Sabbah Report » Obama

Ignore the intelligence reports, let’s make war on Iran

Stuart Littlewood — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 07:40:59 +0000

Let's shred and vapourize a few million more innocents... But first we'll strangle them with sanctions, say our elected leaders

Is this what we voted for?

Is this what Western diplomacy has come to in the 21stt century?

Thank heaven for Dr David Morrison's very timely briefing document entitled "Iran hasn't got an active nuclear weapons programme, says US intelligence". Morrison is the noted political researcher from Northern Ireland. He sets out the position in easy-reading form so that even our dimmest politicians can understand.

As he points out in a covering note, US intelligence believes Iran hasn't got an active nuclear weapons programme and Israeli intelligence agrees. "When this became the view of US intelligence in 2007, President Bush had to abandon any thought of taking military action against Iran's nuclear facilities. As he wrote in his memoir Decision Points:

How could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?

Today, President Obama should be asking himself the same question, since US intelligence is still saying that Iran has no active nuclear weapons programme.

So too should David Cameron, William Hague and the entire European Union.

Dr Morrison's report boils down to this:

According to the US intelligence community Iran hasn't got an active nuclear weapons programme and Israeli intelligence agrees.

The US intelligence community set out this view in a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in November 2007 and it remains their opinion today. Their assessment was that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. "We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons programme as of mid-2007..." (NIEs express the consensus view of the 16 US intelligence agencies).

The November 2011 report on Iran's nuclear activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) did not say that Iran has an active nuclear weapons programme despite the impression given by the media and ministerial rantings.

Iran has declared to the IAEA 15 nuclear facilities (including its uranium enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordow) and nine other locations. These are all being monitored by the IAEA. In its February 2012 report, the IAEA confirmed yet again there was no diversion of nuclear material from these facilities.

The IAEA on 4 December 2007 noted that the NIE tallied with the agency's statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify aspects of its nuclear activities, the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons programme or undeclared nuclear facilities.

On 16 February this year, the present director of the National Intelligence Agency, James Clapper, reported to the Senate Armed Services Committee: "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons... We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons... That is the intelligence community's assessment..."

On the same day US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta gave the same assessment to another congressional committee, saying that Iran has not made a decision on whether to proceed with development of an atomic bomb. A month earlier, when asked about Iran's nuclear programme on "Face the Nation" on CBS, he replied: "Are they [the Iranians] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."

So why the mismatch between intelligence and the loud clamour for war – economic and military? The answer, presumably, is because war is good – good for business. Hence war can be highly beneficial to a senior politician's post-political career.

A Middle East nuke-free zone... really?

The international community, including the US and the EU, says it is committed to a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. The only impediment, of course, is Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, which menace the whole region and perhaps beyond. Some experts believe that Israel has around 400 nuclear warheads and, naturally, various means of delivering them.

Iran has none.

Iran's nuclear facilities are open to IAEA inspection; Israel's are not.

Furthermore, UN Security Council resolution 487, in 1981, called on Israel "urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards". Israel has ignored it for over 30 years.

Yet the US and the EU choose to impose vicious economic sanctions on Iran, and threaten military action, while taking no such measures against Israel, not even uttering a word of criticism.

Britain's chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, in December at the Conservative Friends of Israel Annual Business Lunch said:

I think Israel is right to identify this [Iran's nuclear programme] as one of the greatest threats to peace and human life in the world at the moment... Any excuse that Iran had that there was a peaceful purpose for what they were doing has been blown out of the water. There was a report recently from the IAEA which made that clear.

Did it? Has Osborne actually read the IAEA report or is he mouthing off some Tel Aviv script?

He said he recently authorized the imposition of new sanctions, "stronger than any we've ever imposed before with a country", cutting off the British financial system from the Iranian banking system.

He added: "David Cameron, myself and other prominent members of the government, as well as the many Conservative MPs who are here, are all good friends of Israel."

And at a dinner of the Community Security Trust (CST) in London recently Osborne went so far as to announce his support for the present mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in the coming election, saying that Boris, like him, was a lifelong friend of Israel, and the leader of London should be committed to securing the interests of Israel.

As if any mayor of London should bother himself with the interests of a foreign racist regime! That is not what the people of London elect him to do, nor did the people of Britain elect Osborne to fly the Israeli flag on the roof of the Treasury.

What they say and do make it very clear that Prime Minister David Cameron, Foreign Secretary William Hague and Middle East minister Alistair Burt are also Israel's ardent stooges. Cameron is a self-declared Zionist, Hague a member of the Friends of Israel since he was a juvenile in short trousers, and Burt was not just a member of that fan club but an officer.

Here's a flavour:

Cameron: "We will not stand by and allow Iran to cast a nuclear shadow over Israel or the wider region" (CST Annual Dinner, 2 March 2011)

Cameron: "I've read the reports, and I have had the briefings: they are stockpiling enough uranium to make a nuclear weapon over time. Of course, that's a huge threat to the world but it's a particular threat to Israel. Since we came into power we have wasted no time in securing tougher sanctions. We backed tough sanctions in the United Nations – and we championed and led, at meeting after meeting, even tougher sanctions at the European level. Iran needs to know if they continue on this course they will feel international pressure and international isolation". (Conservative Friends of Israel Annual Business Lunch, 13 December 2010)

Hague: "Iran's actions not only run counter to the positive change that we are seeing elsewhere in the region; they may threaten to undermine it, bringing about a nuclear arms race in the Middle East or the risk of conflict". (Middle East Statement, 9 November 2011)

Burt: "Israel's strength is a regional bulwark for good... Iran does not just threaten Israel. It threatens those who would be Israel's allies in the Gulf, and in the Arab world who need Israel as part of a common cause against a regime dangerously loose... Israel's strength is not a regional threat, but an anchor of regional stability. And the world needs Israel's values, of tolerance and justice..." (Speech to Bar-Ilan University, Israel, 10 January 2012)

Burt: "We share Israel's determination to prevent Iranian proliferation. Israel is not facing the threat of a nuclear Iran alone..." (Speech to Bar-Ilan University, Israel, 10 January 2012)

Burt: "I care as someone who has for decades counted himself as an ardent friend of Israel."(Speech to Bar-Ilan University, Israel, 10 January 2012)

These people at the heart of British government claim Iran is pursuing military objectives through its nuclear programme but provide us with not a shred of evidence. In the circumstances their propaganda offensive linked with Washington's sounds insane and is unraveling fast because no amount of media lies can hide a crude fabrication. Nobody's buying it.

If our leaders have trouble understanding the NIE and IAEA reports, help is now at hand. I suggest they get themselves a copy of Dr Morrison's "idiot's guide" before they land this country – and indeed the whole West – in more trouble than we can handle and bring down the world's everlasting hatred on our heads.
Postscript
Just as I was signing off I skimmed Obama's annual speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). It's a regular reach-for-the-sickbag occasion where the American president has to account for his commitment to the Zionist project and plead for his job. Yes sir, "over the last three years, as president of the United States, I have kept my commitments to the state of Israel. At every crucial juncture, at every fork in the road, we have been there for Israel. Every single time."

Bravo.

When the Goldstone report unfairly singled out Israel for criticism, we challenged it. When Israel was isolated in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, we supported them... and we will always reject the notion that Zionism is racism. When one-sided resolutions are brought up at the Human Rights Council, we oppose them...

And so forth. As an exercise in grovelling it has no equal, and the theme is always the same: Israel's security. But for "security" read "dominance", requiring all the other nations in the region to remain vulnerable and unresisting to predatory Israel's nuclear and military superiority, and its ever expanding borders.

"I've made it clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel's security concerns are met," says Obama, adding:

That's why we continue to press Arab leaders to reach out to Israel... That's why just as we encourage Israel to be resolute in the pursuit of peace we have continued to insist that any Palestinian partner must recognise Israel's right to exist and reject violence and adhere to existing agreements.

If only Israel would do the same.

And who'd have thought Obama would stoop to making mischief with that old Khomeini misquote – saying that "no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that threatens to wipe Israel off the map".

And what about this gem: "A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the non-proliferation regime that we've done so much to build."

Obama tells AIPAC the only way to truly solve this problem and end the sanctions pain is for the Iranian government to forsake nuclear weapons, although, as he must have been told time and time again, they don't have any while Israel is bristling with them.

Obama sure does cut a sad figure these days.

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

Obama and AIPAC

Antoine Raffoul — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 06:34:40 +0000

Obama goes all the way to AIPAC just one day before he welcomes Netanyahu. Listen to what he says about Shimon Perez and his Hagana involvement. For this, Obama will honour Perez later this Spring with American highest civilian honour: the Presidential Medal of Freedom!

Worse yet to come if you can bear listening to the whole 32 minute speech:

America’s Chickens Are Coming Home to Roost

William A. Cook — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 08:34:14 +0000

(An end of the year lament)

"Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y'all, not a black militant (Ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck). Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised..."
(Jeremiah Wright, September 16, 2001)

Prophets fare poorly in their own country, yet countries would do well to hearken to their prophets. Scorn, ridicule, and innuendo attend their pronouncements as the righteous defend their actions as logical, existential and necessary. Jeremiah Wright suffered such scorn and mockery because he understood the consequences of revenge on the innocent and the defenceless, justified by whatever inane discourse. Wright spoke truth to power that Sunday after 9/11 and the righteous cried to heaven condemning him to perdition for defaming America, for even suggesting that revenge for the sake of revenge is the motivation of the arch fiend against the Almighty, the foulest, most ignorant, most amoral rational for action.

Prophets anticipate truth; they review a nation's past history and can predict its future. Witness America's past as the Reverend Wright did that Sunday morning, and what America is doing now repeats its ugliness. Wright said this about America's past:

He pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost."

"We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

"We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

"We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

"We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

"We bombed Qaddafi's home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children's head against the rock. (See Psalm 137 to understand how the righteous take revenge against the innocent and defenceless.)

"We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they'd never get back home.

"We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

"Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.

That was the Sunday after 9/11, 2001 when Wright quoted Ambassador Peck. But even that list of America's atrocities is not complete as Mark Twain would attest in his recounting of the massacre of the Moro's at the turn of the last century 1900 and our disastrous foray into Vietnam when we lost 58,000 American soldiers and killed millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians.

This is the America that exists now: we preach righteousness, but lie with impunity; declare God's mission to bring freedom to the mid-east, then decimate the women and children, the old and infirm as necessary collateral damage; proclaim the existence of Weapons of Mass destruction, then massively destroy a nation's infrastructure, steal its natural resources, take control of its government replacing it with a favoured puppet; and then write the history to extol our righteousness while defaming the defenceless people decimated. Wright knew.

Perhaps our President might hearken back to a time when principles mattered, when truth mattered, when might did not make right, when the souls and hearts of people mattered, when justice and equality mattered not deceit and dominance over all. When did America become a dictatorial empire manipulated by an elite few using the Presidency like some houseboy to do their bidding? When did the founding documents get trashed, mocked and ridiculed as weak, worthless, and obsolete? When did the American people vote to become the dominant empire in the world? What interests of the people demand that this nation establish military bases in about 140 nations around the world then threaten the nations of the world with pre emptive slaughter should they dare to embark on economic or military equality with the United States? How do the actions implicit in these questions reflect a nation based on the rule of law, on justice for all its citizens, on equity of rights and recognition of rights, on the morals inherent in the Bill of Rights and the ideals enunciated in the Declaration of Independence?

Let's say it loud and clear, the America of our founding fathers no longer exists; America is owned in mind and pocket book by those who have purchased our representatives, propagate their news through the corporate controlled media, determine the receivers of our tax dollars salvaging those who wrought havoc with our economy, write the legislation that controls the American people orchestrated through the largest conglomerate of a police state ever assembled, Homeland Security, and in its final nail in the coffin of human rights has legislated the abolishment of habeas corpus and rule of law by installing the draconian National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA 2012). This act in the words of Jonathan Turley, expert in constitutional law (December 21, 2011 on C-Span, gives dictatorial power to the President:

President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he's satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.

Two of his aides just ... reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.

You've now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion

I don't think the Framers ever anticipated that [the American people would be so apathetic]. They assumed that people would hold their liberties close, and that they wouldn't relax...

This is the President that rejected the Reverend Wright's prophecy, that capitulated to his new masters who demanded that he repudiate him, that now elevates himself to the role of Judge, Jury and executioner, the role that used to be played by the Sheriffs of the old segregated south when they turned a blind eye to those dragging a slave to the hanging tree. Indeed, we have turned back in time to that denunciated by a real leader of men, a man born into slavery, Frederick Douglass, when he described the America he lived in just before the Civil War:

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy-a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.

The American people are now in Douglass' shoes; they have been put on notice that any pathological employee of Homeland Security, of the armed forces of the United State, of our local police and National Guard, can suspect a citizen of associating or being engaged somehow with "terrorists," can be arrested, interrogated, imprisoned indefinitely, without charge, without review except his own. The America Douglass so graphically describes existed up through the 100 years of segregation until the Civil Rights movement of 1954 got under way. We've had a modicum of equality for the past 50 years brought on by national movements that made clear to the government that they were elected to serve the people, not arrest them.

But let it also be said that the America Douglass describes, the one grounded in "bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy," still exists outclassing its past a hundred fold. Our savagery knows no bounds: we decimate people wantonly throughout the world as Dresden, the fire-bombing of Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, the sanctions against Iraq, the illegal invasion of Iraq, the unqualified military support we provide to the Zionist government in Israel against a defenceless people, the abominable use of drones against the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan, the continuing development of weapons of mass savagery and our willingness to develop further atomic weapons graphically illustrates.

The numbers slaughtered in this review is in the millions--not all dressed in combat fatigues. The numbers of the defenceless and the innocent outstrips those trained to kill. All of those slaughtered happened outside the United States and every son and daughter, mother and father, sister and brother, aunt and uncle, grandfather and grandmother felt the pain of loss that was to our forces a "body count." "Revenge is mine sayeth the Lord." "Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, terrorism begets terrorism," so rings the prophetic knell of the Reverend Wright to his congregation one of whom happened to be our current President Barack Obama. Would that he had listened, for if any man was ever elected to the office of President to change the world, this was the man and he has failed.

* William A. Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of The Rape Of Palestine: Hope Destroyed, Justice Denied, Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy and The Chronicles Of Nefaria. He can be reached at: wcook@laverne.edu.

President Ali Saleh: A Yemenie War Criminal in Obama’s Court

Mohamed Khodr — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:32:48 +0000

"Liberty, Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name."
--Madame Roland, French Revolution, on her way to the Guillotine

Much like Gandhi's Salt March in India in 1930 the "March of Life" in Yemen began in the besieged bombed southern city of Taiz with tens of thousands of men, women, and children, walking for five days to the northern capitol city of Sana to protest the illegal immunity given the blood and money thirsty tyrant, President Ali Abdullah Saleh by the U.S. – Saudi Plan.

The plan calls for a transfer of power from Saleh to his vice president while he remains in power for three months. Yemen's population wholeheartedly rejects this appeasing plan. Saleh is a chronic liar who has never lived up to any promise or agreement he's ever made or signed, much life all of Israel's prime ministers.

Upon arriving in Sana the peaceful March of Life became the "March of Death", when the exhausted protesters were met by the murderous Republican Guard led by Saleh's son, who opened fire on the protesters killing at least 13 and wounding scores of civilians.

In keeping with America's blind support of Arab dictators, the Jewish American Ambassador to Yemen, Gerald Felerstein, held a press conference at the U.S. Embassy (even prior to the arrival of the March to the capitol Sana) arrogantly and obnoxiously warning that this March "is aimed to cause chaos and violence...it seems to have the intention not to carry out a peaceful march...and will provoke a violent response by the security forces."

These shocking remarks earned the Ambassador and the U.S. the scorn and hatred of the Yemeni population who've always known that Saleh is an American mole and puppet.

Like Saleh, President Obama, the Sultan of Drone massacres in the Arab and Muslim world. has betrayed his every promise as well as having shred the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the civil liberties of the American people.

He has shown the world that he is a spineless leader who if opposed immediately caves in. A man apparently suffering from an inferiority complex to those in power whether in Corporate America, Congress, the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, special interests, the media; and most especially to Israel that slapped him back into kosher coherence and submissiveness more so than any previous American President.

From left: Ali Abdullah Saleh, Obama, Hillary Clinton and Gerald Feierstein

As a coddler of murderous Arab tyrants he's been late and conflicted to act courageously and forcefully to support the Arab Spring that seeks freedom from tyranny and free democratic governments.

In an inexplicable slap to American interests in Yemen, Obama has stupidly invited Saleh to come to the U.S. under the pretense of medical treatment; making the U.S. a state that harbors terrorists turning the Bush Doctrine of attacking States that harbor terrorists on its head.

What on earth would prompt Obama to harbor and coddle this terrorist and allow him entry into the United States?

The answer my friend is the alleged "war on terror" that has justified America's wars and total support of dictators. As long as these tyrants purportedly are fighting a real or imagined anti-American "terror" group, they are free to annihilate their people while keeping their rule and stolen treasures under American protection.

If you kill "them", you are a U.S. ally, thereby entitled to billions of tax dollars, weapons, international protection, and be hailed as a freedom fighter.

To America, Saleh's value lies in his alleged fight against "Al Qaeda."

Hilary Clinton became the first U.S. Secretary of State to visit Yemen in early January 2011, just two weeks prior to the uprising. She outlined the reason behind America's support for Saleh the murderer.

She said:

"We face a common threat posed by the terrorists and al-Qaeda... I want to be frank about the fact that there are terrorists operating from Yemen's territory today...stopping these threats would be a priority for any nation, and it is a priority for us."

Hence, the lives of billions of civilians on this planet are simply collateral damage to western imperialistic thirst and greed for natural resources found under the feet of the dark people, no more so than the oil beneath Arab feet.

America thinks with its guns; not its mind, and certainly not its heart.

Obama should retain some honor and dignity for himself and his country by refusing to allow Yemen's terrorist, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, to enter this nation.

Rather he should refer him to the International Criminal Court for prosecution of his war crimes. But that would mean America truly believes in the sanctity of life, human rights, and justice; virtues belied by its addiction to war and oil.

American can ill afford to lose the Arab and Muslim world due to its blind adoption of Israel's policies of constant war and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians as well as its support of Arab dictators.

Past and future American Presidents in their stupefying short term foreign policy in the Arab/Muslim world will make the prophecy of a "Clash of Civilizations" a reality; and such a conflict can only lead to the demise of the American-Israeli-European imperial hegemony.

President Obama, for the sake of your legacy, America's national interests, American values of freedom and justice, you must reject Saleh's entry into this country. He deserves prison not a suite in a New York City Hotel.

* Mohamed Khodr is a political activist who frequently writes on the plight of Palestinians living under the brutal occupation of Israel, U.S. Foreign Policy, Islam, and Arab politics.

An American past in an Israeli future for an ever present and brutal occupation

Clive Hambidge — Sun, 25 Dec 2011 14:09:38 +0000

American Presidents: Romancing A Stone

An American past in an Israeli future for an ever present and brutal occupation

Happy Christmas Mr President or may I call you Barack this Yule Tide? As you know "Christmas is the day that holds all time together" (Alexander Smith) certainly as you rustle through your Christmas stocking and wrestle with your conscience perhaps to find as you dig deep in both and past 'hegemonic imperatives' an olive twig or a so-called 'peace process'? Perhaps not. But as you dig, can you hear the whispers? No. They are not the whispers from the Presidents of Christmas past, we will come to them; no? You are not listening attentively Mr President; that's because you've been genuflecting on the Christmas message of that other great statesman Prime Minister Netanyahu, "we are living in a time of great uncertainty and instability in the Middle East and Israel, throughout this instability, remains a beacon of religious freedom and pluralism." Wow. On what rock is Israel built and how Netanyahu bestrides it as America holds it, for "As the builders say, the larger stones do not lie well without the lesser" (Plato). And which is which?

No Mr President the whispers are coming from the stones of Palestine and Israel and they do "cry out" for past Presidents have remained quiet behind lofty rhetoric and where are they now? "It was [is] the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way."(Dickens). You're a "keen student of history" Mr President what about the human condition and the children lost to a sordid history created by Israel and paid for by American tax dollars? Below are some of their names, the stone told me to tell you their names. God Bless you and God Bless America. Which way are you going?

Remember these Children Mr President:

"Yael Ohana, 11, of Hamra settlement, killed by Palestinian gunfire while in her home. 6 February 2002."
"Fadi Tayseer al-Azazi, 16, of Rafaha, Gaza, killed by IDF shelling to his chest. 6 February 2002."
"Total Israeli Deaths since September 2002," 125 children."
"Total Palestinian Deaths since September 2002," 1470 children. ^[1]

The Stoned

The American stone cast, that gave rise to the ripples that became the waves that is the American Israeli tsunami that engulfs Palestine today, was even in the beginning unusually dense, in the sense obtuse. Quarried and romanced in the USA this stone was to be formed, scuffed then ruthlessly scored by matchless Zionist discontent and ambition, tossed, retrieved, polished and tossed again by successive American Presidents into the same murky American Zionist Israeli foreign policy sea. The rising waves, Israeli aggression and ambition, supported by Zionist America and Presidential weakness, merciless waves beating against the blameless lives of countless Palestinian children past and present and their valiant resistance through the lengthening shadows and dark hours of a brutal occupation as the international community crept decade after supine decade to rectify this grave and ongoing crime against humanity with all the energy of a sloth on diazepam.

American Presidential rhetoric the becoming edict that led to endless Israeli atrocities "unlawful Israeli behaviour [supported by US Aid] that start[ed] out as "facts" have over time been transformed into "conditions", or in the words of the American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, "subsequent developments" that are treated [unlawfully] as essentially irreversible." Moreover, "USAID and American taxpayers [are] financing, and thereby further entrenching, the Israeli de facto annexation of the West Bank." (Richard Falk, UNHRC, 16^th Session, Agenda Item 7, A/HRC/16/72, 10 January 2011), and the ruinous blockade and the deaths of Palestinian children.

For these two states America and Israel have been / are up to no good; are, in this criminality together, up to their necks "because everything that Israel does is done up to the limits that the United States supports and authorizes. So it's U.S. Israeli atrocities." (Noam Chomsky, Power And Terror). America and Israel justifying, "represent[ing] the institutionalization of a system of power in which justice is inoperative and its perversion hidden in clouds of rhetoric and obfuscation." and where, "The rule of law implicitly applies only to others." (Edward S. Herman and David Peterson)

Successive American and Israeli Administrations, each, an apostate to the other: "See!" he said to all the people "This stone will be a witness against us. It has heard all the words the lord has said to us. It will be a witness against you if you are untrue to your God." Joshua 24:27.

All the Presidents then

President John Adams, his mind high on effulgent heroic, saw conquest, envisioning Mordeca Manue Noah in 1819 "Marching with them [the Israelites] into Judea & making a conquest of that country & restoring your nation to the Dominion of it". An "independent nation" thought John Quincy Adams, because, they deserved declared Abraham Lincoln a "leg up". All saw the stone that would be a rock and declared it an American good. And the die and the dying in the stone were cast. Time then, wrapped around the stone, ran through it, became beloved in an American Hegemonic Zionist dream warping space and time, imprisoning Palestinians in a boxed 'continuum'. An American red hot wax seal legitimising the continuum making it 'official' in 1948 as the Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and the stealing bit by bit of 'Mandated Palestine' had begun and in ferocious fashion. The Israeli aggression rewarded with a hundred thousand US dollars in 1949 and Israel's aggression rewarded with billions of dollars in 2011.

The Children of Palestine in 1948 were standing in an American Israeli wind tunnel they are standing in it today. And as we come back from the future and indeed as we move from the past to the present, we see the pernicious results of successive Presidential and illegal leg ups the art of hubris and a continuum of failure. Here then an American Presidential Israeli nightmare and the subtitles of the Palestinian river of suffering that runs through it:

"14^th November 2011, Israeli aircraft attacked a small naval post building in North Gaza district. As a result, one police officer was killed and ten persons were injured, including one woman and six police officers."
"In 2009 in North Gaza, Gaza, Dair El Balah, Khan Younis, and Rafah, 1061 Palestinians lost their lives to Israeli aggression. In the Gaza strip in that same year, 323 children and 104 women were killed by the occupying forces." ^[2]

Remember this Child Mr President:

"Basel Muhammad Nafe abu-Edwan, 14 killed by an unexploded IDF ordinance while he and his brother were herding sheep near their home." Died 27th January 2011. ^[3]

The stone was picked up and skimmed across the surface of the brimming Zionist sea by the deft wrist of Woodrow Wilson 3^rd of March 1919 in reaction to the Balfour Declaration, the text of which was presented to him for approval before publication, "The allied nations with fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish commonwealth." Then President Warren G. Harding grabbed the stone from the Zionist air stating, "The Hebrew people restored to their historic national home," would enter a "new and yet greater phase of their contribution to the advance of humanity."

"Number of houses demolished in Gaza strip, since the beginning of the intifada until the end 2009. North Gaza, houses 5399, residents, 54900. Gaza houses, 7060, residents,73149. Dair El Balah, houses 1004, residents, 8925. Khan Younis, houses, 1596, residents, 12247. Rafah, houses, 3774, residents, 32284. Total houses 18833, Total residents, 181505."
"The number of damaged water wells. North Gaza, 120. Gaza, 154. Dair El Balah, 62. Khan Younis, 23. Rafah, 14. Total, 373."
"2008 Women and children killed by Israel in the Gaza Strip. Children, 107, women, 23." ^[4]

Remember this child Mr President:

"Shiran Ismail Abdullah abu-Shawareb 11, of Nuserat refugee camp, Gaza died of heart problems at Nasr paediatric Hospital in Gaza, which lacked necessary equipment, after Israel denied her entry for medical treatment. Doctors had requested transfer to an Israeli hospital on Dec. 27 [2010] On Jan. 10, believing permission for a transfer had been granted, Shiran's father took her to the Erez checkpoint where Israel again denied her entry." Died 15^th January 2008 ^[5]

The stone retrieved by Coolidge was polished with expressed "sympathy with the deep and intense longing which finds such fine expression in the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine." then caressed in short sighted rhetoric by President Hoover who as other Presidents before and after him couldn't see around histories sharp corner or dint want to saying 1932, "I am interested to learn that a group of distinguished men and women is to be formed to spread knowledge and appreciation of the rehabilitation which is going forward in Palestine under Jewish auspices."

"Number of damaged industrial establishments by IOF's, in 2006 19, 2005 7, 2004 86, 2003 77."
"Number of Palestinians killed by Israeli occupying forces in the Gaza strip; 2006 531, 2005 99, 2004 646, 2003 398."
"Number of Palestinians killed by Israeli occupying forces in the Gaza strip (women, children) 2006 children 115, women 34, 2005 children 32, women 1, 2004 children 156, women 10, 2003 children 81, women 17." ^[6]

Remember this child Mr President:

"Muhammad Jaber hassan Adila Said, 15, of osreen, near Nablus, killed by IDF gunfire to his chest." January 2004. ^[7]

Franklin Roosevelt viewed the stone empathetically, could feel its vital pulse, perhaps he had a pet name for the stone perhaps it was ineluctable? Or was it inexorable he had in mind as he sat to write to Senator Tydings on October 19, 1938 as The Nakba loomed. "I have on numerous occasions, as you know, expressed my sympathy in the establishment of a National Home for the Jews in Palestine and, despite the set backs caused by the disorders there during the last few years, I have been heartened by the progress which has been made and by remarkable accomplishments of the Jewish settlers in that country."

"Number of Palestinians killed by Israel occupying forces in the Gaza Strip, 2003 North Gaza 89, Gaza 118, Dair El Balah 75, Khan Younis 42, Rafah 72."
"Palestinians killed by Israeli occupying forces in the Gaza strip (women children) 2002 children 94, women 25, 2001 children 69, women 4, 2000 children 38 women 0." ^[8]

Remember this child Mr President:

"Muhammad Jamal Muhammad al-Durrah, 12 of Burejj refugee camp, Gaza, killed by IDF gunfire to his chest as his father tried to protect him during a demonstration at Netzarim Junction." ^[9]

Then shining with Zionist zeal, it was to morph into a rock in 1948 enfolded in to Israel's emboldened clenched fist, and as the British looked the other way, smashed Palestine leaving Palestinians between it and a hard place, supported by intellectuals with nothing in their heads but the propaganda they were fed, and a Presidential endorsement. Eleven minutes after Israel's proclamation of independence President Harry Truman declared, "I had faith in Israel before it was established; I have faith in it now." He further said in 1952 "I believe it has a glorious future before it- not just another sovereign nation, but an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization."

"The majority of these [Palestinian] children were killed and injured while going about normal daily activities, such as going to school, playing, shopping, or simply being in their homes. Sixty-four percent of children killed during the first six months of 2003 died as a result of Israeli air and ground attacks, or from indiscriminate fire from Israeli soldiers".(Catherine Cook)

Remember these children Mr President:

"Ophir Rahum, 16, of Ashkelon, killed by Palestinian gunfire in al-Birah after being led to believe he was meeting an internet acquaintance, 17^th January 2001."
"Omar Farouq Khaled 11,of al-Bireh, died of head wounds sustained Jan.7 2001 from IDF gunfire during a demonstration." ^[10]

And after 1948, a Presidential stream of consciousness compounding the problem for Palestine with unquestioning and ever increasing aid for Israel's gluttony, her voracious appetite to oppress and appropriate, and kill those who would thwart her:

Eisenhower: "our forces saved the remnant of the Jewish People of Europe for a new life and a new hope in the reborn Israel. Kennedy: "Israel was not created to disappear- Israel will endure and flourish." Nixon: "The United States stands by its friends. Israel is one of its friends Peace can be based only on agreement between parties and agreement can only be achieved only through negotiations between them. The United States will not impose the terms of peace. [But] The United States is prepared to supply military equipment necessary to support the efforts of friendly governments, like Israel's to defend the safety of their people." Carter: "a few days ago in a conversation with about 30 members of the House of Representatives, I said that I would rather commit suicide than hurt Israel." President Regan: Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbours that they recognize those facts." Bush Sr: "The friendship, the alliance between the United States and Israel is strong and solid, built upon a foundation of shared democratic values." Clinton: "The United States admires Israel for all that it has overcome and for all it has accomplished." And President George W. Bush: "Israel is a small country that has lived under threat throughout its existence. At the first meeting of my National Security Council, I told them a top foreign policy priority is the safety and security of Israel."

Remember this child Mr President:

"Sara Abdul-Azim Abdul-Haq Hasan, 18 months, of Sarah, near Salfit, killed by Israeli settler gunfire to her head while riding with her father in a car. 1^st October 2000." ^[11]

And last but not the least short sighted lacking historical memory, also will as did the others President Barack Hussein Obama: "The American people and the Israeli peoples share a faith in the future and believe that democracies can shape their own destinies and that opportunities should be available to all. Throughout its own extraordinary history, Israel has given life to that promise."

Remember this child Mr President:

"Haitham Ahmad Mustafa Maruf, 13 of Beit Lahiya, Gaza, died in Shifa Hospital, Gaza, of wounds sustained from an IDF drone attack while working on his family farm 29 August 2011." ^[12]

[1] http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2011.html

[2] http://www.mezan.org/en/messege.php?view=losesen

[3] http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2011.html

[4] http://www.mezan.org/en/details.php?id=12933&ddname=IOF&id2=9&id_dept=9&p=center

[5] http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2011.html

[6] http://www.mezan.org/en/details.php?id=12933&ddname=IOF&id2=9&id_dept=9&p=center

[7] http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2011.html

[8] http://www.mezan.org/en/details.php?id=12933&ddname=IOF&id2=9&id_dept=9&p=center

[9] http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2011.html

[10] http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2011.html

[11] http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2011.html

[12] http://www.rememberthesechildren.org/remember2011.html

* Clive Hambidge is Human Development Director at Facilitate Global. He can be contacted at: clive.hambidge@facilitateglobal.org

America’s growing isolation because of President Obama’s grovelling for Jewish campaign funding and votes

Alan Hart — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 09:14:45 +0000

On 19 December, in the Jewish Daily Forward, Josh Nathan-Kazis wrote this:

"Top-level Jewish fundraisers from President Obama's 2008 campaign are sticking with the president in 2012.

"Despite reports that President Obama faces a loss of Jewish funders due to his Middle East policy, analysis of a list of elite bundlers from his 2008 race shows no defections among the president's top Jewish supporters in 2012."

That's not good news for the would-be presidents on the Republican side who are grovelling for Jewish campaign funds and votes.

On the same day, in what the BBC's Barbara Plett called "a highly unusual move", all the regional and political groupings on the UN Security Council sharply criticised Israeli settlement activities. They said in their statements that "continued settlement building threatened the chances of a future Palestinian state." They also expressed dismay at rising settler violence. ("They" were the envoys representing the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab Group and a loose coalition of emerging states known as IBSA).

It was UK Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant who read the statement of the EU group.

"Israel's continuing announcements to accelerate the construction of settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, (1000 new housing units tendered for last week), send a devastating message. We believe that Israel's security and the realisation of the Palestinians' right to statehood are not opposing goals. On the contrary they are mutually reinforcing objectives. But they will not be achieved while settlement building and settler violence continues."

As Barbara Plett noted,

"Despite the unanimity of views, the envoys did not try to draft a single Security Council statement because they knew the US would veto it." She also noted that the Obama administration's stance was that "anything to do with Israeli-Palestinian peace talks belongs in a US-led bilateral process, not at the UN."

It could be said, and I do say, that such criticism of Israel's settlement activities is 44 years too late. So what, really, is its significance?

My answer is in three parts.

The first is that it's a strong indication of America's growing isolation because of the Obama administration's unconditional support for Zionism's monster child.

The second, related, is that it seems to confirm what I have been saying and writing for several months – that behind closed doors almost all of the governments of the world, European governments in particular, are more than fed up with Israel's contempt for and defiance of international law.

The third is that the governments of most of the member states of the UN have come to terms with the fact that Zionism's assertion that a Palestinian state on the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip could and would pose a threat to Israel's existence is propaganda nonsense of the highest order. (This, of course, is only of academic interest because the two-state solution has long been dead if not yet buried).

When I am thinking about Obama's grovelling, my memory recalls a comment made to me by Dr. Hajo Meyer, the passionate anti-Zionist Nazi holocaust survivor and author of An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism.

We had shared a platform in London and over breakfast the following morning I asked him a question. I said: "Hajo, you're well into your eighties and you are being vilified by Zionism's verbal hit-men for your efforts to unmask the Zionist monster. Why are you continuing with your truth-telling? Why don't you sit back in peace and quiet and enjoy what's left of your life?"

He replied with nine little words. "The first person I see every morning is me," meaning "I have to live with myself."

It's more than reasonable to assume that Obama looks in the mirror from time to time. I wonder if he can live with himself.

Footnote: My comments on Israel's response

Israel's response as delivered by Karean Peretz, spokeswoman for Israel's UN Mission, included this:

"The main obstacle to peace, has been, and remains, the Palestinians' claim to the so-called right of return and its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,"

That, too, is Zionist propaganda nonsense of the highest order.

Israel is not a Jewish state. How could it be when about a quarter of its citizens are Arabs and mainly Muslims? Israel could only be a Jewish state after it had resorted to a final round of ethnic cleansing. Israel is a Zionist state.

Because Arafat kept them informed through a secret channel, Israel's leaders have long known that in the event of a two-state solution, the PLO was reluctantly reconciled to the reality of the right of return being confined to the territory of the Palestinian state, which would mean that only about 100,000 refugees would be able to return, with the rest having to accept financial compensation for the loss, theft, of their land and rights.

As I explain in my book Zionism, The Real Enemy of the Jews, when they decided they had no choice but to be pragmatic, Arafat and his leadership colleagues took a degree of comfort from two hopes. One was that all Palestinian refugees everywhere could and would have a Palestinian passport. The other was that if there was a two-state solution, it could evolve over one or two generations into one state for all - i.e. because in peace and partnership enough Israeli Jews would say something like "We don't need two states". In the event of a one-state solution coming about by mutual consent, it was assumed on the Palestinian side at leadership level that, over time, all Palestinians who wanted to return would be able to return. So in theory the two-state solution was not necessarily the end-game on the right of return.

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Jesus and the Cherry Tree

Mantiq al-Tayr — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:44:13 +0000

Video link: http://youtu.be/obp2J3rVgSA

Usually at this time of year I put up a Christmas post in which I feature the folk Christmas tune called "The Cherry Tree Carol" and I point out its relationship to the beautiful story of the birth of Jesus in the Quran. Items 1 and 2 below are taken from my original Cherry Tree Carol post from 2009. Sting's rendition of the song is just plain gorgeous. It will change your mood. Please take a few moments and give it a listen.

1. The Cherry Tree Carol is a haunting story of the mystery and beauty of Christmas derived from one of the apocryphal Gospels, that of Psuedo- Matthew, which is also know as The Infancy Gospel of Matthew.

In this now popular Christmas carol, Joseph and Mary are walking near or through an orchard of cherry trees. She asks Joseph to pick some cherries for her because she is with child and would appreciate a helping hand. Joseph, as husbands tend to do when they discover their wives are pregnant and they know they are not the father, gets angry and tells her to just let the guy who got her pregnant get the cherries for her. No doubt dejected and feeling rejected, Mary knows not what to do.

But then a voice cries out from within his mother's womb. It's the voice of Jesus who commands the cherry trees bow down so that his mother may have something to eat. The trees do what any tree would do if ordered by Jesus, they bow down and Mary exclaims to the effect of "Hey Joseph, look, I can get all the cherries I want, nyah nyah." Joseph then realizes that there's more going on than he at first realized.

Now in the Psuedo-Gospel of Matthew, Chapter Twenty, the story as one might expect, is a bit different, but the similarities are clear. In this version, thought to be the inspiration for The Cherry Tree Carol, Mary, Joseph and a very infant Jesus are in the desert in Egypt and are exhausted from the heat. They come across a date palm tree where they rest. Mary asks Joseph for some dates, but they are pretty high up in the tree and he whines about it saying that instead she should be concerned because of the lack of water and their thirst. The baby Jesus orders the date palm to lower it's branches and his Mother is able to eat. Now the date palm, being humble and worshipful, did not rise back up after she had eaten, but rather it awaited Jesus' command. Jesus tells it to rise, says it will have its place in paradise, and then he makes one more request of it – something interesting in light of the Quranic version of this story that I will discuss below. He asks it to provide water through one of its hidden roots and it does so – providing clear, cool and sparkling water for the three of them and their animals.

2. Many features of the Cherry Tree Carol and the story from which it is derived are found in the Quranic version of the story in Surah 19, verses 16-34. In this version Joseph is noticeably absent, an absence which highlights the miraculous nature of Jesus' birth. The angel Gabriel appears to Mary, who has gone away from her people for some sort of religious purpose, in fully human form and tells her she will give birth to a son. She is astonished by this and asks how on earth that could be possible since she has never been touched by a man. Gabriel tells her that this is easy for God and that her son will be sent as a mercy to mankind.

So she is now with child and is driven to a date palm tree during the pains of childbirth, pains so severe she wishes she had never been born. But then a voice cries out – said by commentators to be that of Gabriel though in my own view it could even be that of Jesus – who tells her that all is well and that water has been provided for her beneath her feet. He then tells her to shake the date-palm and that fresh and ripe dates will come pouring down. He tells her to eat and drink and "cool thine eye." Lastly the voice commands her that if she comes across any man to say that she has vowed to speak to no one that day.

The next thing we see is Mary carrying her new baby back to her people who challenge her morality, as she had no doubt expected and feared. But keeping to her command, she said nothing to them and merely pointed to her baby. The crowd mocked her telling her that they could not possibly converse with a new born. At this point, the baby Jesus performs his own version of "enough is enough" as he addresses the crowd in no uncertain terms telling them, among other things, that God has made him a prophet and that he is to be blessed wherever he is. He also tells them that he has been commanded to be faithful to his mother, something he clearly intends to do. No doubt the audience was dumb struck. . .

The new-born Jesus then closes: "And peace be upon me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I am raised up alive."

3. The video below is the entire Surah of Mary recited in Arabic by Shaykh Idris Akbar. The story of Mary and her baby begins at exactly 2:59 into the video and runs to about 8:06. So if you want to hear the Quranic story of the birth of Jesus recited in Arabic by a great reciter, enjoy. The video includes the Arabic script so readers of this page who are studying Arabic can follow along.

When you hear "wathkur filkitaab Maryam" you will know you are at the start of the right section.

Video link: http://youtu.be/_PESbd1PqkE

4. The story of Jesus in the Quran may well have saved the lives of about 80 to 100 of the first Muslims living in Mecca with Muhammad. They had to flee Mecca to Abyssinia because of religious persecution and they sought refuge from the Christian ruler there. The Meccans tried to bribe the ruler into forcing them to return to Mecca, but this ruler actually behaved like a Christian ruler should and granted the Muslims asylum. (No doubt he'd never stand a chance of becoming the president of the US today, but I digress.) As part of the discussion and debate between the pagan Meccans who had come to Abysinnia to bribe the ruler on the one hand, and the Muslims seeking protection on the other, the Muslims recited the story about Jesus to which I have linked above. After hearing it, the Christian ruler was so moved that he granted his protection to them. Things sure have changed.

A frequent commentator on this blog, Perry, mentioned the film on Muhammad's life called "The Message" produced by the late Mustafa Akkad. Akkad did two versions of the film, one in Arabic and one in English – filming them at the same time and using different actors. Below is the English version of the story of the King of Abyssinia. Very nicely done. Thanks to Perry for bringing this movie back to my mind.

Video link: http://youtu.be/KePlv9olUAU

5. I also love Judy Collins' rendition of the Cherry Tree Carol.

Video link: http://youtu.be/YNeQNQdo8TM

6. "No US administration has done more in support of Israel's security than ours. None. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. It is a fact," Obama told a cheering crowd.

"To back up his position, Obama cited American cooperation with Israel on developing the Iron Dome anti-rocket system, efforts to clear out the besieged Israeli embassy in Cairo in September, and actions to counter attempts to delegitimize Israel in international forums like the United Nations."

"Shoring up his hard line on Iran, Obama reiterated that no options were off the table inpreventing the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and touted his administration's imposition of "the most comprehensive, the hardest-hitting sanctions the Iranian regime has ever faced. We haven't just talked about it, we've done it."

7. Israel goes entire week without killing a Palestinian in Gaza, but finally gets its fix.

8. Somebody help me here, just why is it that we are supposed to kill these people? Abe? Alan? Newt? Michelle? Mitt? Herman? Barack? Please remind me, I just can't seem to remember.

(Note to Shas Party members, the young lady on your right in the video below has a beautiful voice. Not to be missed.)

Video link: http://youtu.be/nEX_G7wZlFY

Merry Christmas folks.

Netanyahu for President (of America)

Alan Hart — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:08:49 +0000

It's now clear that the Republican frontrunner in the race for the White House is Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Officially the two Republican frontrunners are Newt "the Palestinians are an invented people" Gingrich and Mitt "Obama has pushed Israel under a bus" Romney.

Both are political whores locked in a competition of their own as well as with President Obama for Zionist lobby organized campaign funds and American Jewish votes. (In a very close election race the latter could determine who becomes president).

The probability is that Romney will emerge as the winner and be the one to take on Obama. So what Romney said in the last debate with the other Republican candidates is of critical importance. He said:

"If I was president I'd get on the 'phone to Bibi and say 'Would it help if I said this?'"

In other words, if Romney becomes president, Netanyahu will the one determining American foreign policy for Israel-Palestine.

Because of Obama's first-term surrender to the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress there's a case for saying that Netanyahu already is, effectively, the president of America so far as policy for Israel-Palestine is concerned.

So is there no prospect of next November's election producing a president who will be prepared to put America's own real interests first by confronting the Zionist monster?

If the Republicans get the key to the White House the answer will be "No", because a first-term Republican president will not want to destroy his prospects for a second term by making an enemy of the Zionist lobby and its fundamentalist (deluded, even mad)) Christian partners.

But in my view there is a possibility that a second-term Obama might use the leverage all American presidents have to get a real peace process going, even if that means, as it would, challenging the Zionist lobby's stooges in Congress to decide whether they are Americans first or not. (Those who are not could be condemned and prosecuted as traitors).

It's not often that I find myself in agreement with anything written by the New York Times' op-ed columnist Thomas L. Friedman, but his latest piece under the headline Newt, Mitt, Bibi and Vladimir is a great contribution to the debate about what he calls the "grovelling" to the Zionist lobby of the Republican would-be presidents. (Friedman actually calls it the "Israel lobby", but as I never tire of saying, that's not an accurate description of the monster. Israel lobby implies that it speaks for all Israelis and it does not).

Here's part of what he wrote about the would-be Republican presidents in their last debate.

"Newt Gingrich took the Republican competition to grovel for Jewish votes - by out loving Israel - to a new low by suggesting that the Palestinians are an 'invented' people and not a real nation entitled to a state.

"This was supposed to show that Newt loves Israel more than Mitt Romney, who only told the Israeli newspaper Israel Hayom that he would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem because 'I don't seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel's leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that's something I'll be inclined to do. ... I don't think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process. Instead, we should stand by our ally.'"

Friedman's comment on that Romney contribution was:

"That's right. America's role is to just applaud whatever Israel does, serve as its A.T.M. and shut up. We have no interests of our own. And this guy's running for president?"

Then Friedman considered the implications of Gingrich's stated position.

"As for Newt, well, let's see. If the 2.5 million West Bank Palestinians are not a real people entitled to their own state, that must mean Israel is entitled to permanently occupy the West Bank and that must mean - as far as Newt is concerned - that Israel's choices are: (1) to permanently deprive the West Bank Palestinians of Israeli citizenship and put Israel on the road to apartheid; (2) to evict the West Bank Palestinians through ethnic cleansing and put Israel on the road to the International Criminal Court in the Hague; or (3) to treat the Palestinians in the West Bank as citizens, just like Israeli Arabs, and lay the foundation for Israel to become a bi-national state. And this is called being 'pro-Israel'?"

Friedman also had something to say about Netanyahu.

"I sure hope he understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress this year was not for his politics. That ovation was bought and paid for by the Israel lobby."

And about his own position and American Jews in general, Friedman wrote this:

"I'd never claim to speak for American Jews, but I'm certain there are many out there like me, who strongly believe in the right of the Jewish people to a state, who understand that Israel lives in a dangerous neighbourhood yet remains a democracy (for how much longer, I ask?) but who are deeply worried about where Israel is going today. My guess is we're the minority when it comes to secular American Jews. We still care. Many other Jews are just drifting away."

If many American Jews really are drifting away from support for Israel right or wrong, that could make taking on and defeating the Zionist lobby a more manageable proposition for a second-term President Obama.

Obama Ad Condemns Israel Aid Opponents

SR Editor — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:28:34 +0000

By Stephen Zunes*

An ad on my Facebook page from barackobama.com reads, "Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich say they would start foreign aid to Israel at zero. Reject their extreme plan now!"

This struck me as odd for two reasons:

First, it is disingenuous and misleading. The actual position taken by these Republican presidential candidates is that all foreign aid should initially start at zero as means of reducing the deficit, to be immediately followed by the resumption of aid on a case-by-case basis. As they themselves have acknowledged, they would immediately resume aid to Israel and perhaps even increase it. Ironically, U.S. "aid for Israel" goes almost exclusively to U.S. arms manufacturers, with which the Republican candidates have a close relationship.

Secondly, millions of Americans-particularly younger voters who are the primary users of Facebook-support zeroing out aid to Israel on human rights grounds. The Obama campaign, therefore, is effectively labeling those of us who oppose the use of our tax dollars to arm the right-wing Netanyahu government, which has repeatedly used U.S. weapons against civilians, as "extreme." Presumably, they feel the same way about those of us who support a cutoff of aid to other governments that violate international humanitarian law as well.

In 2009, Amnesty International, citing war crimes committed by both Israeli forces and the armed wing of Hamas earlier that year, called on nations to suspend arms shipments to both. The Obama administration categorically rejected the proposal. The administration has also rejected calls by human rights groups to condition military aid and arms transfers to other countries that use U.S. weapons against civilians, including Colombia, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Azerbaijan, and Morocco. Recently, the Obama administration requested a waiver on human rights restrictions in the forthcoming foreign appropriations bill in order to resume arming the Karimov dictatorship in Uzbekistan, which has massacred hundreds of pro-democracy protesters and has literally boiled its opponents alive.

One can speculate whether, if Obama were seeking re-election in 1984, his campaign would similarly label those who opposed aid to the murderous Salvadoran junta as "extreme." Or, if it were 1996, his campaign would have marginalized opponents of U.S. aid to the genocidal Suharto regime in Indonesia. The president's re-election team for 2012 sure appears to think of us that way.

Republican candidates certainly have taken a number of extreme positions regarding Israel and Palestine. Gingrich, Perry, and Romney, for example, have aligned themselves with the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, opposing Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and opposing a freeze on illegal Israeli settlements. Gingrich has even said the Palestinians are an "invented people" and implied his support for mass population transfers.

I've searched barackobama.com and elsewhere, and nowhere does the Obama campaign appear to label such positions or similarly outrageous statements as "extreme." However, if you oppose sending billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded aid to Israel-whether as a means of cutting the deficit, reducing cuts in social programs, or defending human rights-the Obama campaign considers it an "extreme plan" that should be rejected.

What is so bizarre about the Obama campaign's hostility toward those who oppose aid to Israel is that Israel doesn't need U.S. assistance to begin with. Israel, the region's only nuclear power, has by far the strongest military capability in the greater Middle East, and it possesses the only significant domestic arms industry in the region. Israel also has, by far, the region's highest standard of living, comparable to that of most European countries. Even putting human rights concerns aside, questioning why American taxpayers should be spending over $3 billion annually in aid to Israel at a time of massive cutbacks at home doesn't seem unreasonable.

Furthermore, public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans believe U.S. military aid should be made conditional to human rights.

Most people for whom providing unconditional support for the Netanyahu government is their top priority are going to support the Republican nominee anyway. Meanwhile, there are millions of Democrats, independents, and even Republicans who question spending billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up that rightist Israeli government every year. Why risk alienating these voters by labeling their position "extreme"? Is it simply a headline thrown together by an overzealous young wonk in the campaign? Or is this part of a larger effort to stifle debate on the Obama administration's policies of aiding governments that violate human rights?

Either way, it sends the message that the Obama campaign does not welcome concerns about human rights. In addition, it serves as a reminder for Americans who do care about human rights that neither party will provide a presidential nominee we can vote for.

* Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist and senior analyst, is a professor of Politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He is the author, along with Jacob Mundy, of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution (Syracuse University Press, 2010).

Obama Raises The Military Stakes: Confrontation On The Frontiers Of China And Russia

James Petras — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:34:05 +0000

Introduction

After suffering major military and political defeats in bloody ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, failing to buttress long-standing clients in Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia and witnessing the disintegration of puppet regimes in Somalia and South Sudan, the Obama regime has learned nothing: Instead he has turned toward greater military confrontation with global powers, namely Russia and China. Obama has adopted a provocative offensive military strategy right on the frontiers of both China and Russia.

After going from defeat to defeat on the periphery of world power and not satisfied with running treasury-busting deficits in pursuit of empire building against economically weak countries, Obama has embraced a policy of encirclement and provocations against China, the world's second largest economy and the US's most important creditor, and Russia, the European Union's principle oil and gas provider and the world's second most powerful nuclear weapons power.

This paper addresses the Obama regime's highly irrational and world-threatening escalation of imperial militarism. We examine the global military, economic and domestic political context that gives rise to these policies. We then examine the multiple points of conflict and intervention in which Washington is engaged, from Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba and beyond. We will then analyze the rationale for military escalation against Russia and China as part of a new offensive moving beyond the Arab world (Syria, Libya) and in the face of the declining economic position of the EU and the US in the global economy. We will then outline the strategies of a declining empire, nurtured on perpetual wars, facing global economic decline, domestic discredit and a working population reeling from the long-term, large-scale dismantling of its basic social programs.

The Turn from Militarism in the Periphery to Global Military Confrontation

November 2011 is a moment of great historical import: Obama declared two major policy positions, both having tremendous strategic consequences affecting competing world powers.

Obama pronounced a policy of military encirclement of China based on stationing a maritime and aerial armada facing the Chinese coast – an overt policy designed to weaken and disrupt China's access to raw materials and commercial and financial ties in Asia. Obama's declaration that Asia is the priority region for US military expansion, base-building and economic alliances was directed against China, challenging Beijing in its own backyard. Obama's iron fist policy statement, addressed to the Australian Parliament, was crystal clear in defining US imperial goals.

"Our enduring interests in the region [Asia Pacific] demands our enduring presence in this region ... The United States is a Pacific power and we are here to stay ... As we end today's wars [i.e. the defeats and retreats from Iraq and Afghanistan]... I have directed my national security team to make our presence and missions in the Asia Pacific a top priority ... As a result, reduction in US defense spending will not ... come at the expense of the Asia Pacific" (CNN.com, Nov. 16, 2011).

The precise nature of what Obama called our "presence and mission" was underlined by the new military agreement with Australia to dispatch warships, warplanes and 2500 marines to the northern most city of Australia (Darwin) directed at China. Secretary of State Clinton has spent the better part of 2011 making highly provocative overtures to Asian countries that have maritime border conflicts with China. Clinton has forcibly injected the US into these disputes, encouraging and exacerbating the demands of Vietnam, Philippines, and Brunei in the South China Sea. Even more seriously, Washington is bolstering its military ties and sales with Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, as well as increasing the presence of battleships, nuclear submarines and over flights of war planes along China's coastal waters. In line with the policy of military encirclement and provocation, the Obama-Clinton regime is promoting Asian multi-lateral trade agreements that exclude China and privilege US multi-national corporations, bankers and exporters, dubbed the "Trans-Pacific Partnership". It currently includes mostly smaller countries, but Obama has hopes of enticing Japan and Canada to join ...

Obama's presence at the APEC meeting of East Asian leader and his visit to Indonesia in November 2011 all revolve around efforts to secure US hegemony. Obama-Clinton hope to counter the relative decline of US economic links in the face of the geometrical growth of trade and investment ties between East Asia and China.

A most recent example of Obama-Clinton's delusional, but destructive, efforts to deliberately disrupt China's economic ties in Asia, is taking place in Myanmar (Burma). Clinton's December 2011 visit to Myanmar was preceded by a decision by the Thein Sein regime to suspend a China Power Investment-funded dam project in the north of the country. According to official confidential documents released by WikiLeaks the "Burmese NGO's, which organized and led the campaign against the dam, were heavily funded by the US government"(Financial Times, Dec. 2, 2011, p. 2). This and other provocative activity and Clinton's speeches condemning Chinese "tied aid" pale in comparison with the long-term, large-scale interests which link Myanmar with China. China is Myanmar's biggest trading partner and investor, including six other dam projects. Chinese companies are building new highways and rail lines across the country, opening southwestern China up for Burmese products and China is constructing oil pipelines and ports. There is a powerful dynamic of mutual economic interests that will not be disturbed by one dispute (FT, December 2, 2011, p.2). Clinton's critique of China's billion-dollar investments in Myanmar's infrastructure is one of the most bizarre in world history, coming in the aftermath of Washington's brutal eight-year military presence in Iraq which destroyed $500 billion dollars of Iraqi infrastructure, according to Baghdad official estimates. Only a delusional administration could imagine that rhetorical flourishes, a three day visit and the bankrolling of an NGO is an adequate counter-weight to deep economic ties linking Myanmar to China. The same delusional posture underlies the entire repertoire of policies informing the Obama regime's efforts to displace China's predominant role in Asia.

While any one policy adopted by the Obama regime does not, in itself, present an immediate threat to peace, the cumulative impact of all these policy pronouncements and the projections of military power add up to an all out comprehensive effort to isolate, intimidate and degrade China's rise as a regional and global power. Military encirclement and alliances, exclusion of China in proposed regional economic associations, partisan intervention in regional maritime disputes and positioning technologically advanced warplanes, are all aimed to undermine China's competitiveness and to compensate for US economic inferiority via closed political and economic networks.

Clearly White House military and economic moves and US Congressional anti-China demagogy are aimed at weakening China's trading position and forcing its business-minded leaders into privileging US banking and business interests over and above their own enterprises. Pushed to its limits, Obama's prioritizing a big military push could lead to a catastrophic rupture in US-Chinese economic relations. This would result in dire consequences, especially but not exclusively, on the US economy and particularly its financial system. China holds over $1.5 trillion dollars in US debt, mainly Treasury Notes, and each year purchases from $200 to $300 billion in new issues, a vital source in financing the US deficit. If Obama provokes a serious threat to China's security interests and Beijing is forced to respond, it will not be military but economic retaliation: the sell-off of a few hundred billion dollars in T-notes and the curtailment of new purchases of US debt. The US deficit will skyrocket, its credit ratings will descend to 'junk', and the financial system will 'tremble onto collapse'. Interest rates to attract new buyers of US debt will approach double digits. Chinese exports to the US will suffer and losses will incur due to the devaluation of the T-notes in Chinese hands. China has been diversifying its markets around the world and its huge domestic market could probably absorb most of what China loses abroad in the course of a pull-back from the US market.

While Obama strays across the Pacific to announce his military threats to China and strives to economically isolate China from the rest of Asia, the US economic presence is fast fading in what used to be its "backyard": Quoting one Financial Times journalist, "China is the only show [in town] for Latin America" (Financial Times, Nov. 23, 2011, p.6). China has displaced the US and the EU as Latin America's principle trading partner; Beijing has poured billions in new investments and provides low interest loans.

China's trade with India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan and Vietnam is increasing at a far faster rate than that of the US. The US effort to build an imperial-centered security alliance in Asia is based on fragile economic foundations. Even Australia, the anchor and linchpin of the US military thrust in Asia, is heavily dependent on mineral exports to China. Any military interruption would send the Australian economy into a tailspin.

The US economy is in no condition to replace China as a market for Asian or Australian commodity and manufacturing exports. The Asian countries must be acutely aware that there is no future advantage in tying themselves to a declining, highly militarized, empire. Obama and Clinton deceive themselves if they think they can entice Asia into a long-term alliance. The Asian's are simply using the Obama regime's friendly overtures as a 'tactical device', a negotiating ploy, to leverage better terms in securing maritime and territorial boundaries with China.

Washington is delusional if it believes that it can convince Asia to break long-term large-scale lucrative economic ties to China in order to join an exclusive economic association with such dubious prospects. Any 'reorientation' of Asia, from China to the US, would require more than the presence of an American naval and airborne armada pointed at China. It would require the total restructuring of the Asian countries' economies, class structure and political and military elite. The most powerful economic entrepreneurial groups in Asia have deep and growing ties with China/Hong Kong, especially among the dynamic transnational Chinese business elites in the region. A turn toward Washington entails a massive counter-revolution, which substitutes colonial 'traders' (compradors) for established entrepreneurs. A turn to the US would require a dictatorial elite willing to cut strategic trading and investment linkages, displacing millions of workers and professionals. As much as some US-trained Asian military officers, economists and former Wall Street financiers and billionaires might seek to 'balance' a US military presence with Chinese economic power, they must realize that ultimately advantage resides in working out an Asian solution.

The age of Asian "comprador capitalists", willing to sell out national industry and sovereignty in exchange for privileged access to US markets, is ancient history. Whatever the boundless enthusiasm for conspicuous consumerism and Western lifestyles, which Asia and China's new rich mindlessly celebrate, whatever the embrace of inequalities and savage capitalist exploitation of labor, there is recognition that the past history of US and European dominance precluded the growth and enrichment of an indigenous bourgeoisie and middle class. The speeches and pronouncements of Obama and Clinton reek of nostalgia for a past of neo-colonial overseers and comprador collaborators – a mindless delusion. Their attempts at political realism, in finally recognizing Asia as the economic pivot of the present world order, takes a bizarre turn in imagining that military posturing and projections of armed force will reduce China to a marginal player in the region.

Obama's Escalation of Confrontation with Russia

The Obama regime has launched a major frontal military thrust on Russia's borders. The US has moved forward missile sites and Air Force bases in Poland, Rumania, Turkey, Spain, Czech Republic and Bulgaria: Patriot PAC-3 anti-aircraft missile complexes in Poland; advanced radar AN/TPY-2 in Turkey; and several missile (SM-3 IA) loaded warships in Spain are among the prominent weapons encircling Russia, most only minutes away from it strategic heartland. Secondly, the Obama regime has mounted an all-out effort to secure and expand US military bases in Central Asia among former Soviet republics. Thirdly, Washington, via NATO, has launched major economic and military operations against Russia's major trading partners in North Africa and the Middle East. The NATO war against Libya, which ousted the Gadhafi regime, has paralyzed or nullified multi-billion dollar Russian oil and gas investments, arms sales and substituted a NATO puppet for the former Russia-friendly regime.

The UN-NATO economic sanctions and US-Israeli clandestine terrorist activity aimed at Iran has undermined Russia's lucrative billion-dollar nuclear trade and joint oil ventures. NATO, including Turkey, backed by the Gulf monarchical dictatorships, has implemented harsh sanctions and funded terrorist assaults on Syria, Russia's last remaining ally in the region and where it has a sole naval facility (Tartus) on the Mediterranean Sea. Russia's previous collaboration with NATO in weakening its own economic and security position is a product of the monumental misreading of NATO and especially Obama's imperial policies. Russian President Medvedev and his Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mistakenly assumed (like Gorbachev and Yeltsin before them) that backing US-NATO policies against Russia's trading partners would result in some sort of "reciprocity": US dismantling its offensive "missile shield" on its frontiers and support for Russia's admission into the World Trade Organization. Medvedev, following his liberal pro-western illusions, fell into line and backed US-Israeli sanctions against Iran, believing the tales of a "nuclear weapons programs". Then Lavrov fell for the NATO line of "no fly zones to protect Libyan civilian lives" and voted in favor, only to feebly "protest", much too late, that NATO was "exceeding its mandate" by bombing Libya into the Middle Ages and installing a pro-NATO puppet regime of rogues and fundamentalists. Finally when the US aimed a cleaver at Russia's heartland by pushing ahead with an all-out effort to install missile launch sites 5 minutes by air from Moscow while organizing mass and armed assaults on Syria, did the Medvedev-Lavrov duet awake from its stupor and oppose UN sanctions. Medvedev threatened to abandon the nuclear missile reduction treaty (START) and to place medium-range missiles with 5 minute launch-time from Berlin, Paris and London.

Medvedev-Lavrov's policy of consolidation and co-operation based on Obama's rhetoric of "resetting relations" invited aggressive empire building: Each capitulation led to a further aggression. As a result, Russia is surrounded by missiles on its western frontier; it has suffered losses among its major trading partners in the Middle East and faces US bases in southwest and Central Asia.

Belatedly Russian officials have moved to replace the delusional Medvedev for the realist Putin, as next President. This shift to a political realist has predictably evoked a wave of hostility toward Putin in all the Western media. Obama's aggressive policy to isolate Russia by undermining independent regimes has, however, not affected Russia's status as a nuclear weapons power. It has only heightened tensions in Europe and perhaps ended any future chance of peaceful nuclear weapons reduction or efforts to secure a UN Security Council consensus on issues of peaceful conflict resolution. Washington, under Obama-Clinton, has turned Russia from a pliant client to a major adversary.

Putin looks to deepening and expanding ties with the East, namely China, in the face of threats from the West. The combination of Russian advanced weapons technology and energy resources and Chinese dynamic manufacturing and industrial growth are more than a match for crisis-ridden EU-USA economies wallowing in stagnation.

Obama's military confrontation toward Russia will greatly prejudice access to Russian raw materials and definitively foreclose any long-term strategic security agreement, which would be useful in lowering the deficit and reviving the US economy.

Between Realism and Delusion: Obama's Strategic Realignment

Obama's recognition that the present and future center of political and economic power is moving inexorably to Asia, was a flash of political realism. After a lost decade of pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in military adventures on the margins and periphery of world politics, Washington has finally discovered that is not where the fate of nations, especially Great Powers, will be decided, except in a negative sense – of bleeding resources over lost causes. Obama's new realism and priorities apparently are now focused on Southeast and Northeast Asia, where dynamic economies flourish, markets are growing at a double digit rate, investors are ploughing tens of billions in productive activity and trade is expanding at three times the rate of the US and the EU.

But Obama's 'New Realism' is blighted by entirely delusional assumptions, which undermine any serious effort to realign US policy.

In the first place Obama's effort to 'enter' into Asia is via a military build-up and not through a sharpening and upgrading of US economic competitiveness. What does the US produce for the Asian countries that will enhance its market share? Apart from arms, airplanes and agriculture, the US has few competitive industries. The US would have to comprehensively re-orient its economy, upgrade skilled labor, and transfer billions from "security" and militarism to applied innovations. But Obama works within the current military-Zionist-financial complex: He knows no other and is incapable of breaking with it.

Secondly, Obama-Clinton operate under the delusion that the US can exclude China or minimize its role in Asia, a policy that is undercut by the huge and growing investment and presence of all the major US multi-national corporations in China, who use it as an export platform to Asia and the rest of the world.

The US military build-up and policy of intimidation will only force China to downgrade its role as creditor financing the US debt, a policy China can pursue because the US market, while still important, is declining, as China expands its presence in its domestic, Asian, Latin American and European markets.

What once appeared to be New Realism is now revealed to be the recycling of Old Delusions: The notion that the US can return to being the supreme Pacific Power it was after World War Two. The US attempts to return to Pacific dominance under Obama-Clinton with a crippled economy, with the overhang of an over-militarized economy, and with major strategic handicaps: Over the past decade the United States foreign policy has been at the beck and call of Israel's fifth column (the Israel "lobby"). The entire US political class is devoid of common, practical sense and national purpose. They are immersed in troglodyte debates over "indefinite detentions" and "mass immigrant expulsions". Worse, all are on the payrolls of private corporations who sell in the US and invest in China.

Why would Obama abjure costly wars in the unprofitable periphery and then promote the same military metaphysics at the dynamic center of the world economic universe? Does Barack Obama and his advisers believe he is the Second Coming of Admiral Commodore Perry, whose 19^th century warships and blockades forced Asia open to Western trade? Does he believe that military alliances will be the first stage to a subsequent period of privileged economic entry?

Does Obama believe that his regime can blockade China, as Washington did to Japan in the lead up to World War Two? It's too late. China is much more central to the world economy, too vital even to the financing of the US debt, too bonded up with the Forbes Five Hundred multi-national corporations. To provoke China, to even fantasize about economic "exclusion" to bring down China, is to pursue policies that will totally disrupt the world economy, first and foremost the US economy!

Conclusion

Obama's 'crackpot realism', his shift from wars in the Muslim world to military confrontation in Asia, has no intrinsic worth and poses extraordinary extrinsic costs. The military methods and economic goals are totally incompatible and beyond the capacity of the US, as it is currently constituted. Washington's policies will not 'weaken' Russia or China, even less intimidate them. Instead it will encourage both to adopt more adversarial positions, making it less likely that they lend a hand to Obama's sequential wars on behalf of Israel. Already Russia has sent warships to its Syrian port, refused to support an arms embargo against Syria and Iran and (in retrospect) criticized the NATO war against Libya. China and Russia have far too many strategic ties with the world economy to suffer any great losses from a series of US military outposts and "exclusive" alliances. Russia can aim just as many deadly nuclear missiles at the West as the US can mount from its bases in Eastern Europe.

In other words, Obama's military escalation will not change the nuclear balance of power, but will bring Russia and China into a closer and deeper alliance. Gone are the days of Kissinger-Nixon's "divide and conquer" strategy pitting US-Chinese trade agreements against Russian arms. Washington has a totally exaggerated significance of the current maritime spats between China and its neighbors. What unites them in economic terms is far more important in the medium and long-run. China's Asian economic ties will erode any tenuous military links to the US.

Obama's "crackpot realism", views the world market through military lenses. Military arrogance toward Asia has led to a rupture with Pakistan, its most compliant client regime in South Asia. NATO deliberately slaughtered 24 Pakistani soldiers and thumbed their nose at the Pakistani generals, while China and Russia condemned the attack and gained influence.

In the end, the military and exclusionary posture to China will fail. Washington will overplay its hand and frighten its business-oriented erstwhile Asian partners, who only want to play-off a US military presence to gain tactical economic advantage. They certainly do not want a new US instigated 'Cold War' dividing and weakening the dynamic intra-Asian trade and investment. Obama and his minions will quickly learn that Asia's current leaders do not have permanent allies - only permanent interests. In the final analysis, China figures prominently in configuring a new Asia-centric world economy. Washington may claim to have a 'permanent Pacific presence' but until it demonstrates it can take care of its "basic business at home", like arranging its own finances and balancing its current account deficits, the US Naval command may end up renting its naval facilities to Asian exporters and shippers, transporting goods for them, and protecting them by pursuing pirates, contrabandists and narco-traffickers. Come to think about it, Obama might reduce the US trade deficit with Asia by renting out the Seventh Fleet to patrol the Straits, instead of wasting US taxpayer money bullying successful Asian economic powers.

* 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.

How about an Israeli destruction freeze?

Yousef Munayyer — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:03:54 +0000

Obama should demand an immediate halt to all Israeli destruction of Palestinian property in the West Bank.

Many Palestinians have been left homeless after occupying Israeli forces demolished their homes (EPA)

Much was made of what many in the media described as a "confrontation" between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama over the building of illegal Israeli settlements (or colonies) in Occupied Palestinian Territory. From the very beginning of the Obama administration, the pursuit of a freeze on Israeli settlement activity was a stated goal - one that was never really accomplished and never adequately pursued.

The idea of a settlement freeze, which was wrongly attributed to the now-resigned special envoy George Mitchell, was actually stipulated in the Bush administration's Road Map and accepted by the parties in 2003. A freeze on all settlement activity was a first-phase Israeli obligation - not to mention an obligation under international law. It should go without saying that the Israelis failed to fulfill this obligation, and instead the Israeli government, then led by Ariel Sharon, presided over the single largest and most aggressive period of settlement activity in the West Bank since the Menachem Begin government in 1977-83.

Still, Israeli settlement construction is not the only belligerent behaviour conducted by the occupation regime in Palestinian Territory. To paraphrase the now-former US Congressman Brian Baird, if the law is "thou shall not build on territory which does not belong to you", an equally important corollary of this law is "thou shall not destroy what belongs to others in territory which does not belong to you". Of course, apart from the regular construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, there is also the regular destruction of Palestinian buildings and infrastructure in the same territory.

Both the construction of illegal settlements and the destruction of the homes and property of the native Palestinians stem from the same origin: Israel's unbridled assertion of power over the native Palestinians in the context of total impunity.

Much destruction occurs in Area C of the West Bank. This territory comprises roughly 60 per cent of the West Bank, and Israel maintains full control over security, planning and zoning.

The United Nations Organisation for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Territories (UNOCHA) noted in a recent report:

"In the first six months of 2011, OCHA recorded the Israeli authorities' demolition of 342 Palestinian-owned structures in Area C, including 125 residential structures, displacing a total of 656 Palestinians, including 351 children. This is almost five times as many structures demolished and people displaced as during the equivalent period in 2010."

Take, for example, the time when 30 Israeli vehicles and 100 soldiers entered the village of Ein al-Duyuk and demolished the homes of four different Palestinian families deep in the West Bank. Or the dawn raid of Jaba'a near Hebron which led to the demolition of another family's home. Or the demolition of five homes in Khan al-Ahmar, near Jerusalem, which left 71 people, including 60 children, homeless. Or when a mosque, two homes and a barn housing children's pet rabbits were demolished in the village of Um Fagareh. Or the demolition of wells near Idhna, which debilitated Palestinian farmers. Or Khirbet Susa's rural primary school, which currently educates 36 Palestinian children and has recently received demolition orders after it was last demolished a year ago. Or the solar panel complex, built by a Spanish NGO for €300,000 ($401,310) in 2009 to provide much-needed sustainable electricity to the isolated Palestinian village of Imneizel, which also has demolition orders pending.

Or, perhaps most disturbing of all, is that all of the above-mentioned Area C demolitions and demolition orders were executed or handed down only in the past 90 days.

Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes and buildings, like the construction of illegal settlements, is part of a matrix of control aimed at limiting Palestinians to an existence on only a fraction of a fraction of their land. No objective observer can take the argument that the destruction of Palestinian village schools, water wells, solar panels and homes provides anyone with security. Likewise, Palestinian villagers left homeless at the hands of an Israeli bulldozer will rightly find claims that Israeli politicians want peace to be farcical.

Yet this destruction persists today at accelerated levels, with little objection from an Obama administration that races to show its support for Israel as we enter an election year.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration should demand an immediate halt to all Israeli settlement construction because it is illegal, and an immediate halt to all Israeli destruction in the West Bank because it is simply inhumane.

* Yousef Munayyer is a writer and political analyst based in Washington, DC. He is currently the Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund for Education and Community Development.

An America that’s never wrong

Paul J. Balles — Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:56:00 +0000

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." --Arthur Schopenhauer

Patriotism consists not in waving the flag, but in striving that our country shall be righteous as well as strong. --James Bryce

Americans won't like this. Practically everyone else will: Americans simply can never admit they were wrong.

Ill-begotten wars--from Vietnam to Afghanistan have accomplished nothing but increasing enemies toward American arrogance.

Nothing could have been more misguided than the Iraq war, based on a mythical collection of WMDs. The lie, the war and the occupation cost the lives of 4,801 Americans plus 179 UK lives and the death of 1,455,590 Iraqis. The WMD's never existed.

Instead of an admission that the Iraq debacle was wrong, the fraudsters made lame excuses in attempts to exonerate themselves. Past Vice President Dick Cheney, the strongest defender of the Iraq misadventure continues his vain attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

"There is nothing less to our credit than our neglect of the foreigner and his children, unless it be the arrogance most of us betray when we set out to 'Americanize' him," wrote American sociologist Charles Horton Cooley.

On November 28th, a NATO air attack killed at least two dozen Pakistani soldiers. Instead of admitting that they were wrong, the US military suggested that the Pakistanis shot first.

Said Fred Branfman about the incident, "Short-sighted U.S. policy is creating a national security disaster in Pakistan." Instead of apologizing and admitting to a mistake, Branfman concludes:

"The U.S. policy of trying to win in tiny Afghanistan by extending its war-making into giant, nuclear-armed Pakistan--including drone strikes, cross-border raids, illegal U.S. ground assassination... threatens the greatest U.S. foreign policy disaster...."

American arrogance has clearly found several avenues for acrimony. More than 1,000 American military bases around the world has often been an unwelcome embodiment of American military power.

Next, not only do Americans display a belief in their superiority over other countries, their leaders' actions reveal an arrogant pre-eminence over the masses of the American public.

In an earlier article, "Ruled by Arrogance", I commented on an American tendency to discredit others' opinions with forcefulness aimed at dominating those considered weaker or less important.

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry faulted a mixture of arrogance and audacity in the Obama administration:

This administration in Washington...clearly believes that government is not only the answer to every need but it's the most qualified to make essential decisions for every American in every area. That mix of arrogance and audacity that guides the Obama administration is an affront to every freedom-loving American.

That's the same Rick Perry who arrogantly boasts about how great Texas has been with his governorship. In America, the pot (Rick Perry) is expected to call the kettle (Barack Obama) black.

Paradoxically, another American presidential candidate, Rick Santorum criticized President Obama for looking apologetic rather than being arrogant:

Watching President Obama apologize last week for America's arrogance before a French audience that owes its freedom to the sacrifices of Americans--helped convince me that he has a deep-seated antipathy toward American values and traditions.

What American values and traditions does Santorum believe become belittled by an apology uttered by an American president? American arrogance!

Earlier, in April 2009, a number of Republicans castigated President Obama for bowing before Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. Though the White House denied it, the video of the meeting provided enough fodder for Obama's critics.

The arrogance of Obama's predecessor established a standard of American presidential behaviour that those following the Bush administration should not deviate from.

America has a history of arrogance reflected in racial and gender supremacy. The Ku Klux Klan (KKK) provides an example of a superior white attitude reflected in American slavery.

In a country full of misogyny, it's ironic that Americans now belittle countries whose men treat women as lesser creatures.

If it's difficult to convince most Americans that they are guided by undeserved arrogance, those who know it seem undisturbed by it.

As I mentioned in an earlier article, "Look closely enough and you'll find groups in any country who believe they are superior to all others."

When the political elite assume they are superior to others, and when the media elite behave as if America is better than others, they flaunt a dangerously endemic model of arrogant behaviour.

The problems come when the "others" resist being disadvantaged.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

Obama and Israel’s security

Alan Hart — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 09:45:42 +0000

If American election campaign funders who support Israel right or wrong formed a circle and demanded that President Obama stand naked in the middle of it while they sang Hava Nagila ("Let us rejoice"), I am sure he would agree to do so. That thought came into my mind when I read the Reuters' report, published in Ha'aretz, of what Obama said to a group of fundraisers in the Manhattan home of Jack Rosen, chairman of the American Jewish Congress.

Then, as my imagination let rip, I imagined Obama thinking to himself, while he was naked and they were rejoicing, something like, "Thank God they didn't demand that I bombed Iran as the price of their money and votes."

To be serious...

Rosen said at the meeting, "It would be remiss for me not to say there are many in the Jewish community who are concerned." About what exactly?

According to the Reuters report, the concern, not in quotes from Rosen's mouth, was about the relationship between Israel and the United States. But that's a fig leaf. The real concern of those American Jews who are taken in by Zionist propaganda is that a second term Obama might, just might, decide to put America's own real interests first and confront the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress in order to get a real peace process going. (Readers of the third volume of the American edition of my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews will be aware of what former President Carter told me. For those who are not aware, Carter told me that any American president has only two windows of opportunity to take on the Zionist lobby - "in the first nine months of his first term" and "the last year of his second term if he has one.")

So far as the present is concerned, Rosen added, "America has never been as supportive of the state of Israel as President Obama and his administration." Another way to put it would be to say that no previous American president has had his testicles so firmly gripped by the Zionist lobby as Obama.

In response to Rosen's opening remarks, Obama said Israel was "the U.S.'s most important ally." (So how do you explain Israel's cold-blooded and murderous attack on the Liberty, Mr. President?) He went on: "I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration. We don't compromise when it comes to Israel's security ... and that will continue."

The problem with the American presidential fixation with Israel's security is that it is based on a myth - that poor little Israel has lived in constant danger of annihilation, "the driving into the sea of its Jews." As I document in detail in my book, the truth of history is that Israel's existence has never, ever, been in danger from any combination of Arab force. Not in 1948. Not in 1967. And not even in 1973.

And what about the future?

Unless it provokes a confrontation - I am sure it will at some point - there is no prospect of Arab attacks on the nuclear-armed military superpower of the region. Yes, missiles might be fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip prison camp, but they do not and will not constitute a major or serious threat to Israel's security. And they would not be fired if Israel's leaders were interested in peace on terms which would provide the Palestinians with an acceptable amount of justice.

For reasons I have explained in previous articles, the notion that a Palestinian mini state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would pose a threat to Israel's security is too silly for words.

And just as silly, even more silly, is the assertion that Iran poses a threat to Israel's existence. Even IF it did possess nuclear weapons, there will never be an Iranian leadership that would launch a first strike on Israel. If it did the whole of Iran would be obliterated. (I do not myself believe that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons, but I would be surprised if there are not forces in Iran, the Revolutionary Guards for example, which are arguing for a nuclear weapons program for deterrence).

The unknown about President Obama is whether he is aware that Israel's existence has never been in danger and chooses to ignore the truth of history for self-serving political reasons, or whether he is ignorant.

If the latter is the case there would be some hope for the future and I have a suggestion to make. Could somebody with influence and access and who cares buy a copy of my book, or get one free from my American publisher, and hand it personally to Obama? It could have this inscription by the donor: "If, Mr. President, you get a second term, you must read this book."

* Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs on www.alanhart.net and tweets on www.twitter.com/alanauthor

Why the West is demonizing Iran

Stuart Littlewood — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 12:00:55 +0000

When new recruits join British Petroleum (BP) they are fed romantic tales about how the company came into being.

William Knox D'Arcy, a Devon man, studied law and, after emigrating to Australia, made a fortune from the Mount Morgan gold-mining operations in the 1880s. Returning to England he agreed to fund a search for oil and minerals in Persia and negotiations with the Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar began in 1901. A sixty-year concession to explore for oil gave D'Arcy the oil rights to the entire country except for five provinces in northern Iran. The Iranian government would receive 16 percent of the oil company's annual profits.

Mozzafar ad-Din, seldom consulted on matters of state by his father, was naive in business matters and unprepared for kingship when the time came. He borrowed heavily from the Russians in order to finance his extravagant personal lifestyle and the costs of the state, and in order to pay off the debt, he signed away control of many Iranian industries and markets to foreigners. The deal D'Arcy cut was too sharp by far and would eventually lead to trouble.

He sent an exploration team headed by geologist George B Reynolds. In 1903 a company was formed and D'Arcy had to spend much of his fortune to cover the costs. Further financial support came from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil in return for a large share of the stock.

Drilling in southern Persia at Shardin continued until 1907 when the search was switched to Masjid-i-Souleiman. By 1908 D'Arcy was almost bankrupt. Reynolds received a last-chance instruction: "Drill to 1,600 feet and give up." On 26 May, at 1,180 feet, he struck oil.

It was indeed a triumph of guts and determination. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was soon up and running and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at Abadan. But the company was in trouble again by 1914. The golden age of motoring had not yet arrived and the industrial oil markets were sewn up by American and European interests. The sulphurous stench of the Persian oil, even after refining, ruled it out for domestic use, so D'Arcy had a marketing problem.

Luckily, Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was an enthusiast for oil and wanted to convert the British fleet from coal, especially now that a reliable oil source was secured. He famously told Parliament: "Look out upon the wide expanse of the oil regions of the world!" Only the British-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, he said, could protect British interests. His resolution passed and the British Government took a major shareholding in the company. Just in time too, for World War I started a few weeks later.

During the war the government seized the assets of a German company calling itself British Petroleum in order to market its products in Britain. Anglo-Persian acquired the assets from the Public Trustee complete with a ready-made distribution network with hundreds of depots, railway tank wagons, road vehicles, barges and so forth. This enabled Anglo-Persian to rapidly expand sales in petroleum-hungry Britain and Europe after the war.

In the inter-war years Anglo-Persian profited handsomely from paying the Iranians a measly 16 per cent , and an increasingly angry Iran tried to renegotiate the terms. Getting nowhere, the Iranians cancelled the D'Arcy agreement and the matter ended up at the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement for the Iranians but still didn't amount to a square deal.

Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq, Time Magazine’s Man of the Year cover for 1951.

Anglo-Persian changed its name to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1935. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil refinery in the world and Britain, with its 51 per cent holding in Anglo-Iranian, had affectively colonised part of southern Iran.

Iran's small share of the profits became a big issue and so did the treatment of its oil workers. 6,000 withdrew their labour in 1946 and the strike was violently put down with 200 dead or injured. In 1951 Anglo-Iranian declared £40 million profit after tax but gave Iran only £7 million. Meanwhile Arabian American Oil was sharing profits with the Saudis on a 50/50 basis. Calls for nationalisation were intensifying.

Iran nationalised its oil to achieve economic and political independence and combat poverty

In March 1951 the Iranian Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian, which had controlled Iran's oil industry since 1913 under terms disadvantageous to Iran. Respected social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister the following month by a 79 to 12 majority. On 1 May Mossadeq carried out his government's wishes, cancelling Anglo-Iranian's oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriating its assets.

His explanation, given in a speech in June 1951 (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran, p. 525), ran as follows...

Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries... have yielded no results this far. With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.

The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization law provides that 25 per cent of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate claims of the company for compensation...
It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is this allegation absurd; it is utter invention...

For this he was eventually removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3 years then put under house arrest until his death.

In the meantime Britain orchestrated a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil, froze Iran's stirling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. It even considered invading. The Iranian economy was soon in ruins. Attempts by the Shah to replace Mossadeq failed and he returned with more power, but his coalition was slowly crumbling under the hardships imposed by the British blockade.

At first America was reluctant to join Britain's destructive game but Churchill let it be known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into Russia's arms at a time when Cold War jumpiness was high. It was enough to get America's new president, Eisenhower, on board and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down

Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, Shah of Iran.

Chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, arrived to play the leading role in an ugly game of provocation, mayhem and deception. An elaborate campaign of disinformation began, and the Shah signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other nominating the CIA's choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were written as dictated by Donald Wilbur the CIA architect of the plan

The Shah fled to Rome. When it was judged safe to do so he returned on 22 August 1953. Mossadeq was arrested, tried, convicted of treason by the Shah's military court and sentenced to death.

Mossadeq remarked ...

My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran's oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world's greatest empire... With God's blessing and the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage and colonialism.

I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.

The sentence was later commuted to three years' solitary in a military prison, followed by house arrest until he died on 5 March 1967. Mossadeq's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.

Zahedi's new government soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion's share - 40 per cent going to Anglo-Iranian. The consortium agreed to share profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but, tricky as ever, refused to open its books for inspection or verification by Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the board.

Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954.

A grateful US massively funded the Shah's government, including his army and secret police force, SAVAK.

The West's fun came to an abrupt halt with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the book closed on a chapter in British enterprise that started heroically, turned nasty and ended in tears.

The US is still hated today for reinstating the Shah and his vicious SAVAK, and for demolishing the Iranians' democratic system of government, which the Revolution unfortunately didn't restore. Britain, as the instigator and junior partner in the sordid affair, is similarly despised.

On top of that, Iran harbours great resentment at the way the West, especially the US, helped Iraq develop its chemical weapons arsenal and armed forces, and how the international community failed to punish Iraq for its use of chemical weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. The US, and eventually Britain, tilted strongly towards Saddam in that conflict and the alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.

This is how John King, writing in 2003 , summed it up...

The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents. The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England, France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology.

Which brings us to today... Why are we hearing non-stop, loud-mouthed sabre-rattling against Iran when we should be extending the hand of friendship and reconciliation?

David Cameron (b. 1966) wasn't even a twinkle in his father's eye when Britain crushed Iran's democracy, and was probably carousing with his Bullingdon Club pals at Oxford while Iranians were dying in their thousands from Saddam's poison gases. What does he know?

William Hague (b. 1961) seems similarly oblivious to the dirty tricks previous British foreign secretaries pulled on Iran.

Obama (b. 1961)? He was a community organiser in Chicago while the Iranians were being mustard-gassed by chemicals his country supplied to Saddam. What does he know?

As for Mrs Clinton (b. 1947), she's old enough to know better.

So why are they demonising Iran instead of righting the wrongs? Why not live and let live?

Because the political establishment is still smarting.

They are the new-generation imperialists, the political spawn of those Dr Mossadeq and many others struggled against.

They haven't learned from the past, and they won't lift their eyes to a better future. It's so depressing.

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

Embarrassing Obama in free-fall as gangster morals kill peace process

Stuart Littlewood — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:24:48 +0000

No-one connected with the old discredited peace "circus" should be allowed anywhere near the new quest for justice in the Holy Land. Too many are strangers to fair play and appear to share the mentality of gangsters and others of loose morals.

The only surprise about the Palestinians' bid for freedom at the United Nations was the panicky response of US president and the speed with which he jettisoned all pretence of integrity and political respectability.

Obama's brazen hypocrisy

Obama's speech to the UN overflowed with Tel Aviv disinformation and was a brazen advertisement for his enslavement by Israel.

After enthusing how "more and more people were demanding their universal right to live in freedom and dignity", he required the Palestinians to go cap-in-hand to their tormentor, Israel, and once again haggle for their freedom and dignity and the return of their stolen property.

Shrugging off the international community's responsibilities, he tried to put the onus for sorting out the criminal mess on the Palestinians' shoulders: "Ultimately, it is Israelis and Palestinians - not us - who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and Jerusalem."

What ignorance. What an embarrassment. Does anyone out there still look on him as leader of the Western world?

And how's this for unadulterated humbug?

The United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy - with greater trade and investment, so that freedom is followed by opportunity. We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also civil society - students and entrepreneurs; political parties and the press. We have banned those who abuse human rights from travelling to our country, and sanctioned those who trample on human rights abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those who have been silenced.

Cannot Obama see the excruciating irony of what he says?

The man now cuts a pathetic figure, from golden boy to crap-merchant in less than three years, a freak who prematurely accepted the top peace prize but still lacks the moral fibre to earn it. And he’s going for a second term?

It’s time to take that noble trophy off the mantlepiece, Mr Obama, and hand it back.

His speech, so heavily larded with lies, was only surpassed by the rantings of his buddy, Israel's prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, a dangerous imbecile whose finger hovers over the only nuclear button in the Middle East. Both were desperately trying to paint the the armed-to-the-teeth bully-boy as the victim. "The truth is that Israel wants peace, the truth is that I want peace," Netanyahu said, when all the evidence points the other way. He added that "we cannot achieve peace through UN resolutions".

He means, of course, that Israel cannot achieve its greedy ambitions through UN resolutions. On the other hand, the UN route is the only way Palestinians are ever likely to obtain justice.

Mahmoud Abbas - wrong man for the task

The bid for statehood had to be made, I believe. But was Mahmoud Abbas the right man to present the case? He lacks legitimacy. His presidential term expired long ago and he cannot claim to speak for a unified people. Abbas's speech was good in parts but sadly inept in key respects. Did he rise to the occasion? No, not really. Not in the way a better man might have done - with a brighter team of scriptwriters.

"The PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] and the Palestinian people adhere to the renouncement of violence," he said, but demanded no reciprocity. Since non-violence has got them nowhere, why throw away the option, especially when Israel uses extreme violence every day?

"We adhere to the option of negotiating a lasting solution to the conflict in accordance with resolutions of international legitimacy... The Palestine Liberation Organization is ready to return immediately to the negotiating table on the basis of the adopted terms of reference based on international legitimacy and a complete cessation of settlement activities." Adopted terms of reference based on international legitimacy? What on earth does he mean? It needs spelling out.

And is he happy to negotiate while still under illegal occupation and blockade? Shouldn’t the occupation end before anything else begins?

Justice first!

Abbas said he wants to "build cooperative relations based on parity and equity between two neighbouring states" but didn't link this to the necessary requirement for parity to be established first, together with a level playing field, and for Israel to remove its jackboot from Palestine's neck. Many would say Abbas should not contemplate or even mention negotiations while the occupation, blockade and land-grabs continue.

Negotiations, in this case, mean pressuring the Palestinians to forego their rights under international law and settle for far less than they are entitled to, just to avoid a kerfuffle in the UN and save the US’s face. Abbas should insist on securing those rights first and, otherwise, asking bluntly if the United Nations has now abandoned its raft of resolutions and is letting the gangsters rewrite international law and the UN Charter in their own stinking urine to suit Israel's ambitions.

Eyebrows must have shot up when he claimed that after being mired is disunity "we succeeded months ago in achieving national reconciliation..." How much unity was behind the statehood bid? He mentioned the continuing blockade on the Gaza Strip only in passing. The vicious strangulation and wrecking of Gaza is a monstrous war crime perpetrated by Israel and an ugly blot on the escutcheon of the international community, yet Abbas made nothing of it, reopening the old question: "whose side is this guy really on?"

Gaza’s cruel suffering has unlocked huge sympathy worldwide and done more than anything else to focus international attention on the Palestinian cause. But in preparing the bid Abbas’s team, worse than useless in the past, seems to have sidelined the 1.5 million innocent people in the beleaguered coastal enclave. Who can blame Gaza’s Hamas government for wishing to distance themselves from the whole adventure? Were they properly consulted? Were they permitted to participate? Were they allowed to preview the script?

I now read that Abbas is to have deep discussions with Hamas. Better late than never, I suppose, but what incompetence (or chicanery, take your pick).

Abbas's speech made a good job of describing the Palestinian people's plight but a bad job of setting out the action required of the UN to deliver a solution. Since lopsided negotiations so obviously failed the Palestinians before and only served to buy the Israelis more time to establish irreversible facts on the ground, wasn’t it rather silly of Abbas to offer to play into their hands again?

He harked back to the "22/78 debacle" of 1993, when negotiators agreed to establish a state of Palestine on only 22 per cent of the territory of historical Palestine. "We, by taking that historic step, which was welcomed by the states of the world, made a major concession in order to achieve a historic compromise that would allow peace," Abbas reminded everyone. That huge concession - a compromise too far for many Palestinians - has been repeatedly flung back in the Palestinians’ face. As the 22/78 offer isn’t acceptable to Israel, the default position, surely, is the 1947 Partition’s 43/56 per cent formula, with Jerusalem a corpus separatum under UN protection. That was the basis on which the Israeli state was recognized, although it was declared with no fixed boundaries. Nobody, as far as I know, actually agreed to fluid, ever-expanding borders.

The outcome of Palestine’s "day at the UN" is that the Security Council has kicked the bid into the long grass while it deliberates. Meanwhile, the Quartet, another tainted and discredited body of peace brokers that should be terminated, has issued a statement urging both sides to resume talks and setting a timetable, but not calling explicitly for a halt to construction of illegal Israeli settlements, the very thing that brought previous talks to an end. More gangster, then.

As the bid wasn’t addressed to the Quartet, they and their mouthpiece, the odious Mr Blair, should at least do us the courtesy of keeping quiet until the Security Council makes its response.

No sense of fair play

The situation is not complicated. You don't need a degree in politics or diplomacy to understand. There can be no peace under occupation. To force "negotiations" when one party has a gun to the other's head is stupid and immoral. And to force negotiations when one party continues to steal the other's lands, continues to commit war crimes and breaches every code of conduct in the book, is not only doubly stupid and immoral - it’s disgusting!

And continuing this relentless brow-beating - that’s how gangsters behave in their low-life world.

For the rules of fair play, you can do no better than look up the Laws of Cricket (as I’ve said in my musings before). All players were expected to be civilized enough to know what fair play meant, and for 250 years the Spirit of the game was unwritten. As the game spread worldwide some players were so warped they took diabolical "liberties"; so finally, in 2000, it was set down in writing.

The game "should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit causes injury to the game itself." Respect is a vitally important ingredient.

For cricket, read "peace-making". The United Nations has laws and conventions in abundance but not the will to implement them despite the high-minded words of its Charter. A large injection of Spirit is needed urgently.

As the Great Umpire in world affairs the UN should not allow itself to be pushed around or deflected from fair play by pain-in-the-ass gangsters and other low-life.

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