The economic, political and social outlook for 2012 is profoundly negative. The almost universal consensus, even among mainstream orthodox economists is pessimistic regarding the world economy. Though even here their predictions understate the scope and depth of the crises.

There are powerful reasons to believe that beginning in 2012, we are heading toward a steeper decline than what was experienced during the Great Recession of 2008 – 2009. With fewer resources, greater debt and increasing popular resistance to shouldering the burden of saving the capitalist system, the governments cannot bail out the system.

Many of the major institutions and economic relations which were cause and consequence of world and regional capitalist expansion over the past three decades are in the process of disintegration and disarray. The previous economic engines of global expansion, the US and the European Union, have exhausted their potentialities and are in open decline. The new centers of growth, China, India, Brazil, Russia, which for a 'short decade' provided a new impetus for world growth have run their course and are de-accelerating rapidly and will continue to do so throughout the new year.

The Collapse of the European Union

Specifically, the crises wracked European Union will break up and the de facto multi-tiered structure will turn into a series of bilateral/multi-lateral trade and investment agreements. Germany,France , the Low and Nordic countries will attempt to weather the downturn. England, namely the City of London, in splendid isolation, will sink into negative growth, its financiers scrambling to find new speculative opportunities among the Gulf petrol-states and other 'niches'. Eastern and Central Europe, particularly Poland and the Czech Republic, will deepen their ties to Germany but will suffer the consequences of the general decline of world markets. Southern Europe (Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy) will enter into a deep depression as the massive debt payments fueled by savage assaults on wages and social benefits will severely reduce consumer demand.

Depression level unemployment and under-employment running to one-third of the labor force will detonate year-long social conflicts, intensifying into popular uprisings. Eventually a break-up of the European Union is almost inevitable. The euro as a currency of choice will be replaced by or return to national issues accompanied by devaluations and protectionism. Nationalism will be the order of the day. Banks in Germany, France and Switzerland will suffer huge losses on their loans to the South. Major bailouts will become necessary, polarizing German and French societies,between taxpaying majorities and the bankers. Trade union militancy and rightwing pseudo 'populism' (neo-fascism) will intensify the class and national struggles

A depressed, fragmented and polarized Europe will be less likely to join in any Zionist inspired US-Israeli military adventure against Iran (or even Syria). Crises ridden Europe will oppose Washington's confrontationalist approach to Russia and China.

The US: The Recession Returns with a Vengeance

The US economy will suffer the consequences of its ballooning fiscal deficit and will not be able to spend its way out of the world recession of 2012. Nor can it count on 'exporting' its way out of negative growth by turning to previously dynamic Asia, as China, India and the rest of Asia are losing economic steam. China will grow far below its 9% moving average. India will decline from 8% to 5% or lower. Moreover, the Obama regime's military policy of 'encirclement', its economic policy of exclusion and protectionism will preclude any new stimulus from China.

Militarism Exacerbates the Economic Downturn

The US and England will be the biggest losers from the Iraqi post war economic reconstruction. Of $186 billion dollars in infrastructure projects, US and UK corporations will gain less than 5% (Financial Times, 12/16/11, p 1 and 3). A similar outcome is likely in Libya and elsewhere. US imperial militarism destroys an adversary, plunging into debt to do so, and non-belligerents reap the lucrative post-war economic reconstruction contracts.

The US economy will fall into recession in 2012 and the "jobless recovery of 2011" will be replaced by a steep increase of unemployment in 2012. In fact, the entire labor force will shrink as people losing their unemployment benefits will fail to register.

Labor exploitation ("productivity") will intensify as capitalists force workers to produce more, for less pay, thus widening the income gap between wages and profits.

The economic downturn and growth of unemployment will be accompanied by savage cuts in social programs to subsidize financially troubled banks and industries. The debates among the parties will be over how large the cuts to workers and retirees will be to secure the 'confidence' of the bondholders. Faced with equally limited political choices, the electorate will react by voting out incumbents, abstaining and via spontaneous and organized mass movements, such as the "occupy Wall Street" protest. Disatisfaction, hostility and frustration will pervade the culture. Democratic demagogues will scapegoat China ,the Republican demagogues will blame the immigrants.Both will fulminate against "the islamo-fascists" and especially Iran..

New Wars in the Midst of Crises: Zionists Pull the Trigger

The 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations and their "Israel First" followers in Congress, State, Treasury and the Pentagon will push for war with Iran. If they are successful it will result in a regional conflagration and world depression. Given the extremist Israeli regimes' success in securing blind obedience to its war policies from the US Congress and White House, any doubts about the real possibility of a major catastrophic outcome can be excluded.

China: Compensatory Mechanisms in 2012

China will face the global recession of 2012 with several possibilities of ameliorating its impact. Beijing can shift toward producing goods and services for the 700 million domestic consumers currently out of the economic loop. By increasing wages, social services and environmental safety, China can compensate for the loss of overseas markets. China's economic growth which is largely dependent on real estate speculation will be adversely affected when the bubble is burst .A sharp downturn will result.. This will lead to job losses, municipal bankruptcies and increased social and class conflicts. This can result in either greater repression or gradual democratization. The outcome will profoundly affect China's market - state relations. The economic crises will likely strengthen state control over the market.

Russia Faces the Crises

Russia's election of President Putin will lead to less collaboration in backing US promoted uprisings and sanctions against Russian allies and trading partners. Putin will turn toward greater ties with China and will benefit from the break-up of the EU and the weakening of NATO.

The western media backed opposition will use its financial clout to erode Putin's image and encourage investment boycotts though they will lose the Presidential elections by a big margin. The world recession will weaken the Russian economy and will force it to choose between greater public ownership or greater dependency on state funds to bail out prominent oligarchs.

The Transition 2011 – 2012: From Regional Stagnation and Recession to World Crises

The year 2011 laid the groundwork for the breakdown of the European Union. The crises began with the demise of the euro, stagnation in the US and the outbreak of mass protests against the obscene inequalities on a world scale. The events of 2011 were a dress rehearsal for a new year of full scale trade wars between major powers, sharpening inter-imperialist struggles and the likelihood of popular rebellions turning into revolutions. Moreover, the escalation of Zionist orchestrated war fever against Iran in 2011 promises the biggest regional war since the US-Indo-Chinese conflict. The electoral campaigns and outcomes of Presidential elections in the US, Russia and France will deepen the global conflicts and economic crises.

During 2011 the Obama regime announced a policy of military confrontation with Russia and China and policies designed to undermine and degrade China's rise as a world economic power. In the face of a deepening economic recession and with the decline of overseas markets, especially in Europe, a major trade war will unfold. Washington will aggressively pursue policies limiting Chinese exports and investments. The White House will escalate its efforts to disrupt China's trade and investments in Asia, Africa and elsewhere. We can expect greater US efforts to exploit China's internal ethnic and popular conflicts and to increase its military presence off China's coastline. A major provocation or fabricated incident in this context is not to be excluded. The result in 2012 could lead to rabid chauvinist calls for a new costly 'Cold War'. Obama has provided the framework and justification for a large scale long-term confrontation with China. This will be seen as a desperate effort to prop up US influence and strategic positions in Asia. The US military "quadrangle of power" – US-Japan-Australia-South Korea – with satellite support from the Philippines, will pit China's market ties against Washington's military build-up.

Europe: Deeper Austerity and Intensified Class Struggle

The austerity programs imposed in Europe, from England to Latvia to southern Europe will really take hold in 2012. Massive public sector firings and reduced private sector salaries and hiring's will lead to a year of permanent class warfare and regime challenges. The 'austerity policies' in the South, will be accompanied by debt defaults which will result in bank failures in France and Germany.. England's financial ruling class, isolated in Europe but dominant in England, will insist that the Conservatives 'repress' labor and popular unrest. A new tough neo-Thatcherite style of autocratic rule will emerge ; the Labor-trade union opposition will issue empty protests and tighten the leash on the rebellious populace. In a word, the regressive socio-economic policies put in place in 2011 set the stage for new police-state regimes and more acute and possibly bloody confrontations with workers and unemployed youth with no future.

The Coming Wars that Ends America "As We Know It"

Within the US, Obama has laid the groundwork for a new and bigger war in the Middle East by relocating troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and concentrating them facing Iran. To undermine Iran, Washington is expanding clandestine military and civilian operations against Iranian allies in Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela and China. The key to the US and Israeli bellicose strategy toward Iran is a series of wars in neighboring states, world- wide economic sanctions , cyber-attacks aimed at disabling vital industries and clandestine terrorist assassinations of scientists and military officials.

The entire push, planning and execution of the US policies leading up to war with Iran can be empirically attributed to the Zionist power configuration occupying strategic positions in government, mass media and 'civil society'. A systematic analysis of policymakers designing and implementing economic sanctions policy in Congress finds prominent roles for mega-Zionists like Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Howard Berman; in the White House, Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Feltman in State; Stuart Levy and his replacement David Cohen in Treasury. The White House is totally beholden to Zionist fund raisers and takes its cue from the '52' Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations. The Israeli-Zionist strategy is to encircle Iran, weaken it economically and attack its military.

The Iraq invasion was the US's first war for Israel; the Libyan war the second; the current proxy war against Syria is the third. These wars have destroyed Israel's adversaries or are in the process of doing so. During 2011, economic sanctions, which were designed to create domestic discontent in Iran were the principle weapon of choice. The global sanctions campaign engaged the entire energies of the major Jewish-Zionist lobbies. They also faced no opposition in the mass media, Congress or the White Office. The Zionist power configuration (ZPC) faced virtually no criticism from any of the progressive, leftist and socialist journals, movements or grouplets – with a few notable exceptions.

The past year's relocation of troops from Iraq to the borders of Iran, the sanctions and the rising Big Push from Israel's fifth column in the US means War in the Middle East. This likely means a "surprise" aerial and maritime missile attack by US forces. This will be based on a concocted pretext of an "imminent nuclear attack" cooked up by Mossad and transmitted by the ZPC to the Congress and White House for consumption and transmission to the world. It will be a destructive, bloody, prolonged war for Israel. The US will bear the direct military cost by itself but the rest of the world will pay a dear economic price. The Zionist promoted US war will convert the recession of early 2012 into a major depression by the end of the year and probably provoke mass upheavals.

Conclusion

All indications point to 2012 being a turning point year of unrelenting economic crises spreading outward from Europe and the US to Asia and its dependencies in Africa and Latin America. The crises will be truly global. Inter-imperial confrontations and colonial wars will undermine any efforts to ameliorate this crisis. In response mass movements will emerge which will move over time from protests and rebellions , hopefully to social revolutions and political power.

* James Petras is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals. Petras' latest books, Global Depression and Regional Wars (Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2009) is the third in a series, including Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2006), analyzing the influence of militarism and Zionism in American foreign policy.

Related posts:

• Christian Zionism: The Doomsday Code
• Jimmy Carter – The Elders View Of the Middle East
• Obama Raises The Military Stakes: Confrontation On The Frontiers Of China And Russia

As Newt Gingrich's poll numbers surge and plummet with the predictability of the Dow Jones, some are making the connection between the two figures as genuine reflections of investor confidence. Several recent exposes reveal how Gingrich has skirted campaign finance rules to raise millions of dollars in unlimited donations from billionaire backers and big industry, with his ability to attract capital showing signs of abiding. But just who are those donors and what do they stand to gain from Gingrich?

Greg Gordon, an investigative reporter for McClatchy Newspapers who has been following the Gingrich campaign's finances, discussed one of Gingrich's latest beacons of support: Sheldon Adelson. "Sheldon Adelson is a rabidly pro-Israel donor and he operates two of the most elite casinos in Las Vegas: The Pallazzo and the Venetian. And he is also listed by Forbes as the 16th wealthiest person on the planet. Mr. Adelson is a huge backer of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he in fact publishes a free newspaper that circulates in Israel that basically is an extra voice to boost the Israeli Prime Minister. ... Perhaps it is no surprise, after all these donations from Adelson--totaling 7.65 million--that Gingrich has recently...talked about the Palestinian people as an 'invented people,' and he talked about moving the [US] embassy on his first day in office...from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which would be an extremely provocative move to make in the Middle East," Gordon said. "According to Politico...[Adelson] is planning to put $20 million into these Super PACs that support Newt Gingrich."

Peter Stone, of the Center for Public Integrity, echoed Gordon's findings on Adelson and the Gingrich campaign. According to one of his reports, a close friend of Adelson's confirmed that he would "do whatever it costs to help Gingrich."

Video link: http://youtu.be/JV_yszQXP6U

[includes rush transcript]

JUAN GONZALEZ: The Iowa caucus is less than two weeks away. The Republican presidential race is still up for grabs. One recent poll in Iowa shows Texas Congressman Ron Paul in the lead, followed by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Five different candidates have led the Iowa polls in recent months.

We turn now to an in-depth look at the state of politics and money and how last year’s Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United has altered campaign fundraising. The ruling opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending on election campaigns.

Several exposés have recently been published looking at how Newt Gingrich has skirted campaign finance rules to raise millions of dollars in unlimited donations from billionaire backers and big corporations. McClatchy Newspapers recently reported Gingrich helped bankroll his resurrection as a candidate by exploiting a gap in federal campaign finance laws to create a political money machine that raised $54 million over five years, including over $7 million from the billionaire Las Vegas casino owner Sheldon Adelson.

AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, the Center for Public Integrity has exposed new details on how Newt Gingrich is receiving the backing of two so-called super PACs that raise unlimited donations. Donors can provide unlimited donations to these independent groups that were formed to help Gingrich, but legally must operate independently of the campaign. Earlier this week, one of the super PACs, known as Winning Our Future, released this ad:

WINNING OUR FUTURE AD: Proven conservative leadership: Newt Gingrich. In uncertain times, we need a leader whose commitment to conservative values has been tested. Newt stood with Ronald Reagan. Newt stood up to Bill Clinton. And Newt was there for conservative values. But most importantly, Newt has always believed in the greatness of America, that America’s best days are ahead. The choice: Newt Gingrich, the proven conservative leader. Winning Our Future is responsible for the content of this message.

AMY GOODMAN: Newt Gingrich, of course, is not the only presidential hopeful benefiting from super PACs that take in unlimited donations. A Mitt Romney-aligned group called Restore Our Future PAC recently produced this anti-Gingrich ad.

RESTORE OUR FUTURE AD: And on the issues, Newt’s been on all sides. He supports amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. Gingrich even teamed up with Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore on global warming. And Newt was a longtime supporter of a national health insurance mandate, the centerpiece of Obamacare. Maybe that’s why George Will called Gingrich the least conservative candidate. The Gingrich record: 30 years in Washington flip-flopping on issues. Check the facts at newtfacts.com. Restore Our Future, Inc., is responsible for the content of this message.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about money and politics, we’re joined by two guests in Washington. Peter Stone is reporter at Center for Public Integrity. He has covered lobbying and campaign finance issues for the past two decades in Washington. He is author of Casino Jack, a book about the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal. And Greg Gordon is with us, investigative reporter for McClatchy’s Washington bureau.

Peter Stone, let’s start with you. Give us the overarching story of what you call the "independent gold rush" since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision.

PETER STONE: Well, last year, we began to see an enormous tidal wave of money going into new outside groups, the most prominent of which was American Crossroads and an affiliate called Crossroads GPS, which together raised about $71 million, including many multimillion-dollar contributions from old friends of Karl Rove, who is a founder of Crossroads.

This year, the new thing is presidential super PACs, candidate-specific super PACs. And we’ve seen these established, so far, by just about every presidential candidate. Romney has so far built the most lucrative one. Romney’s allies, three former aides who were involved with the 2008 campaign, started the super PAC early this year. And in the first six months, they raised $12 million. They were the first really out of the gate with the biggest pile of money in their coffers. They had a few multi—a few million-dollar contributions from old friends and supporters of Romney, including New York hedge fund mogul John Paulson gave a million dollars. And we have others now.

As Gingrich has begun to gain momentum in recent weeks, his allies have set up two of these so far. The most potent seems to be Winning Our Future, which is being run by a woman named Becky Burkett, who spearheaded the fundraising for the group you alluded to before, the 527 that Gingrich used for five years before his campaign. And Becky Burkett was joined this week by Rick Tyler, his longtime communications aide, who was briefly the spokesman for the campaign. Tyler is going to be helping to do fundraising and coordinate activities with the other super PACs, which is legal, to make sure they get the most bang for their buck and are most effective.

President Obama’s allies have set up these, as well. So far, they’ve not done very much in the fund—they have only raised a small amount, a few million dollars, but they’ll probably pick up early next year.

So we’ve had this rise of these super PACs. They’re supposed to be independent of the campaigns, but because of weak FEC rules and enforcement, there’s a lot of wiggle room, especially on the fundraising side. The most prominent example so far of overlap, if you will, or links between the super PACs and the campaigns, is probably a fundraiser that was held in July in New York, which I reported on, that Romney attended while he was in New York doing two other events—one for his campaign and one for a party committee. He dropped in on a fundraiser that was solely for the super PAC, Restore Our Future, and he spoke briefly there and then left. He was—the law allows him to do this. And the only restriction is that he is not allowed to ask for unlimited donations at these events. He can ask for a donation of up to $5,000, but nothing more. So, there are examples like this.

A top Romney aide this summer moved from the campaign to spearhead the fundraising at the super PAC, a fellow named Steve Roche, which was a sign that there was going to be more emphasis on these super PACs. So, we have a situation with these parallel groups set up that are now running the bulk of the negative ads. Romney’s, in particular, has been blasting away, spent a few million dollars in Iowa just in the last week or 10 days, and they’ve had a big impact on Gingrich’s standing there. Gingrich is starting to respond with softer ads, but we may see negative coming on in a while. He said he wants to keep it—you know, keep it friendly, but the dynamic of these super PACs is to go negative and do the dirty work that the campaigns won’t, or can’t, keep—let the campaigns stay above the fray, be positive. That’s, more or less, a quick overview of it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, and Greg Gordon of the McClatchy Washington bureau, you’ve looked especially at how Newt Gingrich, before his campaign run, raised millions and millions of dollars with these types of organizations. And can you talk about that?

GREG GORDON: Yes. Former Speaker Gingrich set up a group in 2006 that is actually formed under a provision of the Internal Revenue Service Code, called a 527. And these groups are allowed to also raise unlimited donations. Before the Supreme Court ruling, they could spend them on political advocacy, but they could not try to defeat a particular candidate or advocate in favor of a particular candidate.

So what happened is that, basically—well, let me just take a step back. In the early 2000s, we saw the passage of this historic campaign finance overhaul, and the idea was to stop soft money, which were these unlimited donations to the national political parties. And the byword of this whole campaign was, we’re going to get the big money out of national politics. So here we are, less than a decade later, and we’re back to huge money, huge individual donations, and now coming from corporate treasuries, and potentially union treasuries, that basically can turn the tide as far as the finances of a particular election campaign.

OK, so what Gingrich did is yet another twist. He set up this group called American Solutions for Winning Our Future, and this group was raising money, and it was—it had a little—spent a few million dollars out of the $54 million, maybe $7 million, on a few campaigns, one of which was to try to overturn President Obama’s healthcare reform bill or act, and another was to fight climate change legislation and so forth. But the other thing that happened is that it bankrolled Gingrich as he flew around the country: $8 million in chartered flights, as he went around and rebuilt his profile after, you know, a long hiatus from his prominent role in politics, you know, in public service.

And so, you have kind of a bleeding here, because all of a sudden, last spring, former Speaker Gingrich announces he’s going to run for president. He never, unlike most of the other presidential candidates, formed an exploratory committee. He was all set up through this group. The question is, you know, did he use this group? These groups are supposed to be independent of candidates. Was he at any time really a candidate? How did this group benefit his campaign? And one way, I might note, is that there is a little charter airways company called Moby Dick Airways out at Dulles Airport outside Washington that flew him around, and his campaign also used that same company. And as of October 31st, its last report to the Federal Election Commission, it owed $451,000 to that airway—to that charter airway company. So, did that company float the campaign credit that it might not have gotten, were it not for its relationship with this 527 group that Gingrich, you know, used to reinvent himself?

JUAN GONZALEZ: And one of the big donors to his groups, Sheldon Adelson, could you talk about him?

GREG GORDON: Sheldon Adelson is a rabidly pro-Israel donor, and he operates two of the most elite casinos in Las Vegas: the Palazzo and the Venetian. And he is also listed by Forbes as the 16th wealthiest person on the planet. Mr. Adelson is a huge backer of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and he in fact publishes a free newspaper that circulates in Israel that basically is an extra voice to boost the Israeli prime minister.

Gingrich and Adelson have been friends for quite a while, and Gingrich is a big booster of Netanyahu, as well. And perhaps it is no surprise, after all these donations from Adelson, totaling $7.65 million, that Gingrich has recently spoken against a—he talked about the Palestinian people as an invented people, and he talked about moving the embassy on his first day in office, the U.S. embassy to Israel, from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which would be an extremely provocative move to make in the Middle East.

Mr. Adelson, according to Politico just a few days ago, which quoted multiple sources, is planning to put $20 million into these super PACs that support Newt Gingrich. And so, you can see—now, Newt Gingrich has a huge deficit to make up between the latest number we’ve seen that his presidential campaign has raised, or that we’ve been told of by the campaign, is under $7 million, which is in fact less money than Mr. Adelson gave to the 527 group. And so, we see the possibility that wealthy donors, in a matter of a couple, three weeks, can totally change the playing field in terms of the money of a presidential campaign.

AMY GOODMAN: Peter Stone, you’ve also written about Sheldon Adelstein being investigated—Adelson.

PETER STONE: Right. Well, Adelson—let me just start—add a couple things to what Greg said. Adelson did vehemently deny the Politico story. But he left the door open. He called Politico. The guy is very reclusive, doesn’t talk to reporters. But he was pretty irked by the report, and he called them up, and he said, "I have made no commitment to do so." He quickly added, though, "Doesn’t mean I won’t do so in the future."

I did a follow-up story on it this week, where I talked to other sources, including old friends who he had signaled in recent weeks that he was probably going to help Gingrich. One of his old friends, Fred Zeidman, told me, on the record, that Adelson had said to him, "I’ll do whatever it costs" — quote — "I’ll do whatever it costs to help Gingrich." I think he is going to be a little bit cautious. He has a record of—

AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.

PETER STONE: OK. Back to the investigation, very quickly, there is a Foreign Corrupt Practices investigation underway. The Justice Department and the SEC launched this. They’re looking into possible violations of this law involving potential bribery in Macau—

AMY GOODMAN: In Macau.

PETER STONE: —where Adelson’s—

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us, Greg Gordon and Peter Stone.

Source: Democracy Now!

No related posts.

Interview with Eric Margolis, internationally syndicated columnist and author of War at the Top of the World and American Raj, discusses the conflict in Syria, where Western-backed instigators and a legitimate domestic opposition face off against the Assad regime – which still enjoys widespread popular support; the consequences of Syrian regime change for Palestinians, Iran and Hezbollah; what a truly democratic Middle East would look like; whether Egyptian sympathy for Palestinians will be tempered by continued US bribe money; and why the US needs to accept the Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate political force – or deal with something far more radical later on. (source: antiwar.com)

Listen to this interview here. (19:52)

Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles appear in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times and Dawn. He is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post. He appears as an expert on foreign affairs on CNN, BBC, France 2, France 24, Fox News, CTV and CBC.

As a war correspondent Margolis has covered conflicts in Angola, Namibia, South Africa, Mozambique, Sinai, Afghanistan, Kashmir, India, Pakistan, El Salvador and Nicaragua. He was among the first journalists to ever interview Libya's Muammar Khadaffi and was among the first to be allowed access to KGB headquarters in Moscow. A veteran of many conflicts in the Middle East, Margolis recently was featured in a special appearance on Britain’s Sky News TV as “the man who got it right” in his predictions about the dangerous risks and entanglements the US would face in Iraq.

Margolis is the author of War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir and Tibet and American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World.

Related posts:

• If Obama’s Libyan Intervention “Succeeds”, Will Palestine Be Next?
• Why Iran won’t attack Israel
• Mossad in America

In a cheap effort to procure Jewish votes and money, Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has claimed that the Palestinian people is an invented people.

Republican presidential candidate and former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich. REUTERS/Chris Keane

"I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs, and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places and for a variety of reasons we have sustained them against Israel now since the 1940s. It is tragic."

Asked whether he considered himself a Zionist, the highly opportunistic and morally duplicitous republican leader said

"I believe that the Jewish people have the right to a state...Remember, there was no Palestinian state. It was part of the Ottoman empire until the early 20th century."

There is no doubt that Gingrich's claims are an obscene gallimaufry of errors, half-truths and outright lies.

Let us begin with the issue of an "invented people." Well, if we discuss the matter academically, e.g. honestly and objectively, we will reach the ineluctable conclusion that the American people themselves are an invented people. After all, the only true and "un-invented" people are the native Americans, most of whom were exterminated by White immigrants, presumably including Gingrich's forefathers, who called the genocide "manifest destiny."

In comparison, the Palestinian people have stronger claims to originality and authenticity.

In fact, Palestinians predated the Israelites by thousands of years. Remember, even Abraham, the patriarch, had to purchase a burial place for his wife Sara from a local Palestinian. The story is mentioned in the Bible.

Moreover, the Shekel, the name of the Israeli currency, was a Palestinian currency long before the advent of the Israelites. This fact, too, is corroborated by the Bible.

In truth, the Palestinians had developed a prosperous civilization long before the arrival of the quasi-barbarian Israelites who conquered the country by way of genocide and ethnic cleansing. A fleet look at the Old Testament would elucidate the facts in this regard.

Newt Gingrich must be a real ignoramus. It is lamentable that he is contemplating becoming the President of the United States. The notion of Gingrich becoming a successor of people like George Washington and Benjamin Franklin is really an affront to serious minds and moral spirits.

But, on the other hand, Gingrich belongs to a generation of American politicians who don't value honesty, truth and intellectualism. They are, more or less, political prostitutes for the asking. They will "sell" their commodity to the highest bidder, which really augers very bad for America's democracy and survival.

I am sorry to say such a things about the only remaining, though dwindling, superpower in the world. But a little advice, though it might hurt, could have a lasting positive effect.

Had Mr. Gingrich done some research, he probably would have toned down his pornographically mendacious remarks.

For example, Keith W. Whitelam, a British scholar of impeccable credentials, wrote a meticulously researched book a few years ago on the history of Palestine. The book is entitled "The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History."

The book, described by the Sunday Times of London as a "brave, fascinating and important," shows how the ancient history of Palestine has been deliberately obscured by the search for Israel.

The author argues rather convincingly that ancient Israel has been invented by scholars in the image of European nation-states.

According to William Dalrymple, Whitelam "explores the theological and political assumptions which have shaped research into ancient Israel by Biblical scholars and contributed to the vast network of scholarship, defined by the late Palestinian scholar Edward Said as "Orientalist discourse."

Under the subtitle of "Imaging Ancient Israel And The Politics of The East," Whitelam argues that the picture of Israel's past presented in much of the Hebrew Bible is a fiction, a fabrication like most pictures of the past constructed by ancient (and, we might add, modern) societies.

He adds that western studies of ancient Israel have not been properly investigated due to the fact that many of the scholars involved in these studies took Biblical narratives for granted.

Whitelam was not a "black sheep" in any sense of the word. He is joined by a long list of scholars, including some Jewish scholars, who vindicated the often neglected and overlooked Palestinian narrative.

For example, it is an academic axiom that the bulk Israel's "founding fathers" happened to be East European invaders, the majority of whom were descendants from the old Khazar region.

These people, who converted to Judaism about a thousand years ago, had no ethnical connection with the ancient Israelites. In fact, modern-day Palestinians had more ethnic affinity with the ancient Israelites than arrogant and genocidal Zionists such as Ben Gurion, Ariel Sharon, Menachem Begin and Benyamin Netanyahu.

According to Tsvi Misinai, an Israeli scholar and researcher, a large part of the Palestinian population are actually descendants of ancient Israel. These Palestinians, Misinai argues, had converted from Judaism to Islam and Christianity. If so, then even according to Jewish criteria, the Palestinians belong to the land and that the last thing one would say about them is that they are an "invented people".

I am not, of course, writing for Gingrich or people with similar mindsets. These people are usually fanatics who would disregard the truth even if they are brought face to face with it. They are fanatics, and fanatics by definitions don't hold views; they are held by them.

I am writing for sincere people who might be deceived by Gingrich ranting and nonsense. The man may be an important politician, but with all due respect to my American friends, he is an intellectual midget and a moral dwarf.

May God help the American people if Gingrich is elected President.

* Khalid Amayreh a journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian town of Dura. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983.

Related posts:

• Did you know?
• Think Again: Palestine
• Gaza Over & Over..

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE

1. Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts. . . . America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world." ~ George W. Bush, address to the nation, September 11, 2001

"They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." ~ George W. Bush, address to Congress, September 20, 2001

In context, all Americans assumed that Bush was talking about Moooooooooslims. Maybe he was really talking about somebody else but just couldn't say so? Let's see who hates our freedoms.

Where to begin? It seems the US has so many enemies these days. We could start with Pakistan, they hate our elections don't they? Oh, but they have elections too. Hell they even elected a woman as president. I know, they hate us because we have the right in the United States to keep and bear arms. Pakistanis don't have that right, right? Well, not quite. The gun situation in Pakistan would be the envy of everyone living in Bumfuck, Idaho. But I digress.

Oh, maybe they hate us because we bomb the shit out of them with drones? Damn, I bet killing lots of women and children probably does piss them off quite a bit, them being Moooooslims and all. Ungrateful bastards.

Maybe if we stopped killing them they might like us more. Naah.

Hmmmm, I went over a whole bunch of people who don't like us these days in a council with all the tuyuur here at Mantiq al-Tayr and we had to rule out places like Iran, North Korea, the Palestinians, damn near all Arabs everywhere, the Russians, the Chinese, the Central Americans, Newfoundland, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Yahweh knows who else. None of them, as far as we could determine, hates our freedoms, even our freedom to not have universal health care.

Hmmm, maybe Bush meant something else. Maybe he was being subtle, trying to get a secret message across to us. Maybe he was trying to say "Look, I'm a dumb-shit born to a rich family and I did too many drugs as a kid. But now I'm surrounded by absolute Zionist crazies and we're fucked. Help!"

Wouldn't that be cool?

Wow. So where should I look to find those who hate our freedoms?

A little birdie told me to start with the US Senate. It seems that there is some brouhahahahahaha going on about new legislation that might allow the military to arrest American citizens and put them in detention forever with no habeas corpus. The entire patriot-minded internet has written about it, so if this is a first for you then you have got to be a Shas Party member, but I digress. The US military could become the only nuclear police force on earth. Who on earth would come up with an idea as anti-American as that?

Israel.

Carl Levin

Well, for thing he is right at the top of Senate recipients of Jewish Lobby money. (Note to Shas Party Members and Republicans, the red highlights were done by Hassan Nasrallah, standing in for Haifa Wehbe who had a previous commitment editing Mark Dankof's work.)

"For the past three re-election cycles, Levin has been the top recipient in the Senate of pro-Israel contributions – receiving $573,773 in 1990, $371,157 in 1996 and $331,304 in 2002. In this election cycle of 2008, Levin is also leading all Senate candidates in donations from pro-Israeli groups with $84,910 in contributions, which is more than double the amount of all other Senate candidates."

The pro-Israel pacs just love this guy and he gets contributions from a whole bunch of them. Here are three examples:

One of those groups is the Center for Middle East Peace & Economic Cooperation, which was established in 1989 by Slim Fast Foods Chairman S. Daniel Abraham and Utah Congressman Wayne Owens. This pro-Israeli group makes campaign contributions and takes members of Congress to the Middle East on fact-finding missions. In the 2002 election cycle, they were the number one pro-Israeli campaign contributor giving nearly $1.5 million to candidates.

And:

Then there is the Washington PAC, which was founded by Morrie Amitay. Amitay was Executive Director of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) from 1974 to 1980 and speaks highly of Levin on his website. Washington PAC contributed $10,000 to Levin in 2002 and has already given $9,000 for his re-election campaign this year.

And:

NorPAC has contributed $5,000 to Senator Levin for his 2008 re-election campaign. NorPAC is a non-partisan political action committee whose primary purpose is to support candidates and sitting members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives "who demonstrate a genuine commitment to the strength, security, and survival of Israel." Their website also claims that their lobbying efforts, "Successfully helped pass the Syria Accountability Act, Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, Iran Freedom and Support Act, and gain Israel's entry into the UN's Western European and Others (WEOG) Group."

Levin of course does Israel's bidding on every conceivable issue with the exception of the Iraq war. He is a huge fan of the war on terror, arguing that the Iraq war was a distraction from it, and he is viciously anti-Palestinian.

He co-sponsored the senate resolution supporting Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2009.

Occupy Wall Street even calls him a "dual national." I'm not sure why though. Seems he is just loyal to one country. The same country that his co-sponsor John McCain is loyal to.

Not only does Levin hate your freedoms, he doesn't want the Egyptians to have theirs either. (And, btw, the Egyptians are fucked.) Last February Levin made it clear that all he cares about with respect to what some call the Egyptian "revolution" (which it was not) is that Egypt continue to kiss Israel's ass.

This guy is bought and paid for by Israel and he wants the military to be an internal police force against terrorism. All you all who like to do things like write columns for Hizbullah's al-Manar website and appear on Press TV had better fucking look out.

In Part II we will look at the drones. But I also really want to get to Alan Derwoshitz. Damn, but that one will have to wait till part 3 or 4.

Some much Zionist Bullshit, so little time. So little time not just for Mantiq al-Tayr, but for you.

2. The Republican Jewish Coalition also hates your freedoms. Remember, Israel is "the nation-state" of the Jewish people, so these Republicans, like their "Democratic" counterparts in the "National Jewish Democratic Council" have one priority – and guess what goys and girls – you ain't it.

Again, as anyone with the state of awareness of a Penn State football coach knows, Ron Paul, about the only non-fascist running for the Republican nomination, was excluded from their debate on Dec. 7 – a day that will "live in infamy" for sure.

The RJC, on it's website runs a piece by Jonathan Tobin who says:

"But just as no one would consider a demand the GOP group provide a platform for a Democrat, there is no reason for it to allow Paul to pretend he is anything but an extremist who is far outside of the mainstream, especially when it comes to issues concerning the U.S.-Israel alliance."

Paul also believes in individual liberties and freedom from a crushing militarized police state that is engaged is endless wars all over the globe. The RJC stands for exactly the opposite. They hate your freedoms.

Here's Newt Gringrich (by the way, there is some controversy about how you pronounce his last name – it is pronounced "GingdieforIsraelrich", but I digress)showing that he works for Israel at the RJC "debate".

"In a Gingrich administration, the opening day, there will be an executive order about two hours after the inaugural address. We will send the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as of that day."

So, an inauguration day, immediately after taking the Oath of Office as required by article six of the US Constitution, GringdieforIsraelrich will make serving our Israeli masters his first priority.

If you assholes vote for this guy you richly deserve to go straight to hell. And you will because he will create it here on earth for you, though I have to admit we're well on the way there already.

Here's what the RJC had to say on its very own website about the great "debate". Hasan-jan did the highlights again.

"What a tremendous day! The RJC's 2012 Republican Presidential Candidates Forum was an outstanding success. Six top presidential candidates took the time to come to Washington, D.C. just to speak to our audience. Each gave an impressive, thoughtful, and exciting speech and took questions from the audience."

"Impressive" and "thoughtful" mean subverting your country to Israeli interests.

Here's proof from the Haaretz blog of the event.

Matthew Brooks

"The Jewish community has a role to play in these elections and we'll win," Brooks says.

Uh, Matt, who is "we" in that sentence? Oh, and btw goys and girls, Matt isn't just the CEO of the RJC, he is also the head of the Jewish Policy Center, a pro Israeli think tank, one of about 6 million in the US. The Center "strongly supports the global war against Islamic extremism". This guy is all Israel all the time.

Here's Michelle Bachmann speaking at Matt's "debate".

Michele Bachmann

"I will move the Embassy to Jerusalem. Recognize annexation of the Golan Heights or any settlements Israel would chose to annex."

Here's Rick "Die for Israel" Perry saying the US must support Israel's wars.

"But Israel needs our vocal moral support, because there will be inevitable international condemnation if Israel decides to strike. What Israel does not need is President Obama demanding eternal gratitude for being its best friend."

The Zionist Jews are really after Romney, who also kissed Israel's ass at the "debate" but didn't kiss it enough. It's clear they have decided he's on his way out. They are the one's who decide who you'll get to vote for.

For example:

"Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) issued the following statement in response to Romney's speech: "Throughout my career in Congress, Democrats and Republicans have stood side-by-side in support of Israel's security and the U.S.-Israel relationship because they are bipartisan, national security priorities. It is highly irresponsible for a presidential candidate to spread reckless accusations about our foreign policy that could lead anyone to question the United States' commitment to Israel's security."

Not sure what got her so riled up, Romney totally sucked up to Israel and engaged in the mandatory war mongering against Iran. She's not the only Jew in Congress who was pissed off as you'll see if you read the whole blog – it's so revealing you might just want to pack up your bags and move somewhere else after you read it.

For example, Nit Mitt said:

"My policy couldn't be more different – I'll travel to Israel on my first trip, reaffirm Israel's existence as a Jewish state. And I want the world to know that the bonds between the U.S. and Israel are unshakable. I wouldn't meet with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. He should be excluded from the diplomatic community and indicted for incitement of genocide. And on my watch, Iran's Ayatollahs won't be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. Our friends should never doubt we'll stand by them in their hour of need; our enemies should never question our resolve."

Huntsman also left the "debate" with a brown nose.

"It's time for the world to understand who our friends and allies are, that we stand with Israel." That's pretty much what Herman Cain used to say.

And the ridiculous Rick Santorum also wants you involved in more wars for Israel too.

"Look at the situation developing in Iran. It's time the Oval office has courage and convictions and so something that is right, to challenge the radical theocracy. It will change the world. There is no greater threat to the existence to Israel than Iran."

Go here on the RJC site for links to videos of the speeches on CSPAN as well as transcripts of many of the presentations. You must be over 18 – old enough to kill people for Israel – to view that material.

3. Okay, for video time, let's go to the other side of Zionist-permitted opinion on all things political, the so-called Democratic Party. And who would be a better representative of that party than the chair of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. The video is so revealing of how fucked we are. . .

Note that in her criticism of the RJC's "debate" she says that the RJC is "an organization that puts its partisanship and its party in front of its love of Israel." That's a criticism?

But as you watch the video it only gets worse. With Zionism, it always does.

Video link: http://youtu.be/ztz6OCoM_Ho

As I wrote above:

Some much Zionist Bullshit, so little time. So little time not just for Mantiq al-Tayr, but for you.

(to be continued, time permitting)

* Mantiq al-Tayr is a blogger who is attempting to wake up other American citizens to the true dangers and challenges which face their country and is devoted to justice for the Palestinian people. Truth is his objective, satire is his tool. He also enjoys reading the Qur'an from time to time. See his website.

Related posts:

• Israel’s siege on freedoms – By Laila El-Haddad
• Is Herman Cain A Zionist Sock Puppet? [Satire]
• President Obama’s opportunity to speak truth to power, Part 2 – Rahm Emanuel does it for him

What's Next for Palestine?

By Samah Sabawi*

The campaign for Palestine to be recognized as a full member of the United Nations has revealed the popularity of the Palestinian cause on the international stage, displayed the uncompromising nature of Israel’s political leadership, and highlighted the end of the road for the Palestinian Authority, which has made it clear that it has no other path to take. Now that the United States has used heavy pressure and strong diplomatic maneuvering to block the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) application for full UN membership in the UN Security Council, the question for Palestinians is where should they go from here and how to frame the next phase of their struggle.

Palestinians watching this political theatre unfold are not surprised by the inability of UN institutions to take a strong stand toward resolving their decades old conflict. During the Palestinians’ 63 years of dispossession, several dozen UN resolutions were directed at Israel over core issues such as refugees, Jerusalem, and borders, as well as its unlawful attacks on its neighbors, and its violations of the human rights of the Palestinians, including deportations, demolitions of homes, settlement expansion, and confiscation of Palestinian land.

All of these resolutions went unimplemented. Instead, the Palestinians - an occupied people - were for 20 years made to negotiate with the occupying power over rights to which they were already entitled under international law.

Predictably, these negotiations yielded little. Instead, the Palestinians saw the continued erosion of their rights and freedoms and the continued loss of their land. Israel colonized more than 50 percent of the West Bank with Jewish settlements, bypass roads networks, and buffer zones. When PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas insisted that Israel at a minimum halt its settlement expansion before the Palestinians continued to negotiate, his request was flatly rejected. Now Abbas has played his last card. The UN bid has exposed the weakness of the strategy of the Palestinian Authority, which has done the running in the name of the PLO.

The PA strategy rested entirely on the assumption that its good behavior - including collaboration with Israel over security, courting international economic institutions, and playing the game by the rulebook would be rewarded. It will not. U.S. Mideast negotiator Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, a former adviser to the Palestinian leadership, warned Palestinian leaders earlier this year, "History is not in the habit of rewarding good behavior; it is a struggle, not a beauty contest."

Chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat - who publicly resigned his position after the Palestine Papers were leaked only to re-emerge after the furor died down and assist with the statehood bid – has offered this insight into the PA's strategy: "if we fail we can try again and again and again." In other words: We are out of options and this is the only route we have at our disposal.

Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki announced a few days ago that the Palestinians will not accept anything less than "a full member state" but the Associated Press later reported that the PA has begun a process of seeking an upgrade status at the UN. The PA is also sending mixed signals about applying for membership of other UN bodies such as the World Health Organization, the UN Development Program, the UN Population Fund, the Environment Program, the World Food Program and others.

While the PA continues to play diplomacy, the Palestinian people have been watching and learning. Unlike the PA/PLO, they recognize that without real leverage, laws and resolutions will never move beyond the paper they are written on. The apparent tsunami of support for the Palestinian statehood bid, and the endless rhetoric from world nations including the US, Canada, the European Union, and Australia, in support of a two state solution, will not bring a Palestinian state into the club of nations any time soon.

Freedom and rights are never offered on a silver platter in the halls of power. They are earned through mass popular movements and organized civil rights struggle. It is for this reason that more Palestinians are embracing civil society’s call for non-violent protests inside the occupied territories and for boycott, divestment and sanctions globally, a model based on the South African struggle to end apartheid. In this they have the support of a fast-growing global civil society movement that is willing to take action where governments are not and to put a moral and economic cost on Israel’s human rights violations.

With Jewish only settlements growing on Palestinian land faster than anyone can say “two states”, it makes no sense for Palestinians to pin their hopes on a state that may never be. That is why the Palestinian struggle has evolved into one that transcends borders and barriers. The language of the new Palestinian non-violent resistance movement is based on human rights and calls for equality, freedom, justice, and democratic representation.

Israeli hardliners who have ensured the death of the two-state solution and the demise of the Palestinian state need to brace themselves. The voices calling for full Palestinian equality and rights in the land of Palestine-Israel are sure to become louder.

* Samah Sabawi is the Public Advocate for Australians for Palestine. Co-author of Journey to Peace in Palestine, writer and producer of the plays Cries from the Land and Three Wishes.

Related posts:

• The Palestinian Authority’s historic mistake – and opportunity
• Palestinian Authority Recommends Whitewashing Gaza War Crimes
• Dismantle the Palestinian Authority now

Russell Tribunal comes gunning for the international community

Media reports suggest that Britain will again betray the Palestinian people in the UN vote tomorrow on whether to recognise the Palestinian territories as an independent state.

The Guardian, for example, says that Britain will join forces with two other EU allies on the Security Council, France and Portugal, to abstain. Germany, the third EU member of the Council, is also likely to abstain.

"The UK had considered voting in favour of statehood but is planning to abstain because it wants to forge a common front with its EU partners. Government sources say the EU - the single biggest donor to the Palestinian authority - is playing an increasingly influential role in the Middle East. It is feared this could be put at risk if the EU fails to act collectively."

This is despite a warning from the Conservative Middle East Council that Britain will lose the goodwill it has built up recently in the Middle East if it fails to support a Palestinian state. Given the history and Britain's responsibility for Palestine prior to Israel's existence, says the CMEC, "this is the time for the UK to stand on the right side of history.

"Public opinion is strongly on the side of the Palestinians, as shown by opinion polls showing 71% support for the Palestinian bid to be an independent state. Parliament should make its voice heard rather than standing on the sidelines as a passive spectator."

If Britain abstains the Palestinians will be one vote short, apparently.

So Britain, after 94 years of chicanery, is still set on denying the Palestinian nation its freedom on the feeble excuse, this time, of wishing to forge a common front with its EU partners? Well, don't look so surprised. The British government and its Foreign Office has been a Zionist snake-pit since the days of Arthur Balfour who, in 1917, issued his infamous Declaration that the His Majesty's Government "will use their best endeavours to facilitate" the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

Now look at the present-day line-up:

• Prime minister, David Cameron - a self-declared Zionist. He pledged: "In me, you have a Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible...I want to be clear, we will always support Israel..."
• Foreign secretary, William Hague - a member of Conservative Friends of Israel since he was a teenager.
• Minister for Middle East affairs, Alistair Burt - formerly an officer of Conservative Friends of Israel.
• Recently departed in disgrace: defence secretary, Laim Fox - dubbed "a champion of Israel within the government". He said: "Israel's enemies are our enemies".

One can only wonder how the rules and principles which are supposed to eliminate undue influence in public life ever allowed such people to be handed ministerial appointments.

Fortunately we have the Russell Tribunal to speak up and to take issue with delinquent governments and their feckless ministers. A summary of the findings of the Tribunal's latest session held in South Africa has just been made available.

The Russell Tribunal describes itself as "a court of the people, a Tribunal of conscience, faced with injustices and violations of international law, that are not dealt with by existing international jurisdictions, or that are recognised but continue with complete impunity due to the lack of political will of the international community". It takes a particular interest in the violations of international law that prevent the Palestinian people from exercising their rights to a sovereign State.

The Tribunal supports the supremacy of international law as the basis for a solution. "It will thus examine the various responsibilities that lead to the continued occupation of the Palestinian Territories by Israel and the non-application of the United Nations resolutions, from Resolution 181 of the 29th of November 1947, on the partition of Palestine, to Resolution ES-10/15 of the 20th of July 2004, that acknowledges the Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) - of the 9th of July 2004 - on the construction of the Wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and requests all the UN Member States to acquit themselves of their legal obligations as defined by the ICJ Opinion."

The Tribunal also says it aims to help mobilise civil society in all the states concerned on the question of Palestine.

Inhuman acts against Palestinians "systematic and institutionlised"

In its latest deliberations the Tribunal finds that Israel subjects the Palestinian people to an institutionalised regime of domination amounting to apartheid as defined under international law. "The state of Israel is legally obliged to respect the prohibition of apartheid contained in international law. In addition to being considered a crime against humanity, the practice of apartheid is universally prohibited."

The Tribunal says it heard abundant evidence of practices that constitute 'inhuman acts' perpetrated against the Palestinian people by the Israeli authorities.

"The inhuman acts listed... do not occur in random or isolated instances. They are sufficiently widespread, integrated and complementary to be described as systematic.

"They are also sufficiently rooted in law, public policy and formal institutions to be described as institutionalised."

The Tribunal shows how the Israeli legal system confers privileges on Jews over non-Jews and highlights the institutionalised separation and discrimination revealed by the existence of two entirely separate legal systems:

"Palestinians are subject to military law enforced by military courts that fall far short of international fair trial standards; Israeli Jews living in illegal settlements are subject to Israeli civil law and a civil court system. The result is a vastly different procedure and sentence for the same crime, committed in the same jurisdiction, by members of a different group."

The obscurity and inaccessibility of many laws, military orders and regulations that underpin Israel's institutionalised regime of domination, is also emphasised.

"Israel must cease its apartheid acts and its policies of persecution and offer appropriate assurances and guarantees of non-repetition," says the Tribunal. In addition, Israel must make full reparation for the injuries caused by its internationally wrongful acts and for all damage that can be financially assessed.

"Examine Israel's prolonged occupation and apartheid"

The Tribunal then turns its guns on the international community. "States and international organisations... have a duty to cooperate in bringing Israel's apartheid acts and policies of persecution to an end, including by not rendering aid or assistance to Israel and not recognising the illegal situation arising from its acts. They must bring to an end Israel's infringements of international criminal law through the prosecution of international crimes, including the crimes of apartheid and persecution."

All states are called upon to "consider appropriate measures to exert sufficient pressure on Israel, including the imposition of sanctions, the severing of diplomatic relations collectively through international organisations, or in the absence of consensus, individually by breaking bilateral relations with Israel".

It wants the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to accept jurisdiction as requested by the Palestinian authorities in January 2009, and to initiate an investigation 'as expeditiously as possible' as required by the 'Goldstone Report', into international crimes committed in Palestinian territory since 1 July 2002.

And it wants Palestine to accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Tribunal calls for the UN Special Committee against Apartheid to be reconvened to consider the question of apartheid against the Palestinian people, and asks the UN General Assembly to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice "to examine the nature of Israel's prolonged occupation and apartheid".

The Russell Tribunal shows us the no-nonsense, law based way forward this abominable situation has needed these last 64 years.

It should be enough to put ministers like Cameron and Hague in the UK, and their counterparts in other Western governments, on notice that continued support for such a rabidly racist regime will no longer be tolerated by civil society.

* Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. Read other articles by Stuart.

Related posts:

• Palestinians tell Blair: you are not welcome here
• Israeli Foreign Ministry Plans New Hasbara Effort Against Palestinians
• British Apology to Palestinians

On Wednesday, a coalition of Israeli peace organizations published a list of 50 reasons for Israel to support a Palestinian state. Assuming that you only accept five of them, isn't that enough? What exactly is the alternative, now that the heavens are closing in around us?

Majed Abdulfattah and Ahmad Dari carry a symbolic Palestinian UN seat before a meeting with the president of the UN General Assembly in New York on Thursday. Stan Honda/AFP/Getty Images

So what will we say, that we're opposed? Four prime ministers, Benjamin Netanyahu among them, have said that they're in favor, that it must be accomplished through negotiations, so why haven't we done it yet? Is our argument that we object to it's being a unilateral measure? What's more unilateral than the settlements that we insist on continuing to build? Or perhaps we will say that the route to a Palestinian state runs through Ramallah and Jerusalem, not New York, a la the U.S. secretary of state. The State of Israel itself was created, in part, in the United Nations.

Next week will be Israel's moment of truth, or more precisely the moment in which its deception will be revealed. Be it the president, the prime minister or the ambassador to the UN, even the greatest of public speakers will be incapable of standing before the representatives of the nations of the world and explaining Israeli logic; none of the three will be able to convince them that there is any merit to Israel's position.

Thirty-two years ago, Israel signed a peace agreement with Egypt in which it undertook "to recognize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people" and to establish an autonomous authority in the West Bank and Gaza Strip within five years. Nothing happened.

Eighteen years ago the prime minister of Israel signed the Oslo Accords, in which Israel undertook to conduct talks in order to achieve a final-status agreement with the Palestinians, including the core issues, within five years. That, too, did not occur. Most of the provisions of the agreement have foundered since then - in the majority of cases because of Israel. What will Israel's advocate at the UN say about this?

For years, Israel claimed that Yasser Arafat was the sole obstacle to peace with the Palestinians. Arafat died - and once again nothing happened. Israel claimed that if only the terror were to stop, a solution would appear. The terror stopped - and nothing. Israel's excuses became increasingly empty and the naked truth was increasingly exposed. Israel does not want to reach a peace arrangement that would involve the establishment of a Palestinian state. This can no longer be covered up in the UN. And what did Netanyahu's Israel expect the Palestinians to do in this case - another round of photo ops, like the ones with Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni that led nowhere?

The truth is that the Palestinians have just three options, not four: to surrender unconditionally and go on living under Israeli occupation for another 42 years at least; to launch a third intifada; or to mobilize the world on their behalf. They picked the third option, the lesser of all evils even from Israel's perspective. What could Israel say about this - that it's a unilateral step, as it and the United States have said? But it didn't agree to stop construction in the settlements, the mother of all unilateral steps. What did the Palestinians have left? The international arena. And if that won't save them, then another popular uprising in the territories.

The Palestinians in the West Bank, 3.5 million today, will not live without civil rights for another 42 years. We might as well get used to the fact that the world won't stand for it. Can Netanyahu or Shimon Peres explain why the Palestinians do not deserve their own state? Do they have even the slightest of arguments? Nothing. And why not now? We have already seen, especially of late, that time only reduces the possible alternatives in the region. So even that weak excuse is dead.

Yesterday, a coalition of Israeli peace organizations published a list of 50 reasons for Israel to support a Palestinian state. Assuming that you only accept five of them, isn't that enough? What exactly is the alternative, now that the heavens are closing in around us? Can anyone, can Peres or Netanyahu, seriously contend that the regional hostility toward us would not have lessened had the occupation already ended and a Palestinian state been established?

The truths are so basic, so banal, that it hurts even to repeat them. But, unfortunately, they're the only ones we have. And so, a simple question to whoever will be representing us at the UN next week: Why not, for heaven's sake? Why "no" once again? And to what will we say "yes"?

* Gideon Levy is a Haaretz columnist and a member of the newspaper's editorial board.

Related posts:

• The Audacity to Recognize a Palestinian State is Now
• Counting the cost of a Palestinian state
• Abbas: A September Palestinian State or Lose World Support

By William Pfaff * | "Sabbah Report" | www.sabbah.biz

Palestinian children from the Aida refugee camp, with posters of themselves holding painted flags of countries that support Palestinian statehood, help mount a display on Israel’s separation barrier in the West Bank town of Bethlehem. Photo AP / Tara Todras-Whitehill

During the century and a half preceding 9/11, Americans enjoyed national and individual invulnerability to devastating foreign attack, unlike the people of any other major nation. Much has been made in recent years of how nuclear dread lay over the land in the 1950s. My own experience was that even the Cuban Missile Crisis was not what it subsequently was made out to have been. I am sure that the people actually making decisions in Washington quaked in their boots and prayed, which is why nothing happened. The menace was on the one hand so great that there was nothing to do about it (crouching under a table or possession of a shovel notwithstanding), but on the other hand no one in power was so stupid as to initiate a nuclear attack.

The American conviction of national invulnerability marched on. The Vietnam outcome threatened it, but it was easy for Americans, especially those who were not in authority, to say well, yes, but of course we could have won if we had really wanted to use our power.

Iraq is not today really perceived by public opinion as a defeat, only as mistake, muddle and incompetence, and, besides, our troops will (supposedly) be gone by 2012, and what's past will be past.

In Kabul, Gen. David Petraeus in 2009 promised Barack Obama and the nation that the United States Army could be relied upon for victory in 2010. Now Petraeus has left the army to pursue higher aspirations. Christopher Edley Jr., a member of the Obama presidential transition team and dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkrley, said that the team deemed the President-elect, with no military experience, vulnerable to official blackmail on national security and retroactive Bush administration justice issues, and so advised him to do whatever military and security officials proposed. Public confidence in President Obama on Middle Eastern issues may not be high today, while confidence in the Republicans seems even lower, but few Americans feel vulnerable to Middle Eastern risk. Least of all do they feel threatened by Israel's actions.

This is likely to prove a serious mistake. National vulnerability has returned. A State Department official has confirmed that the United States intends to veto the expected Palestinian demand for U.N. Security Council recognition as a member state. The U.S. Congress, moreover, under pressure from Israel's American friends, has declared that it will then cut off funding for the Palestinian Authority.

Egypt and the Arab governments will be angry, but the Arabs have been angry before with the invulnerable United States, and nothing has come of it-except for the 9/11 attacks and a war "on terror" that has gone on for a decade.

Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence and former ambassador to the U.S., has rather desperately been trying to warn America. He has published his warning in articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times, and circulated it on the Web. He writes that, if Washington vetoes the Palestinian petition, "American influence will decline further, Israeli security will be undermined and Iran will be empowered, increasing the chances of another war in the region."

A veto will provoke uproar among Muslims everywhere. Everyone already knows this, but the Obama administration ignores it.

Al-Faisal indirectly forecasts that, in the case of a veto, the American "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia will come to an end, and says that the Saudis will "adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy"-as Turkey already has done, one notes. The Saudi kingdom would oppose the American-supported Maliki government in Iraq, refuse to open an embassy there, and possibly end its support for American policy in Afghanistan and Yemen.

Al-Faisal also says that Saudi Arabia, by far the largest supporter of the Palestinian Authority, would be unable to give the Palestinians all of the financial aid and religious and political legitimacy that they would need to deal with Israel in such changed circumstances. He notes that, in recent polls, 70 percent of Palestinians anticipate a new intifada if they are vetoed at the U.N.

He warns that the region and the nations principally involved are far better served by continuing cooperation and good will between longstanding allies Saudi Arabia and the United States, and that "Saudi Arabia is willing and able to chart a new and divergent course if America fails to act justly with regard to Palestine."

The American nation and economy, and its relations with nations far beyond the Middle East, are deeply vulnerable to the political catastrophe against which al-Faisal warns.

However, what al-Faisal does not say is that the U.S. is the only nation to possess the strength and opportunity to act preemptively to solve this crisis. Israel now is incapable of rescuing itself because of its quasi-permanent internal political deadlock.

President Obama could spectacularly reverse policy and save the day. He could declare that the U.S. will vote in support of Palestine's full membership in the U.N. It will use all of the means at its disposal to support Israeli withdrawal of illegal settlements from territory designated as part of the Palestinian state in the 1948 U.N. partition of Mandate Palestine. It will do all in its power to impose the solution that everyone-including realistic Israelis and the Palestinians-understand to be the inevitable, permanent and just solution of this problem.

The world would be dazzled. Barack Obama's place in history would be assured.

* William Pfaff is a globally respected political commentator and author on international relations, contemporary history and U.S. policy. Visit William Pfaff's website for more on his latest book, "The Irony of Manifest Destiny: The Tragedy of America's Foreign Policy" (Walker & Co., $25), at www.williampfaff.com.

Related posts:

• Israel spying in and on the United States
• Surprise: United States & Israel among least peaceful nations!
• Israel and United States Share Most Negative Ratings in Global Poll

Ambassador Daniel Shapiro with Israeli President Shimon Peres, August 3, 2001.

In a recent speech before the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), Ambassador Daniel Shapiro clarified what drives US policies:

"The test of every policy the Administration develops in the Middle East is whether it is consistent with the goal of ensuring Israel's future as a secure, Jewish, democratic state. That is a commitment that runs as a common thread through our entire government."

Shapiro went on to say:

"This test explains our extraordinary security cooperation, our stand against the delegitimization of Israel, our efforts on Iran, our response to the Arab Spring, and our efforts on Israeli-Palestinian peace."

It also explains a factor in the downward slide in American prosperity and standing in the world.

US funding of Israel and its weapons industry

Shapiro elaborated:

"Israel will receive over $3 billion in U.S. funding for training and equipment in the coming fiscal year. This assistance allows Israel to purchase the sophisticated defense equipment it needs to protect itself, by itself, including the world's most advanced fighter aircraft, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Our assistance has also helped boost Israel's domestic defense industry."

On top of this, Shapiro pointed out,

"Congress, at the request of President Obama, provided $205 million to accelerate production and deployment of the Iron Dome short-range missile system, a project to which I devoted particular attention during my tenure at the White House."

Shapiro failed to note that this system competes with American defense firms, causing still further job loss for Americans, who have a higher unemployment rate than Israel.

Shapiro said that one of his first visits as Ambassador to Israel was to see an Iron Dome battery deployed near Ashkelon, where he "had very moving visits with the victims of rocket attacks in Ashdod." Palestinian rocket attacks have killed approximately 20 Israelis. There is no report that Shapiro has visited the victims of Israeli shelling attacks on Gaza, where over 1,400 have been killed.

Opposing international initiatives, undermining US needs

Shapiro continued:

"The test of our policy – that it advances Israel's status as a secure, Jewish, democratic state – also explains our commitment to vigorously battle against those who would attempt to isolate or delegitimize Israel in the international community."

As a result, Shapiro said, the US withdrew from the South African conference on racism in Durban and vetoed UN efforts on Israel (which otherwise would have passed).

Currently, he said, the administration is "doing everything we can" to oppose the Palestinian bid for UN membership to come later this month. "We are taking our opposition to capitals around the world."

This campaign is reminiscent of previous pro-Israel campaigns, including the original pressure brought by Israel partisans in 1947 on the UN General Assembly to pass a recommendation to give over half of Palestine to a Jewish state.

It could also be a major blow to the US.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a member of the Saudi Royal Family who headed up its intelligence service for many years, has just published Veto a State, Lose an Ally, in which he warns that if the US vetoes Palestinian UN membership, "Saudi Arabia would no longer be able to cooperate with America in the same way it historically has."

He writes that it would "provoke uproar among Muslims worldwide," further undermining American relations with the Muslim world (over 1.2 billion people), "threaten regional stability," and increase "the chances of another war in the region."

In 1973 Saudi Arabia, which has been an extremely important US ally, issued a warning based on a similarly reasonable request (that Israel obey international law – see discussion below). When Henry Kissinger ignored it, the US was thrown into a major recession and thousands of Americans lost their jobs and homes.

Author and international attorney John Whitbeck writes that "the adverse consequences for the United States of blocking Palestine's membership are dazzlingly obvious. An American veto would constitute a shotgun blast in both of its own feet, further isolating the United States from the rest of mankind and outraging the already agitated and unstable Arab and Muslim worlds (notably including Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey).

Since 120 nations have already recognized Palestine, such a veto would outrage countries all over the globe.

Policies on Iran based on Israeli concerns

Shapiro went on to say:

"The test of our policy – to advance Israel's status as a secure, Jewish democratic state – explains our persistent efforts and the President's determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

"Since 2009, the United States has led the world in imposing the toughest sanctions ever against Iran, through U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929, through the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions and Divestment Act, and through additional sanctions imposed by European and other partners beyond those mandated by the U.N. Security Council... We are working to increase pressure on Iran through additional means, and have taken no option off the table.

Twenty years ago similar pressure on Iraq created a humanitarian catastrophe in which, according to the World Health Organization, over 5,000 children under the age of five died each month from "embargo-related causes."

Arab Spring actions predicated on Israeli interests

Shapiro explained that concerns for Israel also drive the Administration's actions regarding the Arab Spring:

"The test of our policy explains President Obama's original outreach to the Muslim world, and his response to the Arab Spring.

"Israel's interests were not served by the deep anger felt toward the United States in many Muslim communities, and the President made clear that those who would accept his outstretched hand must do so knowing that the United States will remain a fierce defender of Israel's legitimacy and call on others to build their own connections with Israel.

"As the unprecedented events of the Arab Spring have unfolded, we have recognized the opportunity presented by the possible emergence of more open, transparent, peaceful, and democratic governments, who will make better neighbors, while remaining vigilant about the risks these changes could present. We know the stakes for Israel are high, and in a situation where neither of us can control outcomes, we are working closely together to chart a common strategy."

Shapiro said that US support for a "two-state solution" is also based on Israeli desires, explaining that he and the Administration are "convinced that a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state." Therefore, he said, the administration's "vigorous pursuit of Israeli-Palestinian peace" also meets the pro-Israel test.

Need to bolster pro-Israel ties among Jewish Americans

Shapiro spoke of the close allegiance that most Jewish Americans feel for Israel, but expressed concern that "much research has shown that growing numbers of younger American Jews feel disconnected, or at best ambivalent, toward Israel. Valuable programs like Birthright have exposed many to this connection, but many more have not been reached."

He said that "a stronger commitment to Zionist education for American Jewish youth could do much to strengthen bonds that we want to be even stronger in the next generation, but may not be if left untended."

Helping Israeli finances even further

Shapiro said that "one of the most fruitful opportunities for deepening ties" between Americans and Israelis is in the economic sphere:

"There are approximately one dozen American-Israel Chambers of Commerce throughout the United States, based in New York, Chicago, Dallas, Miami, Los Angeles, and elsewhere. These organizations are run and organized by Americans who care deeply about the U.S.- Israel relationship and strive to facilitate U.S.-Israel business connections."

Shapiro pointed out:

"In 2010 alone the U.S. imported $21 billion of Israeli goods and services; that's 10 percent of Israel's GDP. American companies and their representatives here directly employ about 60,000 Israelis; that's fully 2 percent of Israel's entire workforce. This figure does not include the many thousands more that are supported by American companies here as subcontractors or in downstream businesses.

"American companies have opened two-thirds of all foreign R&D facilities in Israel and brought in nearly 60 percent of all foreign direct investment. In 2011, American companies have acquired ten Israeli startups to the tune of $1.5 billion dollars, not just for their products, but to establish leading international R&D centers tapping into the greatest asset of Israel's people, their brainpower. American-sourced venture capitalism provides more than half of all money for nascent technology companies to get off the ground.

"Just as other Diaspora communities are often in the lead in promoting economic ties with their countries of origin, many of these projects began because of Jewish-American 'champions' of corporate interaction with Israel."

Ambassador Shapiro failed to mention that Israel's current account balance is 29th in the world; the U.S. comes in at 196th.

1973 War and Shapiro's personal ties to Israel

In his speech, Ambassador Shapiro recounted his personal history "for the insights it can give us about the connection of the American Jewish community to the U.S.-Israel relationship." He stated:

"I am a proud member of our Jewish community in Washington, DC, active in a Conservative synagogue and the Jewish day school that my children attend and where my wife, Julie, worked for many years. And my profound respect for the State of Israel and its remarkable achievements stems from a lifetime of exposure to the extraordinary people who brought Theodore Herzl's Zionist dream to life."

Shapiro explained that his close attachment to Israel began in 1973 when he was four years old and his family spent a fall semester in Israel. They were there during the war in which Egypt and Syria tried to retrieve land that had been taken by Israel seven years before.

While Ambassador Shapiro didn't go into this, there is a close US connection to the 1973 war, called by Israel and US media the "Yom Kippur War."

Before and during this war, Saudi Arabia called on the US to pressure Israel to return the lands that it had taken and held since 1967, in violation of international law. Instead, Henry Kissinger arranged a massive airlift of US weaponry to Israel, saving Israel from losing the war. This support led to the oil embargo against the US that caused a deep depression and cost thousands of Americans their jobs.

As historian Donald Neff later wrote, this boycott, induced by Kissinger's weapons to Israel, left "economies around the world shattered and many individuals living poorer lives." Neff wrote that while "Kissinger admitted, 'I made a mistake,' skeptics might wonder whether it was a mistake, or wanton disregard of U.S. interests during a passionate effort to help Israel."

Shapiro explained that the 1973 war had a major impact on his family:

"By the end of the war, and even more so, by the end of our stay, our family's relationship with Israel had been utterly transformed, from a solid but light connection to the deepest of bonds. Throughout the remainder of my childhood, family dinner conversations turned easily to events in Israel, from the thrill of the peace with Egypt to the anguish of the Lebanon War [initiated by Israel; fatalities were approximately 25:1 Lebanese to Israelis]. The ample bookshelves in my parents' home grew laden with studies in Zionism, Jewish history, and Israeli literature.

"A product of the Reform Movement, I nurtured my own connection to Israel primarily through summer camp experiences at the Olin-Sang-Ruby Union Institute in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, an unlikely setting for some of the most innovative Jewish and Zionist education to be found anywhere.

"These experiences led me to spend half a year after high school in Israel on a Reform Movement program, living with an Israeli family in Jerusalem, studying at Hebrew Union College, traveling widely throughout the country, and volunteering on Kibbutz Yahel in the Arava.

"I returned for my sophomore year of college at Hebrew University, supplementing my studies with work as a waiter at the wedding hall in the Beit Knesset HaGadol and long walks in Rehavia, where my girlfriend – who is now my wife of 19 years – took an apartment.

"In the years since, I have made Israel, its history and people, its quest for peace and security in the Middle East, and its relationship with the United States, the centerpiece of my academic studies at Brandeis and Harvard, my work on Capitol Hill, and my service in the Clinton and Obama Administrations."

Shapiro emphasized that in many ways his story is not unique, stating that "it is impossible to deny the special connection that most in the American Jewish community feel for Israel.... wherever they fall on the political spectrum, and whatever their views on American policy, Israeli policy or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the vast majority of American Jews care deeply about Israel..."

Shapiro said that he is deeply honored that President Obama has entrusted him with the "task and responsibility of strengthening and deepening" US ties to Israel.

Shapiro concluded:

"... 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."

* Alison Weir is executive director of If Americans Knew. Photos and videos referenced in the article can be viewed on the website (http://ifamericansknew.org) She can be reached at contact@ifamericansknew.org

Related posts:

• Is criticism of specific Israeli policies raising doubts about Israel’s right to exist?
• Ambassador Oren’s Invisible Israel
• Australia: Israel can bank on our support

In history, it is sometimes necessary to pause, reflect, assess and draw conclusions (and lines) which may be passed to future generations just in case we mortals miss the link. It is with this in mind that we may recall and connect two iconic events, though spaced by thousands of miles and 36 eventful years, which bring to mind an incredible image.

The first event took place in April 1975 as America was desperately counting the days to its final evacuation of Saigon (South Vietnam's capital city at the time) after its bloodiest war in SE Asia since WW2.

America was caught unaware by the speed with which the Viet Cong were advancing south towards Saigon. The ruling Vietnamese Junta, like all corrupt dictators, sped away to 'exit' in limousines and armoured personnel carriers leaving behind remnants of their corrupt regimes. In the desperate attempt to evacuate its military, secret service and CIA personnel from Saigon, the United State military had to send helicopters to lift its citizens out of buildings from the centre of Saigon because the city gates were jammed by massive queues of people running for the exit and the Viet Cong closing any major highway leading out of the city.

One iconic photo which, until today, captures the Fall of Saigon, showed American personnel being airlifted from the roof top of what was believed by many to be the American Embassy in Saigon, and which turned out to be the HQ building of the CIA in Saigon. This is confirmed by Hubert Van Es, the photographer who took that picture.

The headlines on the front pages of some US mainstream media outlets at the time was: "American escapes on helicopter skids".

photo copyright: H Van Es

Thirty six years later, a similar event took place in Cairo last Friday when, Egyptians, still smarting from their success in Tahrir Square but now very angry at the killing of 6 Egyptian border guards last month in Sharm-El-Sheikh by the Israeli enemy, stormed the Israeli embassy compound in Cairo after Friday prayers, and penetrated its perimeter wall in an attempt to enter the embassy building itself. It was reported that the Israeli ambassador, his family and most of the staff were whisked away by Israeli military aircraft, leaving behind a number of their own quarantined in the basement area of the building.

Only a desperate telephone call placed in the middle of the night by Benyamin Netanyahu, PM of Israel to Barack Obama, president of the United States, managed to save these guys as Israeli helicopters hovered above to pull them out and whisk them to safety. God knows if they were Mossad agents seconded to the embassy.

Unlike the Saigon event, no pictures of this particular escape are available (as this escape was typically planned at night). Only images of the Egyptian people storming the Israeli 'wall' of the compound were running on the front pages of Middle East news media.

Egyptian people storming the Israeli wall - Cairo

From Saigon to Cairo, there exists a geographical line which, if drawn accurately, will pass through Sharm-El-Sheikh.

Related posts:

• Israel Sides With Its Loyal Ally in Cairo
• BREAKING NEWS: Israeli Embassy in Cairo Under Siege
• Obama’s Song and Dance in Cairo

... careerism and narrow interests over honesty and moral courage

By Lawrence Davidson * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

There is an interesting phenomenon which we can call "the political retiree’s confession". I don’t mean all those hyped memoirs, ghost written for all manner of high ranking ex-officials. Here I refer to statements by important political leaders and bureaucrats, either out of office or about to vacate their positions, publicly describing what really needs to be done. For instance, what really needs to be done to obtain peace, or accurately pointing fingers at those obstructing peace. These statements can be shocking in their honesty, but curiously enough, are never made, much less acted upon, while the truth sayer is in a position of power. They come to us only with retirement or pending retirement.

Olmert, left, and Gates, right, shake hands at Olmert's office in Jerusalem, April 19, 2007.

For example, take former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Olmert was prime minister from 2006 (replacing Ariel Sharon who had suffered a debilitating stroke) till early 2009. A few months before leaving office Olmert told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that, in the end, Israel would have to return "almost all" of the West Bank to the Palestinians, including East Jerusalem. There was no other way to achieve peace with the Arab world. Olmert went on to say that "the decision we are going to have to make is the decision we have been refusing for 40 years to look at open-eyed...The time has come to say these things. The time has come to put them on the table." Of course "the time" oddly coincided with a period when the prime minister could not move this insight from theory into practice.

Example 2: Robert Gates on Israel the ungrateful ally

Now we have another example of this strange phenomenon. This time from the United States. According to Jeffrey Goldberg, the national correspondent for The Atlantic magazine, former US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, "in a meeting of the National Security Council Principals Committee held shortly before his retirement this summer [2011]", gave his expert opinion that the Israeli government was ungrateful for United States assistance. That despite all the Obama administration had done for Jerusalem, "access to top-quality weapons, assistance developing missile defence systems, high-level intelligence sharing ... the US has received nothing in return". On top of that, in Gates’s estimation Prime Minister Netanyahu is "endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel’s growing isolation..." No one at the high level meeting disagreed with this analysis.

Gates’s publically revealed anger is nice to hear about but, like Olmert’s epiphany, it means little in practice. Netanyahu has been rude, duplicitous and downright nasty to President Obama in what was actually a replay of the behaviour of Menachem Begin toward Jimmy Carter in the late 1970s. Carter’s National Security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, learned to distrust the Israeli leadership and would later, after he was no longer in office, advocate an increasing hard line toward Jerusalem. Indeed, he once suggested military confrontation with Israel if that country’s leaders risked a regional war by attacking Iranian nuclear development sites (he suggested the US Air Force shoot down the Israeli planes). This was a reasonable suggestion given the stakes but, of course, it was made when Brzezinski had no position of influence.
　
Getting back to the article on Gates’s negative opinion of Netanyahu and his government, Jeffrey Goldberg writes that the former defence secretary actually "articulated bluntly what so many people in the administration seem to believe". OK. So what are they doing about this? Absolutely nothing. They will all wait until they no longer have positions of influence to come out and vent. The situation is disgusting. And it is disgusting because in both the US and Israel (and no doubt in many other countries as well) there are leaders and advisers who know what needs to be done in Israel-Palestine to make the world more secure and stable, and yet they stand by and twiddle their thumbs.
　
Why do these leaders do nothing about matters of such importance? Here are two interconnected reasons:

1. In his book Victims of Groupthink (1972) Irving L. Janis shows how governing political elites create self-reinforcing decision-making circles that insulate themselves from serious challenge. It is rare that anyone within these circles "thinks outside the box". However, it turns out that the "box" must always be able to accommodate the demands and interests of other groups whose money and power support the "circle’s" political viability. This is a system that must produce frustration and a sense of powerlessness among (the rare) officials who can see even a little more clearly than their peers. By the way, it is not a problem unique to political elites. It surely exists in most organizational structures. It is just that when it comes to government the stakes are so much higher for all of us.
　
2. Enmeshed as they are in a system of national interest group politics that dictate the fate of their various political parties and their own careers, those who might suspect a world outside the box will stay silent. The narrow fate of party and career is, apparently, worth more than world peace. It is worth more than the lives of millions of doomed civilians and soldiers. It is worth more than justice for nations and peoples. Only when free of this debilitating system do some of these people find their tongues. But by then all they have are impotent words. This is what we are seeing in the belated surfacing of rational criticism and analysis from unexpected sources such as Olmert and Gates.

Conclusion

How often do we read about individuals and groups who, witnessing an accident or a crime, just stand by and do nothing? These people do not want to "get involved". Afterwards, such folks are usually very quiet and meek. They don’t want their neighbours to know that they stood by and did nothing. But the position of these confessing political retirees is quite different. They were already involved. And now, after the fact, these one-eyed men in the world of the blind want us all to know they have seen the light. Great. Now you tell us!

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Related posts:

• Egypt: The Groupthink Problem
• Anna Baltzer & Mustafa Barghouti on Daily Show with Jon Stewart
• HATTLER – Assalamu Alaikum

By Lawrence Davidson * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Facing the world

It was the Scottish poet Robert Burns who, in a poem in 1786, wrote: "O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us, it would from many a blunder free us."

That gift is now ours in the form of modern polling technology but, alas, Burns underestimated our abilities to turn a blind eye to its revelations and continue our blundering ways. Here is a recent example.

The respected polling company Zogby International recently conducted one of its periodic "Arab Attitudes" polls measuring, among other things, the popularity of the United States in the Arab Middle East. This one was conducted between the middle of May and the middle of June 2011 and involved 4,000 face-to-face interviews in six countries: Morocco, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The results are not pretty. As reported by Al-Jazeera, "The United States' popularity in the Arab world has plummeted to levels lower than the last year of the George W. Bush administration." The best the US and the Obama administration could do was a 23 per cent approval rating in Lebanon. In Egypt the approval rating was but 5 per cent, which constituted a 30 per cent fall from the last survey two years ago.

For those paying attention to US foreign policy in the Middle East, the reason for this awful performance is not difficult to understand. James Zogby got it right when he attributed the results to "disappointment in the failure to meet the high expectations created by Obama's election in 2008". He continues: "Those expectations appeared to rise further after Obama's June 2009 speech in Cairo, where he pledged to seek a 'new beginning' between the US and the Muslim world and expressed particular sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians." The speech led most Arabs to expect rapid improvement in the two areas they consider the "greatest obstacles to peace and security in the Middle East": the continuing [Israeli] occupation of Palestinian lands and US interference in the Arab countries". Both came up again and again in the poll as continuing problems with the Palestinian issue by far number one. As Shibley Telhami, an expert on Arab public opinion" points out, "US foreign policy is evaluated through the prism of the Arab-Israeli conflict". Obviously, Barack Obama has not come through on this issue.

Why did Obama fail? Whatever his initial intentions, Obama has learned that being president of the United States does not always involve looking after the national interest. Instead, it often involves seeing to the interests of (in his case) the Democratic Party machine and its politician constituents. If he does not do that he gets no cooperation in Congress and therefore, in terms of legislation, cannot carry forward an agenda. This arrangement demands the president's cooperation with the various lobbies to which politicians have tied themselves. Most of these are domestic and reference the economic stability of the states and districts that congress persons and senators represent.

But there are also powerful lobbies in the area of foreign policy and their influence allows them to skew policy formulation away from any objective national interest toward the fulfillment of their particular parochial interests. Just think about our policy toward Cuba for the past 50 some years. In terms of the Middle East, the Zionist lobby surely commands the political field. And that means that, ultimately, it commands Obama too.

Thus, in American politics, when it comes to knowing how others see you, there is a priority order. The lobbyists are often at the top of that list. So, domestic polls telling the president how the Zionists (Jewish and Christian) see his Middle East policy trumps polls telling him how the Arabs see it. As a result it is almost impossible for American leaders to face reality about the outside world in those cases where foreign policy is at the mercy of domestic lobbies.

Facing ourselves

On the gateway leading up to the ancient Greek sanctuary on the island of Delphi was inscribed the saying, "Know Thyself". The sanctuary was actually a temple to the god Apollo and in the temple lived the Delphic oracle. It was believed that the god would, through the medium of the oracle, answer questions about the future. But those answers were often qualified and quite enigmatic. To properly understand them one had to start by paying attention to the advice at the gate – by knowing thyself.

If America's political system can make it difficult to face foreign realities, it can also sometimes make it equally difficult to face domestic realities. And that is because the people in Washington often go to great lengths to deny what they do and how that shapes who they are. They refuse to know themselves.

Take for instance the question of Washington's sanctioned use of torture. On 11 July 2011 Human Rights Watch released an 107-page report, "Getting away with torture", documenting "overwhelming evidence of torture by the Bush administration" and the subsequent failure of the Obama administration to "meet US obligations under the Convention Against Torture to investigate acts of torture and other ill treatment of detainees". The report notes that despite the "legal obligation to investigate these crimes", President Obama has treated them as "unfortunate policy choices". What investigations have been conducted by the administration have been purposefully designed not to address "the systematic nature of the abuses". For instance, in August 2009 the US Justice Department undertook an investigation which restricted itself to "unauthorized acts" of torture during the so-called war on terror. In other words, it looked into only those alleged acts that the Bush White House had not authorized. The implication here is that the only torture incidents the Obama people are interested in are the unofficial acts of isolated, lower echelon individuals.

President Obama's motives in doing this are pedestrian at best. He doesn't want to focus on the past but rather on the future. As Human Rights Watch notes, Obama's decision to "end abusive interrogation practices" during his own tenure in office "will remain easily reversible unless the legal prohibition against torture is clearly established". So much for the president's concern for the future. He also seems to want to protect those who were "just following orders". Just as significant, Obama may want to maintain maximum flexibility of action for future administrations. In other words, he may think it prudent to make sure future officials can commit the same crimes as those of the recent past.

These decisions, both of the Bush and Obama administrations, are the "know thyself" clues to the nature of American leadership that almost no one in the US government wants to face. Almost no one, but not quite.

Back in June 2005 US Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat – Illinois) got up on the Senate floor and spoke about an FBI report describing the "detainees at the naval base in Cuba as being chained to the floor without food or water in extreme temperatures". He then said the following to his colleagues:

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners under their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime ... that had no concern for human beings.

There was an immediate demand that Durbin apologize for insulting the country and its servicemen who were fighting so hard to "overcome evil regimes and spread democracy around the world". Much to his credit, Durbin refused to apologize, yet his steadfast honesty was and is the exception and not the rule.

Conclusion

Most Americans either do not care what their officials and agents do abroad, do not believe it when the horror stories leak out, or rationalize them away as the unavoidable consequences of the "war on terror". Therefore, in the end, they neither see themselves as others see them nor look honestly into their own faces. And so they are led to collectively act in self-destructive ways. This is the case despite the fact that age-old guideposts to relatively right action have been staked out for us by poets and oracles.

In the end, one can not help but share President Dwight Eisenhower's anxiety as he worried about just "how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?

* Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.

Related posts:

• President Obama’s Ahistorical World
• Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran (Part I: Global Warfare)
• When Will Americans Come to the Aid of Palestine?

The West's lofty expectations for Salam Fayyad went far beyond what he was ever able to deliver.

By Nathan J. Brown* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Salam Fayyad, Palestinian Prime Minister. STAN HONDA/AFP/Getty Images

The prime minister's departure from the Palestinian political scene appears likely but not inevitable. With Fatah and Hamas striving to form a unity government, Fayyad may very well be sacrificed on the altar of Palestinian unity.

Neither the sunny nor the cynical view of Fayyad is fair. His optimistic smile obscured an impossible situation: Fayyad's main achievement has not been to build the structures of a Palestinian state, but to stave off the collapse of those structures that did exist. An equally important achievement was his ability to persuade Western observers that he was doing much more. In the process, however, he raised expectations far beyond his ability to deliver.

What Fayyad Did Not Do: In enumerating Fayyad's accomplishments, it is necessary -- if churlish -- to begin by explaining what Fayyad did not accomplish.

First, he did not build any institutions. The state-like political structures now in the West Bank and Gaza were either built during the heyday of the Oslo Process in the 1990s or in the more distant days of Jordanian and British rule.

Second, he did not bring Palestinians to the brink of statehood. The Palestinian Authority, for all its problems, was actually far more ready for statehood on the eve of the Second Intifada in 1999 than it is on the possible eve of the third in 2011. A dozen years ago, Palestine had full security control of its cities, a set of institutions that united the West Bank and Gaza, a flourishing civil society, and a set of legitimate structures for writing authoritative laws and implementing them. Those accomplishments were in retreat long before Fayyad took office, and he was hardly able to restore them.

Third, Fayyad did not strengthen the rule of law. He could not have done so, since the only legitimate law-making body the Palestinians have, the Legislative Council, has not met since he came to power.

Fourth, Fayyad did not prove to Palestinians that they should rely on themselves. Just the opposite. He showed Palestinians that if they relied on him, foreigners would show them the money. At the heady days at the beginning of Oslo, the United States pledged half a billion dollars for the entire five-year process during which the parties were supposed to negotiate a permanent agreement. They have given Fayyad more than that almost every year that he has been in office. The Europeans have opened the purse strings for him too. It is utterly baffling that a figure so completely dependent on Western diplomatic and financial support would be seen by outsiders as an icon of Palestinian self-help.

Finally, he did not bring economic development to the West Bank. What he made possible was a real but unsustainable recovery based on aid and relaxation of travel restrictions. Year-to-year economic indicators in both the West Bank and Gaza are dependent on foreign assistance, and even more on the political and security situation. Fayyad can thus take some credit for the upturn, but Hamas can make a similar claim for the mild improvements in Gaza since Israel relaxed some of the closure last year. Neither has laid the groundwork for real development or attraction of foreign investment. Nor could they in the stultifying and uncertain political environment.

None of these failings was personal. Fayyad could not have accomplished any of these goals even had he wanted to. He led half of a dysfunctional Palestinian Authority, governed scattered bits of territory in the West Bank, and was forced to rattle the cup constantly in order to pay the bills.

What Fayyad Did Do: However, if Fayyad could not walk on water, he did an almost miraculous job of not drowning. This is not to damn Fayyad with faint praise; the prime minister assumed control of a Palestinian Authority that was unable to pay all of its salaries, deeply mistrusted by Israel, and treated as irrelevant by many Palestinians.

His first and most impressive accomplishment was to gain the trust of Western governments. The unrealistic hopes placed in his premiership were partly a testimony to the esteem in which he was held in some international circles. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken of her pride in his efforts and informed Palestinian youth that Fayyad has given them hope. No diplomatic statement from Western governments is complete without a kind word for his accomplishments. Fayyad was even able to earn a grudging Israeli trust through renewed security cooperation and efforts to rebuild the Palestinian security services. These accomplishments allowed him to pay government salaries, redeploy police, and attract enormous amounts of aid.

And Fayyad was able to win some modest victories in Palestinian governance. The security services became less partisan, public finances became more transparent (even without any domestic oversight), corruption likely decreased, pockets of the civil service were rebuilt on a more professional basis, and basic order in Palestinian cities was improved. When it comes to progress in these areas -- sharply limited but still significant -- Fayyad can even claim to have gone beyond maintenance to improving the Palestinian situation beyond where it stood in 1999.

The Poverty of Politics: All along, however, this was a difficult juggling act. Enthusiastic international support would continue only so long as it was possible to pretend that Fayyad was making dramatic gains; domestic acceptance of Fayyad was dependent on his continuing to pay salaries and provide for basic order. Pulling aside the curtain and revealing that Palestinians were not building a state thus risked undermining Western support for him, which would in turn remove the raison d'être of his premiership in Palestinian eyes.

Thus Fayyadism was a political house of cards. There was no domestic foundation for Fayyad's efforts; for Palestinians, he was simply an unsolicited gift from the United States and Europe -- a welcome one for some, but not for others. And to his international backers, Fayyad was completely frank about his limitations: His efforts, he said, would only pay off in the context of a meaningful diplomatic process that reinforced the drive toward statehood. This was an ingredient that has been missing for many years, and Fayyad was powerless to procure it.

Earlier this year, there were signs that Fayyad himself had begun to look for ways to escape Fayyadism. It was Fayyad, rather than Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who reached out to Hamas in February. The reconciliation file was quickly snatched out of his hands, however, and his hold on the premiership is now on the bargaining table.

What is remarkable, however, is how Fayyadism soldiered on in some Western eyes even after Fayyad himself had begun to distance himself from it. American pundits continued to trumpet his successes without missing a beat right up until the April reconciliation agreement. In March, Thomas Friedman was still writing about Fayyad's gaining momentum and even upped the ante by claiming that his program posed the "biggest threat to Iran's strategy." Meanwhile top policymakers continued to be mesmerized by Fayyad's poll numbers, which were less bad than those of most other leaders, and simply ignored the hollowness at the core of their own policies. Nor did the polls translate into any kind of political party or movement that could have run in, much less won, an election -- if one were ever held.

The Perils of Positive Thinking: For years, Fayyad's soft talk and cheery dedication enabled policymakers throughout the world to ignore the brewing crisis. And this may be where Fayyad, despite his impressive management skills, did Palestinians a disservice.

In 2009, the incoming Obama administration was quickly lured into a set of approaches (many inherited from the Bush years) that proved their complete bankruptcy this year -- ignoring Gaza and allowing its population to be squeezed hard, pretending that there was a meaningful Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process at hand, assuming that Hamas could be dealt with after the peace process and Fayyad had worked their magic, and making the paradoxical and erroneous assumption that the best way to build Palestinian institutions was to rely on a specific, virtuous individual.

Fayyad cannot be held primarily responsible for this collective self-delusion; at most, he facilitated it. And in the process he provided all actors with a breathing space that is now disappearing. Ultimately, the ones who convinced themselves he was capable of completely transforming Palestine are most responsible for squandering the brief respite his premiership offered.

* Nathan J. Brown is a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and nonresident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Source: Foreign Policy

Related posts:

• Time for New Palestinian Political Strategy
• Somebody please hand Abbas the revolver on the silver tray
• Maybe Gaza should paddle its own canoe

The power of lies, deception and self-delusion

By Christopher King* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

My family has an investment in Libya. It is a small plot of land in the Knightsbridge War Cemetery at Acroma, eastern Libya, where my uncle, my father's brother, is buried. He died fighting Rommel's forces in World War II and left a young wife. My grandmother mourned him, her youngest son, for the rest of her life. You might say that my father was more fortunate. Although he was captured by the Japanese when Singapore fell due to British military incompetence, he survived his period as a prisoner of war.

You might think that my parents were able to take up their lives where they left off. That was not the case. Warfare, it seems, changes people. Suffice to say that the war destroyed our family.

That is why I despise the warmongers Barack Obama, George Bush, Anthony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron along with the Gaddafis and Saddams - men who enrich themselves and advance their interests in others' blood and suffering. Nor do I exclude the British Chiefs of Defence Staff who wring their hands in mock sorrow at the deaths of their men. If they had a scrap of courage themselves they would cite the Nuremberg Principles and bring their men home. These people are all the same. Every country has them - failures as moral humans. Why do we tolerate them?

It is a mystery to me why anyone voted a second term for Anthony Blair after he had hawked the Americans' Iraq invasion around Europe. Our public next voted him in for a third term! David Cameron, Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg all stood on a pro-war platform. Everyone voted for them as if it were the most natural thing in the world for these men to conspire to invade other countries, bomb and shoot their inhabitants and assassinate them with drones. It can be no surprise that our politicians are engaged in yet another American war in Libya.

The British public accepts being led by men who prefer war to peace, to being robbed by their paymasters, the bankers, American and British, rather than controlling our own money and to being parasitized by America rather than ruling ourselves. There can be only one explanation: our public is afraid of the truth which is in plain sight. We are witnessing the triumph of illusion over reality; of lies over truth; of hope over the death of our economy. Yes, of evil over good. When tens, even hundreds of thousands of men, women and children have been killed in ten years of warfare, something is very wrong. Someone is doing something very bad. The simple, even trivial explanation: our public does not want to hear the bad news.

The bad news is that the consumer dream of infinite growth and never-ending plenty is at an end. The country's economic trend is now downward. Our political and business leaders are engaged in a desperate conspiracy to conceal this trend to general poverty while ensuring that they and their families live in luxury. Anthony Blair, the bought-and-paid-for multi-millionaire is the model. He and his family live well at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and Afghan lives.

The good news? I shall have to think about it.

Our public clearly believes that our leaders and bankers are capable, responsible men. They know more than us, they must know what they are doing! And it is true.

They are indeed responsible men: our politicians are responsible to their banker and industrialist paymasters, our bankers to their co-conspirators. They do know more than we do - and ensure that we do not find our what they know by using the Official Secrets Act, invoking commercial confidence and a hundred tricks and evasions in and out of the courts and Parliament. And they know what they are doing very well - robbing us as ruthlessly as any Mubarak or Gaddafi.

One day soon, perhaps seven or 10 years time, the British public will awaken cold, hungry, with children badly clothed, food and energy in short supply, bank accounts empty, debts unpaid, jobs impossible to find, social security non-existent. "How has this happened?" will be the cry. "Where is the economic recovery?" My friends, the economic recovery will exist only in politicians' mouths, in the pages of the Murdoch press and, of course, in banking inventions.

One of the best of men, Brian Haw, has lived in a tent in Parliament Square, protesting our wars for the last 10 years. It is no coincidence that those who have the fewest possessions see reality most clearly. That is why Jesus said (Mark 10:25) that a rich man will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It is always a matter of money. Wars are for money and those who kill foreigners to steal their resources will hardly shrink from killing their own countrymen to add to and preserve their wealth.

Why should anyone imagine that our prime minister and his deputy are any more virtuous than Saddam, Mubarak or Gaddafi when all the evidence is against it? Public illusion is possible because we are still able to live on the capital that past generations built up in this country. It will not last long in competition with over two and a half billion persons in China and India alone, whose ambition is to achieve our living standards and whose current income averages about GBP 50 to 60 per month. Note: averages. Hundreds of millions have no measurable income. These are not merely statistics. They are part of the dynamics of global production and markets.

It is not our corrupt politicians who act in the best interests of our people and our country. It is the Julian Assanges and Brian Haws. They are the prophets of our time and the rich Great and Good hate them. We should be flocking to support our prophets in our own best interests and it is precisely because they speak for our best interests that they are hated.

We have several generations who think that war is a sort of movie or computer game. Soldiers' families are shocked and surprised when their sons and husbands are killed. It's not supposed to happen. They seek explanations. The explanation is that their loved ones have died to ensure that America's rich get richer and to allow our bankers and big businessmen to pick over their garbage. That is what our country has come to.

My friends, you have not yet recognized that we are at war within our country. We are living on capital, on the fat accumulated by past generations of inventors, builders and social reformers. It will soon be gone and our war will become exactly like those of Tunisia, Egypt or Syria. Perhaps like Afghanistan. You don't believe it? Just look at the speed of collapse in Greece.

The first steps in commencing rebuilding our country and re-establishing an independent, self-reliant Britain are:

• Abandon the American wars that we are engaged in
• Get rid of all American bases in this country
• Leave NATO, abandon US military purchases, join a European defence force.

The first steps in commencing an economic recovery are:

• Stop the sale of publicly owned banking assets.
• Mutualize all publicly owned banking assets
• Cease government guarantees of deposits with the private sector banks
• Give government guarantees only to deposits with cooperative or mutual banks
• Cease giving private banks access to Bank of England funds
• Channel Bank of England funds exclusively through mutualized banks
• Investigate the HSBC takeover of the Midland bank in relation to an alleged one million pounds donation to the Conservative Party from the Chinese government representative on the board and if corruption is confirmed, to nationalize equivalent HSBC assets.

The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has announced that he will "ring fence" the banks' domestic banking sections and guarantee their deposits. This minimal, token gesture, originating from the Vickers-chaired Treasury Select Committee, is hailed as protecting the economy by our chancellor. The chancellor and this committee are not concerned with the national economy. They are concerned about preserving the wealth and privilege of their banker friends and themselves.

The threats to individual and national wealth posed by the greedy banks are undiminished. The media are already predicting that the banks will recover their profits from increased banking charges. It is not a matter of painting the banks a different colour. They crashed the economy and have been robbing us ever since.

The present banking system gives private sector bankers access to government Bank of England funds, government guarantees of their deposits and government bailouts of their losses. This system is an outrage. It needs complete replacement.

My father kept himself alive in a Japanese prison camp and his brother died in fighting wars that they believed were for their families, their countries and for a good cause. It was not for these despicable, disgusting liars who are robbing their own people and murdering foreigners by the hundreds of thousands for obscene wealth and insane American world-dominance fantasies backed by threats of nuclear holocaust. This is what truth looks like. I suspect that the British public will have to experience some "Third World" poverty in order to see it clearly.

* Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.

Related posts:

• Britain cherry-picks which war criminals to prosecute and where to impose no-fly zones
• Shaping U.S. leaders at AIPAC 2008
• Maidhc Ó Cathail – The Chilcot Inquiry: Britain’s 9/11 Commission