operation pretty much at the same time it accepted the UN ceasefire resolution. Olmert knew that he must serve his voters with what they interpret as a clear-cut victory. This would mean either some severe form of revenge with lots of Arab casualties or a significant land invasion. Olmert, his ‘national unity’ government and the army leadership have to do something that would cover up four weeks of disastrous military campaign that failed to serve the Israeli public with even a single second of glory.
Indeed, the IDF military offensive doctrine is grounded on one basic axiom that was defined by David Ben Gurion in the early fifties: whatever it takes, Israel must always win! This axiom is indeed very powerful, yet, in reality, the Israeli army can’t provide the goods anymore. In the last three decades the Israeli army is constantly being beaten time after time by enemies that are getting smaller and smaller.
Yet, one may mention that the IDF isn’t very original in being defeated. The IDF fails exactly where the American army has been failing since Vietnam. Shockingly, the IDF has managed to copy every possible American mistake. It religiously adopted the new American military philosophy of a ‘compact highly sophisticated fighting force’. Undeniably, this very doctrine is very effective in producing some gigantic collateral damage i.e., war crimes. Yet, in the long run, it fails miserably in wining wars. The new American military doctrine may win a battle or two but no more than that. In the most recent years it has been totally beaten in Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza and obviously in Lebanon.
Though the early stages of the Israeli campaign in Lebanon looked very much like the first few days of the second Gulf War (major air assault on civilian infrastructure and populated areas), there is at least one major noticeable difference. While America can stand and even ignore international criticism referring to its own war crimes, it isn’t willing to suffer much international criticism for Israeli atrocities. While in the early stages of the war America was rushing to provide Israel with air convoys loaded with its most lethal conventional arsenal, we have learned towards the last week of the war that the American administration changed its mind, it suddenly refused to provide the IDF with a shipment of cluster bombs because it “would endanger the civilian population”. Seemingly, there is a limit to what the Americans are willing to do for their ‘closest friend’ in the Middle East.
This is exactly where the Israeli limbo is. In order to maintain its status as a winning regional super power, Israel needs the blind support of America (politically, financially and logistically). Yet American blind support can be grunted to Israel only if the Jewish State is indeed a regional super power to start with. Olmert and his government are fully aware of this very complexity. They know that without being a regional super power in the first place, they have nothing to offer their almighty American brothers. Israel is crucial for the strategy of the Americans as long as it can wipe out all its enemies in six days at the most. The way things appear now, the Israeli Army is basically defeated by the two smallest nations in the Arab world, the Palestinian and the Lebanese ones.
As much as it clear to the Israelis, it is clear to the Americans that unlike the bold Hezbollah, the IDF soldier has lost his will to fight. The IDF is a spoiled, confused and tired army that is specialising solely in terrorising civilian populations while being engaged in constant tactical withdraw. This Israeli Army is not trained to win wars anymore. Instead, its tank battalions are mainly engaged in daily shelling of schools and hospitals. Its Air Force uses the best American fighter planes to flatten neighbourhoods and shoot deadly rockets at cars in the streets of Gaza. Its command units are specialising in abducting democratically elected middle-aged Palestinian politicians. The IDF is basically a heavy army specialising in merciless regional bullying. Yet, it cannot win a war, and as such it has nothing to offer the American empire.
But the Israeli military defeat has some further implications. Israel without a victorious army, has nothing to offer to world Jewry either. It can never present itself as the ultimate cosmic Judeo bunker. It is pretty shocking to prospect the relative silence of the infamous Zionist media shield. While just six weeks ago the loud supporters of Anglo-American interventionism were still pushing for democracy in the Arab world and beyond, they were enthusiastic about killing in the name of human rights and about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East. Somehow, since the war began, since Israel revealed once again its murderous tendencies and Hezbollah proved to be the new Robin Hood, these voices are caving in. Many among the global Zionists do already realise now that the Anglo-American assault on the Arab world just suffered a major blow. Some of them probably grasp that it is just a question of time before more and more Europeans and Americans join the sacred battle against the Americanised Global Zionism, i.e., neo-conservatism.
The recent victory of the Hezbollah therefore must be realised as a major event with some global implications. While the Hezbollah regards itself a paramilitary organisation concerned mainly with some local issues having to do with Israeli expansionism, it has managed to cause a serious blow to neo-conservatism as a political praxis as well as a philosophy. It has beaten the Zionised Anglo-American worldview. Standing up to Zionism and Americanism, it is the Lebanese, the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Afghanis and the Iranians who happen to be at the vanguard of the war for humanity and humanism. For those who are yet to be convinced that this indeed the case, I will mention that the fact that it is Iran who rushed to pay 3 billion dollars to rebuild Lebanon after the destruction made by ‘American interventionism’ leaves no room for interpretation. While America spreads destruction and death all over the world, it is Iran and the Hezbollah that offers a new beginning.
Olmert knows very well that if Israel doesn’t win this war, it is global Zionism that is defeated, he knows as well that without the backing of global Zionism, Israel is basically a dead entity. Olmert knows that without America, it won’t take long before Israel turns into an historic event. Israel will have to win its mighty regional power status whatever it takes. Israeli is indeed in the very eye of the neo-conservative storm. And the Hezbollah is threatening something far greater than just the Jewish State. As the Israelis keep telling us, the fight in Lebanon will resume soon and every European leader knows it. Even now, they all know who is going to be the aggressor when violence spreads again in the region. They are all clever enough to hesitate about whether they want to send their soldiers to the region. They know that if Israel must win, it is better to stay out of its way.
About author: GILAD ATZMON - leading professional jazz musician, composer and writer. His web site at: http://www.gilad.co.uk. He can be reached at: gilad@gilad.co.uk
Do you like - Israel Must Win - 
Article Tags>> 
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:16 pm
in Lebanon was holding by a thread last night after Israel sanctioned a commando raid in the east of the country. Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary General, said Israel had violated the truce, and he was ‘deeply concerned’ about it.” Read the rest
August 22nd, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Israel Must Win On August 22nd, 2006, from Sabbah’s Blog
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:15 pm
It’s official How Did the Conflict Affect the U.S. Image? (Part 2) Israel Must Win Drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea - Israeli Minister Hopeless in Kabul “….but guvnor, he was speaking Arab like…” 10% of Israeli tanks destroyed or disabled by Hizbollah USD 46.3 million needed for urgent recovery by UNDP
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:21 pm
well, of COURSE Israel will win. Olmert only happened to get in office on a wave of emotion after Ariel Sharon had his stroke.He’ll be gone soon,and the sriously tough guys will be in.Netanyahu is my choice, but there are certainly others. And only the seriously-deranged like the Hezzies can interpret “hey, we’re not all dead yet” as a victory.
Here’s what Ralph Peters,one of our(US)most highly-regarded authors and military-strategists,said on this subject:
“So what on earth might give us cause for hope?
* Israel’s recent defeat, for one thing. Yes, you read that right. The truth is that Israel got a relatively cheap, if embarrassing, wake-up call. And Israel’s a part of Western civilization, not of the Middle East’s decaying cultures. That means that Israel doesn’t just wallow in blame - like Americans, Israelis figure out what went wrong and then fix it. After the post-war soul-searching and investigations are finished, failed leaders will be replaced and Israel will re-emerge with a renewed sense of mission, a stronger government and a powerfully reformed military - the next time the IDF goes to war, watch the way it devastates its enemies!”
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:56 pm
Bad time to be MuslimAdd to Clippings
SANJAY SUBRAHMANYAM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1913851.cms
It was a slightly surreal experience transiting through a series of airports in the week following the British announcement of a discovery of a new conspiracy to blow up a vast number of planes in midair.
British home secretary John Reid’s statement on August 10 declared rather dramatically that his country was engaged in a “long, wide and deep struggle against very evil people”, and also that his government had the total support of all the opposition parties. Who were these “very evil people”?
Reid was careful to note that “this is not a case of one civilisation against another, one religion against another”, but other statements notably one by President Bush once more brought to the forefront that the source of the problem lay in Islam, even if he specified that rather than all Muslims, “this nation (the US) is at war with Islamic fascists”.
Amongst the groups of passengers I saw in Frankfurt was a large one of Muslims from Central Asia, seated on the floor in anticipation of a long wait. Though the airport authorities were tactful enough not to screen them more conspicuously than the average family from Missouri, the tension was palpable.
Once again, this was not a good time to be a Muslim or even to have a beard. British newspapers report, however, that there is some scepticism in that country on the reality of the conspiracy revealed by Reid.
As usual, reporters have been to small towns and suburbs inhabited by British Muslims (usually of South Asian origin) and find them far more questioning of the government’s claims than the rest of the population.
Given the Blair government’s record of spin and outright mendacity, there is surely some basis for this scepticism.
But equally it means that many will find that “the Muslims” have failed once more to rise to the occasion: In weblogs the world over, we will hear of how rather than condemn the terrorists, Muslim opinion in general supports them, and prefers spinning conspiracy theories to facing up to the facts.
It may not be a good time to be a Muslim, but it is a splendid time to be an Islamophobe. In the case of India, such groups of Islamophobes have existed since at least the nineteenth century, and many were a conspicuous part of the nationalist movement, and even the Congress party.
As has been pointed out on more than one occasion, the invention of the so-called “two-nation theory” owes as much to Savarkar as to any leader of the Muslim League, and underlying it was the idea that Muslims and non-Muslims could not coexist in any society despite a vast variety of historical examples to the contrary.
With the rise to prominence of the sangh parivar, an interesting new alliance emerged in the 1980s. Right-wing (at times neo-fascist) European writers had long railed against the migration of Muslims to that continent as “guest workers”.
Their rabid Islamophobia was at times paired with an ostensible admiration for Hinduism, or at least for certain of its ersatz manifestations.
It thus came to be a perfect marriage of convenience between the likes of the Belgian Koenraad Elst (closely associated with the radical Vlaams Blok, condemned legally for its racism and xenophobia, and reincarnated as Vlaams Belang) or the Frenchman Francois Gautier, and the Hindu far right.
Islamophobia provided the perfect cement between these European agitators on the one hand, and Sita Ram Goel and Arun Shourie on the other.
Under their influence, Islamophobic French papers such as Le Figaro began to carry the most absurd claims regarding the greatest genocide in the world, an untold “holocaust” that had been carried out by Muslims on Hindus over the mediaeval centuries.
These authors also produced paranoid theories of a conspiracy of silence, involving both western and Indian academics, and a hydra-headed Marxist network, which was allied in their view to the radical evil of Islam. Ironically, 9/11 has given such views an audience that they would otherwise never have possessed.
An example of how Islamophobia truly pays is provided by the recent case of the Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who after a brief career in the Dutch parliament is about to leave that country for a radical right-wing think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, known for its hand behind the war in Iraq and Republican foreign policy.
Though acclaimed by the likes of Time magazine and Christopher Hitchens, it is now amply clear that Ali gained Dutch citizenship under false pretences, claiming to be a political refugee from Somalia, when in fact she was a long-term resident of Kenya.
In Holland, after flirting with a variety of other tendencies, she was eventually associated with radical Islamophobic movements, and her collaborator Theo van Gogh was murdered in the streets in November 2004 by Mohammed Bouyeri.
She has then gone on to use a variety of platforms to promote herself, even finding common cause with anti-immigration parties (despite her own history), and playing the card of Islamophobia in the name of an allegiance to the “Enlightenment”.
The vast number of awards she has garnered, in comparison to a number of genuine feminists, social workers, and other public intellectuals, shows once and for all that Islamophobia does pay, especially coming from a former Muslim. At this rate, Ali will be the Bernard Lewis of tomorrow.
The writer teaches history in UCLA.
http://www.history.ucla.edu/subrahma/
Email: subrahma@history.ucla.edu
About the author
Sanjay Subrahmanyam was born in New Delhi, and after finishing high school in 1977 from Sardar Patel Vidyalaya, went on to do all his college degrees (BA and MA in Economics) in the University of Delhi, where he also received his PhD in Economic History in 1987 at the Delhi School of Economics for his thesis on ‘Trade and the Regional Economy of South India, c. 1550-1650’. From 1983, he had begun to teach economic history and comparative economic development at the Delhi School of Economics, where he continued until 1995 as first Associate Professor (1989-93) and then Professor of Economic History (1993-95).
In these years, his interests broadened from economic and commercial history, to the study of the interplay of political and economic history, to the study of political culture and cultural history. This is already reflected in his first set of books: The Political Economy of Commerce: Southern India, 1500-1650 (Cambridge University Press, 1990), which is a revised version of his PhD; Improvising Empire: Portuguese Trade and Settlement in the Bay of Bengal, 1500-1700 (Oxford University Press, 1990); a joint work with V. Narayana Rao and David Shulman, Symbols of Substance: Court and State in Nayaka-period Tamilnadu (Oxford University Press, 1992), and The Portuguese Empire in Asia, 1500-1700: A political and economic history (Longman, 1993), a work of synthesis reflecting his interest in the history of the Iberian empires.
In the course of the 1990s, Subrahmanyam’s work has embraced new sources and archives, not only those from South India, or of the Portuguese and Spanish empires and the Dutch and English East India Companies, but also materials reflecting his growing interest in the history of the Mughal empire, and the comparative history of early modern empires. This accompanied his move to Paris as Directeur d’études in the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, where his position from 1995-2002 was defined as ‘Histoire économique et sociale de l’Inde et de l’Océan Indien, XVe-XVIIIe siècles’. A second set of books reflects his later interests: The Mughal State, 1526-1750 edited jointly with Muzaffar Alam (Oxford University Press, 1998); The Career and Legend of Vasco da Gama (Cambridge University Press, 1998); Penumbral Visions: Making Polities in Early Modern South India (University of Michigan Press, 2001); and another joint work with V. Narayana Rao and David Shulman, Textures of Time: Writing History in South India, 1600-1800 (The Other Press, 2003).
In 2002, Subrahmanyam was appointed as the first holder of the newly created Chair in Indian History and Culture at the University of Oxford. His most recent work, published by Oxford University Press, in 2004, is in 2 volumes, and is entitled Explorations in Connected History (Vol. I is entitled Mughals and Franks, and Vol. II bears the title From the Tagus to the Ganges). He is also the Joint Managing Editor of The Indian Economic and Social History Review, published from New Delhi (www.sagepub.com/journal.aspx?pid=241). His current research includes a joint book, nearing completion, with Muzaffar Alam, on travel-writing in the Indo-Persian world from 1400 to 1800. He also continues to collaborate with V. Narayana Rao and David Shulman on other projects of cultural history relating to South India.
Sanjay Subrahmanyam teaches courses on medieval and early modern South Asian history; the history of European expansion, the comparative history of early modern empires, and world history.
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:58 am
steve,
I will watch how the Israelis will devastate their enemies.
Next time they will kill even more civilians and destroy even more infrastructure. They will call the deaths of women and children as either collateral damage, they were human shields or they were potential future terrorists!
Israel was thought of as the persecuted people, now they are the persecutors of innocent people.
If they won’t let other people live in peace, why should anyone else let them live in peace?
If they would just give back the lands they have stolen and withdraw fromm occupied lands all these conflicts would end!
But they won’t because they have promised all Jews who want to live in Israel can, so they have to steal land to accomodate them.
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:07 am
It’s Finally Happened:
Dictatorship of the Super-Rich Now In PLACE Over
the Entire World
The Quiet Death of Freedom
By John Pilger
t r u t h o u t.org | Perspective
Thursday 05 January 2006
On Christmas Eve, I dropped in on Brian Haw, whose hunched, pacing figure was just visible through the freezing fog. For four and a half years, Brian has camped in Parliament Square with a graphic display of photographs that show the terror and suffering imposed on Iraqi children by British policies.The effectiveness of his action was demonstrated last April when the Blair government banned any _expression of opposition within a kilometre of Parliament. The High Court subsequently ruled that, because his presence preceded the ban, Brian was an exception.
Day after day, night after night, season upon season, he remains a beacon, illuminating the great crime of Iraq and the cowardice of the House of Commons. As we talked, two women brought him a Christmas meal and mulled wine. They thanked him, shook his hand and hurried on. He had never seen them before. “That’s typical of the public,” he said. A man in a pin-striped suit and tie emerged from the fog, carrying a small wreath. “I intend to place this at the Cenotaph and read out the names of the dead in Iraq,” he said to Brian, who cautioned him: “You’ll spend the night in cells, mate.” We watched him stride off and lay his wreath. His head bowed, he appeared to be whispering. Thirty years ago, I watched dissidents do something similar outside the walls of the Kremlin.
As night had covered him, he was lucky. On 7 December, Maya Evans, a vegan chef aged 25, was convicted of breaching the new Serious Organised Crime and Police Act by reading aloud at the Cenotaph the names of 97 British soldiers killed in Iraq. So serious was her crime that it required 14 policemen in two vans to arrest her. She was fined and given a criminal record for the rest of her life.
Freedom is dying.
Eighty-year-old John Catt served with the RAF in the Second World War. Last September, he was stopped by police in Brighton for wearing an “offensive” T-shirt, which suggested that Bush and Blair be tried for war crimes. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act and handcuffed, with his arms held behind his back. The official record of the arrest says the “purpose” of searching him was “terrorism” and the “grounds for intervention” were “carrying placard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info” [sic].
He is awaiting trial.
Such cases compare with others that remain secret and beyond any form of justice: those of the foreign nationals held at Belmarsh prison, who have never been charged, let alone put on trial. They are held “on suspicion.” Some of the “evidence” against them, whatever it is, the Blair government has now admitted, could have been extracted under torture at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. They are political prisoners in all but name. They face the prospect of being spirited out of the country into the arms of a regime which may torture them to death. Their isolated families, including children, are quietly going mad.
And for what? From 11 September 2001 to 30 September 2005, a total of 895 people were arrested in Britain under the Terrorism Act. Only 23 have been convicted of offences covered by the Act. As for real terrorists, the identity of two of the 7 July bombers, including the suspected mastermind, was known to MI5 and nothing was done. And Blair wants to give them more power. Having helped to devastate Iraq, he is now killing freedom in his own country.
Consider parallel events in the United States. Last October, an American surgeon, loved by his patients, was punished with 22 years in prison for founding a charity, Help the Needy, which helped children in Iraq stricken by an economic and humanitarian blockade imposed by America and Britain. In raising money for infants dying from diarrhoea, Dr. Rafil Dhafir broke a siege which, according to Unicef, had caused the deaths of half a million under the age of five. The then-Attorney General of the United States, John Ashcroft, called Dr. Dhafir, a Muslim, a “terrorist,” a description mocked by even the judge in his politically-motivated travesty of a trial.
The Dhafir case is not extraordinary. In the same month, three US Circuit Court judges ruled in favour of the Bush regime’s “right” to imprison an American citizen “indefinitely” without charging him with a crime. This was the case of Joseph Padilla, a petty criminal who allegedly visited Pakistan before he was arrested at Chicago airport three and a half years ago. He was never charged, and no evidence has ever been presented against him. Now mired in legal complexity, the case puts George W. Bush above the law and outlaws the Bill of Rights. Indeed, on 14 November, the US Senate effectively voted to ban habeas corpus by passing an amendment that overturned a Supreme Court ruling allowing Guantánamo prisoners access to a federal court. Thus, the touchstone of America’s most celebrated freedom was scrapped. Without habeas corpus, a government can simply lock away its opponents and implement a dictatorship.
A related, insidious tyranny is being imposed across the world. For all his troubles in Iraq, Bush has carried out the recommendations of a Messianic conspiracy theory called the “Project for a New American Century.” Written by his ideological sponsors shortly before he came to power, it foresaw his administration as a military dictatorship behind a democratic façade: “the cavalry on a new American frontier,” guided by a blend of paranoia and megalomania. More than 700 American bases are now placed strategically in compliant countries, notably at the gateways to the sources of fossil fuels and encircling the Middle East and Central Asia. “Pre-emptive” aggression is policy, including the use of nuclear weapons. The chemical warfare industry has been reinvigorated. Missile treaties have been torn up. Space has been militarised. Global warming has been embraced. The powers of the president have never been greater. The judicial system has been subverted, along with civil liberties. The former senior CIA analyst Ray McGovern, who once prepared the White House daily briefing, told me that the authors of the PNAC and those now occupying positions of executive power used to be known in Washington as “the crazies.” He said, “We should now be very worried about fascism.”
In his epic acceptance of the Nobel Prize in Literature on 7 December, Harold Pinter spoke of “a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.” He asked why “the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought” of Stalinist Russia was well known in the west while American state crimes were merely “superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged.”
A silence has reigned. Across the world, the extinction and suffering of countless human beings can be attributed to rampant American power, “but you wouldn’t know it,” said Pinter. “It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.”
To its credit, the Guardian in London published every word of Pinter’s warning. To its shame, though unsurprising, the state television broadcaster ignored it. All that Newsnight flatulence about the arts, all that recycled preening for the cameras at Booker prize-giving events, yet the BBC could not make room for Britain’s greatest living dramatist, so honoured, to tell the truth.
For the BBC, it simply never happened, just as the killing of half a million children by America’s medieval siege of Iraq during the 1990s never happened, just as the Dhafir and Padilla trials and the Senate vote, banning freedom, never happened. The political prisoners of Belmarsh barely exist; and a big, brave posse of Metropolitan police never swept away Maya Evans as she publicly grieved for British soldiers killed in the cause of nothing except rotten power.
Bereft of irony, but with a snigger, the BBC newsreader Fiona Bruce introduced, as news, a Christmas propaganda film about Bush’s dogs. That happened. Now imagine Bruce reading the following: “Here is delayed news, just in. From 1945 to 2005, the United States attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies, and to crush 30 popular movements fighting tyrannical regimes. In the process, 25 countries were bombed, causing the loss of several million lives and the despair of millions more.” (Thanks to William Blum’s Rogue State, Common Courage Press, 2005).
The icon of horror of Saddam Hussein’s rule is a 1988 film of petrified bodies in the Kurdish town of Halabja, killed in a chemical weapons attack. The attack has been referred to a great deal by Bush and Blair and the film shown a great deal by the BBC. At the time, as I know from personal experience, the Foreign Office tried to cover up the crime at Halabja. The Americans tried to blame it on Iran. Today, in an age of images, there are no images of the chemical weapons attack on Fallujah in November 2004. This allowed the Americans to deny it until they were caught out recently by investigators using the internet. For the BBC, American atrocities simply do not happen.
In 1999, while filming in Washington and Iraq, I learned the true scale of bombing in what the Americans and British then called Iraq’s “no fly zones.” During the 18 months to 14 January 1999, US aircraft flew 24,000 combat missions over Iraq; almost every mission was bombing or strafing. “We’re down to the last outhouse,” a US official protested. “There are still some things left [to bomb], but not many.” That was six years ago. In recent months, the air assault on Iraq has multiplied; the effect on the ground cannot be imagined. For the BBC it has not happened.
The black farce extends to those pseudo-humanitarians in the media and elsewhere who themselves have never seen the effects of cluster bombs and air-burst shells, yet continue to invoke the crimes of Saddam to justify the the nightmare in Iraq and to protect a quisling prime minister who has sold out his country and made the world more dangerous. Curiously, some of them insist on describing themselves as “liberals” and “left of centre,” even “anti-fascists.” They want some respectability, I suppose. This is understandable, given that the league table of carnage of Saddam Hussein was overtaken long ago by that of their hero in Downing Street, who will next support an attack on Iran.
This cannot change until we in the West look in the mirror and confront the true aims and narcissism of the power applied in our name, its extremes and terrorism. The traditional double-standard no longer works; there are now millions like Brian Haw, Maya Evans, John Catt and the man in the pin-striped suit, with his wreath. Looking in the mirror means understanding that a violent and undemocratic order is being imposed by those whose actions are little different from the actions of fascists. The difference used to be distance. Now they are bringing it home.
August 23rd, 2006 at 8:34 am
Anti-Semitism or Jewish Supremacism
The following is an excerpt from JEWISH SUPREMACISM
MY AWAKENING ON THE JEWISH QUESTION by Dr. David Duke
Free download at http://www.prometheism.net/articles.htm
[QOUTE] Jewish will-to-power pushes them on to domination as it has for the last 2,000 years. Their evolutionary strategy has been perfected to the point that Europeans and all other races now suffer under Jewish hegemony on a global scale. We must acknowledge their present political and social power, but we also know that their power has come at the cost of the devolution of our civilization. Failure to defy this power can only lead to our eventual extinction, and this looming genocide gives our task the importance of a life or death struggle — one that has urgency for our people and truly all peoples and nations upon the earth.[End Quote]