HAS ISRAEL MODIFIED ITS OVERALL WAR SRATEGY WITH AN IMMINENT PLAN TO INVADE THE GAZA STRIP?

The civil war in Syria and the subsequent realignment of alliances between Iran and Hamas in the Gaza Strip may well have resulted in Israel readjusting its strategic war plans.

Up until recently, Israel had planned on using its attack against Iran as an opportunity to attack both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza on the pretext that such attacks would be necessary to pre-empt retaliatory strikes from Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. In March 2012, however, Hamas announced that it would not support Iran if Israel attacked Iran. This effectively changed Israel’s game plan forcing them to rethink their strategy.

The last few days have seen an upsurge in Israeli actions against Hamas and the Gaza Strip. As well as provoking Hamas and other Jihadi groups to launch missiles against Israel in retaliation to Israeli strikes against the Gaza, Israel has also been disturbed by the recent visit to the Gaza of the Emir of Qatar who has promised hundreds of millions of dollars worth of support to the Gazan people as well as yet another attempt by a group attempting to sail to Gaza despite Israel’s blockade. As a result, Israeli commanders have threatened to launch an invasion of the Gaza ostensibly to halt the rockets being fired into Israel.

Since Israel’s original plan was to use attacks against Iran as a pretext to invade and fully occupy south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank destroying both Hezbollah and Hamas for good with the intention of annexing south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, it now seems that Israel may be considering taking on the weakest and smallest of its enemies, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, prior to reverting to their original plan scheduled for after the US elections.

If this is the case, the Gaza Strip can now look forward to an imminent invasion and possible full-on occupation.

ISRAEL: NOW A SELF-CONFESSED RACIST STATE

While Israeli politicians deny that Israelis are racist, it seems that Israelis themselves concede that they are indeed racist and are happy about practicing apartheid and keeping Palestinians from any form of power in the Israeli state even if (or rather, when) Israel annexes the West Bank to become a part of Israel.

The latest poll of Israelis reveals the true nature of Israeli Zionism and their desire to keep themselves separate from Arab peoples even in the event of the West Bank being annexed to Israel.

Interestingly, the poll, just by discussing the possibility of annexation of the West Bank, demonstrates the extent to which Israelis believe that such an event might become inevitable. However, just as interestingly, the poll didn’t dare mention the possibility of annexing the Gaza Strip or ask how Israelis thought about that prospect. Perhaps the pollsters didn’t think the Israeli people were quite ready for that just yet – which infers that they think the Israeli people are quite happy with the idea of annexing the West Bank.

Once the West Bank is swallowed up to become part of Israel, it will only be a matter time before the Gaza Strip goes the same way.

DID OBAMA DEMAND IRAN END ALL NUCLEAR ACTIVITY?

During the third debate moderator Bob Schieffer asked the candidates a question about reported talks between Iran, the US and other parties. Obama answered thus:

Well, first of all, those were reports in the newspaper. They are not true. But our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place, because they have the opportunity to re-enter the community of nations, and we would welcome that. There are — there are people in Iran who have the same aspirations as people all around the world, for a better life. And we hope that their leadership takes the right decision. But the deal we’ll accept is, they end their nuclear program. It’s very straightforward.

By saying ‘it’s very straightforward’ he’s being very emphatic, so the question is; has Obama shifted the goal posts? Has Obama created for himself an opportunity to present Iran with an ultimatum after the election; an ultimatum which, if knocked back, will provide Obama with a casus belli to attack Iran?

Up until now, the understanding has been that Iran, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is entitled to pursue a nuclear program aimed at providing nuclear fuel for electricity generation and nuclear products for medical isotopes.

While many of America’s Western allies might go along with Obama’s realigned demands, it is unlikely that Russia and China will. Yesterday, when Obama made his statement it seemed that it may have been a simple slip of the tongue and that he had meant to say that ‘they end their nuclear weapons program’. As of this writing, however, no such clarification has been made.

Some commentators seem to think it was just a slip of the tongue and that Obama was referring to a nuclear weapons program. Neocon Jonathan Tobin on the other hand, writing in Commentary, takes Obama’s words literally arguing that Obama, “unlike some politicians, …is generally fairly careful about the way he uses words”. It may well be that Tobin is just indulging in a bit of wishful thinking though, without clarification from the White House, it might just be that Obama has found a way to get the Final Confrontation up and going after the election. It remains to be seen what the Russians and Chinese think of it.

A QUICK THOUGHT ON THE FINAL DEBATE

One thing was for sure during the final debate – foreign policy was the last thing either of them wanted to actually talk about with both of them trying their hardest to cut back to discussing domestic issues or circle around the really big Middle East issues.

As far as Iran was concerned, both agreed that here were ‘red lines’ that could not be crossed. However, neither seemed sure where those ‘red lines’ were; or, if they did, they weren’t saying.

Talking of ‘red lines’, it was interesting to hear Obama say that the Egyptians “have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels”. And if they don’t abide by their treaty with Israel…?

For both candidates, hypocrisy and arrogance was the order of the day. One that really stood out was this remark by Obama discussing his visit to Israel:

And then I went down to the border towns of Sderot, which had experienced missiles raining down from Hamas. And I saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children’s bedrooms, and I was reminded of — of what that would mean if those were my kids, which is why, as president, we funded an Iron Dome program to stop those missiles.

No mention of what the Israelis did to Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip during that same period of conflict.

A SECOND ‘AGE OF EXTREMES’? – FROM POLITICAL EXTREMES TO CULTURAL EXTREMES

It’s not often I drift into philosophical ideas to help understand historical perspectives but as I was reading Clifford May’s piece titled “Is al Qaeda defeated?” in National Review Online today it occurred to me that the problem is not so much about ‘defeating al Qaeda’ to end extremism but, rather, getting the peoples of the world to ‘defeat’ extremism no matter where or from whom it comes. This led me to thinking about the bigger picture.

As many of today’s conflicts have evolved it has become clear that the ‘extremists’ of today are actually feeding off each other. To a certain extent, this has always been the case but today, instead of it being ‘political’, as it was during the First and Second World Wars and the Cold War when political ideas came into conflict with each other, often within the same overall cultural systems, today it is more definitively ‘cultural’ where religious and cultural belief systems have come into conflict with each other resulting in a different kind of polarisation of forces. Today the extremist forces of culture are at loggerheads with each other. The extremist forces of the West (American and Western Exceptionalism, Christian fundamentalism and Zionism) are in conflict with the extremist forces of Islam. And, just to complicate things further, there is conflict within Islam itself at two levels; there is conflict between moderates and extremists, and there is conflict between Sunni and Shia.

About Islamic extremism, what May calls ‘jihadi ideology’, he argues:

The jihadi philosophy/ideology is — no less than Nazism — “based on conquest and the subjugation of other people.” The late Father Richard John Neuhaus aptly defined jihadism as a religiously inspired ideology built on the teaching “that it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to employ whatever means necessary in order to compel the world’s submission to Islam.”

If that is supposed to define Islamic extremism then by the simple expediency of crossing out some descriptors and replacing them appropriately it also defines Christian fundamentalism and Zionism. It also defines the kind of extremist ideology inherent in the notion of American and Western Exceptionalism for is not Zionism based on the conquest and subjugation of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip or the Arab peoples of the Golan Heights? And is not this quest supported by Christian fundamentalists and Christian Zionists who are among the same people as those that are inspired by the notion of American and Western Exceptionalism? And do not these people see their cause as ridding the world of Islam so that the world of Islam reflects more the ideals and interests of the West?

A change to peace can only come about when all sides recognise the stupidity of feeding off each others hatreds and understanding that tolerance and respect is the only way forward. There will be no future for a world in which a never ending cycle of hypocrisy, arrogance and violence toward each other prevails as an ideology.

If Eric Hobsbawm were still around he would no doubt have written a second volume to his Age of Extremes work; one that reflects the history of the latest ‘Age of Extremes’ – the extremes of culture rather than of politics which his 1994 work described.

Perhaps there will come a day when the culture of tolerance, moderation and respect becomes the dominant culture in our world. I hope so because none of the others – the age extremes of the last century and the age of extremes in this century – seem to have made any difference.

NEOCONS GET BITTER AND TWISTED OVER BIDEN-RYAN DEBATE

Fred Barnes at The Weekly Standard was clearly fuming over the pasting Biden gave Ryan in the one and only vice-presidential debate. In a piece titled Biden Bombs, Barnes writes almost screaming at his readers:

“You don’t win a nationally televised debate by being rude and obnoxious.  You don’t win by interrupting your opponent time after time after time or by being a blowhard.  You don’t win with facial expressions, especially smirks or fake laughs, or by pretending to be utterly exasperated with what your opponent is saying.”

Well, apparently Biden did, at least according to most pundits.

William Kristol, also writing in The Weekly Standard, tried simply to write the debate off as being inconsequential while finding a ball game far more memorable:

The truth is the world will little note nor long remember what was said in Danville. The world will remember—certainly some of us will remember—what happened a few hours before at Nationals Park: Jayson Werth's 13-pitch at bat leading off the ninth-inning, culminating in a walk off home run that won the game and tied the Nats-Cards division series at 2-2.

…which doesn’t say much for what Kristol thinks of Paul Ryan.

Stephen ‘Smokey’ Hayes, yet another neocon writer with The Weekly Standard, simply echoed the agreed to propaganda line and view of Commentary writer, Jonathan Tobin, that Biden had ‘thrown the US intelligence community under the bus’ over the Benghazi killings.

Far from ‘bombing’ as Barnes asserts, Biden seems to have held his own very well if the extent of criticism from the ultra-right and the neocons is anything to go by. Ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden and ex-Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff were both scathing in their criticism of Biden (did the phrase ‘throwing the intelligence community under the bus’ originate from one or the other of these neocons?) to the point where one might consider they ‘protesteth too much’.   

THE BALI BOMBINGS REVISITED - AGAIN

As the anniversary approaches it's worth reminding ourselves of what this was really all about. I first posted this in April 2009.

It's about how the Howard government attempted to get Australians on board for war against Iraq.
Some ten days ago a former Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) officer, James Sievers, appeared in a Canberra, Australia, court to answer charges that he had copied secret intelligence documents and had them posted to ‘The Australian’ newspaper. The documents were about warnings during the period leading up to the 12 October 2002 Bali bombings that terrorists in Indonesia were planning attacks on ‘sin spots’.

The bombings killed 202 people including 88 Australians. At the time, Brian Deegan, the father of one of the Australian victims, a lawyer and magistrate in Adelaide, Australia, insisted that the then Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, knew of the terrorist threat but had failed to warn Australian tourists. Downer denied that he had received any warning about threats to Bali. Later, Downer’s spokesman chose his words carefully saying there had been no specific warning about the Bali attacks. An inquiry by Australian Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence Bill Blick white-washed accusations against the Howard government that there had been clear warnings of an impending attack and that Downer had failed to provide adequate warning.

The reality was that Downer had been briefed personally on 18 and 19 June 2002 by officers from Australia’s Office of National Assessments (ONA) and was told specifically that Bali and Singapore were ‘attractive targets for the al-Qaeda linked Jamaah Islamiah terrorist network’ and just two weeks prior to the bombing was warned by US intelligence services that there was a threat specifically to Bali. There was even specific travel warnings posted by US authorities that were not repeated on Downer’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) travel warning website.

The evidence is clear: Downer and Australian Prime Minister John Howard were very much aware of the imminent threat to foreign tourist hotspots in Bali prior to the bombings but failed to provide any warning. The question that remains to be answered is simple; why did they not tell Australian tourists in Bali of the threat and danger of being there?

Prior to the Bali bombings there had been a mounting popular movement in Australia, as well as around the world, against Howard taking Australia to war against Iraq. Just the weekend before the Bali bombings there had been a series of anti-war marches and demonstrations across Australia as there had been all over the world. There had even been a protest at the US spy site in out-back Australia at Pine Gap. Howard, despite his denials, had already wholeheartedly committed Australia to Bush’s war against Iraq and was desperate to have some event to turn tide of dissent against him; the Bali bombings would have been, at least he might have hoped, just such an event. As it turned out, the Bali bombings, rather than galvanise the people of Australia to support Howard’s march to war, had the opposite effect; the Australian people saw the Bali bombings more as some kind of retribution for blindly following the US than a call to join Bush’s fight against Iraq.

At the time, Howard responded by saying that the Bali bombings was in response to Australia’s intervention in East Timor adding that it couldn’t have been because of Australia’s commitment to the US lead-up to the war against Iraq because, so he said, at that time he’d not yet made such a commitment. Of course, all Australians – and, indeed, the Bali bombers – knew that he had.

The evidence, at the moment, is only circumstantial but there is no doubt that Downer and Howard knew of an impending attack against Bali tourist hotspots frequented by Australian’s, particularly at that time of year when many sport and social clubs took time out in Bali to have some end of season fun, yet did nothing to warn Australian’s about the danger. There is also no doubt that a terrorist attack on Australian’s would have been viewed by Howard as being in his interests with regard to his alliance and commitment to George W. Bush’s upcoming war against Iraq for which he would want to have the support of Australian public opinion. At the time, Australian public opinion was running strongly against Howard taking Australia to war against Iraq; the Bali bombing would have been seen as an event that might well turn Australian public opinion in Howard’s favour. As it transpired he was wrong but he could not have known at the time that his ploy was likely to backfire on him.

While the circumstantial evidence is still only that, it is, nonetheless, becoming increasingly compelling as more and more evidence emerges. It can only be hoped that eventually when the truth is finally revealed that Howard and Downer and those others involved will answer for their crimes.

MITT ROMNEY’S DELUSIONS OF AMERICAN GRANDEUR

In a major foreign policy outline speech delivered at the Virginia Military Institute yesterday, Mitt Romney demonstrated the extent of his delusions of American grandeur. If anyone ever wondered what it was that ‘they’ hated about ‘us’ then this speech provided the answer – the utter arrogance and hypocrisy of the American extreme right.

It’s all in Romney’s choice of words. How’s this for arrogance; he wants “to use America’s great power to shape history”. Or this; “So many people across the world still look to America as the best hope of humankind.” And this; “The 21st century can and must be an American century.” And this; “The torch America carries is one of decency and hope. It is not America’s torch alone. But it is America’s duty – and honor – to hold it high enough that all the world can see its light.”

And what about this for hypocrisy; “I will make it clear to the recipients of our aid that, in return for our material support, they must meet the responsibilities of every decent modern government—to respect the rights of all of their citizens, including women and minorities… to ensure space for civil society, a free media, political parties, and an independent judiciary”. Clearly, Romney needs to take a good hard look at how his own nation has evolved and is functioning today; a classic case of ‘don’t do as I do, do as I say’.

As Michael Cohen writing in the UK Guardian says: “…the Republican nominee’s fantasy of American power reveals a fragile grasp of global realities”.

Needless to say, the neoconservatives, what with the polls closing in on Obama, are rapt. Alana Goodman writing in the neoconservative Commentary magazine says: “Anyone who worried Mitt Romney would be overly cautious or avoid taking strong stances during his foreign policy speech today was proved wrong.”

AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER ADVOCATES POLITICAL ASSASSINATION

Australian Foreign Minister, Senator Bob Carr, has suggested that a political assassination maybe needed in order to bring about the downfall of Syrian president Bashir al-Assad. It wasn’t clear whether or not Carr was referring to al-Assad himself.

Carr was speaking on the ABC’s Four Corners program last night. While on the one hand Carr was talking about assassination in order to effect regime change, he was also telling his audience: "We do know there is a body of opinion in the Arab world running strongly that says 'we do not want extremism, we want democracy denied to us for so long'."

Someone needs to tell Bob Carr that political assassinations is what extremists do and that there is absolutely nothing ‘democratic’ about assassinating leaders. He might also be reminded of the nature of government that is likely to replace al-Assad in the light of there being suicide bombers being used by the rebels.

Has the Western world really come to this? Is assassination going to become the new norm to ensure the West gets its way with governments it doesn’t like? Since when have Foreign Ministers of so-called Western democracies publicly advocated the assassination of government leaders in order to change governments of a foreign power – no matter who they are? We all know it goes on from time to time but for a serving minister of a Western government to publicly advocate committing what is a crime under international law is a major paradigm shift embracing a whole new set of rules that will see the end of governmental normality and the beginning of a murderous free for all for global political power.

It will be only a matter of time before the West’s enemies will resort to similar practices and we begin to see the killings of Western political and military leaders.

WAR AGAINST IRAN LIKELY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER AFTER U.S. ELECTIONS

If Netanyahu calls for an early election in Israel, as seems very likely, it would probably take place in February or March of next year – just weeks after the inauguration of the next President of the US.

Given that Netanyahu would be taking a punt about being able to win the next Israeli election, one can assume that he would at least like to achieve his goal of creating a Greater Israel by destroying Hezbollah and Hamas and Israel’s arch nemesis, Iran, before leaving office. This would mean pushing for support for an attack against Iran from the US just as soon as the US elections are over. Netanyahu would not risk assuming he was going to win the next Israeli election before demanding the US support an attack against Iran. He knows that it will be an all or nothing war for him and he is hardly going to risk everything on winning an election before going for his dream prize.

Netanyahu’s window of opportunity opens on 7 November 2012 and closes just days before the next Israeli election next February or March 2013. If Romney wins the US presidential elections then Netanyahu can be assured of Romney’s support. If Obama wins then, being a second term President with nothing to lose and his military already in place in the Gulf, Netanyahu might just get the support he needs.   

ROMNEY AND NETANYAHU FINALLY GET THE MESSAGE – NO WAR AGAINST IRAN THIS SIDE OF THE ELECTION

Mitt Romney has finally realised that the American electorate are not in the slightest bit interested in going off to fight another war for Israel. As a result of this belated epiphany Romney has back-pedalled on a strike against Iran saying that ‘military action against Iran may not be necessary’ – though, of course, the ‘military option is still on the table’. The statement clearly is designed to placate those Republican voters that are worried about going to war yet again.

Netanyahu too has also realised that he is going to get nowhere pushing for war this side of the elections and has told Obama that Israel will not be taking any action against Iran before the election. Netanyahu’s rhetoric against Iran has softened very slightly but only inasmuch that he concedes that sanctions against Iran are beginning to bite. However, this concession is offset by his belief that, while sanctions are having an effect on the ordinary folk of Iran, they are not affecting the Iranian leadership who, so Netanyahu believes, are continuing to covertly develop nuclear weapons. Again, Netanyahu’s pronouncements are designed only to take the urgency edge off of the Israeli threat of a so-called ‘unilateral’ strike against Iran before the election.

Both Romney and Obama have had long chats with Netanyahu over the last few days and, clearly, some arrangement has been made between them whereby Netanyahu has been promised that action will be taken after the election by whoever wins it.

For now, though, it is important for both Romney and Obama to put the war-talk on hold while they each concentrate on trying to get an American electorate that has no interest in war to vote for them.

After the election it’ll be back to Iran’s nuclear weapons program and when will the new president, together with Netanyahu, launch an attack.

NETANYAHU GETTING DANGEROUSLY DESPERATE OVER IRAN

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s presentation to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday illustrated the extent to which he has become obsessive to the point of being delusional about Iran. Hopefully the world has opened its eyes and is aware of how barking mad paranoid Netanyahu now is over Iran.

While many Israelis are unable to avoid the overwhelming anti-Iran propaganda emanating from the right-wing Israeli Zionist press, they, nonetheless, are able to discern the path that Netanyahu is taking them down. And while Israelis have little time for many of Ahmadinejad’s pronouncements regarding the future of Israel, they are also very wary of being sucked into a war that will involve a lot more that taking aim at a few of Iran’s nuclear facilities. They are very much aware that a war against Iran is also a war against Hezbollah, Hamas and, more than likely, every hotshot Jihadist in the region that will come to fight against Israel’s forces.

In a recent poll it was found that only 27% of Israelis supported an attack against Iran. Most Israelis are very much aware of how devastating such a war could be for Israel. Israel’s government, however, is unlikely to take little notice of Israeli public opinion as most senior members of the government are dead set on using such a war to destroy Hezbollah and Hamas and, at the same time, use the opportunity to ultimately annex the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and, so they hope, south Lebanon up to the Litani River. They hope that the US will deal such a massive blow to Iran that it will induce regime change.

So far, US President Obama has not gone along with Netanyahu’s plans though has not ruled out the possibility that eventually, if the certain circumstances prevailed, he would indeed launch an attack against Iran. What Netanyahu wants is for Obama to spell out exactly what those certain circumstances might be. Netanyahu wants Obama to establish ‘red lines’ which would trigger a US attack against Iran.

But, with the presidential election looming just weeks away and Obama being an everything to loose president, he has refused to commit America to any ‘red lines’ knowing that in doing so he could drastically reduce his chances of a second term due to the American people being in no mood for any more wars for Israel. Netanyahu knows this but is keeping the pressure up anyway by suggesting that Israel may launch a ‘unilateral’ attack against Iran.

The problem here is; Israel is in no real position to launch a unilateral attack against Iran for reasons I have explained before at this blog. This, however, has not stopped Netanyahu’s rhetoric in an effort, not so much to convince Obama and the Western leaders of the need to attack Iran but to convince public opinion – especially Israeli public opinion – of the need to attack.

Supporting Netanyahu a little more vigorously than Obama is the Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney who is backed in turn by the neoconservatives who know exactly what Netanyahu is trying to achieve.

Netanyahu knows that Obama is unlikely to act this side of the election but Netanyahu also knows that after the election, no matter who wins, he will have his war and the US will be there to finish off Iran for Israel.

An Obama win may well not suit Netanyahu’s own timetable. If it seems likely that Obama might prevail, Netanyahu might out desperation feel inclined to force Obama’s hand by instigating some false flag event which would be blamed on the Iranians. This could even possibly happen prior to the 6 November elections rather than soon after. While the next Israeli election are not scheduled to take place until October next year, the precarious nature of Israeli politics could dictate an election at any time if any one of the somewhat frail alliances with some of Israel’s other minor government parties break down. This makes Netanyahu a desperate man who is hell bent on achieving his lifelong ambition of creating a Greater Israel.

ANY FIRST STRIKE ON IRAN BY ISRAEL IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT THE U.S.

Any strike against Iran by Israel cannot possibly be ‘unilateral’. All talk of such a strike should be treated with the contempt it deserves because it does not reflect reality in any way.

There are four necessities that Israel must have in order to be able to launch a first strike against Iran – and all four can only be provided to them by the US. They are: first, fuel. Israel gets all its military fuel from the US. This includes literally millions of litres of JP-8 military jet fuel, millions of litres of gasoline and millions of litres of diesel fuel for its ground forces for use in invading and occupying south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in order to prevent, so the Israelis will tell the world, retaliatory strikes by Hezbollah, Hamas and other jihadist groups. Second, the Israelis will need special bunker-busting munitions that only the US can supply. Third, despite Israel’s own well resourced intelligence organisations, the facilities offered by US intelligence would be essential for the logistics of an Israel first strike to be anywhere near successful. And, finally, the Israelis will need the full might of the US to prevent an Iran-launched counter attack against Israel and to go on to effect regime change in Iran.

An Israeli first strike against Iran, far from being a spontaneous knee-jerk response to a so-called ‘existential threat’ from Iran, will be a carefully and jointly premeditated attack that has been months, if not years, in the planning and will be executed with utter precision down to the very last detail.

Everything is now in place. An armada of battleships and carrier groups are assembled and ready for action. The propaganda machine is operating at full belch. It’s just a matter of when from now on.

No matter what happens, however, one can rest assured that any Israeli attack on Iran will not be ‘unilateral’. 

THE JEWISH ‘REFUGEE’ CHUTZPAH

In Israel’s latest attempt to justify never giving the Palestinian people their freedom, Israel are attempting to make the resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem, created when Zionists created Israel in a land grab that went far beyond the requirements of Partition, contingent on there being a resolution to the so-called Jewish refugee problem caused by the reaction of Arab states to the Zionists original takeover of Palestinian lands. Based on the resolution of one problem being contingent on the resolution of the other, it’s clear that neither will ever happen – which, of course, is exactly why this new plan has been dreamed up.

Israel has never had any intention of resolving the Palestinian refugee problem which has been one of the fundamental demands of the Palestinians in reaching any settlement. Instead, Israel, rather than concede any lands to the Palestinians, has slowly and insidiously taken over the West Bank by creating Jewish settlements and interlinking them with a series of access roadways which are only available for use by Israelis.

Next thing you know Israel will be demanding that the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and south Lebanon up to the Litani River be annexed to Israel to compensate for the lands lost by Jews who became refugees from other Arab lands. Completely lost will be the fact that Jews lost their lands in other Arab countries in the first place due entirely to Zionists plundering Palestinian lands in what is now Israel.

KRAUTHAMMER KRAP

Charles Krauthammer is not an unintelligent man – yet, somehow, he seems to think everyone else is.

In his latest piece he accuses Obama of standing by “as Iran rapidly approaches nuclearisation”.

The problem with this rhetoric that ‘Iran is rapidly approaching nuclearisation’ is that it’s been done to death in past rhetoric going back years. For example, here’s what I wrote more than two and a half years ago on the subject:

IRAN HAS BEEN CAPABLE OF HAVING A ‘NUCLEAR WEAPON WITHIN SIX MONTHS’ FOR YEARS NOW – BUT, LIKE ‘TOMORROW’, IT NEVER COMES.

Other periods of time have been mentioned over the three decades since the Iranian people kicked out the Shah as to how long it would take the Iranians to build a nuclear weapon, but six months seems to a very popular nominal figure. Never mind, of course, that there has not been a skerrick of evidence to even suggest that the Iranians are doing anything more than building nuclear reactors for generating electricity or creating medical isotopes for medical purposes. But that hasn’t stopped the propagandists who seem to insist that Iran is still only six months away from having a nuclear weapon.

If I started the list of claims that Iran would have a weapon within six months from back in 1980 when the Shah went, you’d still be reading it in, well… six months time! So, I’ll cut short the list and start it off with some of the earlier claims of this century.

Back in August 2003, the LA Times reported that Iran could have a ‘nuclear weapon in six months’. More than two years later in September 2005, Israel claimed Iran would have ‘nuclear weapon in six months’. Then, nearly three years later in June 2008 we were told again that Iran would have a ‘nuclear weapon in six months’. A year later, in July 2009, Ha’aretz reported that ‘Germany believes Iran could have a nuclear bomb in six months’.

Now, in the very latest statement dated 23 February 2010, made by so-called ‘Iran weapons expert’, David Albright, Iran, in his expert opinion, is now only… wait for it; six months away from having a nuclear weapon. This is the very same David Albright that was telling us more than a year ago in February 2009; “In as quickly as a few months, Iran would be able to have enough weapons-grade uranium for nuclear weapons”. It’s also the very same David Albright who told the CBS ’60 Minutes’ show way, way back in January 1999 that Saddam Hussein was “within a few months to a year of having a nuclear weapon”.

Albright? Not very! He’s the original boy that cried ‘Wolf!’ Unfortunately, the media will continue to echo his and similar cries and there will be those that believe them. Eventually the West, led by Israel and the US, will attack Iran based on these lies, but the worst of it is; hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of dead later, the rest of world will go along with it without a murmur.

Perhaps Krauthammer is not really any brighter than Albright after all.

One can only hope that there are plenty of folk out there who are brighter than either of them!

EHUD BARAK READY TO INVADE AND CONQUER THE GAZA STRIP

I have said at this blog many times before that the purpose of any war against Iran is not about Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’ but about providing an opportunity for Israel to attack, invade and occupy south Lebanon up to the Litani River, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with a long term view to annexation, all on the pretext of pre-empting retaliatory attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in the event of Israel and the US attacking Iran.

Today, as if to prepare the Israeli people of just such an eventuality, a report in YNet news.com stated that Ehud Barak, Israel’s defence minister, told a conference that “if the cabinet deems it needed, the IDF can conquer and rule Gaza”.

Slowly, as the world approaches the final confrontation, the real aims of such a devastating war are emerging from the fog of Israeli and US propaganda.

THE DRUMS OF WAR WILL BEAT AGAIN AS SOON AS THE ELECTIONS ARE OVER

According to news reports over the last couple of days, the ‘Israeli war drums have been muted on Iran’. The threat of military action against Iran by Israel, according to Julian Borger at the UK Guardian, is ‘receding for now’. Likewise, Huffington Post reported that Israeli and US officials are “seeking to ease tensions that have emerged between the two allies over a possible Israeli military strike against Iran”.

However, as I have stated in previous posts, this whole business about ‘tensions having emerged between Israel and the US’ and ‘the threat of military action against Iran by Israel’ has always only ever been a propaganda charade. And, as I also said, there’ll be no attack against Iran this side of the US elections.

Meanwhile, much will depend on what happens in Syria over the next nine weeks as to what direction the propaganda war against Iran will take.

As most folk who have been following events in the Middle East realise, everything that happens there is connected to whatever else happens there. Everything is intertwined in the Middle East – and mostly it revolves around Israel.

Unfortunately, I think the war in Syria will just continue to grind away with the Syrian people caught in between doing the dying with, again, little being done by the US this side of the election to resolve the Syria crisis one way or the other.

But after the elction…  

NETANYAHU FOAMING AT THE MOUTH TO ATTACK IRAN

A report in the Jerusalem Post says that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lost his cool at US Ambassador Dan Shapiro over Obama’s continued stance that sanctions and diplomacy needs more time to work. “Time has run out”, says Netanyahu to Shapiro and Republican congressman Mike Rogers who was accompanying him.

According to the report Netanyahu was “particularly angry and stressed”; apparently “sparks flew”.

The question is: Is Netanyahu just playing the roll of the ‘let me at ‘em’ bad cop while Obama continues to play the ‘good cop’ role for a little longer until the election or is Netanyahu really going to go off like a loose canon?

It comes back to this: Netanyahu, whether he’s playing a role or not, cannot attack Iran without the full connivance of the US as I’ve explained many times elsewhere at this blog.

Netanyahu is certainly upping the ante; however, I still don’t think anything will happen this side of the Presidential election.