Gilad Atzmon: Hello, Is It Muammar?


Monday, February 28, 2011 at 12:31AM Gilad Atzmon
Tony Blair with Muammar Gaddafi in 2007Tony Blair, widely criticised in recent days for offering Muammar Gaddafi “the hand of friendship” seven years ago, made an extraordinary personal intervention when he twice phoned the embattled Libyan dictator on Friday and asked him to stop killing protesters rising up against the regime.

I would like to remind every ethically aware human being that  Blair’s hands are soaked with the blood of 1.5 million Iraqi fatalities who died in an illegal war he himself launched.  Blair clearly didn’t stop himself from launching a war when 4 millions Britons called him to do so.  Blair should be the last to preach peace and harmony. The Ex British PM should be locked behind bars and disappear from our life once and for all.  

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian


This amazing event took place in Tahrir Square in celebration of the departure of Mubark where two million people gathered and prayed together. The prayer was lead by the Islamic scholar Yussuf Al-Qaradawi

And this is how this magnificent event was described by Amira Hass in the Haaretz

“Those who stayed home could see and hear the Islamic scholar Sheikh Yussuf al-Qardawi give the Friday sermon from the square’s southern stage, after 30 years in exile. Those close enough to the stage could hear him. But most of those who came to pray in the square created small groups of their own. {{{ as you can see in the video link above !!! }}} One demonstrator commented that the Muslim Brotherhood was striving for prominence now because during the revolution, it proved to have fewer followers than Egyptians had been to taught to fear

Posted by nahida the Exiled Palestinian at 2:22:00 AM





Atzmon’s story of how he converted from zionism through his love of jazz is phenomenal!

Posted by Noor al Haqiqa at 7:42 PM

This is NOT Tahrir Square!

>Commented by Debbie Manon

Must watch YouTube – 100,000 Strong

Americans do have a capacity for turning things like this into festivals.  You will note that the local Fire Department band is out entertaining the folks.

Crooked politicians really don’t have to learn, they already know… they just believe it can’t happen to them. That is what they have yet to learn.

Apparently, it also is widely believed in America that the Army will not shoot civilians the same way they do in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. They have forgotten Kent State.  And, that was before they had Blackwater and Xe hired guns who will shoot their grandomothers if someone will pay them to do it.

This article by Shamir still remains one of the Top of my list of  favorites…HANG THEM HIGH!  

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Its time for Palestine’s ‘Libyan moment’


No true Palestinian would argue with Electronic Ali saying that “Palestinian Authority has proved not to be a step toward the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” but rather a significant obstacle in the way of achieving them.” and saying “This would not be a surrender.”. It is not a surrender, its a victory

But, I am wondering if Electronic Ali’s call for dissoving the PA, includes dissoving Hamas Authority, and wondering if would dare to say, after Mubarak’s moment,  “it is time for the” Hamas who, according to electronic Ali “offered no coherent political vision to get Palestinians out of their impasse and its rule in Gaza has increasingly begun to resemble that of its Fatah counterparts in the West Bank.” to have its Mubarak moment and “dissolve itself and ….. announcing that the responsibilities delegated to it by Israel are being handed back to the occupying power, which must fulfill its duties under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.”


Electronic Ali is right PA in Ramallah “is acting in the Israel’s interest”

I would add, as late Mahmod Darwish noticed the PLO signed OSLO to solve the Problem of PLO leader ship. Therefore, Elecrocnic Ali’s call for PA in Ramallah to dissolve itself is an illusion.

Ali’s likes such as Mazin Qumsiyeh and others leading the popular resistance, instead of following the steps of revolutions in Tunis, Egypt, Libya and in other Arab regimes, and demand FULL LIBERATION they are calling for reconciliation with the thieves, mass murderers, and genocidal supremacists.

Both Ali, Mazin and their likes are doing their best to hide their “Hamasophobia”, to put popular resistance, as an alternative for armed resistance, to promote the illusion of equal rights in nazi-like Israel, and the illusion of peace with zionism. They forget that the road to Oslo started with PLO calling for a secular state and ended with “Palestinian Papers”
Both listened to the truth Gilad Atzmon (my Hebrew speaking brother) in Stuttgart who dared to cross the Jewish, Marxists activist’s red lines, and both seen their friends demanding removal of Gilad from the protocol.
“I was obviously sad about it — I believed that those who advocated the ‘One State solution’ should be able to support intellectual pluralism — But it turns out that a few of those who promote democracy in Palestine would be better advised to first confront their own Stalinist tendencies.” Gilad wrote.
Thanks to Evelyn Hecht-Galinski who firmly announced that if Gilad “was to be removed from the protocol,”for telling the truth about both Jewish and Israeli culture,  then she also wanted to be removed”.


Later Arbeiterfotografie, (the group who documented the conference) transcribed Gilad’s talk and considered it “most convincing and humane”. They thought that it should be ‘disseminated widely’ 
“I guess that truth cannot be suppressed anymore — not even in Germany. If Israel defines itself as a Jewish State, then surely, it is our duty to question what Jewishness is all about. I believe that solidarity with Palestine becomes a more meaningful event once we are brave enough to stand for the truth. Rather than fit ourselves into any given consensus or discourse, our duty is to present an alternative reality, whilst aiming at ethics and beauty. For Justice to prevail, truth must be told.”

Yes, truth bits, but must be told.
The Truth on the “disagreement between Fatah and Hamas” and between PLO and Hamas has been the illusion of peace with Zionism.

Its time for Palestine’s ‘Libyan moment’ against Dayton’s army. Its time to answer the begging question: “When given the freedom to vote, why do people in the Middle East end up voting for “Islamists” ?”

The answer is:  “Nothing short of FULL LIBERATION of Palestine is acceptable!”


Toward Palestine’s ‘Mubarak moment’

The Palestinian Authority should dissolve itself, as it is acting in Israel’s interest, writer says.
Ali Abunimah Last Modified: 24 Feb 2011 16:25 GMT

New elections will not give Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas the credibility he needs, writer says [Reuters]

The slow collapse of Palestinian collective leadership institutions in recent years has reached a crisis amid the ongoing Arab revolutions, the revelations in the Palestine Papers, and the absence of any credible peace process.

The Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority (PA) controlled by Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah faction has attempted to respond to this crisis by calling elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and the PA presidency.

Abbas hopes that elections could restore legitimacy to his leadership. Hamas has rejected such elections in the absence of a reconciliation agreement ending the division that resulted from Fatah’s refusal (along with Israel and the PA’s western sponsors, especially the United States) to accept the result of the last election in 2006, which Hamas decisively won.

But even if such an election were held in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it does not resolve the crisis of collective leadership faced by the entire Palestinian people, some ten million distributed between those living in the occupied Gaza Strip and West Bank, inside Israel, and the worldwide diaspora.

A house divided

There are numerous reasons to oppose new PA elections, even if Hamas and Fatah were to sort out their differences. The experience since 2006 demonstrates that democracy, governance and normal politics are impossible under Israel’s brutal military occupation.

The Palestinian body politic was divided not into two broad political streams offering competing visions, as in other electoral democracies, but one stream that is aligned with, supported by and dependent on the occupation and its foreign sponsors, and another that remains committed, at least nominally, to resistance. These are contradictions that cannot be resolved through elections.

The Ramallah PA under Abbas today functions as an arm of the Israeli occupation, while Hamas, its cadres jailed, tortured and repressed in the West Bank by Israel and Abbas’ forces, is besieged in Gaza where it tries to govern. Meanwhile, Hamas has offered no coherent political vision to get Palestinians out of their impasse and its rule in Gaza has increasingly begun to resemble that of its Fatah counterparts in the West Bank.

The PA was created by agreement between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel under the Oslo Accords. The September 13, 1993 “Declaration of Principles” signed by the parties states that:

“The aim of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council (the “Council”), for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement based on Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.”

Under the agreement, PA elections would “constitute a significant interim preparatory step toward the realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and their just requirements”.

Small mandate

Thus, the PA was only ever intended to be temporary, transitional, and its mandate limited to a mere fraction of the Palestinian people, those in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Oslo Accords specifically limited the PA’s powers to functions delegated to it by Israel under the agreement.

Therefore, elections for the PLC will not resolve the issue of representation, for the Palestinian people as a whole. Most would not have a vote. As in previous elections, Israel would likely intervene, particularly in East Jerusalem to attempt to prevent even some Palestinians under occupation from voting.

Given all these conditions, a newly elected PLC would only serve to further entrench divisions among Palestinians while also creating the illusion that Palestinian self-governance exists — and can thrive — under Israeli occupation.

A decade and a half after its creation, the Palestinian Authority has proved not to be a step toward the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” but rather a significant obstacle in the way of achieving them.

The PA offers no genuine self-government or protection for Palestinians under occupation, who continue to be victimized, killed, maimed and besieged by Israel with impunity while Israel confiscates and colonizes their land.

The PA never was and cannot be a stand-in for real collective leadership for the Palestinian people as a whole, and PA elections are not a substitute for self-determination.

Dissolving the PA

With the complete collapse of the “peace process” — the final push given by the Palestine Papers — it is time for the PA to have its Mubarak moment. When the Egyptian tyrant finally left office on February 11, he handed power over to the armed forces.

This would not be a surrender. Rather, it would be a recognition of reality and an act of resistance on the part of Palestinians who would collectively refuse to continue to assist the occupier in occupying them. By removing the fig leaf of “self-governance” masking and protecting from scrutiny Israel’s colonial and military tyranny, the end of the PA would expose Israeli apartheid for all the world to see.

The same message would also go to the European Union and the United States who have been directly subsidizing Israel’s occupation and colonization through the ruse of “aid” to the Palestinians and training for security forces that act as Israeli proxies. If the European Union wishes to continue funding Israel’s occupation, it ought to have the integrity to do it openly and not use Palestinians or the peace process as a front.

Dissolving the PA may cause some hardship and uncertainty for the tens of thousands of Palestinians and their dependents, who rely on salaries paid by the European Union via the PA. But the Palestinian people as a whole — the millions who have been victimised and marginalised by Oslo — would stand to benefit much more.

Handing the PA’s delegated powers back to the occupier would free Palestinians to focus on reconstituting their collective body politic and implementing strategies to really liberate themselves from Israeli colonial rule.

New leadership

What can a real collective Palestinian leadership look like? Undoubtedly this is a tough challenge. Many older Palestinians recall fondly the heyday of the PLO. The PLO still exists, of course, but its organs have long since lost any legitimacy or representative function. They are now mere rubber stamps in the hands of Abbas and his narrow circle.

Could the PLO be reconstituted as a truly representative body by, say, electing a new Palestine National Council (PNC) — the PLO’s “parliament in exile”? Although the PNC was supposed to be elected by the Palestinian people, in reality that has never happened — in part due to the practical difficulty of actually holding elections across the Palestinian diaspora. Members were always appointed through negotiations among the various political factions and the PNC included seats for independents and representatives from student, women’s and other organizations affiliated with the PLO.

One of the key points of disagreement between Fatah and Hamas has been reform of the PLO in which Hamas would become a member and receive a proportional number of seats on the organization’s various governing bodies. But even if this happened, it would not be the same as having Palestinians choose their representatives directly.

Yet if Arab countries which host large Palestinian refugee populations undergo democratic transformations, new possibilities for Palestinian politics will open up.

In recent years, “out of country voting” facilities were provided for large Iraqi and Afghan refugee and exile populations for elections sponsored by the powers occupying those countries. In theory, it would be possible to hold elections for all Palestinians, perhaps under UN auspices — including the huge Palestinian diaspora in the Americas and Europe.

The trouble is that any such elections would probably need to rely on the goodwill and cooperation of an “international community” (the US and its allies), which has been implacably opposed to allowing Palestinians to choose their own leaders.

Would the energy and expense of running a transnational Palestinian bureaucracy be worth it? Would these new bodies be vulnerable to the sorts of subversion, cooptation, and corruption that turned the original PLO from a national liberation movement into its current sad status where it has been hijacked by a collaborationist clique?

I do not have definitive answers to these questions, but they strike me as the ones Palestinians ought now to be debating.

Inspirational boycott

In light of the Arab revolutions that were leaderless, another intriguing possibility is that at this stage Palestinians should not worry about creating representative bodies.

Instead, they should focus on powerful, decentralized resistance, particularly boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) internationally, and the popular struggle within historic Palestine.

The BDS movement does have a collective leadership in the form of the Boycott National Committee (BNC). However, this is not a leadership that issues orders and instructions Palestinians or solidarity organisations around the world. Rather, it sets an agenda reflecting a broad Palestinian consensus, and campaigns for others to work according to this agenda, largely through moral suasion.

The agenda encompasses the needs and rights of all Palestinians: ending the occupation and colonisation of all Arab territories occupied in 1967; ending all forms of discrimination against Palestinian citizens in Israel; and respecting, promoting and implementing the rights of Palestinian refugees.

The BDS campaign is powerful and growing because it is decentralized and those around the world working for the boycott of Israel — following the precedent of apartheid South Africa — are doing so independently. There is no central body for Israel and its allies to sabotage and attack.

This might be the model to follow: let us continue to build up our strength through campaigning, civil resistance and activism. Two months ago, few could have imagined that the decades old regimes of Tunisia’s Zine el Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak would fall — but fall they did under the weight of massive, broad-based popular protests. Indeed, such movements hold much greater promise to end Israel’s apartheid regime and produce a genuine, representative and democratic Palestinian leadership than the kinds of cumbersome institutions created by the Oslo Accords. The end of the peace process is only the beginning.

Ali Abunimah is co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, a policy advisor with the Palestinian Policy Network, and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Such Spirit Cannot be Destroyed

To be able to smile, sing and dance after the trauma experienced by those kids- some of whom laid for days amongst the corpses of their parents- is no less than a miracle

Thank you Ken for such gifts of dedication, humanity and bravery


10-year-old survivor describes the murder of her family


Who is behind turmoil in Libya?

>Posted on February 27, 2011 by rehmat1

“So I came back to see him (a General at the Petagon) a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs”—meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office—”today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”, said General Wesley Clark in an interview with DemocracyNow!, March 2, 2007.

Both the former Cuban leader Fidel Castro and Venezuelan senior diplamat hves blamed Washington for creating the terrible situation in Libya in order to invade and occupy the oil-rich country.
“The government of the United States is not concerned at all about peace in Libya and it will not hesitate to give NATO the order to invade that rich country, perhaps in a question of hours or very short days,” Castro wrote in a column published Tuesday by Cuban state news media.

The Zionist poodle, US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton who supported Israeli bloodshed of Arabs in Lebanon (2006) and Gaza (2008-09), was quick to condemn Libyan dictator Qaddafi: “This bloodshed is completely unacceptable”.

Stephen Lendman, an American writer and radio show-host – in an interview with Iranian Press TV, said: “When NATO, when an ally is being attacked, you don’t get reports in the US media, they’re suppressed. It was wall to wall Egypt when those protests were going on. It’s wall to wall Libya now with the protests going on. I smell a rat. Again I despise Gaddafi. Libyans deserve much better than him. They have for many years. But I suspect that Washington is doing the pushing”.

It’s interesting to note that the same American Jewish lobby groups which first supported Hosni Mubarak’s regime and later the take-over of pro-Israel military junta in Cairo – are now supporting the regime-change in Libya.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has thrown its support behind the pro-democracy protests and has announced its readiness to send humanitarian aid to the victims of Qaddafi’s military crackdown. Tehran has also announced that it would make every effort to determine the fate of the missing Lebanese Shia leader Imam Moussa al-Sadr, Mehmanparast concluded. Imam Moussa al-Sadr went missing during an official visit to Tripoli to meet with officials from the government of Gaddafi in August 1978. It is widely believed in Lebanon that al-Sadr, the founder of Lebanon’s Amal movement, was kidnapped by the order of senior Libyan officials. Accompanied by two of his companions, Mohammed Yaqoub and Abbas Badreddin, Sadr was scheduled to meet with Libyan officials. In 2008, the Beirut government issued an arrest warrant for Qaddafi over Sadr’s disappearance.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The Chabadist Dershowitz Joins WikiLeaks’ U.S. Defense Team


Defense Counsel: Alan Dershowitz (left) will join in the legal defense of WikiLeaks, the website led by Julian Assange (right).
Getty Images
Defense Counsel: Alan Dershowitz (left) will join in the legal defense of WikiLeaks, the website led by Julian Assange (right).

Its important to remember the strong relationship between Dershowitz and the Jewish supremacist fanatic group Chabad. Dershowitz announced :

Chabad’s presence on campuses today is crucial…We cannot rest until there is at least one Chabad shliach on every major college campus in the world


The son of a TERRORIST who was a specialized bus-bomber becomes a Mayor of Chicago

Chicago’s New First Family: Rahm Emanuel celebrates with his wife  (far right), children and supporters after his win February 22, which  will make him the first Jewish mayor of the Windy City.

Samir Kuntar: Regional Uprisings.. Thanks to Resistance in Lebanon and Palestine


Dean of liberated detainees from Israeli prisons, Samir Kuntar stressed recent events in the region were the results of the achievements of the resistance movements in Lebanon and Palestine. Kuntar was speaking to Al-Manar’s Website during the signing ceremony of his book “My Story” in Beirut on Friday.

“Events in the Region didn’t only relate to economic conditions, but also resulted from a series of achievements by the resistance in Lebanon and Palestine; as well as from “the stance of reluctance maintained by Syria over the past years,” Kuntar told the Website.

He added that the “Egyptians, for instance, had suffered from a hard economic situation during late leader Abdul Nasser’s rule, however they refused that he resigns.” Asked about recent uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, Kuntar called on revolutionists not to let history go backwards.

On the Egyptian revolution, kuntar emphasized Egyptians should reconsider the Camp David agreement which led Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to pay heavy prices.

“The Camp David Agreement led to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and inflicted heavy losses in Syrian army ranks; the Palestinian people became under siege amid difficult living conditions; numerous Lebanese areas were completely destroyed and thousands of people fell martyrs. The Egyptians should work promptly to relieve us of the burden of the Camp David Agreement,” Kuntar stressed.

Referring to the Tunisian people, kuntar said they were major element of Arab interdependence, to embrace the Palestinian uprising and stand by it.

However, “the revolution’s leadership was not worthy of the Tunisians who must be clear and decisive about its movement. Tunis should be the basis and the goal. The Tunisians should protect the Arab path and rights, especially the Palestinian cause,” he stated.

Kuntar expressed belief that Moammar Gaddafi will be toppled eventually and will pay for his crimes. “Accomplishing this might take a longer time than it took the Egyptians to topple Hosni Mubarak because Gaddafi – the tyrant – has nothing to lose, after he lost his money and power.”

Saudi Arabia
Kuntar said that recent reforms in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia were superficial and short-term ones. “This is not about salaries; there is a strong link between the political reality and the economic situation. Protection should be provided for a people through safeguarding it from economic violations and consolidating this sector so as not to be dependent on the World Bank and Western countries.”

“This requires an interrelated stance on the nation’s causes and supporting the major one, i.e. the Palestinian cause,” he emphasized.

Galilee Equation
On the equation of liberating occupied Galilee declared by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Nasrallah two weeks ago, Kuntar said he strongly believed that “when Sayyed Nasrallah speaks about a certain equation, it means that it is certainly ready for execution, not just a plan.”

Pointing out to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s weak response to Sayyed Nasrallah’s declaration, Kuntar said: “Let him try and we will see. Sharon said in past that he (Sayyed Nasrallah) will never be able to capture any Israeli soldiers, but he (Sayyed Nasrallah) did. When I was in prison, he (Sharon) said that Samir will not get out, but I’m here now,” the released detainee said with a laugh.

Samir Kuntar was known as the dean of liberated prisonersfor spending more than 30 years in the Israeli jails. He was liberated in 2007, after long indirect negotiations with the Israeli entity following the July 2006 war on Lebanon.

Source: Website Team

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The wrong-dictator, the hanged-dictator and the forgiven-dictator


Frustrated Arab’s Diary
Some clowns are never funny !!

Tony Blair ( and G.W. Bush)
told us that Saddam Hussein has had
“Weapons of Mass Destruction”
 and then ,five years later, Colonel Qaddafi
got rid of his own factory of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
(which he has bought from the same UK and US)
and then ,10 years later now ,
we still did not see the Weapons of Saddam !!

In the meantime ,
Tony Blair and G.W. Bush
have hanged Saddam Hussein
and five months later
Tony went to Libya and kissed Colonel Qaddafi
and has spent the night in his tent…………
( I do not know whether together , or not )

Tonight we find out
that the so-called-Dictator did not reside in Baghdad
and that Blair and Bush  have hanged the wrong man…….
and that Blair and Bush have offered an amnesty
to the wrong-but-real-dictator.

The difference was that,  the hanged-so-called-dictator
did send his rockets once on the State of Zion
while the forgiven-but-real-dictators never did !!

Wait until Blair and Bush hear that Qaddafi has had
a Jewish-mother.……………!!
(They might, then, even send a Sub-marine to save him)

Sherlock Hommos

investigator in matters of dictatorology

Posted by Tlaxcala at 5:46 PM

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

The myth of Jewish refugees from the Arab world


[ 26/02/2011 – 09:17 AM ]

By Khalid Amayreh

Uprooted Palestinians

In a desperate effort aimed at obliterating and liquidating the Palestinian refugees’ plight, which is actually the heart and essence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Israeli and Zionist propagandist have been speaking of a paralleled Jewish refugee problem.

The mouthpieces of lie shamelessly speak of hundreds of thousands of Jewish “refugees” who we are told were forced to leave the Arab world after the creation of the evil entity called Israel.

Obviously, the logic behind the dissemination of these brash lies is to create an impression that the Palestinian refugee problem had an equivalent and symmetrical Jewish refugee problem. Eventually, the Zionist liars would want to convince us that the Jewish refugee problem invalidates any special legitimacy attached to the enduring Palestinian refugee cause.

Jews of Iraq
These claims, of course, are nothing but contemptible lies and distortion of history.
After all, the arrival of the “Arab Jews” in Israel was meticulously planned, plotted, induced, expedited and carried out by Zionist circles, including the Israeli intelligence services.
In some cases, hefty bribes were paid to certain Arab government officials to agree to allow their Jews to leave for Israel. In other countries, like in Iraq, Zionist agents employed terrorism to foster an atmosphere of fear among Jews in order to force them into leaving.

Synagogues were bombed and threats were made in order to communicate the message to Jews, that “your safety is at stake and that you have to leave before it is too late.”

“I am not saying that relations between Jews in Arab countries and their Arab compatriots were exemplary, especially after the creation of the racist entity.” However, it is historically established that many if not most of the rumors about “impending pogroms” and other acts of discrimination against Jews were purposeful propaganda originating in Israeli intelligence circles.

Naeim Giladi, an elderly Iraqi Jew living in New York, described rather vividly how Israeli agents orchestrated a deliberate campaign of intimidation aimed at forcing Iraqi Jews to leave their ancestral country. He also described in meticulous details the humiliating and sub-human treatment Jews from the Middle East received at the hands of the Ashkenazi authorities once they were brought into Israel.

In addition, the “ingathering” of Jews from all over the world was and still is the ultimate goal of Zionism. In other words, the ingathering of Jews was more than just a desired goal of Zionism; it was a monomaniacal obsession that nothing was allowed to stand in its way. If so, how can these paragons of lie speak of hundreds of thousands of poor Jewish refugees uprooted from their homes in the Arab world? That is more than just a scandalous distortion of historical facts; this is tantamount to fornicating with the facts of history.

In the final analysis, there can be no equation between a deliberate, premeditated ethnic cleansing of an entire people from their historical homeland, in which wide-scale massacres, such as Dir Yasin, were committed, and the planned and nearly orderly evacuation of Arab Jews to Israel in order to fulfill Zionism?

Of course, we are dealing with sick and depraved people who are not prone to logic or reason since they are bereft of honesty, a word that doesn’t exist in the lexicon of Zionism.

It is this depravity and sickness of the mind that make Zionist circles instruct some Jews in some Western countries, such as France, US, Britain, and Canada, to scrawl anti-Semitic graffiti in places with Jewish concentrations in order to intimidate Jews and get them to emigrate to Israel in order to steal Palestinian homes and land.

For them, everything, including truth, must be sacrificed for the sake of Zionism and Israel. This is why, their depravity is limitless and mendacity knows no bounds.

Indeed, trying to equate the violent extirpation of the bulk of the Palestinian people from their ancestral land on the one hand, and the carefully-planned evacuation of Arab Jews in order to effect and fulfill Zionism, on the other, is very much tantamount to trying to equate marriage and rape, or between willful emigration and expulsion.

Hence, Zionist efforts to concoct a Jewish refugee problem to counter the Palestinian refugee plight should be dismissed with the contempt it deserves.

More to the point, the so-called Jewish refugees were eventually transformed into willing or unwilling thieves. They were housed in houses whose proprietors still carried their keys, hoping to return home sooner than later.

They were made to “possess” gardens, fields, orchards and plots of land that belonged to another people. Even petty possessions, such as furniture and livestock, which had belonged to Palestinian refugees, were arrogated by these so-called Jewish refugees.

The fact that these Jews maintained and sought to perpetuate this state of theft in no way implies that legitimacy has been gained. A theft remains a theft even after the passage of 62 years.

“I don’t deny that Jews left homes and businesses and other property back in the Arab world. However, emigrants who have left property in their former countries have no right whatsoever to compensate for their abandoned or lost property by stealing or arrogating another people’s property in their new adopted country. That is both illegal and immoral. It is also criminal, pure and simple.”

None the less, complete justice ought to be given to both Palestinian refugees and Jews who had left possessions and property back in their countries of origin.

The Palestinians must be allowed to return home and be compensated and Jews, if they so wish, should likewise be allowed repatriation and compensation.

In fact, repatriation and indemnification are both established by the UN General Assembly in the famous resolution 194. So there should be no argument about other legal factors inhibiting the implementation of the Palestinian right of return.

As to Arab Jews and their descendants, they should have the courage to demand repatriation and compensation instead of perpetuating the theft of land and property that belong not to them.

In any case, such a decision would require a high degree of rectitude and moral commitment. This is why it is unlikely that it will ever see the light of the day willingly.

But that decision would have to be taken Willy nilly, even under duress. History is a great leveler.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

Finkelstein and Canadian Jewish Lobby


Posted on February 26, 2011 by rehmat1|

 The Canadians For Justice And Peace In The Middle East had recently invited world-renowned Jewish academic, author and anti-Zionist, Dr. Norman Finkelstein to deliver lectures in several cities in Ontario. As expected, Dr. Finkelstein’s lecture tour faced the wrath of the pro-Israel lobby groups. His lecture at the Mohawk College was canceled under pressure from the Jewish groups and had to be moved to a Hamilton church on February 19, 2011.

On February 17, 2011 – Dr. Finkelstein spoke at Kitchner’s Trinity United Church. In his speech Dr. Finkelstein covered topics ranging from the 2000 and 2006 Israeli wars in Lebanon and their resulting defeats at the hands of Hezbollah, the 2008 22 day massacre in Gaza, the summer 2010 Freedom Flotilla raid, the potential coming third war with Lebanon and the consequences, for Israel, of the recent revolts shaking the Arab World, particularly Egypt. This was Dr. Finkelstein’s first visit to Kitchner-Waterloo since 2003 when he faced the Jewish hacklers at the Campus (watch a video of that event below).

Dr. Finkelstein believes that though the current protests in the Middle East are providing Arabs to breathe fresh air of dignity but they have not materialized into revolutions as yet. . He cautioned the anti-government protesters to beware of western imperialist intentions of hijacking the current turmoil to install more pro-western regimes.

“Israel’s perennial strategy has been to create fear among the Arab people. Israel’s strategy is now threatened, Finkelstein said – not because a democratic Egypt would rescind its 1979 peace treaty or because the Arabs would attack Israel.  No – Egypt was satisfied to get the Sinai back, so it will not initiate a war. What threatens Israel is that the fear factor is no longer there,” said Dr. Finkelstein.

“In May 2000 Hezbollah successfully evicted the Israeli forces occupying southern Lebanon.  As a result, Israel feared that its “deterrence capacity” – its ability to instill fear – had been compromised. So it started planning the next round of engagement with Hezbollah. The pretext for a re-engagement with Hezbollah came in the summer of 2006.  Israel then unleashed 34 days of massive destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure and killed 1200 people,” said Finkelstein.

In order to boost the morale of a defeated Jewish army, Tel Aviv started a new wave of terror (Operation Cast Lead) against the 1.5 million Palestinian traped inside tiny Gaza Strip, Finkelstein believes.
Thomas Walkom, a columnist with Canadian daily Toronto Star wrote about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s fixation on Israel on February 19, 2011 – that his government insists being more Israeli than Israelis themselves.

“It’s worth noting that the Canadian Jewish Congress, which is second to none in attacking anti-Semitism, did not complain to Mohawk. Bernie Farber, the Congress’ chief executive, confirmed that to me this week,” wrote Thomas Walkom.

Dr. Norman Finkelstein (born 1953) is considered an authority on Holocaust and Jewish occupation of Palestine. He received PhD in political science from Princeton University and taught at DePaul University till 2007 when he was forced to leave the campus under pro-Israel Jewish academic lead by Dr. Alan Dershwitz. Both his father Zacharias Finkelstein and mother Maryla Husyt were survivors of Warsaw ghetto. Both of them died in 1995.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

TIM KING : Under the Spell of Israel


Irgun, the army of Rahm Emanuel’s father, is short for Irgun Zvai Leumi-
“National Military Organization” in Hebrew, was a terrorist Zionist
group that operated in Palestine, killing innocent Palestinians
and British soldiers; blowing up buildings
– 26. Feb, 2011
As Israel carries out their illegal US funded attacks on civilian populations in Gaza, we look back at the origin of Israel, which is rooted in violence and racism; and the video, Who Were the First Terrorists in the Middle East?

By Tim King — Salem-News Oregon

When Gilad Atzmon sent this video across from London today I watched it and shook my head. For me the information isn’t all new but it is enlightening and equally suited for those of us in the know as well as people who are just opening their eyes to Israel’s insane, cruel and needless pattern of violence and cruelty and massive war crimes.

The west has been under a spell for decades, dismissing the real history, meaning and implications of Israel; blindly accepting and funding and protecting what truly is a rogue government without question or delay.

Israel, most unfortunately, is guided by a philosophy that they are more entitled. Israel’s approach to resolving real and perceived problems, as I have written before, is similar to gangland mentality where the biggest guns and sharpest knives, are used to decide the outcome of a situation.

Fortunately, everyone in Israel doesn’t believe in ‘Zionism’; the concept that Jewish people are allowed to take land from other human beings because ‘God gave it to them’.

This philosophy burdens not just Muslim and Christian people who live in occupied Palestine, but also Israeli citizens who speak out against the politicized, violent version of Judaism that Israel represents.

Today Israel is defined by its acts of state sponsored terrorism. As this video reveals, the story dates back to Israel’s very first days.

Mayor elect of Chicago!

We revealed in a recent report; Rahm Emanuel’s Father Specialized in Bus Bombings in Palestine Wayne Madsen Special to, that Benjamin Emanuel, father of Chicago’s newly elected mayor, Rahm Emanuel, was a Jewish terrorist who specialized in the bombings of buses carrying British troops and policemen during the British Mandate in Palestine.
Things are often not how they seem, and as Egypt’s quest for Revolutionary freedom glows, we receive word that an Israeli bomb has just injured 15 people in Gaza.
Israel is such a terrible player in the world political arena; they are deadly and murderous and prejudice and they cross national borders to conduct military action with impudence; as if beyond reproach.

This is the same group that has been killing the people of Palestine in a cold blooded manner for over sixty years. They must be stopped.

We do wonder if the Israelis are targeting our friends in Gaza who are in the ground putting the news out in real time; people like Ken O’Keefe, our writer who Israel branded a ‘terrorist’ after the deadly incident involving the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara which was attacked by Israel in the dark with murderous intent.

Nine men were killed, one was American, they were all unarmed.

Ken O’Keefe and others overpowered Israeli commandos and disarmed them, taking them captive. To what end? Ken and the other unarmed peace activists protected the captured Israeli soldiers and gave them medical attention. Then they were released.

If only Israel played the same way. I am so sick and tired of hearing Muslim people referred to as terrorists when no place in modern history can even slightly compete with Israel’s record number of terrorism events.

This video shows how from the beginning, Israel has only represented death and violence to the world. Nobody denies the fact that Jewish people suffered during the Holocaust, but anyone who accepts their current behavior certainly should equally agree with Hitler’s quest, at least in concept.

There is no race or culture that is entitled to more than another. The world should not be governed by religious concepts or hate.

Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, this Los Angeles native serves as’s Executive News Editor. As News Editor, Tim among other things, is responsible for publishing the original content of 76 writers. He reminds viewers that emails are easily missed and urges those trying to reach him, to please send a second email if the first goes unanswered. You can send Tim an email at this address:

A Tea Party Homage to Zion



Book Review: Underdogma, by Michael Prell
Publisher: BenBella Books

By Richard Edmondson

Negative portrayals of Palestinians in U.S. media are certainly not new. The usual stereotype is that of a violent terrorist eager to shed the blood of innocents, and the word “Hamas” has been oxygenated so often its mere pronunciation now carries sinister overtones in polite company.
But would Americans be prepared to go even further, to believe, for instance, that Palestinians are racists who view those of other cultures as “descendants of monkeys and pigs”? Would they accept that Palestinians are backward, uncivilized fanatics who approve of stoning women or executing people who are gay? In such terms are Palestinians depicted in Underdogma, the newly-released book by Michael Prell, who says the tendency by Westerners in general, and particularly Americans, to sympathize with underdogs—a “reflexive” impulse he refers to as “underdogma”—spells dire implications for the future of civilization.
Underdogmatists are taking every opportunity to heap scorn on American power and to give America’s power away. American Underdogmatists—from the White House to the media to the angry hordes with “pitchforks” whose rage they kindle and stoke—are vilifying American exceptionalism. They are also attacking the American dream by demonizing wealth and those who have achieved positions of power. On campuses and in cities across the nation, American Underdogmatists regularly take to the streets to protest against American power, while championing and exalting America’s power-hungry enemies.”
Prell claims membership in the Tea Party Patriots, one of the larger organizations in the overall Tea Party umbrella movement that has sprouted up over the political landscape in the last few years. His book has won praise from such public figures as Rep. Michelle Bachmann, chair of the Tea Party Congressional Caucus (upon its formation last summer, this House caucus immediately endorsed an Israeli military attack on Iran), as well as Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin, who calls Underdogma “the first great Tea Party book.” It has also been acclaimed by prominent neo-conservatives such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy.
The Tea Party of the 21st century is of course quite a bit different from the one that took place in Boston in 1773, comprised of underdogs, whose act of defiance was aimed at a world power (Great Britain) as well as a monopolistic global corporation (the East India Tea Company). To claim to evoke that spirit while at the same time heaping scorn upon modern-day underdogs and those who support them would seem to be a difficult if not impossible task, but Prell, as we are informed by his publisher’s website, runs a successful marketing and publicity firm and is also a past winner of the Pollie Award, an accolade handed out each year to political consultants and which is described as “the Academy Award of political advertising.” And indeed, one gets the feeling Prell is quite skilled at his craft. Underdogma seems designed almost as much as a public relations offensive as a book. Certain themes are iterated with a repetition so manifold, through its 314 pages, that it strikes one as similar to the regularity of commercial messages in an advertising campaign. We are also informed, perhaps not surprisingly given the book’s begriming of Palestinian mores and culture, that Prell assisted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the latter’s 2009 political campaign.
In elucidating his argument, the author provides a formal, two-part definition for the term “underdogma”: it is the belief that 1 )those who have less power are virtuous and noble, because they have less power; and 2 ) those who have more power are to be scorned—because they have more power.
Underdogma is not simply standing up for “the little guy,” but reflexively standing up for the little guy and assigning him nobility and virtue—because he has less power. My friend Rabbi Shmuley Boteach calls this first part of Underdogma the “Always Root for the Underdog school of morality [which] sides with the weaker party, however wicked or immoral.” The second part of Underdogma states that those who have more power (overdogs) are to be reflexively scorned—because they have more power. Ayn Rand called this second part of Underdogma “hatred of the good for being good.”
We might pause here and wonder, if Prell is correct and there is such a thing as “underdogma,” would we not find its correlative in “overdogma”—the belief that those who have more power are virtuous and noble because they have more power…etc… and would Prell and some of the people he quotes perhaps not be votaries of the latter outlook? Nowhere in his book does the author consider this possibility, but we do find him pointing to concrete examples of persons or groups of persons deemed by he as “underdogmatists.” This would include those who took part in the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the 1960s (where ‘underdogma’ got its start, he says), a Christian group which opposed the war in Iraq, conspiracy theorists, and anyone who would reflexively blame “big banks” or Wall Street “Fat Cats” for the global financial crisis. He also cites the United Nations as an example of “institutionalized Underdogma,” and he even quotes the words of Jesus (that “it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”), although Christ, he says, was not a full-fledged underdogmatist, but only one who “came close to articulating Underdogma by blessing the meek and declaring them inheritors of the Earth.”
But of course at present the world’s premiere underdogs (to employ an oxymoron) are the Palestinian people, a fact inasmuch acknowledged by Prell when he refers to the Palestine-Israel conflict as “‘Ground Zero’ for Underdogma.” Moreover, the author seems to find little about Palestinian society to admire, and much to deplore, including, as he describes it, a rather shocking level of racism. Palestinians, he says, are not only given to inciting violence but also possess the odious characteristic of viewing people from other cultures as “descendants of monkeys and pigs.” This accusation is made on page 35 and repeated on page 284, although in the second instance the indictment is tied to “radical Islamists” rather than Palestinians per se. From what source does the author derive his views on this alleged racism? It seems to be based almost wholly or entirely on a single quote, which he attributes to “Ikrime Sabri, Mufti of the Palestinian authority.” The reference note the author supplies, containing, ostensibly, an extended version of the quote from Sabri, in all its particulars, reads as follows:
“O Allah, destroy America as it is controlled by Zionist Jews…Allah will avenge, in the name of His Prophet, the colonialist settlers who are the descendents (sic) of monkeys and pigs.” Ikrime Sabri, Mufti of the Palestinian Authority, Voice of Palestine, July 11, 1997
A web search turns up the same quote, attributed to Sabri and bearing the identical date and source, on a number of Islamophobic web sites. However a Wikipedia article on “Ekrima Sa’id Sabri,” identified as having served as Mufti of Jerusalem from 1994-2006 and who is presumably the same individual, makes no mention of the quote, even though much of Wikipedia’s article seems derived from MEMRI, a pro-Israel research group.
Such racial views being ascribed to an entire people—based upon one man’s alleged comment—would seem an exercise in irresponsibility, if not outright malice, but in a text table beginning on page 35, Prell declares that Palestinians “incite hatred of, and violence toward, other cultures, calling them ‘descendents (sic) of monkeys and pigs,’” while adding that “91% of university-aged Palestinians deny Israel’s right to exist.” (The world might of course be waiting for Israel to acknowledge Palestine’s “right to exist” but that’s probably beside the point.) And the author doesn’t leave it at that. Palestinians, we are told, also “torture and kill homosexuals” as well as stone or execute women who have been raped or committed adultery, themes which are repeated in slightly different form and with slightly different wording numerous times in the book:
p. 36: “…women are sometimes stoned to death…” “…outlaw and execute homosexuals…”
p. 38: “…Palestinians torture and kill homosexuals and women…”
p. 42: “…stone to death their own women for the ‘dishonor’ of being raped…”
p. 43: “…kill those same Palestinian women for the ‘dishonor’ of being raped…”
p. 44: “…homosexual and rape-victim-killing Palestinians…”
p. 52: “…outlaw and murder ‘queers…’”
p. 53: “…gay-killing…”
Sometimes Prell substitutes “radical Islamists” or “radical Islam” for Palestinians, such as on p. 56, where we read: “…executes homosexuals in town squares…” But as I mentioned above, there is a certain repetition to it all, not unlike commercials in an advertising campaign, much as if the author were trying to program the information into his readers’ brains—and occasionally all the themes are even melded together into one tightly-packed recitation: “What was it about intolerant, violent, misogynist, homosexual-killing, fundamentalist, sexually repressive Palestinians that inspires such feelings of solidarity among tolerant, peaceful, egalitarian, open-minded, largely secular, and free-spirited Western university students?” he asks on p. 37. The answer to the question, of course, is “underdogma”—an ingrained tendency that “bypasses rational thought and is immune from facts.”
Though not quite to the extent that Palestinians do, President Obama also comes in for some heavy-duty criticism in this book. Prell quotes a line from Obama’s, The Audacity of Hope, specifically, “I am angry about policies that constantly favor the wealthy and powerful,” along with other presidential utterances made elsewhere, from all of which we are to conclude that the Commander in Chief of the United States is not only an Underdogmatist but a quite radical and dangerous one at that. And here we come to a neck of the woods in which Underdogma provides a useful service and could even be deemed “worth reading,” for what the book offers us is a look at how Obama is perceived—not how he is in reality, but how he is perceived—by America’s political Right. For the author of Underdogma, Obama has committed the sin of “bowing down to less powerful world leaders,” but Prell doesn’t exactly do a splendid job of making his case for this. Here are some of the Obama quotes he supplies as evidence of this alleged servility:
“In America, there’s a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world.” (Obama speech made April 3, 2009, in Strasbourg, France)
“I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior in our relations.” (address at a summit of Latin American and Caribbean nations later that same month)
“No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” (speech at the United Nations, September 23, 2009)
Is it really possible to construe the above quotes as “bowing down”? Well, it might be if you were convinced of “American exceptionalism,” or that as an exceptional nation America has the inherent right to dominate other countries and to intervene in their affairs as it sees fit. Prell, we learn, is a firm believer in American exceptionalism:
By all objective measures, the United States of America is the greatest, noblest, most honorable and charitable nation in world history. It is a beacon of freedom and opportunity to oppressed people around the world. “America is indeed exceptional by any plausible definition of the term and actually has grown increasingly exceptional over time.” America is powerful. Some say America is a hegemon. But even those who decry hegemony of any kind must agree that, as far as hegemons go, the United States of America is “as benign a hegemon as the world has ever seen.”
Here in the U.S. we find a curious pattern, one might even call it an unwritten rule, prevailing amongst our mainstream media. Pundits across the spectrum, from print to broadcast, from Democrat to Republican, freely criticize our elected leaders, including the president, and often dish out biting analyses of policies put in place by Washington. Most Americans believe this is because we have a free and independent media, largely due to the “freedom of the press” safeguard written into the First Amendment to the Constitution, but it’s a mistaken belief, for there are two things that seldom if ever are cut down or disparaged in any way, two things hardly ever spoken of in any but the most hushed and reverent tones: 1 ) Israel, and 2 ) any of Israel’s leaders. An irony to be sure—that correspondents and analysts are free to criticize their own leaders, but not those of another country—but such is the case. Prell of course, in keeping with this pattern of behavior, offers no criticism whatever of Israel or any of its leaders. They are apparently faultless.
Had Prell or his publisher, BenBella Books, have generated a book attributing to Jews, or Israelis, such traits or characteristics as they have conferred upon Palestinians, how would it have been received? Such a book could easily have been produced. A number of Israeli rabbis have made blatantly racist and dehumanizing comments, and one does not have to look too far to find examples of this. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, for instance, spiritual leader of the Israeli Shas Party, has compared Gentiles to donkeys , while many Israeli rabbis have come out in support of a book called The King’s Torah, written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, which asserts that it is acceptable to kill non-Jewish babies “if it is clear they will grow up to harm us.” But do we deduce from the ramblings of a few disturbed men that all Jews feel the same way? This is what Prell seems to do with the Palestinians. Shapira’s book, by the way, has been described as a rabbinical guidebook for killing non-Jews. But this is not the type of information you’ll find in Underdogma.
So how, then, does Israel fare in the pages of Prell’s book? How is the Jewish state portrayed? By and large as a tolerant nation (the author mentions the country’s annual Gay Pride parade), where justice is valued, where security forces are careful to avoid civilian casualties, a land whose people “apologize for the deaths of innocents and investigate what went wrong.” But the author’s focus overall seems less on elevating or extoling Israel than upon denigrating Israel’s enemies. Thus while Israelis may “apologize for the deaths of innocents,” Palestinians on the other hand, he informs us, “celebrate” such deaths and call them “heroic.” And in denigrating Israel’s enemies in such a manner, the author, by extension, transforms them into America’s enemies as well.
The Tea Party Patriots website endorses the book as “recommended reading,” proclaiming that, “Underdogma was written by one of us—a fellow Tea Party Patriot who has been volunteering behind the scenes and helping us for a long time.” The site also supplies a link, to the BenBella Books website, along with the appeal that if you purchase the book there, directly from the publisher, “the author will donate 100% of his royalties to the Tea Party Patriots!!!”—and as mentioned above, TPP co-founder and national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin has hailed Underdogma as “the first great Tea Party book.”
Aside from book royalties, how does the TPP get its funding? “All money we have raised has come in the form of donations of varying size from concerned average Americans,” says the organization’s website on its about us page. Apparently, despite the economic downturn, the donations have been robust. A feature story on Martin, published May 9, 2010 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, mentions that the TPP leader “draws a monthly salary of about $6,000”—a respectable enough rebound considering the failure of her husband’s business and his consequent filing for bankruptcy in 2008 “with tax debts alone of more than $680,000.” The TPP is also holding an “American Policy Summit” this weekend, Feb. 25-27, 2011, in Phoenix, Arizona, with more than 20 confirmed speakers as of this writing. The summit is to be held at the Phoenix Convention Center, which in the past several years has undergone a multi-phased, $600 million expansion and is now regarded as one of the top 20 convention venues in North America. The speaker list includes John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, former Minnesota Governor Tom Pawlenty, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, Ernest Istook of the Heritage Foundation, political consultant and former Clinton advisor Dick Morris, Fox News commentator Herman Cain, conservative website publisher Andrew Breitbart, among others—and of course Martin herself. Click here to view a promo video of the event.
One other aspect of Underdogma that bears mentioning is the author’s treatment of the global financial crisis—a crisis, he says, which underdogma played a role in creating and which underdogmatists have exploited in an effort to “reorder the balance of power in America.” The financial straits in which Americans, and much of the rest of the world, now find themselves came about, at least in part, because politicians, “under the guise of standing up for the little guy (and against the big, greedy banks),” says Prell, passed laws forcing financial institutions to issue loans to unqualified borrowers, resulting in millions of people defaulting on home mortgages. He is especially critical of government sponsored enterprises such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in which the government backed (either in reality, as Prell maintains, or only “implicitly” as is argued here) mortgage loans in the event of homeowner default. “Duplicitous mortgage brokers” were then set to make “pots of money” selling mortgages to those without the means of repaying them, thus creating a house of cards with no stable foundation. According to Prell, when we assign responsibility for the inevitable collapse of that house of cards, we should divvy it out in the following order: 1 ) the homeowners who failed to pay off their mortgages, and 2 ) the “underdogmatist” politicians who passed laws making it necessary for financial institutions to issue these loans to ineligible borrowers.
If “champion of the underdog” politicians and governments had simply stayed out of the mortgage business and had not artificially removed risk from the system, opportunists—from borrowers to bankers to subprime lenders to Wall Street investors—would not have taken advantage of the system the way they did, because there would have been consequences to their actions.
It would perhaps come as news to millions of America’s poor that they have such powerful champions in Washington. I am not an economist and certainly am not going to try and provide an analysis of the global financial crisis here. However I would make the rather self-evident observation that big money exerts enormous influence over the American political system in the form of campaign donations to candidates, including, of course, donations from the banking industry. According to, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., UBS AG, and Morgan Stanley—all heavy hitters in the banking and financial services industry—were all among the top 20 contributors to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. If “underdogmatist” politicians like Obama keep enacting laws they disapprove of, then why do bankers such as these keep contributing to their campaigns? An “overdogmatist” (such as Prell perhaps?) might suggest it’s out of virtue, generosity, and public-spiritedness, with no expectations on the bankers’ part of ever getting anything in return. But is that how things really work in Washington? (Click here, here, and here, for bankers expressing support and approval for Obama’s policies) Obama’s top 20 contributors perhaps did not get every single thing they wished for, but they must have gotten something. It would be naïve to believe otherwise, but a lot of Tea Party rhetoric we hear nowadays seems to tap into a rather large reservoir of public naivety.
Underdogma’s subtitle is “How America’s Enemies Use Our Love for the Underdog to Trash American Power,” and according to Prell, this trashing is pervasive. But where does this societal phenomenon come from and why is it so widespread among the American populace? The author offers a theory on that, and on its face it sounds plausible:
Regardless of where we grew up or how we were raised, each of us has a tangible, personal understanding of what it feels like to be a small and powerless underdog surrounded by those who have more power. We begin life tiny and helpless, at the mercy of those who are bigger and more powerful than us; parents and guardians who tell us what to eat, what to wear, how to behave—even when to sleep and when to wake up. Then we encounter school teachers and professors who work us, test us, and assign grades to us that could shape the future directions of our lives. After school, we emerge into the workforce, where we face new Goliaths: bosses and supervisors who interview us, hire us, set our incomes, and hold the power to promote or fire us.
But does this really explain the public’s growing disgust with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, with the blockade of Gaza, or with the use of chemical weapons like white phosphorous in the commission of war crimes? Does it explain the resentment Americans feel at allocating public money to bail out bankers, who then turn around and give themselves extravagant pay bonuses? And does it explain the undue influence wielded by the wealthiest ten percent of the population, their ability to literally buy politicians, to control the media—and the outrage felt by the remaining 90 percent who see rampant corporate crime with a government not only doing little or nothing about it but presiding over a ‘revolving door’ through which the same people move from private industry into jobs as government regulators and back again? What the author seems to have overlooked is that the most powerful people in the world do not and did not, by and large, attain their stations in life through acts of kindness, benevolence, and ethicality. Where there is smoke there is fire, and where large numbers of people despise powerful institutions and individuals, there often is good reason for it. Prell should take a tip from the writer of the book of Ephesians: “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Eph. 6:12)
Underdogma hit the bookstore shelves in late January/early February just as millions of people across North Africa and the Middle East were rising up against corrupt dictators (a configuration of events Prell and his publisher probably didn’t count on), some of whom had been in power 30 years or more. The fact that these uprisings have been cheered and applauded the world over would perhaps lend credence to the author’s theory that people do indeed support underdogs. But how do we look at figures like Hosni Mubarak through the lens of what Prell writes in this book? How does Mubarak, a tyrant who enjoyed America’s support year in and year out for three decades (years spent imprisoning, torturing, and killing his own people) square off with Prell’s view of America as a gracious and noble hegemon? In what way does preserving a peace treaty with Israel outweigh in importance the Egyptian blood that flowed in those 30 years? What Prell fails to consider is that the dislike for America, presently widespread throughout the world, might have something to do with hypocrisy and the fact that America’s leaders pay lip service to democracy while propping up dictators; that it might have something to do with torturing people, with invading other lands under transparently false pretexts, something America has done not just once but repeatedly. How does Prell reconcile all of this—loathing for America, and its policies, grounded in very real, very understandable reasons—with his complaints about “underdogmatists” and the harm they are allegedly doing the country? We don’t know. He doesn’t address it. But the fact of the matter is this: people may hate a dictator, but their contempt for a hypocrite is in some respects even deeper, more rooted in the gut. In the era of Internet and social networking websites, with discontented people all over the world plugged in, America’s leaders are likely to find it increasingly difficult to camouflage their hypocrisy behind the obliging “iron curtain” of corporate media propaganda.
“My goal, in writing this book, is to stop Underdogmatists by lifting the veil of Underdogma, showing you the empathetic bridge they have built to our near-universal love for the underdog, and detonating that bridge so they can never again cross it to pick power from our pockets,” says Prell on the closing page of his book. But the question is not one of “picking pockets.” The question is whether powerful nations, and people who hold positions of power in those nations, ever commit acts of evil. Since Prell uses the words of Jesus to bolster his arguments, I will consider myself at liberty, here in closing, to do the same:
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
The above words, spoken by Christ during his so-called “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem prior to the crucifixion, are found in John 12:31. Were Christ an “overdogmatist,” he would of course welcome the prince of this world and regard him as virtuous and noble—because he has great power. Were Jesus an “underdogmatist,” on the other hand, he would, to be sure, scorn the prince of this world, but only because of his power, not for anything objectionable the Prince of this World might have done (for powerful people rarely, if ever, commit acts of evil, at least not if they’re Americans).
What we find, however, is Christ the realist, one who did not see Roman or Pharisaic “exceptionalism” everywhere he turned, but rather who looked at reality and saw it for what it is—that the powerful have immeasurably greater capacity for committing evil, and far too often the willingness to go with it, than do the weak. Prell says underdogma is “all around us.” I would encourage Americans, however, and particularly American Christians (of which I am one) not to be taken in by his amateurish sophistry.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian



February 24, 2011 posted by Gordon Duff ·

VIDEOGAZA IN PLAIN LANGUAGE-REVISITED By Joe Mowry and Tony Lawson (of Veterans Today)Foreword by Gordon Duff Senior Editor Veterans Today

Few Americans remember Operation Cast Lead.  Jews in America were told Israel had to finish off Hamas in order to protect itself.  We can’t get into exactly how fanciful and utterly false everything American Jews are told or even the childishly ignorant statements President Obama and Secretary Clinton make on a regular basis.  They make me cringe.  They should make all of us here in America ashamed, Jews and non-Jews alike.

Every TV show that presents Palestinians as terrorists is the same.  Wait for the credits.  The people who are responsible for the devastation and butchery that you will see in this video, made these television shows.  Israeli-Americans produce up to 400 TV shows each year with absurd racist depictions of Muslims, cartoonish propaganda meant to terrorize and mislead and cover their tracks.

American sponsors, automobile companies, soft drinks, sexual enhancement products finance this propaganda.  Everyone involved knows they are doing something wrong but they do it anyway.  We call this a “double standard.”  What it is, more accurately, is complicity in war crimes.

Former President George W. Bush can no longer travel outside the United States for fear of arrest nor can many members of his administration.  The reason is that they face arrest for war crimes.  Is Gaza about war crimes?  You decide.  Others have been talking but money and power drowns them out.  Those who speak out lose their jobs as with  Helen Thomas or become ill and die under mysterious circumstances.

Those who lie get stem cell treatments in Israel, their companies get fat contracts, their TV shows get huge sponsors, great time slots and can never be cancelled.  Their internet sights get top ratings from Google and are never hacked.

What Israel is doing, we are told from so many places today, not just the Middle East, but Europe, Canada, Australia, is “just like Hiter and the Nazis.”

Watch the video.  If it fits, then use it, but you decide.  What you will see is true.  Little else you see is true, this is true, this is fact, this is fair, this is balanced, this is honorable.

Watch this and start to be an American, “walk the walk.” Do something, don’t just talk, don’t just sit and complain and, especially, stop watching television and reading newspapers.  What kind of people actually pay money to be lied to?

Then ask questions, why are we hunting Osama bin Laden when he died in 2001.  Check on this please.  Even Fox News says 9/11 was an inside job.  Why isn’t there an investigation?  Who has the power to keep covering it up even when it managed, nearly a decade later, to get on mainstream news?  You didn’t see it?  It was there, just the same and is all over the internet.  Check the Jesse Ventura story as well.

All this means one more thing.  Not only is America supplying weapons that Israel uses to bomb a concentration camp where 800,000 people live behind barbed wire and machinegun towers, what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, what most Americans no longer believe is morally correct and was certainly never legal, is still going on and only a few people are standing up and saying “no.”

This is because Americans are fighting a war of aggression on behalf of the State of Israel.  Why is 9/11 being covered up, even after Fox News proved it was an “inside job?”

As former Soviet intelligence officer Dimitri Khalezov told me a few days ago:
“On September 12, 2001, I had breakfast with Mike Harari, Operations Chief of Israel’s Mossad.  Harari had his 16 year old son with him.  He asked me to pick up bottles of wine as it was a celebration of a successful operation.  That operation was 9/11.”

In 2007, the FBI flew a team to Bangkok to meet with Dimitri.  He says the privately admitted to knowing Israel’s role in 9/11.  Dimitri Khalezov has volunteered to take a lie detector test.  Fox News has an audio tape of Khalezov’s two hour debriefing on this.

Let us see if they have the courage to go this far.


DAVID SWANSON : Humanitarian War vs. Humanity


– 24. Feb, 2011

War would be the greatest evil on earth even if it cost no money, used up no resources, left no environmental damage, expanded rather than curtailed the rights of citizens back home, and even if it accomplished something worthwhile. Of course, none of those conditions are possible.

By David Swanson

The idea that wars are waged out of humanitarian concern may not at first appear even worthy of response. Wars kill humans. What can be humanitarian about that? But look at the sort of rhetoric that successfully sells new wars:
“This conflict started Aug. 2, when the dictator of Iraq invaded a small and helpless neighbor. Kuwait, a member of the Arab League and a member of the United Nations, was crushed, its people brutalized. Five months ago, Saddam Hussein started this cruel war against Kuwait; tonight, the battle has been joined.”

Thus spoke President Bush the Elder upon launching the Gulf War in 1991. He didn’t say he wanted to kill people. He said he wanted to liberate helpless victims from their oppressors, an idea that would be considered leftist in domestic politics, but an idea that seems to create genuine support for wars. And here’s President Clinton speaking about Yugoslavia eight years later:
“When I ordered our armed forces into combat, we had three clear goals: to enable the Kosovar people, the victims of some of the most vicious atrocities in Europe since the Second World War, to return to their homes with safety and self-government; to require Serbian forces responsible for those atrocities to leave Kosovo; and to deploy an international security force, with NATO at its core, to protect all the people of that troubled land, Serbs and Albanians alike.” Look also at the rhetoric that is used to successfully keep wars going for years:
“We will not abandon the Iraqi people.”
Secretary of State Colin Powell, August 13, 2003.
“The United States will not abandon Iraq.”
President George W. Bush, March, 21, 2006.

If I break into your house, smash the windows, bust up the furniture, and kill half your family, do I have a moral obligation to stay and spend the night? Would it be cruel and irresponsible for me to “abandon” you, even when you encourage me to leave? Or is it my duty, on the contrary, to depart immediately and turn myself in at the nearest police station? Once the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq had begun, a debate began that resembled this one. As you can see, these two approaches are many miles apart, despite both being framed as humanitarian. One says that we have to stay out of generosity, the other that we have to leave out of shame and respect. Which is right?

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly told President Bush “You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people. You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.” According to Bob Woodward, “Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.” Senator John Kerry cited the rule when running for president, and it was and is widely accepted as legitimate by Republican and Democratic politicians in Washington, D.C.

The Pottery Barn is a store that has no such rule, at least not for accidents. It’s illegal in many states in our country to have such a rule, except for cases of gross negligence and willful destruction. That description, of course, fits the invasion of Iraq to a T. The doctrine of “shock and awe,” of imposing such massive destruction that the enemy is paralyzed with fear and helplessness had long since been proven as hopeless and nonsensical as it sounds. It hadn’t worked in World War II or since. Americans parachuting into Japan following the nuclear bombs were not bowed down to; they were lynched. People have always fought back and always will, just as you probably would. But shock and awe is designed to include the complete destruction of infrastructure, communication, transportation, food production and supply, water supply, and so forth. In other words: the illegal imposition of great suffering on an entire population. If that’s not willful destruction, I don’t know what is.

The invasion of Iraq was also intended as a “decapitation,” a “regime change.” The dictator was removed from the scene, eventually captured, and later executed following a deeply flawed trial that avoided evidence of U.S. complicity in his crimes. Many Iraqis were delighted with the removal of Saddam Hussein, but quickly began to demand the withdrawal of the United States military from their country. Was this ingratitude? “Thank you for deposing our tyrant. Don’t let the doorknob hit you in the ass on your way out!” Hmm. That makes it sound as if the United States wanted to stay, and as if the Iraqis owed us the favor of letting us stay. That’s quite different from staying reluctantly to fulfill our moral duty of ownership. Which is it?


How does one manage to own people? It’s striking that Powell, an African American, some of whose ancestors were owned as slaves in Jamaica, told the president he would own people, dark skinned people against whom many Americans held some degree of prejudice. Powell was arguing against the invasion, or at least warning of what would be involved. But did owning people necessarily have to be involved? If the United States and its fig-leaf “coalition” of minor contingents from other nations had pulled out of Iraq when George W. Bush declared “mission accomplished” in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier in San Diego Harbor on May 1, 2003, and not disbanded the Iraqi military, and not laid siege to towns and neighborhoods, not inflamed ethnic tensions, not prevented Iraqis from working to repair the damage, and not driven millions of Iraqis out of their homes, then the result might not have been ideal, but it almost certainly would have involved less misery than what was actually done, following the pottery barn rule.

Or what if the United States had congratulated Iraq on its disarmament, of which the U.S. government was fully apprised? What if we had removed our military from the area, eliminated the no-fly zones, and ended the economic sanctions, the sanctions Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had been discussing in 1996 in this exchange on the television program 60 Minutes:

“LESLEY STAHL: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

ALBRIGHT: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”
Was it? So much was accomplished that a war was still needed in 2003? Those children couldn’t have been spared for seven more years and identical political results? What if the United States had worked with the demilitarized Iraq to encourage a demilitarized Middle East, including all its nations in a nuclear-free zone, encouraging Israel to dismantle its nuclear stockpile instead of encouraging Iran to try to acquire one? George W. Bush had lumped Iran, Iraq, and North Korea into “an axis of evil,” attacked unarmed Iraq, ignored nuclear-armed North Korea, and begun threatening Iran. If you were Iran, what would you have wanted?

What if the United States had provided economic aid to Iraq, Iran, and other nations in the region, and led an effort to provide them with (or at least lifted sanctions that are preventing the construction of) windmills, solar panels, and a sustainable energy infrastructure, thus bringing electricity to more rather than fewer people? Such a project could not possibly have cost anything like the trillions of dollars wasted on war between 2003 and 2010. For an additional relatively tiny expense, we could have created a major program of student exchange between Iraqi, Iranian, and U.S. schools. Nothing discourages war like bonds of friendship and family. Why wouldn’t such an approach have been at least as responsible and serious and moral as announcing our ownership of somebody else’s country just because we’d bombed it?

Part of the disagreement, I think, arises over a failure to imagine what the bombing looked like. If we think of it as a clean and harmless series of blips on a video game, during which “smart bombs” improve Baghdad by “surgically” removing its evildoers, then moving on to the next step of fulfilling our duties as the new landlords is easier. If, instead, we imagine the actual and horrific mass-murder and maiming of children and adults that went on when Baghdad was bombed, then our thoughts turn to apologies and reparations as our first priority, and we begin to question whether we have the right or the standing to behave as owners of what remains. In fact, smashing a pot at the Pottery Barn would result in our paying for the damage and apologizing, not overseeing the smashing of more pots.


Another major source of the disagreement between pro- and anti-potterybarners, I think, comes down to a powerful and insidious force known as racism.

Remember President McKinley’s proposing to govern the Philippines because the poor Filipinos couldn’t possibly do it themselves? William Howard Taft, the first American Governor-General of the Philippines, called the Filipinos “our little brown brothers.” In Vietnam, when the Vietcong appeared willing to sacrifice a great many of their lives without surrendering, that became evidence that they placed little value on life, which became evidence of their evil nature, which became grounds for killing even more of them.

If we set aside the pottery barn rule for a moment and think, instead, of the golden rule, we get a very different sort of guidance. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If another nation invaded our country, and the result was immediately chaos; if it was unclear what form of government, if any, would emerge; if the nation was in danger of breaking into pieces; if there might be civil war or anarchy; and if nothing was certain, what is the very first thing we would want the invading military to do? That’s right: get the hell out of our country! And in fact that’s what the majority of Iraqis in numerous polls have told the United States to do for years. George McGovern and William Polk wrote in 2006:
“Not surprisingly, most Iraqis think that the United States will never withdraw unless forced to do so. This feeling perhaps explains why a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll showed that eight out of every ten Iraqis regarded America not as a ‘liberator’ but as an occupier, and 88 percent of the Sunni Muslim Arabs favored violent attacks on American troops.”

Of course, those puppets and politicians benefitting from an occupation prefer to see it continue. But even within the puppet government, the Iraqi Parliament refused to approve the treaty that Presidents Bush and Maliki drew up in 2008 to extend the occupation for three years, unless the people were given a chance to vote it up or down in a referendum. That vote was later repeatedly denied precisely because everyone knew what the outcome would have been. Owning people out of the kindness of our hearts is one thing, I believe, but doing it against their will is quite another. And who has ever willfully chosen to be owned?


Is generosity really a motivator behind our wars, whether the launching of them or the prolonging of them? If a nation is generous toward other nations, it seems likely it would be so in more than one way. Yet, if you examine a list of nations ranked by the charity they give to others and a list of nations ranked by their military expenditures, there’s no correlation. In a list of the wealthiest two-dozen countries, ranked in terms of foreign giving, the United States is near the bottom, and a significant chunk of the “aid” we give to other countries is actually weaponry. If private giving is factored in with public giving, the United States moves only slightly higher in the list. If the money that recent immigrants send to their own families were included, the United States might move up a bit more, although that seems like a very different kind of giving.

When you look at the top nations in terms of military spending per- capita, none of the wealthy nations from Europe, Asia, or North America make it anywhere near the top of the list, with the single exception of the United States. Our country comes in eleventh, with the 10 nations above it in military spending per capita all from the Middle East, North Africa, or central Asia. Greece comes in 23rd, South Korea 36th, and the United Kingdom 42nd, with all other European and Asian nations further down the list. In addition, the United States is the top exporter of private arms sales, with Russia the only other country in the world that comes even remotely close to it.

More importantly, of the 22 major wealthy countries, most of which give more to foreign charity than do we in the United States, 20 haven’t started any wars in generations, if ever, and at most have taken small roles in U.S.-dominated war coalitions; one of the other two countries, South Korea, only engages in hostilities with North Korea with U.S. approval; and the last country, the United Kingdom, primarily follows the U.S. lead.

Civilizing the heathen was always viewed as a generous mission (except by the heathen). Manifest destiny was believed to be an expression of God’s love. According to anthropologist Clark Wissler, “when a group comes into a new solution to one of its important cultural problems, it becomes zealous to spread that idea abroad, and is moved to embark upon an era of conquest to force the recognition of its merits.” Spread? Spread? Where have we heard something about spreading an important solution? Oh, yes, I remember:

“And the second way to defeat the terrorists is to spread freedom. You see, the best way to defeat a society that is — doesn’t have hope, a society where people become so angry they’re willing to become suiciders, is to spread freedom, is to spread democracy.” — President George W. Bush, June 8, 2005.

This isn’t a stupid idea because Bush speaks hesitantly and invents the word “suiciders.” It’s a stupid idea because freedom and democracy cannot be imposed at gunpoint by a foreign force that thinks so little of the newly free people that it is willing to recklessly murder them. A democracy that is required beforehand to remain loyal to the United States is not a representative government, but rather some sort of strange hybrid with dictatorship. A democracy imposed in order to demonstrate to the world that our way is the best way is unlikely to create a government of, by, and for the people.

U.S. commander Stanley McChrystal described a planned but failed attempt to create a government in Marja, Afghanistan, in 2010; he said he would bring in a hand-picked puppet and a set of foreign handlers as “a government in a box.” Wouldn’t you want a foreign army to bring one of those to your town?

With 86 percent of Americans in a February 2010 CNN poll saying our own government is broken, do we have the know-how, never mind the authority, to impose a model of government on someone else? And if we did, would the military be the tool with which to do it?


Judging from past experience, creating a new nation by force usually fails. We generally call this activity “nation-building” even though it usually does not build a nation. In May 2003, two scholars at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released a study of past U.S. attempts at nation building, examining — in chronological order — Cuba, Panama, Cuba again, Nicaragua, Haiti, Cuba yet again, the Dominican Republic, West Germany, Japan, the Dominican Republic again, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Panama again, Haiti again, and Afghanistan. Of these 16 attempts at nation building, in only four, the authors concluded, was a democracy sustained as long as 10 years after the departure of U.S. forces.

By “departure” of U.S. forces, the authors of the above study clearly meant reduction, since U.S. forces have never actually departed. Two of the four countries were the completely destroyed and defeated Japan and Germany. The other two were U.S. neighbors — tiny Grenada and Panama. The so-called nation building in Panama is considered to have taken 23 years. That same length of time would carry the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq to 2024 and 2026 respectively.

Never, the authors found, has a surrogate regime supported by the United States, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, made the transition to democracy. The authors of this study, Minxin Pei and Sara Kasper, also found that creating lasting democracies had never been the primary goal:

“The primary goal of early U.S. nation-building efforts was in most cases strategic. In its first efforts, Washington decided to replace or support a regime in a foreign land to defend its core security and economic interests, not to build a democracy. Only later did America’s political ideals and its need to sustain domestic support for nation building impel it to try to establish democratic rule in target nations.”
Do you think an endowment for peace might be biased against war? Surely the Pentagon-created RAND Corporation must be biased in favor of war. And yet a RAND study of occupations and insurgencies in 2010, a study produced for the U.S. Marine Corps, found that 90 percent of insurgencies against weak governments, like Afghanistan’s, succeed. In other words, the nation-building, whether or not imposed from abroad, fails.

In fact, even as war supporters were telling us to escalate and “stay the course” in Afghanistan in 2009 and 2010, experts from across the political spectrum were in agreement that doing so couldn’t accomplish anything, much less bestow generous benefits on Afghans. Our ambassador, Karl Eikenberry, opposed an escalation in leaked cables. Numerous former officials in the military and the CIA favored withdrawal.

Matthew Hoh, 36, is the first U.S. official
known to resign in protest over the
Afghan war. GERALD

Matthew Hoh, a senior U.S. civilian diplomat in Zabul Province and former marine captain, resigned and backed withdrawal. So did former diplomat Ann Wright who had helped reopen the embassy in Afghanistan in 2001. The National Security Advisor thought more troops would “just be swallowed up.” A majority of the U.S. public opposed the war, and the opposition was even stronger among the Afghan people, especially in Kandahar, where a U.S. Army-funded survey found that 94 percent of Kandaharis wanted negotiations, not assault, and 85 percent said they viewed the Taliban as “our Afghan brothers.”

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, and funder of the war escalation,
John Kerry
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and funder of the escalation, John Kerry noted that an assault on Marja that had been a test run for a larger assault on Kandahar had failed miserably. Kerry also noted that Taliban assassinations in Kandahar had begun when the United States announced a coming assault there. How then, he asked, could the assault stop the killings? Kerry and his colleagues, just before dumping another $33.5 billion into the Afghanistan escalation in 2010, pointed out that terrorism had been increasing globally during the “Global War on Terror.” The 2009 escalation in Afghanistan had been followed by an 87 percent increase in violence, according to the Pentagon.
The military had developed, or rather revived from Vietnam days, a strategy for Iraq four years into that war that was also applied to Afghanistan, a kind-hearted strategy known as Counter-Insurgency. On paper, this required an 80 percent investment in civilian efforts at “winning hearts and minds” and 20 percent in military operations. But in both countries, this strategy was only applied to rhetoric, not reality. Actual investment in non-military operations in Afghanistan never topped 5 percent, and the man in charge of it, Richard Holbrooke, described the civilian mission as “supporting the military.”

Rather than “spreading freedom” with bombs and guns, what would have been wrong with spreading knowledge? If learning leads to the development of democracy, why not spread education? Why not provide funding for children’s health and schools, instead of melting the skin off children with white phosphorous? Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi proposed, following the September 11, 2001, terrorism, that instead of bombing Afghanistan, the United States could build schools in Afghanistan, each named for and honoring someone killed in the World Trade Center, thus building appreciation for generous aid and understanding of the damage done by violence. Whatever you think of such an approach, it’s hard to argue it wouldn’t have been generous and perhaps even in line with the principle of loving one’s enemies.


The hypocrisy of generously imposed occupations is perhaps most apparent when done in the name of uprooting previous occupations. When Japan kicked European colonialists out of Asian nations only to occupy them itself, or when the United States liberated Cuba or the Philippines in order to dominate those countries itself, the contrast between word and deed jumped out at you. In both of these examples, Japan and the United States offered civilization, culture, modernization, leadership, and mentoring, but they offered them at the barrel of a gun whether anyone wanted them or not. And if anyone did, well, their story got top play back home. When Americans were hearing tales of German barbarity in Belgium and France during World War I, Germans were reading accounts of how dearly the occupied French loved their benevolent German occupiers. And when can you not count on the New York Times to locate an Iraqi or an Afghan who’s worried that the Americans might leave too soon?

Any occupation must work with some elite group of natives, who in turn will of course support the occupation. But the occupier should not mistake such support for majority opinion, as the United States has been in the habit of doing since at least 1899. Nor should a “native face” on a foreign occupation be expected to fool people:

“The British, like the Americans,…believed that native troops would be less unpopular than foreigners. That proposition is…dubious: if native troops are perceived to be puppets of foreigners, they may be even more violently opposed than the foreigners themselves.” Native troops may also be less loyal to the occupier’s mission and less trained in the ways of the occupying army. This soon leads to blaming the same deserving people on whose behalf we’ve attacked their country for our inability to leave it. They are now “violent, incompetent, and untrustworthy,” as the McKinley White House portrayed the Filipinos, and as the Bush and Obama White Houses portrayed Iraqis and Afghans.

In an occupied nation with its own internal divisions, minority groups may truly fear mistreatment at the hands of the majority should the foreign occupation end. That problem is a reason for future Bushes to heed the advice of future Powells and not invade in the first place. It’s a reason not to inflame internal divisions, as occupiers tend to do, much preferring that the people kill each other than that they unite against foreign forces. And it’s a reason to encourage international diplomacy and positive influence on the nation while withdrawing and paying reparations.

The feared post-occupation violence is not, however, usually a persuasive argument for extending the occupation. For one thing, it’s an argument for permanent occupation. For another, the bulk of the violence that is depicted back in the imperial nation as a civil war is still usually violence directed against the occupiers and their collaborators. When the occupation ends, so does much of the violence. This has been demonstrated in Iraq as troops have reduced their presence; the violence has decreased accordingly.

Most of the violence in Basra ended when the British troops there ceased patrolling to control the violence. The plan for withdrawal from Iraq that George McGovern and William Polk (the former senator and a descendant of former President Polk, respectively) published in 2006 proposed a temporary bridge to complete independence, advice that went unheeded:

“The Iraqi government would be wise to request the short-term services of an international force to police the country during and immediately after the period of American withdrawal. Such a force should be on only temporary duty, with a firm date fixed in advance for withdrawal. Our estimate is that Iraq would need it for about two years after the American withdrawal is complete. During this period, the force probably could be slowly but steadily cut back, both in personnel and in deployment. Its activities would be limited to enhancing public security.…It would have no need for tanks or artillery or offensive aircraft .…It would not attempt…to battle the insurgents. Indeed, after the withdrawal of American and British regular troops and the roughly 25,000 foreign mercenaries, the insurgency, which was aimed at achieving that objective, would lose public support.…Then gunmen would either put down their weapons or become publicly identified as outlaws. This outcome has been the experience of insurgencies in Algeria, Kenya, Ireland (Eire), and elsewhere.”


It’s not just the continuation of wars that is justified as generosity. Initiating fights with evil forces in defense of justice, even while it inspires less than angelic sentiments in some war supporters, is generally also presented as pure selflessness and benevolence. “He is keeping the World safe for Democracy. Enlist and Help Him,” read a U.S. World War I poster, fulfilling President Wilson’s directive that the Committee on Public Information present the “absolute justice of America’s cause,” and the “absolute selflessness of America’s aims.” When President Franklin Roosevelt persuaded Congress to create a military draft and to allow the “lending” of weaponry to Britain before the United States entered World War II, he compared his Lend-Lease program to loaning a hose to a neighbor whose house was on fire.

Then, in the summer of 1941, Roosevelt pretended to go fishing and actually met with Prime Minister Churchill off the coast of Newfoundland. FDR came back to Washington, D.C., describing a moving ceremony during which he and Churchill had sung “Onward Christian Soldiers.” FDR and Churchill released a joint statement created without the peoples or legislatures of either country that laid out the principles by which the two leaders’ nations would fight the war and shape the world afterwards, despite the fact that the United States was still not in the war. This statement, which came to be called the Atlantic Charter, made clear that Britain and the United States favored peace, freedom, justice, and harmony and had no interest whatsoever in building empires. These were noble sentiments on behalf of which millions could engage in horrible violence.

Until it entered World War II, the United States generously provided the machinery of death to Britain. Following this model, both weapons and soldiers sent to Korea and subsequent actions have for decades been described as “military aid.” Thus the idea that war is doing someone a favor was built into the very language used to name it. The Korean War, as a U.N.-sanctioned “police action,” was described not only as charity, but also as the world community’s hiring a sheriff to enforce the peace, just as good Americans would have done in a Western town. But being the world’s policeman never won over those who believed it was well intentioned but didn’t think the world deserved the favor. Nor did it win over those who saw it as just the latest excuse for war. A generation after the Korean War, Phil Ochs was singing:

Come, get out of the way, boys
Quick, get out of the way
You’d better watch what you say, boys
Better watch what you say
We’ve rammed in your harbor and tied to your port
And our pistols are hungry and our tempers are short
So bring your daughters around to the port
‘Cause we’re the Cops of the World, boys
We’re the Cops of the World

By 1961, the cops of the world were in Vietnam, but President Kennedy’s representatives there thought a lot more cops were needed and knew the public and the president would be resistant to sending them. For one thing, you couldn’t keep up your image as the cops of the world if you sent in a big force to prop up an unpopular regime. What to do? What to do? Ralph Stavins, coauthor of an extensive account of Vietnam War planning, recounts that General Maxwell Taylor and Walt W. Rostow, “. . . wondered how the United States could go to war while appearing to preserve the peace. While they were pondering this question, Vietnam was suddenly struck by a deluge. It was as if God had wrought a miracle. American soldiers, acting on humanitarian impulses, could be dispatched to save Vietnam not from the Viet Cong, but from the floods.”

For the same reason that Smedley Butler suggested restricting U.S. military ships to within 200 miles of the United States, one might suggest restricting the U.S. military to fighting wars. Troops sent for disaster relief have a way of creating new disasters. U.S. aid is often suspect, even if well-intended by U.S. citizens, because it comes in the form of a fighting force ill equipped and ill prepared to provide aid. Whenever there’s a hurricane in Haiti, nobody can tell whether the United States has provided aid workers or imposed martial law. In many disasters around the world the cops of the world don’t come at all, suggesting that where they do arrive the purpose may not be entirely pure.

In 1995 the cops of the world stumbled into Yugoslavia out of the goodness of their hearts. President Clinton explained:
“America’s role will not be about fighting a war. It will be about helping the people of Bosnia to secure their own peace agreement.…In fulfilling this mission, we will have the chance to help stop the killing of innocent civilians, especially children…”

Fifteen years later, it’s hard to see how Bosnians have secured their own peace. U.S. and other foreign troops have never left, and the place is governed by a European-backed Office of High Representative.


Women gained rights in Afghanistan in the 1970s, before the United States intentionally provoked the Soviet Union to invade and armed the likes of Osama bin Laden to fight back. There has been little good news for women since. The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) was established in 1977 as an independent political/ social organization of Afghan women in support of human rights and social justice. In 2010, RAWA released a statement commenting on the American pretense of occupying Afghanistan for the sake of its women:

“[The United States and its allies] empowered the most brutal terrorists of the Northern Alliance and the former Russian puppets — the Khalqis and Parchamis — and by relying on them, the US imposed a puppet government on Afghan people. And instead of uprooting its Taliban and Al-Qaeda creations, the United States and NATO continue to kill our innocent and poor civilians, mostly women and children, in their vicious air raids.”

In the view of many women leaders in Afghanistan, the invasion and occupation have done no good for women’s rights, and have achieved that result at the cost of bombing, shooting, and traumatizing thousands of women. That’s not an unfortunate and unexpected side effect. That is the essence of war, and it was perfectly predictable. The Taliban’s tiny force succeeds in Afghanistan because people support it. This results in the United States indirectly supporting it as well.
At the time of this writing, for many months and likely for years, at least the second largest and probably the largest source of revenue for the Taliban has been U.S. taxpayers. We lock people away for giving a pair of socks to the enemy, while our own government serves as chief financial sponsor. WARLORD, INC.: Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan, is a 2010 report from the Majority Staff of the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representatives. The report documents payoffs to the Taliban for safe passage of U.S. goods, payoffs very likely greater than the Taliban’s profits from opium, its other big money maker. This has long been known by top U.S. officials, who also know that Afghans, including those fighting for the Taliban, often sign up to receive training and pay from the U.S. military and then depart, and in some cases sign up again and again.

This must be unknown to Americans supporting the war. You can’t support a war in which you’re funding both sides, including the side against which you are supposedly defending Afghanistan’s women.


Senator Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2007 and 2008 on a platform that called for escalating the war in Afghanistan. He did just that shortly after taking office, even before devising any plan for what to do in Afghanistan. Just sending more troops was an end in itself. But candidate Obama focused on opposing the other war – the War on Iraq — and promising to end it. He won the Democratic primary largely because he was lucky enough not to have been in Congress in time to vote for the initial authorization of the Iraq war. That he voted over and over again to fund it was never mentioned in the media, as senators are simply expected to fund wars whether they approve of them or not.

Obama did not promise a speedy withdrawal of all troops from Iraq. In fact, there was a period in which he never let a campaign stop go by without declaring “We have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.” He must have mumbled this phrase even in his sleep. During the same election a group of Democratic candidates for Congress published what they titled “A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.” The need to be responsible and careful was premised on the idea that ending a war quickly would be irresponsible and careless. This notion had served to keep the Afghanistan and Iraq wars going for years already and would help keep them going for years to come.

But ending wars and occupations is necessary and just, not reckless and cruel. And it need not amount to “abandonment” of the world. Our elected officials find it hard to believe, but there are ways other than war of relating to people and governments. When a petty crime is underway, our top priority is to stop it, after which we look into ways of setting things right, including deterring future crimes of the same sort and repairing the damage. When the largest crime we know of is underway, we do not need to be as slow about ending it as possible. We need to end it immediately. That is the kindest thing we can do for the people of the country we are at war with. We owe them that favor above all others. We know their nation may have problems when our soldiers leave, and that we are to blame for some of those problems. But we also know that they will have no hope of good lives as long as the occupation continues.

RAWA’s position on the occupation of Afghanistan is that the post-occupation period will be worse the longer the occupation continues. So, the first priority is to immediately end the war. War kills people, and there is nothing worse. As we will see in chapter eight, war primarily kills civilians, although the value of the military- civilian distinction seems limited. If another nation occupied the United States, surely we would not approve of killing those Americans who fought back and thereby lost their status as civilians. War kills children, above all, and horrifically traumatizes many of the children it does not kill or maim. This is not exactly news, yet it must be constantly relearned as a corrective to frequent claims that wars have been sanitized and bombs made “smart” enough to kill only the people who really need killing.

In 1890 a U.S. veteran told his children about a war he’d been part of in 1838, the forced relocation of Cherokee Indians:

“In another home was a frail Mother, apparently a widow and three small children, one just a baby. When told that she must go, the Mother gathered the children at her feet, prayed a humble prayer in her native tongue, patted the old family dog on the head, told the faithful creature goodbye, with a baby strapped on her back and leading a child with each hand started on her exile. But the task was too great for that frail Mother. A stroke of heart failure relieved her suffering. She sunk and died with her baby on her back, and her other two children clinging to her hands.
“Chief Junaluska who had saved President [Andrew] Jackson’s life at the battle of Horse Shoe witnessed this scene, the tears gushing down his cheeks and lifting his cap he turned his face toward the heavens and said, ‘Oh my God, if I had known at the battle of the Horse Shoe what I know now, American history would have been differently written.”

In a video produced in 2010 by Rethink Afghanistan, Zaitullah Ghiasi Wardak describes a night raid in Afghanistan. Here’s the English translation: “I am the son of Abdul Ghani Khan. I am from the Wardak Province, Chak District, Khan Khail Village. At approximately 3:00 a.m. the Americans besieged our home, climbed on top of the roof by ladders.… They took the three youngsters outside, tied their hands, put black bags over their heads. They treated them cruelly and kicked them, told them to sit there and not move.

“At this time, one group knocked on the guest room. My nephew said: ‘When I heard the knock I begged the Americans: “My grandfather is old and hard of hearing. I will go with you and get him out for you.”‘ He was kicked and told not to move. Then they broke the door of the guest room. My father was asleep but he was shot 25 times in his bed.…Now I don’t know, what was my father’s crime? And what was the danger from him? He was 92 years old.”

War would be the greatest evil on earth even if it cost no money, used up no resources, left no environmental damage, expanded rather than curtailed the rights of citizens back home, and even if it accomplished something worthwhile. Of course, none of those conditions are possible.

The problem with wars is not that soldiers aren’t brave or well intentioned, or that their parents didn’t raise them well. Ambrose Bierce, who survived the U.S. Civil War to write about it decades later with a brutal honesty and lack of romanticism that was new to war stories, defined “Generous” as follows: “Originally this word meant noble by birth and was rightly applied to a great multitude of persons. It now means noble by nature and is taking a bit of a rest.”

Cynicism is funny, but not accurate. Generosity is very real, which is of course why war propagandists falsely appeal to it on behalf of their wars. Many young Americans actually signed up to risk their lives in the “Global War on Terror” believing they would be defending their nation from a hideous fate. That takes determination, bravery, and generosity. Those badly deceived young people, as well as those less befuddled who nonetheless enlisted for the latest wars, were not sent off as traditional cannon fodder to fight an army in a field. They were sent to occupy countries in which their supposed enemies looked just like everyone else. They were sent into the land of SNAFU, from which many never return in one piece.

SNAFU is, of course, the army acronym for the state of war: Situation Normal: All Fucked Up.

About the writer:
David Swanson is the author of “War Is A Lie”
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

What you should not ask from an Israeli


Frustrated Arab’s Diary
the future Sharon

You cannot ask from an Israeli
not be be a Zionist
otherwise he would be
obliged to give up:

1- Racism
2- Apartheid
3- expantion and occupation
4-  criminal-intentions
Posted by Tlaxcala at 2:37 PM

Gilad Atzmon: Captain Israel- A Sickening Hasbara Magazine For Jewish Diaspora Youngsters


Sunday, January 16, 2011 at 12:58PM Gilad Atzmon

Look at this new Jewish -cartoon magazine. PDF vesion
It has become pretty obvious that that Israelis and Zionists do not try to disguise their morbidity anymore. Zionism is clearly a threat to humanity and humanism.
Airplanes and tanks, decorated with Jewish symbols, are consigned to spread death and carnage in the name of the Jewish people.
Captain Israel, a kosher superman, is holding a Menorah torch. He is there to set the entire region on fire.

Captain Israel Disseminating the deceitful myth of Jewish Exile and homecoming (above)

A few more lies (just to be on the safe side).

Endowed with the ‘strength of Samson’ and the ‘wisdom of Solomon’, Captain Israel is a genocidal hero who profoundly personifies the disastrous state of current Jewish national affairs

Israelis and Zionists are proud of their pathological, murderous intentions. They are a threat not just to their neighbors, but to humanism and humanity in general.

Unlike the naive, idealist and humanist Superman who steps in to attack and terrorize wife beaters, profiteers, a lynch mob and gangsters, the kosher Super man is far from being naive. He is an ethnic cleanser, murderous and politically indoctrinated. He is there to save one people only namely the ‘chosen tribe’.
Here is what the SupperJews’ Website says about its kosher characters.

“Led by the fearsome Captain Israel and the fiery Beth El, Team SuperJews is a group of everyday people who rise to action when help is needed. Uniquely talented yet collectively strong, Team SuperJews unites whenever new or recurring threats endanger the Jewish community.”

According to SupperJews’ Website the following Jewish organisations are affiliated with the project.

I really want to know, once and for all, where Zionism ends and Jewishness starts?

RICHARD FALK : What is Winning? The Next Phase for the Revolutionary Uprisings


– 25. Feb, 2011 Via MCS

hope that the mysteries of the digital age will somehow summon the creative energy to manage the transition to sustainable and substantive democracy as brilliantly as it earlier staged the revolutionary uprisings.

By Richard Falk

Early in the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings it seemed that winning was understood by the massed demonstrators to mean getting rid of the hated leader, of Ben Ali in the Tunisian case, and Mubarak in the Egyptian. But as the process deepened it make clear that more was being demanded and expected, and that this had to do with restoring the material and spiritual dignity of life in all its aspects.
Without any assurance as to what ‘winning’ means in the setting of the extraordinary revolutionary uprisings that are continuing to rock the established order throughout the Arab world, it is likely to mean different things in the various countries currently in turmoil. But at the very least winning has so far meant challenging by determined and incredibly brave nonviolence the oppressive established order. This victory over long reigns of fear-induced pacification is itself a great transformative moment in 21st century history no matter what happens in the months ahead.

As Chandra Muzaffar, the widely respected Malaysian scholar who  religion and justice, compelling argues, the replacement of the old order by electoral democracy, while impressive as an accomplishment given the dictatorial rule of the past in these countries, will not be nearly enough to vindicate the sacrifices of the protestors. It is significantly better than those worst case scenarios that insist that the future will bring dismal varieties of ‘Mubarakism without Mubarak,’ which would change the faces and names of the rulers but leave the oppressive and exploitative regimes essentially in tact. This would definitely be a pyrrhic victory, given the hopes and demands that motivated the courageous political challenges embodied in withstanding without weapons the clubs, rubber bullets, live ammunition, and overall brutality, as well as the uncertainty as to what the soldiers in the streets would do when the order to open fire at the demonstrators came from the beleaguered old guard.

What is needed beyond constitutional democracy is the substantive realization of good and equitable governance: this includes, above all, people-oriented economic policies, an end to corruption, and the protection of human rights, including especially economic and social rights.  Such an indispensable agenda recognizes that the primary motivation of many of the demonstrators was related to their totally alienating entrapment in a jobless future combined with the daily struggle to obtain the bare necessities of a tolerable life.

There is present here both questions of domestic political will and governmental capability to redirect the productive resources and distributive policies of the society. How much political space is available to alter the impositions of neoliberal globalization that was responsible for reinforcing, if not inducing, the grossly inequitable and corrupting impact of the world economy on the structuring of domestic privilege and deprivation? Not far in the background is an extended global recession that may be deepened in coming months due to alarming increases in commodity prices, especially food. According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization the world Food Price Index reached a record high in December 2010, a level exceeded by another 3% rise in January of this year. Lester Brown, a leading expert on world food and environment, wrote a few days ago that “[t]he world is now one poor harvest away from chaos in world grain markets.” [International Herald Tribune, Feb 23, 2011]

With political turmoil threatening world energy supplies, oil prices are also surging, allegedly further endangering the uneven and fragile economic recovery in the United States and Europe. Global warming adds a further troubling feature to this deteriorating situation, with droughts, floods, fires, and storms making it difficult to maintain crop yields, much increase food production to meet increasing demands of the world’s growing population.

These impinging realities will greatly complicate the already formidable difficulties facing new leaders throughout the Arab world seeking with a sense of urgency to create job opportunities and affordable supplies of food for their citizenries. This challenge is intensified by the widely shared high expectations of improved living circumstances. If the autocratic prior regime was held responsible for mass impoverishment of the many and the scandalously excessive enrichment of the few, is it not reasonable to suppose that the more democratic successor governments should establish without much delay greatly improved living conditions? And further, how could it be claimed that the heroic uprising was worthwhile if the quality of life of ordinary citizens, previously struggling to avert the torments of impoverishment, does not start improving dramatically almost immediately? An understandably impatient public may not give their new leaders the time that need, given these conditions, to make adjustments that will begin to satisfy these long denied hopes and needs. Perhaps, the public will be patient if there are clear signs that the leaders are trying their hardest and even if actual progress is slow, there is some evidence that the material conditions of the populace are, at least, on an ascending slope.

Even if the public is patient beyond reason, and understands better than can be prudently expected, the difficulties of achieving economic justice during a period of transition to a new framework of governance, there may be still little or no capacity to fulfill public expectations due to the impact of these worsening global conditions.  It is quite possible that if the worst food/energy scenarios unfold, famines and food riots could occur, casting dark shadows of despair across memories of these historic victories that made the initial phases of each national uprising such a glowing testament to the human spirit, which seemed miraculously undaunted by decades of oppression and abuse.

It needs also to be kept in mind that often the slogans of the demonstrators highlighted a thirst for freedom and rights. Even though there is little experience of democratic practice throughout the region, there will likely be a serious attempt by new governing institutions to distinguish their practices from those of their hated forebears, and allow for the exercise of all forms of oppositional activity, including freedom of expression, assembly, and party formation. Unlike the problems associated with creating jobs and providing for material needs, the establishment of the atmosphere of a free society is within the physical capacities of a new leadership if the political will exists to assume the unfamiliar risks associated with democratic practices. We must wait and see how each new leadership handles these normative challenges of transition. It remains to be seen as to whether the difficulties of transition are intensified by counterrevolutionary efforts to maintain or restore the old deforming structures and privileges. These efforts are likely to be aided and abetted by a range of covert collaborative undertakings joining external actors with those internal forces threatened by impending political change.

And if this overview was not discouraging enough, there is one further consideration. As soon as the unifying force of getting rid of the old leadership is eroded, if not altogether lost, fissures within the oppositions are certain to emerge. There will be fundamental differences as between radical and liberal approaches to transition, and especially whether to respect the property rights and social hierarchies associated with the old regime, or to seek directly to correct the injustices and irregularities of the past. Some critics of the Mandela approach to reconciliation and transition in South Africa believe that his acceptance of the social and economic dimensions of the repudiated apartheid structure have resulted in a widely felt sense of revolutionary disappointment, if not betrayal, in South Africa.

There will also be tactical and strategic differences about how to deal with the world economy, especially with respect to creating stability and attractive conditions for foreign investment. It is here that tensions emerge as between safeguarding labor rights and making investors feel that their operations will remain profitable in the new political environment.

This recitation of difficulties is not meant to detract attention from or to in any way diminish the glorious achievements of the revolutionary uprisings, but to point to the unfinished business that must be addressed if revolutionary aspirations are going to be able to avoid disillusionment. So often revolutionary gains are blunted or even lost shortly after the old oppressors have been dragged from the stage of history. If ever there exists the need for vigilance it at these times when the old order is dying and the new order is struggling to be born. As Gramsci warned long ago this period of inbetweeness is vulnerable to a wide range of predatory tendencies. It is a time when unscrupulous elements can repress anew even while waving a revolutionary banner and shouting slogans about defending the revolution against its enemies. And a difficulty here is that the enemies may well be real as well as darkly imagined. How many revolutions in the past have been lost due to the machinations of their supposed guardians?

Let us fervently hope that the mysteries of the digital age will somehow summon the creative energy to manage the transition to sustainable and substantive democracy as brilliantly as it earlier staged the revolutionary uprisings.

Richard Falk , Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University is also author of Explorations of the Edge of Time: Prospects for a New World OrderCrimes of War: Iraq and The Costs of War: International Law, the UN, and World Order After Iraq. He is the current UN’s Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This post first appeared on his Blog.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian

JAMES PETRAS : American Zionism against the Egyptian Pro-Democracy Movement


– 21. Feb, 2011

The leading Zionist official in the Obama Administration and AIPAC point man, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg traveled to Israel to assure the Netanyahu/Lieberman regime  that the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty would remain unchanged.

By James Petras / My Catbird Seat

One of the least analyzed aspects of the Egyptian pro-democracy movement and US policy toward it, is the role of the influential Zionist power configuration (ZPC) including the leading umbrella organization – the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (CPMAJO) – Congressional Middle East committee members, officials occupying strategic positions in the Obama Administration’s Middle East bureaus, as well as prominent editors, publicists and journalists who play a major role in the prestigious newspapers and popular weekly magazines.

This essay is based on a survey of every issue of the Daily Alert (propaganda bulletin of the CPMAJO), the  NY Times and the Washington Post between January 25 – February 17, 2011.

From the very beginning of the Egyptian pro-democracy movement, the ZPC,  called into question the legitimacy of the anti-dictatorial demands by focusing on the “Islamic threat”.  In particular the ultra-Zionist Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Daily Alert harped on the “threat” of a “Islamic takeover” by the Muslim Brotherhood even as the overwhelming number of non-Zionist experts and reporters in Egypt demonstrated that the vast majority of protestors were not members of any Islamic political movement, but largely advocates of a secular democratic republic (see the Financial Times 1/26/11-2/17/11).

Once their initial propaganda ploy failed, the ZPC developed several new propaganda lines:  the most prominent of which was a sustained defense of the Mubarak dictatorship as a bulwark of Israel’s ‘security’ and guardian of the so-called “Peace Accord” of 1979.  In other words the ZPC pressured the US administration, via Congressional hearings, the press and AIPAC to support Mubarak as a key guarantor and collaborator of Israel’s supremacy in the Middle East; although it meant that the Obama regime would have to openly oppose the million-member Egyptian freedom movement.  Israeli journalists, officials and their US Zionist counterparts willingly admitted that although the Mubarak regime was a bloody, corrupt tyranny, he should be supported because a democratic government in Cairo might end Egypt’s decades-old collaboration with the brutal Israeli colonization of Palestine.

Once it became clear that uncritical support for Mubarak was no longer a viable position and the Obama Administration was appealing to the democratic movement to “dialogue” and negotiate with the dictator, the ZPC demanded caution in backing a “dialogue” and assurance that the dialogue did not lead to any abrupt changes in the Mubarak-Israeli treaty.  The ZPC and its scribes in the Washington Post presented Mubarak’s hand picked “Vice President” Omar Suleiman, a notorious torturer and long-term collaborator of Israel’s Mossad, as the legitimate interlocutor for the dialogue – even as he was unanimously rejected by the entire pro-democracy movement.

As the demonstrators grew in number and engulfed the major public squares throughout the country and extended beyond the first week, Israel and the ZPC promoted a possible alternative solution, which would keep Mubarak in power, during a nine month ‘transition’ period.  Caught off guard by the rapid growth of Egypt’s pro-democracy movement, Israel’s willing accomplices in the US administration and media conceded that an end to the dictatorship would be a good thing… if it was managed appropriately; namely, if it excluded or minimized the role of the Muslim Brotherhood and maximized the role of the pro-Israel military high command and intelligence services as overseers of the “transition”.  The ZPC contemptuously rejected Egypt’s independent pro-democracy movement and its leaders and sought to undermine the Egyptian people’s movement by inflating the role of the “best organized” Islamic Brotherhood and warned of a future Islamist “seizure of power”.

The leading Zionist official in the Obama Administration and AIPAC point man, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg traveled to Israel to assure the Netanyahu/Lieberman regime that the US was in contact with the Egyptian military high command and sectors of the civilian opposition (ElBaradei) and that Washington’s support of the democracy movement was conditioned by their assurance that the Israeli-Egyptian Treaty would remain unchanged.

When Mubarak was finally forced to resign, handing power to a military junta, the ZPC congratulated the coup-makers, supported its demobilization of the movement and more important, celebrated the Egyptian generals’ endorsement of the “Peace Agreement of 1979”.  Now the Israeli propaganda machine began to harshly criticize Mubarak and portrayed the military coup as a positive step toward an “orderly and peaceful transition”.  By ‘orderly’ the Zionist think tankers meant a ‘regime change’ that did nothing to change the blockade of Gaza, the regular shipment of fuel to Israel, or the hotline of collaboration between Tel Aviv and Cairo.   Israeli and American Zionists rejected early elections and promoted a prolonged process in which the Egyptian military, the US Administration and the ZPC could handpick members of the ‘transitional constitutional and electoral commissions’ committed to continuing Mubarak’s policy of unconditional submission to Israel. By “peaceful” the pro-Israel diplomats in the Obama Administration meant clearing the streets of the masses of pro-democracy activists and demonstrators so that decisions could be controlled by the small circle of Mubarak military and civilian holdovers behind closed doors.  By “transition”, the circles of Zionists propagandists, US/Israeli policy makers and Egyptian generals meant that nothing would change but the face of Mubarak.

While Israel and the bulk of Zionist scribes and propagandists in the US opposed or questioned the pro-democracy movements against pro-Israeli rulers in the Middle East, they embraced and publicized the social movements opposing the Iranian regime.  In every print and electronic outlet, the pro-Israel journalists emphasized the repressive, brutal nature of the Iranian regime, called for regime change and raised the specter of a military confrontation if Iranian warships traversed the Suez Canal, Iran’s right by international maritime law.  Israeli security, the threat of ‘radical Islam’ and Iran were cited to place narrow limits on all discussions and debates over US policy regarding the enormous and growing mass pro-democracy movements throughout the Arab world.

The same prominent US Zionist scribes who, at first, defended US support for the dictatorial Mubarak regime and then supported the military takeover in Cairo, have now become born-again backers of anti-regime democrats in Iran.  This is not inconsistent:  the issue for US Zionists is how might pro-democracy movements affect Israel’s colonial policies in Palestine and Israel’s expanding power in the Middle East?  In other words, the ZPC in Congress and the White House are not concerned about promoting democracy through American foreign policy, but only about harnessing US diplomacy and military leverage to serve Israel.

What is striking about Obama’s twist and turns in policy toward the mass popular struggles in Egypt is how closely it repeats and implements the policy positions of the US Zionist power configuration clearly presented in the ‘52 organizations’ propaganda organ, the Daily Alert.

AUTHOR James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies.  He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, Temps Moderne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet.   His publishers have included Random House, John Wiley, Westview, Routledge, Macmillan, Verso, Zed Books and Pluto Books. He is winner of the Life Time Career Award, Marxist Section, of the American Sociology Association, the Robert Kenny Award for Best Book, 2002, and the Best Dissertation, Western Political Science Association in 1968. Some recent titles include  Unmasking Globalization: Imperialism of the Twenty-First Century (2001); co-author The Dynamics of Social Change in Latin America (2000), A System in Crisis (2003), co-author Social Movements and State Power (2003), co-author Empire With Imperialism (2005), co-author, Multinationals on Trial (2006).  His most recent titles are The Power of Israel in the United States and Rulers and Ruled in the United States, (acquired for Japanese, German, Italian, Indonesian, Czech and Arabic editions), Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power, and Global Depression & Regional Wars. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America. Previously, he wrote a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, Le Jornada, and  the Spanish daily, El Mundo.  He received an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. View Clarity titles at  Middle East, Clear Day Books and

Read More

War Crimes in Gaza and the Zionist Fifth Column in America by James Petras

Review of Zionism, Militarism And The Decline Of US Power by James Petras

Possibly Related Video:


%d bloggers like this: