Jonathan Tobin, a neoconservative Zionist writer at Commentary magazine seems to think that Jews will be ‘ethnically cleansed’ from a new Palestinian state. However, as I have explained in a letter to him, his argument is flawed. Here’s what I wrote to him:
Jonathan
Your argument in your article “Abbas’ Vision of an Ethnically Cleansed Palestinian State” is flawed. You write “…that any Israeli who would call for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel is rightly branded as an extremist whose views are out of touch with the democratic values of the nation.”
The problem with this is that Arabs living in Israel are subject to Israeli law and jurisdiction whereas Jewish settlers living in the West Bank want to remain subject to Israeli laws and jurisdiction if and when there is ever a Palestinian state. Settlers remaining in the West Bank after the creation of a Palestinian state would not be prepared to subject themselves to the laws and jurisdiction of a Palestinian state if the settlements were included within the new Palestinian state.
It’s not so much a case of ‘ethnically cleansing’ the new Palestinian state but, rather, Jews living in the settlements not wanting to subject themselves to the laws and jurisdiction of the new Palestinian state and, therefore, leaving and returning to Israel or from wherever they originally came from.
Neoconservatives and Zionists have consistently argued when discussing Israel’s history that the Palestinians were never ‘ethnically cleansed’ from modern Israel – with all that that implies – but left as the state was being created. Now you are arguing that, when the state of Palestine gets created, Jews living within it are somehow going to be ‘ethnically cleansed’ when in reality they will simply prefer not to live under Palestinian laws and jurisdiction.
Unlike most Palestinians that fled to become refugees at the creation of Israel, Jews in the new state of Palestine will not be chased out at the point of a gun amidst threats of death. In fact there will be no ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Jews from a Palestinian state, only an orderly departure of those Jews that live in the West Bank who would prefer to remain Israeli and not become Palestinians.
Damian Lataan
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
THE UK RIOTS: A PRELUDE FOR ‘ETHNIC CLEANSING’ BY ENGLISH RACISTS AND ISLAMOPHOBES?
It was only a matter of time before the Islamophobic extreme right-wing English Defense League (EDL) used the riots that originated in London but have since spread to other areas in the UK as an excuse to take to the streets themselves “to stop the riots”. According to a report in the UK Daily Telegraph, EDL leader Stephen Lennon has said that “up to 1,000 members would take to the streets in areas of unrest to stop the riots”. Lennon added that the “police obviously can’t handle it”.
One wonders how the EDL plan to “stop the riots” and, if they choose to use violence, who exactly will their violence be perpetrated against.
We were told at the beginning that these riots were race related. Later, however, it became obvious that it was much more about disenfranchisement of youth, caused by unemployment, poor living conditions, lack of opportunity, etc., than with race though there is certainly an element of racial tension involved and, indeed, the shooting that set it all off seems to have had racial connotations.
The question now is; if the unrest continues and the EDL do take to the streets to “stop the riots”, will they use it as an excuse to go after the Islamic youth in those areas that are affected and, if they do, where will it end?
Those that have spread hatred against Islam have a lot to answer for.
See here for more on this as seen through the eyes of an Australian Murdoch Islamophobic journalist.
UPDATE
Three Muslim men guarding their properties have been murdered in Birmingham by being run over. One man has been arrested.
One wonders how the EDL plan to “stop the riots” and, if they choose to use violence, who exactly will their violence be perpetrated against.
We were told at the beginning that these riots were race related. Later, however, it became obvious that it was much more about disenfranchisement of youth, caused by unemployment, poor living conditions, lack of opportunity, etc., than with race though there is certainly an element of racial tension involved and, indeed, the shooting that set it all off seems to have had racial connotations.
The question now is; if the unrest continues and the EDL do take to the streets to “stop the riots”, will they use it as an excuse to go after the Islamic youth in those areas that are affected and, if they do, where will it end?
Those that have spread hatred against Islam have a lot to answer for.
See here for more on this as seen through the eyes of an Australian Murdoch Islamophobic journalist.
UPDATE
Three Muslim men guarding their properties have been murdered in Birmingham by being run over. One man has been arrested.
Monday, July 25, 2011
MURDOCH JOURNO, ANDREW BOLT, DEFENDS THE ‘CREED’ THAT MOTIVATED ANDERS BREIVIK
In his column today, Murdoch journalist Andrew Bolt defends the creed of hate that motivated the killing of more than 90 people in Norway.
In his article, which he titles ‘Look not at his creed but at his wounds’, Bolt attempts to excuse the actions of Breivik by portraying him as being deeply frustrated by a sense of “powerlessness” which Bolt suggests is bought on by being engulfed by Islam, and “rejection” because of coming from a broken family.
While Bolt has used various superlatives to describe what Breivik had done including ‘murder’ and ‘atrocity’, etc., Bolt has consistently failed to wholeheartedly condemn the crime or the ‘creed’ that motivated it.
Fortunately, apart from a few of Bolt’s regular far-right Islamophobic supporters, most comments, even from some who often support Bolt, are critical of him for taking this stance.
After a careful read of Bolt’s post one can only conclude that Bolt is actually supportive of the reason why Breivik committed this crime. Certainly Andrew Bolt and his Islamophobic supporters in Australia are on exactly the same wavelength as Breivik. It was only a matter of time before Bolt's influence manifested itself in this type of violence.We have Murdoch to thank for the part Bolt has played in bringing the kind of hate-filled thinking Breivik has displayed to Australia.
Murdoch should immediately sack this hate-monger before his Islamophobic nonsense gains a foothold in Australia and culminates in the same kind of tragedy that happened in Norway.
In his article, which he titles ‘Look not at his creed but at his wounds’, Bolt attempts to excuse the actions of Breivik by portraying him as being deeply frustrated by a sense of “powerlessness” which Bolt suggests is bought on by being engulfed by Islam, and “rejection” because of coming from a broken family.
While Bolt has used various superlatives to describe what Breivik had done including ‘murder’ and ‘atrocity’, etc., Bolt has consistently failed to wholeheartedly condemn the crime or the ‘creed’ that motivated it.
Fortunately, apart from a few of Bolt’s regular far-right Islamophobic supporters, most comments, even from some who often support Bolt, are critical of him for taking this stance.
After a careful read of Bolt’s post one can only conclude that Bolt is actually supportive of the reason why Breivik committed this crime. Certainly Andrew Bolt and his Islamophobic supporters in Australia are on exactly the same wavelength as Breivik. It was only a matter of time before Bolt's influence manifested itself in this type of violence.We have Murdoch to thank for the part Bolt has played in bringing the kind of hate-filled thinking Breivik has displayed to Australia.
Murdoch should immediately sack this hate-monger before his Islamophobic nonsense gains a foothold in Australia and culminates in the same kind of tragedy that happened in Norway.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
MURDOCH’S AUSTRALIAN HATE MERCHANTS
Whereas in Britain Murdoch’s journalists revel in tabloid sensationalism utilising various nefarious methods of gaining material for their non-stories, Murdoch’s Australian journalists tend more to specialise in ultra right-wing racism. This includes cultural and religious racism directed mainly toward Islam, as well as blood and colour racism which is directed particularly toward Australia’s own Aboriginal people and also toward black Africans that have sought refuge in Australia.
At Melbourne’s Herald-Sun newspaper, Andrew Bolt, the ultra right-wing blogger-columnist, almost daily lays bare his racist credentials for all his followers to see. Today, for example, he tells us that the ‘underclass are stirring’. For Bolt the underclass are the whites of Australia who are lashing out against African migrants. In a futile effort to distance himself from the activities and violence of the underclass that he has stirred up by writing articles designed specifically to influence such perpetrators of violence and hatred, Bolt calls his post about the stirred underclass; ‘White trash’.
Meanwhile, at Murdoch’s Sydney newspaper, The Telegraph, another ultra right-wing blogger-columnist, Tim Blair, showed his Islamophobic colours when he made the same knee-jerk call as Bolt when the Norwegian atrocity story broke; he blamed Muslims.
The other blogger-columnist at The Telegraph is the all round racist Piers Akerman. Writing, thankfully, only intermittently these days, Akerman’s latest offering, ‘What a pack of Burqas’, was apparently written in France where he has been touring. The article covers the whole gamut of Akerman’s lunatic rantings (he once actually attempted to blame Muslims for causing the 2009 Black Sunday fires in Victoria) ranging from protecting what’s left of Murdoch’s credibility in the UK to Muslim immigration in Europe and back again.
The propaganda at Murdoch’s – and Australia’s – only national newspaper, The Australian, is only marginally more sophisticated than his regional tabloids. Greg Sheridan, Dennis Shanahan and Janet Albrechtsen, the Ann Coulter of the Australian loony right, are among the most prominent racist ultra right-wingers that Murdoch employs. Naturally, they all also happen to be climate change denialists and supporters of pollutionists. Currently, most of them are busy trying to isolate Murdoch’s Australian propaganda machine from the fallout from the misdeeds of his UK propaganda machine.
The aims of the two arms of his propaganda empire, the UK and Australia, are the same; its just that the UK arm tends more toward using underhand means of pushing their message while the Australian arm uses blatant fear-mongering racism and lies about climate change to get to its objectives of ‘regime change’ in Australia.
Murdoch’s merchants of hate in Australia have played down the events that occurred in Norway two days ago. Few have condemned the atrocity and have only reported the facts. Nor have Murdoch’s propagandists properly condemned the reactionary violence against African immigrants by racist white youths who clearly have been influenced by the likes of Murdoch’s Australian propagandists.
At Melbourne’s Herald-Sun newspaper, Andrew Bolt, the ultra right-wing blogger-columnist, almost daily lays bare his racist credentials for all his followers to see. Today, for example, he tells us that the ‘underclass are stirring’. For Bolt the underclass are the whites of Australia who are lashing out against African migrants. In a futile effort to distance himself from the activities and violence of the underclass that he has stirred up by writing articles designed specifically to influence such perpetrators of violence and hatred, Bolt calls his post about the stirred underclass; ‘White trash’.
Meanwhile, at Murdoch’s Sydney newspaper, The Telegraph, another ultra right-wing blogger-columnist, Tim Blair, showed his Islamophobic colours when he made the same knee-jerk call as Bolt when the Norwegian atrocity story broke; he blamed Muslims.
The other blogger-columnist at The Telegraph is the all round racist Piers Akerman. Writing, thankfully, only intermittently these days, Akerman’s latest offering, ‘What a pack of Burqas’, was apparently written in France where he has been touring. The article covers the whole gamut of Akerman’s lunatic rantings (he once actually attempted to blame Muslims for causing the 2009 Black Sunday fires in Victoria) ranging from protecting what’s left of Murdoch’s credibility in the UK to Muslim immigration in Europe and back again.
The propaganda at Murdoch’s – and Australia’s – only national newspaper, The Australian, is only marginally more sophisticated than his regional tabloids. Greg Sheridan, Dennis Shanahan and Janet Albrechtsen, the Ann Coulter of the Australian loony right, are among the most prominent racist ultra right-wingers that Murdoch employs. Naturally, they all also happen to be climate change denialists and supporters of pollutionists. Currently, most of them are busy trying to isolate Murdoch’s Australian propaganda machine from the fallout from the misdeeds of his UK propaganda machine.
The aims of the two arms of his propaganda empire, the UK and Australia, are the same; its just that the UK arm tends more toward using underhand means of pushing their message while the Australian arm uses blatant fear-mongering racism and lies about climate change to get to its objectives of ‘regime change’ in Australia.
Murdoch’s merchants of hate in Australia have played down the events that occurred in Norway two days ago. Few have condemned the atrocity and have only reported the facts. Nor have Murdoch’s propagandists properly condemned the reactionary violence against African immigrants by racist white youths who clearly have been influenced by the likes of Murdoch’s Australian propagandists.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
MURDOCH JOURNO ANDREW BOLT FAILS TO CONDEMN FAR-RIGHT KILLINGS AND BOMBING IN NORWAY
Murdoch journalist and extreme right-wing Australian racist, Andrew Bolt, is always quick to condemn Islamic terrorism wherever it may occur. Of course, all terrorism needs to be condemned but for Bolt, such condemnation is also seen as an opportunity to push his hate spiel against Islam for his racist followers to feed on.
Yesterday, as news came in that bombing and shooting atrocities had occurred in Norway, Bolt was quick off the mark to blame Islamist extremists saying “Once the identity of the attackers becomes known, the consequences for Norway’s immigration policies could be profound”.
Well, the identity of the attackers did become known and it seems at least one of them, who has been arrested, is actually just like Bolt and his crew of haters – an Islamophobic far-right racist.
Once Bolt realised that the attack had not been perpetrated by Islamic terrorists, he began to report only the bare facts in a series of updates to his original post. All of the updates were noticeably devoid of any condemnation. To date there have been no further posts on the attacks at Bolt’s blog.
This is part of the Murdoch style of journalism in Australia. Whether or not there is phone hacking going on in Australia is as yet unknown, but certainly there is a distinct pattern of anti-Islamic and anti non-white racism running through most of Murdoch’s publications in Australia particularly in Sydney where another Murdoch racist, Tim Blair, operates, and in Melbourne which is Bolt’s hate base.
Yesterday, as news came in that bombing and shooting atrocities had occurred in Norway, Bolt was quick off the mark to blame Islamist extremists saying “Once the identity of the attackers becomes known, the consequences for Norway’s immigration policies could be profound”.
Well, the identity of the attackers did become known and it seems at least one of them, who has been arrested, is actually just like Bolt and his crew of haters – an Islamophobic far-right racist.
Once Bolt realised that the attack had not been perpetrated by Islamic terrorists, he began to report only the bare facts in a series of updates to his original post. All of the updates were noticeably devoid of any condemnation. To date there have been no further posts on the attacks at Bolt’s blog.
This is part of the Murdoch style of journalism in Australia. Whether or not there is phone hacking going on in Australia is as yet unknown, but certainly there is a distinct pattern of anti-Islamic and anti non-white racism running through most of Murdoch’s publications in Australia particularly in Sydney where another Murdoch racist, Tim Blair, operates, and in Melbourne which is Bolt’s hate base.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, IT’S ABOUT RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE
The climate change debate has caused us to lose sight of the real issue at stake.
The right-wing media that support the polluters are contesting the Greens argument that continued use of the earths non-renewable resources as a fuel will eventually lead to a rise in temperatures that will ultimately see many of the planets low lying areas become engulfed by and lost to rising sea levels. The right-wing media argues simply that this just won’t happen and that there’s no proof to support it. The Greens, in turn, say there is ample proof and that we should take immediate steps to do something about it.
To help the pollutionists argument, the right-wing have arranged an assortment of so-called experts to travel around the planet in an attempt to persuade the ‘don’t knows’ and ‘not convinced’ into their camp. One of the most prolific pro-pollutionist speakers, an ‘expert’ with no formal qualifications in the field, is a certain Lord Christopher Monckton. As part of his rhetoric, Monckton actually claims to be a member of Britain’s House of Lords while knowing that he is not. So serious is the matter that the House of Lords have had to ask Monckton to refrain from claiming that he is a member. ‘Lord’ Monckton, thus, has no credibility yet the pro-pollutionists continue to pay for his services. While there are far more pro-climate change scientists around than there are denialist scientists – most of whom seem to have various vested interests in supporting the pollutionists – the denialist scientists have the support of a massive right-wing media controlled mainly by the now much troubled Murdoch group of companies.
In the pro-polluters camp there are two distinct groups. One group are the polluters themselves who are currently making a lot of money out of polluting and so don’t want to stop polluting; and then there is a second more complex group that support the polluters cause but for their own nefarious reasons. Together they have formed an alliance that is determined to stop the world from stopping the polluters polluting it.
The second group that support the polluters do so only because their primary concern is that they don’t want to have to pay the polluters compensation to stop polluting us which is what some of the world’s governments are proposing. They are also concerned that the polluters will more than likely not stop polluting us and far more likely make even more money by trading in the complex government-sponsored ‘carbon credits’ scheme. They argue simply that a ‘carbon tax’ will cost the planet in jobs and money and do little or nothing to stop climate change – if, indeed, it’s actually changing anyway.
Within the second group there is a small group who think, possibly rightly, that the ‘carbon tax’ is just another government rip off from the ordinary working class world that will achieve nothing except enrich further those that are already rich. This group aren’t so much for the pollutionists but, rather, against the impost of a tax. In nations like Australia where a ‘carbon tax’ is being proposed, this group are politically important because they may well be the group that decide who will next govern Australia because, the way things are going at the moment, the next election could revolve almost entirely around this issue.
My argument, however, is not so much about whether or not there is climate change occurring – I happen to think there is - but more about the future of resources for a world that our children, grand-children and great grand-children will inherit; a future which should concern all of us whether we are believers or not.
Our world is populating at an exponential rate; it has more than tripled in just the last 90 years. Advances in medicine and health care have ensured a generally longer life. Fertility treatment, higher birth survival rates and post-natal care practices also play a part in increasing the world’s population. Although wars, unfortunately, are still a part of human existence on the planet, they are nowhere near as devastating in terms of numbers dead as the wars that dominated the twentieth century and this fact too has increased the planets population. As a result, in 50 years time we can expect a world population of some 10-12 billion people from the 6.93 billion we have now. Providing energy for such large numbers of people from non-renewable resources is likely to deplete the known resources very quickly.
Pro-pollutionists argue that there are still plenty of resources left in the ground that has not yet been discovered. The obvious retort to such an argument is; if it has not yet been discovered, how can anyone say that there's plenty left? While it is true that man has over the past several decades since the Second World War discovered vast deposits of energy resources, we have quickly used much of these up, and the areas where man can now look have been all but exhausted. The pro-pollutionists, however, insist on continuing to search for these resources knowing that the chances of finding them become less likely as each day goes by.
We need to ask ourselves a number of questions; first, are we willing to take a punt on there actually being vast amounts of resources left and, even if there are, how much longer will it last before we need to start another desperate search for more? Second, if we do find the extra reserves the planet needs, are we willing to take a punt on the climate change scientists being wrong by going ahead and burning it in the hope that it will have no ill effects? And when those reserves do run out; what then?
Our planet’s engineers now have the technology to produce energy from solar, lunar and geothermal resources. We can produce power directly from the sun via photo-voltaic (PV) cells, direct radiation on absorber panels (solar hot water systems), wind energy (which comes via the sun heating air masses which causes air to expand and move), and other devices that use mirrors and lenses. We can produce power by harnessing the moon’s gravitational pull on the worlds oceans (tidal and wave power); and we have an abundant source of geothermal power locked up beneath the earths surface which we are only just beginning to understand and use though some countries, like Iceland, have been using geothermal power for years for various applications including heating water and living spaces as well as generating electricity.
For sure, much of this technology is still in its infancy and a lot of research and development still needs to be done before it can be used universally and in enough numbers where a point can be reached that we no longer need to worry about our future energy needs even if we knew there was no more non-renewable resources left to use, but we are moving along fairly rapidly. Just recently there has been a tremendous surge in the use of PV energy generation. PV panels are now the most common form of renewable energy generation used in private homes. Advances in PV efficiency both in terms of power generation and cost have allowed them to become a very practical alternative to ever-increasing power bills for many households. If the PV technology advances follows anything like the way computer technology advanced then we could very quickly see rapid universal use of them everywhere.
Wind power generation has also seen huge advances in use in less than a decade. In South Australia, for example, more than 20% of the states power needs are generated from wind turbines with more on the way. And, again, wind turbine technology is also seeing this form of power generation come into rapidly increasing usage.
Advances in energy storage systems, especially in lithium battery design, is bringing the electric car concept closer to reality. Once the volume-mass problems associated with energy storage systems have been solved, so we will be a step closer to using all-electric transport systems of all types.
We do still have a long way to go but the time it takes to get there can be drastically shortened if the energy providers of the world can be given incentives to increase their research and development to providing renewable energy resources rather than using up what’s left of the worlds non-renewable resources. There is far more at stake here than the loss of a few coalminers jobs or the non-renewable energy providers profits. We need to look forward to a world that doesn’t rely on fuels that will run out; a world where its inhabitants don’t have to fight over the pickings of what reserves are left; a world that stops consuming itself and instead uses what our solar system can provide – abundant energy that will increase the quality of life for everyone on the planet.
The choice is simple. You can have this (above) which the likes of Andrew Bolt, a notorious pro-pollutionist, thinks is a “rotten thing” because, he says, it has ruined one of his “favourite views in Victoria”, or we can have this (below).
The so-called ‘carbon tax’, which will pay for the research and development of renewable resources, is a small price to pay, both now and for our future.
The right-wing media that support the polluters are contesting the Greens argument that continued use of the earths non-renewable resources as a fuel will eventually lead to a rise in temperatures that will ultimately see many of the planets low lying areas become engulfed by and lost to rising sea levels. The right-wing media argues simply that this just won’t happen and that there’s no proof to support it. The Greens, in turn, say there is ample proof and that we should take immediate steps to do something about it.
To help the pollutionists argument, the right-wing have arranged an assortment of so-called experts to travel around the planet in an attempt to persuade the ‘don’t knows’ and ‘not convinced’ into their camp. One of the most prolific pro-pollutionist speakers, an ‘expert’ with no formal qualifications in the field, is a certain Lord Christopher Monckton. As part of his rhetoric, Monckton actually claims to be a member of Britain’s House of Lords while knowing that he is not. So serious is the matter that the House of Lords have had to ask Monckton to refrain from claiming that he is a member. ‘Lord’ Monckton, thus, has no credibility yet the pro-pollutionists continue to pay for his services. While there are far more pro-climate change scientists around than there are denialist scientists – most of whom seem to have various vested interests in supporting the pollutionists – the denialist scientists have the support of a massive right-wing media controlled mainly by the now much troubled Murdoch group of companies.
In the pro-polluters camp there are two distinct groups. One group are the polluters themselves who are currently making a lot of money out of polluting and so don’t want to stop polluting; and then there is a second more complex group that support the polluters cause but for their own nefarious reasons. Together they have formed an alliance that is determined to stop the world from stopping the polluters polluting it.
The second group that support the polluters do so only because their primary concern is that they don’t want to have to pay the polluters compensation to stop polluting us which is what some of the world’s governments are proposing. They are also concerned that the polluters will more than likely not stop polluting us and far more likely make even more money by trading in the complex government-sponsored ‘carbon credits’ scheme. They argue simply that a ‘carbon tax’ will cost the planet in jobs and money and do little or nothing to stop climate change – if, indeed, it’s actually changing anyway.
Within the second group there is a small group who think, possibly rightly, that the ‘carbon tax’ is just another government rip off from the ordinary working class world that will achieve nothing except enrich further those that are already rich. This group aren’t so much for the pollutionists but, rather, against the impost of a tax. In nations like Australia where a ‘carbon tax’ is being proposed, this group are politically important because they may well be the group that decide who will next govern Australia because, the way things are going at the moment, the next election could revolve almost entirely around this issue.
My argument, however, is not so much about whether or not there is climate change occurring – I happen to think there is - but more about the future of resources for a world that our children, grand-children and great grand-children will inherit; a future which should concern all of us whether we are believers or not.
Our world is populating at an exponential rate; it has more than tripled in just the last 90 years. Advances in medicine and health care have ensured a generally longer life. Fertility treatment, higher birth survival rates and post-natal care practices also play a part in increasing the world’s population. Although wars, unfortunately, are still a part of human existence on the planet, they are nowhere near as devastating in terms of numbers dead as the wars that dominated the twentieth century and this fact too has increased the planets population. As a result, in 50 years time we can expect a world population of some 10-12 billion people from the 6.93 billion we have now. Providing energy for such large numbers of people from non-renewable resources is likely to deplete the known resources very quickly.
Pro-pollutionists argue that there are still plenty of resources left in the ground that has not yet been discovered. The obvious retort to such an argument is; if it has not yet been discovered, how can anyone say that there's plenty left? While it is true that man has over the past several decades since the Second World War discovered vast deposits of energy resources, we have quickly used much of these up, and the areas where man can now look have been all but exhausted. The pro-pollutionists, however, insist on continuing to search for these resources knowing that the chances of finding them become less likely as each day goes by.
We need to ask ourselves a number of questions; first, are we willing to take a punt on there actually being vast amounts of resources left and, even if there are, how much longer will it last before we need to start another desperate search for more? Second, if we do find the extra reserves the planet needs, are we willing to take a punt on the climate change scientists being wrong by going ahead and burning it in the hope that it will have no ill effects? And when those reserves do run out; what then?
Our planet’s engineers now have the technology to produce energy from solar, lunar and geothermal resources. We can produce power directly from the sun via photo-voltaic (PV) cells, direct radiation on absorber panels (solar hot water systems), wind energy (which comes via the sun heating air masses which causes air to expand and move), and other devices that use mirrors and lenses. We can produce power by harnessing the moon’s gravitational pull on the worlds oceans (tidal and wave power); and we have an abundant source of geothermal power locked up beneath the earths surface which we are only just beginning to understand and use though some countries, like Iceland, have been using geothermal power for years for various applications including heating water and living spaces as well as generating electricity.
For sure, much of this technology is still in its infancy and a lot of research and development still needs to be done before it can be used universally and in enough numbers where a point can be reached that we no longer need to worry about our future energy needs even if we knew there was no more non-renewable resources left to use, but we are moving along fairly rapidly. Just recently there has been a tremendous surge in the use of PV energy generation. PV panels are now the most common form of renewable energy generation used in private homes. Advances in PV efficiency both in terms of power generation and cost have allowed them to become a very practical alternative to ever-increasing power bills for many households. If the PV technology advances follows anything like the way computer technology advanced then we could very quickly see rapid universal use of them everywhere.
Wind power generation has also seen huge advances in use in less than a decade. In South Australia, for example, more than 20% of the states power needs are generated from wind turbines with more on the way. And, again, wind turbine technology is also seeing this form of power generation come into rapidly increasing usage.
Advances in energy storage systems, especially in lithium battery design, is bringing the electric car concept closer to reality. Once the volume-mass problems associated with energy storage systems have been solved, so we will be a step closer to using all-electric transport systems of all types.
We do still have a long way to go but the time it takes to get there can be drastically shortened if the energy providers of the world can be given incentives to increase their research and development to providing renewable energy resources rather than using up what’s left of the worlds non-renewable resources. There is far more at stake here than the loss of a few coalminers jobs or the non-renewable energy providers profits. We need to look forward to a world that doesn’t rely on fuels that will run out; a world where its inhabitants don’t have to fight over the pickings of what reserves are left; a world that stops consuming itself and instead uses what our solar system can provide – abundant energy that will increase the quality of life for everyone on the planet.
The choice is simple. You can have this (above) which the likes of Andrew Bolt, a notorious pro-pollutionist, thinks is a “rotten thing” because, he says, it has ruined one of his “favourite views in Victoria”, or we can have this (below).The so-called ‘carbon tax’, which will pay for the research and development of renewable resources, is a small price to pay, both now and for our future.
Friday, July 15, 2011
AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN MINISTER, KEVIN RUDD: MAN OF DECEIT
Kevin Rudd, Australia’s ex-Prime Minister and current Foreign Minister, is either nowhere near as bright as he likes to think he is or he is being deliberately deceitful.
Yesterday, while visiting Melbourne, Rudd stopped off at a café in one of Melbourne’s shopping plazas. Melbourne’s The Age newspaper reported that his choice of cafe was deliberate. Rudd was quoted as saying: ''As an individual citizen - that is me, K. Rudd - I am here because I object to the boycotting of Jewish businesses”.
If Rudd had said he was there because he objected to the boycotting of Israeli businesses then that would have been fine – but he didn’t. He specifically and deliberately said ‘Jewish’ businesses. It was deliberate because he went on to emphasise the point by saying that “anyone with historical memory should deplore boycotts of Jewish businesses”. Rudd, of course, was referring to the way Nazis boycotted Jewish businesses in Germany during the 1930s.
Rudd’s inference here is quite clear; boycotting Jewish businesses is anti-Semitic – and if the businesses were being boycotted simply because they were Jewish, it would indeed be anti-Semitic.
The problem is; this particular business, a Max Brenner Chocolate Bar, was targeted for boycotting recently by pro-Palestinian activists, not because it was a Jewish-owned business, but because it was an Israeli-owned business. The fact that the business also happens to be Jewish-owned is incidental. There are many Jewish-owned businesses all over Australia and not one of them is being boycotted solely because it is Jewish-owned.
There also happens to be another aspect to this story that Rudd hadn’t considered when setting out to take this action.
The Max Brenner chain of businesses is owned by the Israeli-based company the Strauss Group. The Strauss Group is headed up by Michael Strauss. Michael Strauss also happens to be a strong supporter of an Israeli centrist think-tank called the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI).
Recently the extreme right-wing Zionist government led by Benjamin Netanyahu introduced laws in Israel that would ban Israelis from supporting calls for boycotts of Israeli goods and businesses. There has been a backlash against the anti-boycotting law proposal on the grounds that such a move is undemocratic – and the IDI has come out very strongly in support of the move to defeat the new anti-boycotting laws.
Rudd’s attempt at invoking Nazi era anti-Semitism in order to promote Zionism is transparently inappropriate and utterly deceitful – not to mention as in this case, totally misplaced considering that the head of the company that owns the cafe Rudd stopped at effectively supports the right to boycott.
Yesterday, while visiting Melbourne, Rudd stopped off at a café in one of Melbourne’s shopping plazas. Melbourne’s The Age newspaper reported that his choice of cafe was deliberate. Rudd was quoted as saying: ''As an individual citizen - that is me, K. Rudd - I am here because I object to the boycotting of Jewish businesses”.
If Rudd had said he was there because he objected to the boycotting of Israeli businesses then that would have been fine – but he didn’t. He specifically and deliberately said ‘Jewish’ businesses. It was deliberate because he went on to emphasise the point by saying that “anyone with historical memory should deplore boycotts of Jewish businesses”. Rudd, of course, was referring to the way Nazis boycotted Jewish businesses in Germany during the 1930s.
Rudd’s inference here is quite clear; boycotting Jewish businesses is anti-Semitic – and if the businesses were being boycotted simply because they were Jewish, it would indeed be anti-Semitic.
The problem is; this particular business, a Max Brenner Chocolate Bar, was targeted for boycotting recently by pro-Palestinian activists, not because it was a Jewish-owned business, but because it was an Israeli-owned business. The fact that the business also happens to be Jewish-owned is incidental. There are many Jewish-owned businesses all over Australia and not one of them is being boycotted solely because it is Jewish-owned.
There also happens to be another aspect to this story that Rudd hadn’t considered when setting out to take this action.
The Max Brenner chain of businesses is owned by the Israeli-based company the Strauss Group. The Strauss Group is headed up by Michael Strauss. Michael Strauss also happens to be a strong supporter of an Israeli centrist think-tank called the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI).
Recently the extreme right-wing Zionist government led by Benjamin Netanyahu introduced laws in Israel that would ban Israelis from supporting calls for boycotts of Israeli goods and businesses. There has been a backlash against the anti-boycotting law proposal on the grounds that such a move is undemocratic – and the IDI has come out very strongly in support of the move to defeat the new anti-boycotting laws.
Rudd’s attempt at invoking Nazi era anti-Semitism in order to promote Zionism is transparently inappropriate and utterly deceitful – not to mention as in this case, totally misplaced considering that the head of the company that owns the cafe Rudd stopped at effectively supports the right to boycott.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
BOLT THE RACIST, BOLT THE HYPOCRITE.
In his rush to demonise Islam, the racist Islamophobe Andrew Bolt forgets how similar Islam is to Judaism in many of its practices. In his column today he does his usual lazy journalist stunt of cutting and pasting other people’s work to create a post that is totally bereft of any of his own words. In this case he cites fellow Islamophobe Mark Steyn from his blog in order to project his own view.
Basically, the piece attempts to belittle Islam by highlighting the Islamic practice of not allowing menstruating women to worship in their mosque and being made to sit at the back of the place of worship during this time. Bolt and Steyn infer that the practice is both sexist and archaic. Another Islamophobe, Kathy Shaidle, reinforces this notion in her article which Steyn and then Bolt quote: “…and the year is 2011” implying that this sort of practice isn’t appropriate in this day and age.
The problem is that all of these Islamophobes have been so busy trying to demonise Islam in this way that they’ve not realised that some sects within Judaism have very similar laws about menstruating women with some synagogues not even allowing menstruating women into the synagogue let alone make them sit at the back.
All Bolt, Steyn and Shaidle have demonstrated with this piece of attempted hate-spiel is their own hypocrisy and utter ignorance – not to mention their Islamophobic racism and contempt for the Islamic religion. Their hate-spiel goes to the heart of Islamic religious practices, practices which also happen to be shared by other religions, and has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic extremism which they claim is their only objection to Islam.
Freedom of speech is one thing; Bolt’s brand of hate-speech is something else. The quicker this sick racist is shut down the better for Australia and the better for the planet.
Basically, the piece attempts to belittle Islam by highlighting the Islamic practice of not allowing menstruating women to worship in their mosque and being made to sit at the back of the place of worship during this time. Bolt and Steyn infer that the practice is both sexist and archaic. Another Islamophobe, Kathy Shaidle, reinforces this notion in her article which Steyn and then Bolt quote: “…and the year is 2011” implying that this sort of practice isn’t appropriate in this day and age.
The problem is that all of these Islamophobes have been so busy trying to demonise Islam in this way that they’ve not realised that some sects within Judaism have very similar laws about menstruating women with some synagogues not even allowing menstruating women into the synagogue let alone make them sit at the back.
All Bolt, Steyn and Shaidle have demonstrated with this piece of attempted hate-spiel is their own hypocrisy and utter ignorance – not to mention their Islamophobic racism and contempt for the Islamic religion. Their hate-spiel goes to the heart of Islamic religious practices, practices which also happen to be shared by other religions, and has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic extremism which they claim is their only objection to Islam.
Freedom of speech is one thing; Bolt’s brand of hate-speech is something else. The quicker this sick racist is shut down the better for Australia and the better for the planet.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
REUEL MARC GERECHT: THE DECEITFUL NEOCONSERVATIVE EXPOSED
Reuel Marc Gerecht is one of neoconservatisms most diehard ideologues. In his latest piece of neocon rhetoric in The Weekly Standard Gerecht writes:
“…the uncertainties of the Arab Spring and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s air war in Libya have spooked the administration. Its ‘realist’ tendencies are well known, and ‘realism’ powerfully comes to the fore when a president doesn’t know what to do—or believes that the United States can do little. The safest and easiest bet then is to do nothing—the essence of most ‘realist’ policy.
Such ‘prudence’, ‘restraint’, and ‘patience’—the administration is fond of these words—can be commendable when a situation is messy or murky. But neither applies in Syria. This is an easy call: We have a chance to eliminate one of America’s worst enemies in the region—the linchpin of Iran’s alliances and terrorist apparatus. We have a chance to traumatize Tehran: The world will look a lot more precarious to supreme leader Ali Khamenei and a lot more hopeful to the millions behind Iran’s pro-democracy Green Movement if Bashar al-Assad goes down. The importance of Syria to Iranian foreign policy and internal politics cannot be overstated.”
Now, Gerecht has been around spouting the neocon cause for a very long time and while in his latest article he comes across all concerned about America’s dwindling power, the reality is that his primary concerns are not so much for America but far more for Israel.
Gerecht accuses Obama of either not knowing ‘what to do’ about Syria or believing there is little that can be done. There is another option that Gerecht doesn’t mention but which is far more likely to be the case as far as Obama is concerned and that is it’s simply not practical to go in boots and all as Gerecht would like him to do.
One has to ask oneself; how come Gerecht and all his neocon buddies are so deadset obsessed with Syria and Iran? Neither nation is a threat to America. Gerecht says; “We have a chance to eliminate one of America’s worst enemies in the region…” but how is Syria an enemy? In what way is it a threat?
What Gerecht really means to say is: “We have a chance to eliminate one of Israel’s worst enemies in the region”. Syria, of course, is an enemy of Israel because Israel invaded, occupied and then annexed Syria’s Golan Heights. Syria also supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
And Gerecht’s interest in Israel doesn’t stop at Syria. For Israel the real enemy is Iran. Iran has the weapons to supply to those that are resisting Israel’s expansionist ambitions whereas Syria is the means by which those weapons can be supplied. And it is Iran who Gerecht has been encouraging, not just the US, but Israel to attack regardless of what the consequences might be.
Gerecht, as part of his rhetoric, has a penchant for exaggerating threats, particularly the Iranian threat, to Israel. In an article last year in The Atlantic magazine Gerecht, writing about a possible Israeli attack on Iran, said:
“Israeli calculations for a preventive strike don't have to be conclusive to be successful. If the Israelis do nothing, they know that they would eventually be staring at an internally unstable, virulently anti-Semitic, terrorist-fond regime with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Simply imagining the probable hair-trigger scenarios in which Israel will have to play atomic-bluff with Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard Corps -- the organization that oversees Iran's nuclear program -- ought to be enough to make any rational nuclear planner shudder.”
“…ought to be enough to make any rational nuclear planner shudder”? Indeed it would, but not in the way Gerecht imagines. Gerecht paints a picture or Iran that is totally unreal. Even if Iran did have a nuclear weapon, it would hardly be likely to use it against Israel. The fact is; Israel just isn’t so important a nation that Iran is ready destroy itself over no matter how much Iran despises Zionism.
The neocons are making a concerted effort to destroy Syria’s Assad regime and wants to get Obama to hasten Assad’s demise, but what the neocons don’t seem to realise is that once Assad is gone there is not suddenly going to be some Israeli-friendly, or even US-friendly government, taking his place. The people of Syria object to Israel taking the Golan Heights and they support the Palestinians and their cause. The revolt against Assad is purely an internal matter No matter how it is ultimately resolved; it is unlikely to change the Syrian people’s view of Israel or even Syria’s support of Hezbollah.
Gerecht and his fellow neocons, as usual, are practising deceit – again. Gerecht is motivated by Israeli interests and not America’s. He just wants the US to do the dirty work for Israel. Surely the American people have woken up to this deceit by now. Look what happened in Iraq. How many Americans died there?
And how many Israelis?
“…the uncertainties of the Arab Spring and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s air war in Libya have spooked the administration. Its ‘realist’ tendencies are well known, and ‘realism’ powerfully comes to the fore when a president doesn’t know what to do—or believes that the United States can do little. The safest and easiest bet then is to do nothing—the essence of most ‘realist’ policy.
Such ‘prudence’, ‘restraint’, and ‘patience’—the administration is fond of these words—can be commendable when a situation is messy or murky. But neither applies in Syria. This is an easy call: We have a chance to eliminate one of America’s worst enemies in the region—the linchpin of Iran’s alliances and terrorist apparatus. We have a chance to traumatize Tehran: The world will look a lot more precarious to supreme leader Ali Khamenei and a lot more hopeful to the millions behind Iran’s pro-democracy Green Movement if Bashar al-Assad goes down. The importance of Syria to Iranian foreign policy and internal politics cannot be overstated.”
Now, Gerecht has been around spouting the neocon cause for a very long time and while in his latest article he comes across all concerned about America’s dwindling power, the reality is that his primary concerns are not so much for America but far more for Israel.
Gerecht accuses Obama of either not knowing ‘what to do’ about Syria or believing there is little that can be done. There is another option that Gerecht doesn’t mention but which is far more likely to be the case as far as Obama is concerned and that is it’s simply not practical to go in boots and all as Gerecht would like him to do.
One has to ask oneself; how come Gerecht and all his neocon buddies are so deadset obsessed with Syria and Iran? Neither nation is a threat to America. Gerecht says; “We have a chance to eliminate one of America’s worst enemies in the region…” but how is Syria an enemy? In what way is it a threat?
What Gerecht really means to say is: “We have a chance to eliminate one of Israel’s worst enemies in the region”. Syria, of course, is an enemy of Israel because Israel invaded, occupied and then annexed Syria’s Golan Heights. Syria also supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and, to a lesser extent, Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
And Gerecht’s interest in Israel doesn’t stop at Syria. For Israel the real enemy is Iran. Iran has the weapons to supply to those that are resisting Israel’s expansionist ambitions whereas Syria is the means by which those weapons can be supplied. And it is Iran who Gerecht has been encouraging, not just the US, but Israel to attack regardless of what the consequences might be.
Gerecht, as part of his rhetoric, has a penchant for exaggerating threats, particularly the Iranian threat, to Israel. In an article last year in The Atlantic magazine Gerecht, writing about a possible Israeli attack on Iran, said:
“Israeli calculations for a preventive strike don't have to be conclusive to be successful. If the Israelis do nothing, they know that they would eventually be staring at an internally unstable, virulently anti-Semitic, terrorist-fond regime with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Simply imagining the probable hair-trigger scenarios in which Israel will have to play atomic-bluff with Iran's supreme leader Ali Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard Corps -- the organization that oversees Iran's nuclear program -- ought to be enough to make any rational nuclear planner shudder.”
“…ought to be enough to make any rational nuclear planner shudder”? Indeed it would, but not in the way Gerecht imagines. Gerecht paints a picture or Iran that is totally unreal. Even if Iran did have a nuclear weapon, it would hardly be likely to use it against Israel. The fact is; Israel just isn’t so important a nation that Iran is ready destroy itself over no matter how much Iran despises Zionism.
The neocons are making a concerted effort to destroy Syria’s Assad regime and wants to get Obama to hasten Assad’s demise, but what the neocons don’t seem to realise is that once Assad is gone there is not suddenly going to be some Israeli-friendly, or even US-friendly government, taking his place. The people of Syria object to Israel taking the Golan Heights and they support the Palestinians and their cause. The revolt against Assad is purely an internal matter No matter how it is ultimately resolved; it is unlikely to change the Syrian people’s view of Israel or even Syria’s support of Hezbollah.
Gerecht and his fellow neocons, as usual, are practising deceit – again. Gerecht is motivated by Israeli interests and not America’s. He just wants the US to do the dirty work for Israel. Surely the American people have woken up to this deceit by now. Look what happened in Iraq. How many Americans died there?
And how many Israelis?
THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF MURDOCH?
It’s tempting to suggest that the scandal enveloping the Murdoch media empire may well see the demise of the world’s largest political propaganda machine. Unfortunately, the very fact that it is such a massive propaganda machine will likely ensure that his empire does survive – albeit needing some considerable time to recover.
Apart from being a massive world-wide propaganda machine, Murdoch himself wields much personal and political influence. There are many leaders around the world, past and present, who owe much of their success to Murdoch and his media empire. Even the current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, arguably, may not have got into power without Murdoch’s backing. And Tony Blair too might not have enjoyed such a large victory at the polls as he did in May 1997 without the last minute support of Rupert Murdoch. In the US, Murdoch’s long string of media enterprises, in particular Fox News, helped George W. Bush gain American support for the war against Iraq. Around the world, Murdoch’s newspapers and media served Bush’s cause and those of his allies including Tony Blair; Australia’s Prime Minister of the time, John Howard; Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and Spain’s Jose Maria Aznar, all of whom benefited from Murdoch’s unwavering support for the war. Aznar even went on to become a senior member of the board of directors for News Corporation.
In the current crisis, Cameron initially supported Murdoch in the hope that it would all be just a flash in the pan and, after a few smaller heads were made to roll, all would be well again. Cameron supported Murdoch’s push to buy up all of Britain’s BSkyB media company but, in the wake of the growing crisis and the now obvious fact that it isn’t simply going to go away, Cameron has now joined the political call from Britain’s other major parties for Murdoch to abandon his plans to take over BSkyB which will be a major blow for Murdoch.
As the crisis deepens and it’s becoming apparent that the practice of phone hacking was far more widespread than initially thought, many are wondering how far the practice did extend and to what extent were senior and top managers aware of what was going on or even approved or, worse still, had instigated the practice. Did Murdoch himself know or approve of it? He’s hardly likely to admit it if he did though if he’s hauled up to front an inquiry and denies it and then is subsequently found to be a part of the practice then that surely would be the end of him.
Whether it comes to the demise of Murdoch himself remains to be seen. Murdoch has enough personal wealth to ensure that he will be very comfortable for the rest of his days; however, doing business is his obsession and he wouldn’t last very long without the fix of doing deals so I’d suggest that he’ll fight this all the way – even if it’s just for the thrill of it. Whether he wins or not is another matter.
In Australia, where it all started for Murdoch, his newspapers are relatively safe. His flagship paper, the nationwide The Australian, has all but ignored the crisis on the other side of the world, as have his regional and city papers. All of them seem to be reporting only the bare facts of what’s happened with very little comment or opinion being aired.
For his rival newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald in Sydney and The Age in Melbourne, it’s a different matter. Both have been giving the emerging stories full headlines though the intensity of reporting and commentary has now dropped off a little – at least for now.
A world without Murdoch’s propagandists in it, however, is still some way away though the next few months will likely see some interesting developments that will see them pull their horns in.
Heads will roll; it’s going to be interesting to see whose.
Apart from being a massive world-wide propaganda machine, Murdoch himself wields much personal and political influence. There are many leaders around the world, past and present, who owe much of their success to Murdoch and his media empire. Even the current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, arguably, may not have got into power without Murdoch’s backing. And Tony Blair too might not have enjoyed such a large victory at the polls as he did in May 1997 without the last minute support of Rupert Murdoch. In the US, Murdoch’s long string of media enterprises, in particular Fox News, helped George W. Bush gain American support for the war against Iraq. Around the world, Murdoch’s newspapers and media served Bush’s cause and those of his allies including Tony Blair; Australia’s Prime Minister of the time, John Howard; Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and Spain’s Jose Maria Aznar, all of whom benefited from Murdoch’s unwavering support for the war. Aznar even went on to become a senior member of the board of directors for News Corporation.
In the current crisis, Cameron initially supported Murdoch in the hope that it would all be just a flash in the pan and, after a few smaller heads were made to roll, all would be well again. Cameron supported Murdoch’s push to buy up all of Britain’s BSkyB media company but, in the wake of the growing crisis and the now obvious fact that it isn’t simply going to go away, Cameron has now joined the political call from Britain’s other major parties for Murdoch to abandon his plans to take over BSkyB which will be a major blow for Murdoch.
As the crisis deepens and it’s becoming apparent that the practice of phone hacking was far more widespread than initially thought, many are wondering how far the practice did extend and to what extent were senior and top managers aware of what was going on or even approved or, worse still, had instigated the practice. Did Murdoch himself know or approve of it? He’s hardly likely to admit it if he did though if he’s hauled up to front an inquiry and denies it and then is subsequently found to be a part of the practice then that surely would be the end of him.
Whether it comes to the demise of Murdoch himself remains to be seen. Murdoch has enough personal wealth to ensure that he will be very comfortable for the rest of his days; however, doing business is his obsession and he wouldn’t last very long without the fix of doing deals so I’d suggest that he’ll fight this all the way – even if it’s just for the thrill of it. Whether he wins or not is another matter.
In Australia, where it all started for Murdoch, his newspapers are relatively safe. His flagship paper, the nationwide The Australian, has all but ignored the crisis on the other side of the world, as have his regional and city papers. All of them seem to be reporting only the bare facts of what’s happened with very little comment or opinion being aired.
For his rival newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald in Sydney and The Age in Melbourne, it’s a different matter. Both have been giving the emerging stories full headlines though the intensity of reporting and commentary has now dropped off a little – at least for now.
A world without Murdoch’s propagandists in it, however, is still some way away though the next few months will likely see some interesting developments that will see them pull their horns in.
Heads will roll; it’s going to be interesting to see whose.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
NEOCONS, ZIONISTS AND THE ‘FREEDOM FLOTILLA’ – 2
Last week I wrote about how neocons and Zionists don’t understand why the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ is called the ‘Freedom Flotilla’. Of course, it’s not really that they don’t understand, it’s more that they would like to continue to use the original reason for having a flotilla in the first place – to bring relief and humanitarian aid to the people of the Gaza Strip – for propaganda purposes. They think that if they can show there is no longer a need for humanitarian aid then there is no reason for a flotilla. They now argue that, because they think there is now no need to bring aid to the Gaza, then the flotilla must only be to provoke Israel.
The reality is far from what the Zionists and neocons would like us to believe. First, there is still a need for aid. Despite the sporadic opening of the Gaza-Egypt border and even a slight increase in the amount of goods passing into the Gaza from Israel, there is still nowhere near enough coming in to service all of the Gazan people's needs. As for ‘provoking Israel’, the reality is the complete opposite; it is Israel that is deliberately provoking Hamas.
Michael Rubin, a neocon writer for Commentary, sums it up thus:
It’s about time the international media drop the fiction the Gaza flotilla is motivated by humanitarian concerns. It is not about resolving conflict; its aim is to create conflict.
The fact is, the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ is motivated by nothing else other than humanitarian concerns – even if it were not bringing actual aid to the Palestinian people. Just by coming to the Gaza Strip is a form of humanitarian relief. It comes in the form of breaking a psychological barrier as well as a literal one. It shows that there are people all over the world that care about their plight. By breaking the blockade, humanitarian relief comes in the form of being free to trade with whom ever the Palestinian people want without having to go cap in hand to the Israelis. Humanitarian relief is more than just a ship-load of bandages and bags of cement; it’s about freedom and the right to trade without harassment and with any one they wish – including Israelis.
What the neoconservatives and the Zionists need to do is drop the fiction that their aim of blockading the Gaza flotilla is to prevent arms and weapons reaching Hamas. They know full well that there are no arms or weapons on board any of the vessels. The world knows that the Zionists' true aims are not about preventing arms reaching the Palestinians but about creating conflict in order find an excuse to subdue and crush the Palestinian people and stop them from having their own sovereign state which, in turn, will prevent the Zionists from ever realising their ultimate dream of creating a Greater Israel.
The ‘Freedom Flotilla’ is called the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ for a reason. It’s something the neocons and Zionists refuse to understand.
The reality is far from what the Zionists and neocons would like us to believe. First, there is still a need for aid. Despite the sporadic opening of the Gaza-Egypt border and even a slight increase in the amount of goods passing into the Gaza from Israel, there is still nowhere near enough coming in to service all of the Gazan people's needs. As for ‘provoking Israel’, the reality is the complete opposite; it is Israel that is deliberately provoking Hamas.
Michael Rubin, a neocon writer for Commentary, sums it up thus:
It’s about time the international media drop the fiction the Gaza flotilla is motivated by humanitarian concerns. It is not about resolving conflict; its aim is to create conflict.
The fact is, the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ is motivated by nothing else other than humanitarian concerns – even if it were not bringing actual aid to the Palestinian people. Just by coming to the Gaza Strip is a form of humanitarian relief. It comes in the form of breaking a psychological barrier as well as a literal one. It shows that there are people all over the world that care about their plight. By breaking the blockade, humanitarian relief comes in the form of being free to trade with whom ever the Palestinian people want without having to go cap in hand to the Israelis. Humanitarian relief is more than just a ship-load of bandages and bags of cement; it’s about freedom and the right to trade without harassment and with any one they wish – including Israelis.
What the neoconservatives and the Zionists need to do is drop the fiction that their aim of blockading the Gaza flotilla is to prevent arms and weapons reaching Hamas. They know full well that there are no arms or weapons on board any of the vessels. The world knows that the Zionists' true aims are not about preventing arms reaching the Palestinians but about creating conflict in order find an excuse to subdue and crush the Palestinian people and stop them from having their own sovereign state which, in turn, will prevent the Zionists from ever realising their ultimate dream of creating a Greater Israel.
The ‘Freedom Flotilla’ is called the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ for a reason. It’s something the neocons and Zionists refuse to understand.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
BRITAIN JOINS U.S. AND ISREALI HYPE OVER IRAN
In a speech to the UK parliament yesterday British Foreign Secretary William Hague joined the US and Israel in rhetoric designed specifically to induce fear over Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
Hague told parliament that the Iranians had tested missiles during their recent military exercises that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. He also told parliament that Iran was enriching uranium beyond that which was required electricity generation. Hague reportedly told parliament that Iran "has announced that it intends to triple its capacity to produce 20% enriched uranium. And that "these are enrichment levels far greater than is needed for peaceful nuclear energy”.
William Hague is deliberately practicing deceit with these statements. He has ignored telling the parliament that having a medium range missiles does not mean that nuclear warheads are available for them. All medium range missiles are capable of being adapted to carrying a nuclear warhead. Modern nuclear weapons are now so small that they can be fitted to most missiles. The US has even tested nuclear weapons in artillery shells.
Hague also attempts to deceive with his statement about Iran’s desire to enrich uranium to 20%. The fact is, Iran has been quite open about its enrichment of uranium to 20%; they’re not doing it covertly as Hague has tried to infer. Uranium enriched to 20% is required in order to manufacture medical isotopes for the treatment of cancer. Iran announced their intention to do this a long time ago yet Hague tells the British people about as though it has just been announced. Iran announced ages ago that it had an urgent need for isotopes and that it would be expediting enrichment to 20%.
Hague has joined with the US and Israel in their fearmongering just as both are upping the propaganda and rhetoric over Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
Why?
Hague told parliament that the Iranians had tested missiles during their recent military exercises that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. He also told parliament that Iran was enriching uranium beyond that which was required electricity generation. Hague reportedly told parliament that Iran "has announced that it intends to triple its capacity to produce 20% enriched uranium. And that "these are enrichment levels far greater than is needed for peaceful nuclear energy”.
William Hague is deliberately practicing deceit with these statements. He has ignored telling the parliament that having a medium range missiles does not mean that nuclear warheads are available for them. All medium range missiles are capable of being adapted to carrying a nuclear warhead. Modern nuclear weapons are now so small that they can be fitted to most missiles. The US has even tested nuclear weapons in artillery shells.
Hague also attempts to deceive with his statement about Iran’s desire to enrich uranium to 20%. The fact is, Iran has been quite open about its enrichment of uranium to 20%; they’re not doing it covertly as Hague has tried to infer. Uranium enriched to 20% is required in order to manufacture medical isotopes for the treatment of cancer. Iran announced their intention to do this a long time ago yet Hague tells the British people about as though it has just been announced. Iran announced ages ago that it had an urgent need for isotopes and that it would be expediting enrichment to 20%.
Hague has joined with the US and Israel in their fearmongering just as both are upping the propaganda and rhetoric over Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
Why?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
ARE THE TALIBAN REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE LATEST ROUND OF ATROCITIES IN AFGHANISTAN?
Two recent atrocities in Afghanistan have been blamed on the Taliban. On Saturday last at least 25 people were killed when a suicide bomber drove an explosive filled vehicle into a rural clinic. The next day an eight year old girl died after she was duped into carrying a bomb which was remotely detonated close to a parked police vehicle. However, on both accounts, the Taliban have denied responsibility.
Of course, in the West, the Taliban’s denials are ignored except inasmuch that the media will mention that the Taliban has denied responsibility. This, though, does not stop the Western mainstream media, especially the conservative, and particularly the neoconservative media, from continuing to blame the Taliban anyway.
During the same period, other suicide attacks have been made against the puppet Afghan police, the army, government offices and, as in the most recent attacks against foreigners, the Taliban have had no compunctions at all about putting their hands up claiming responsibility for such attacks.
The Taliban has nothing at all to gain from suicide bombing attacks on Afghan civilians or using children for bombing attacks.
So, when the Taliban deny responsibility for an attack or bombing, who else would have a vested interest in carrying out such attacks?
Last Wednesday on 22 June 2011, President Obama announced a drawdown of some 33,000 troops from Afghanistan. A number of senior US military officers have said that this is far in excess of the numbers the US military top brass had recommended with at least one having said so to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Clearly, there are some senior elements in America’s armed forces that are unhappy at the prospect of a drawdown. Certainly, the right-wing, particularly neoconservative commentators, is extremely vocal about what they consider to be an inappropriate withdrawal of troops. One might wonder, then; since the right-wing and the senior military are so anti-Obama and against drawdown plans, could it be conceivable, given the marked increase in atrocities that the Taliban have denied responsibility for, that rogue forces are at work here being paid for by irregular US back channels? Afghan warlords are notorious for switching sides and operating covertly for the highest bidder.
It just seems that this sudden upsurge in atrocities that have been denied by the Taliban should take place so soon after the announcement of the troop drawdown is just too much of a coincidence especially when there seems to be certain senior US military brass so against it. How hard would it be for those involved in the complex covert world of Afghan double-dealing to arrange for these kinds of false flag operations to take place with a view of trying to get Obama to change his mind at least about the second two-thirds of the drawdown due next year?
And, of course, talk of a negotiated settlement with the Taliban hasn’t helped the situation as far as the neoconservatives are concerned who want nothing less than the complete destruction of the Taliban and their associate groups.
All things considered, you have to wonder what’s really going on as far as these denied atrocities are concerned.
Of course, in the West, the Taliban’s denials are ignored except inasmuch that the media will mention that the Taliban has denied responsibility. This, though, does not stop the Western mainstream media, especially the conservative, and particularly the neoconservative media, from continuing to blame the Taliban anyway.
During the same period, other suicide attacks have been made against the puppet Afghan police, the army, government offices and, as in the most recent attacks against foreigners, the Taliban have had no compunctions at all about putting their hands up claiming responsibility for such attacks.
The Taliban has nothing at all to gain from suicide bombing attacks on Afghan civilians or using children for bombing attacks.
So, when the Taliban deny responsibility for an attack or bombing, who else would have a vested interest in carrying out such attacks?
Last Wednesday on 22 June 2011, President Obama announced a drawdown of some 33,000 troops from Afghanistan. A number of senior US military officers have said that this is far in excess of the numbers the US military top brass had recommended with at least one having said so to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Clearly, there are some senior elements in America’s armed forces that are unhappy at the prospect of a drawdown. Certainly, the right-wing, particularly neoconservative commentators, is extremely vocal about what they consider to be an inappropriate withdrawal of troops. One might wonder, then; since the right-wing and the senior military are so anti-Obama and against drawdown plans, could it be conceivable, given the marked increase in atrocities that the Taliban have denied responsibility for, that rogue forces are at work here being paid for by irregular US back channels? Afghan warlords are notorious for switching sides and operating covertly for the highest bidder.
It just seems that this sudden upsurge in atrocities that have been denied by the Taliban should take place so soon after the announcement of the troop drawdown is just too much of a coincidence especially when there seems to be certain senior US military brass so against it. How hard would it be for those involved in the complex covert world of Afghan double-dealing to arrange for these kinds of false flag operations to take place with a view of trying to get Obama to change his mind at least about the second two-thirds of the drawdown due next year?
And, of course, talk of a negotiated settlement with the Taliban hasn’t helped the situation as far as the neoconservatives are concerned who want nothing less than the complete destruction of the Taliban and their associate groups.
All things considered, you have to wonder what’s really going on as far as these denied atrocities are concerned.
Monday, June 27, 2011
NEOCONS, ZIONISTS AND THE ‘FREEDOM FLOTILLA’
The Zionists of Israel and their neocon supporters just don’t get it. They think that the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ is only about bringing humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. They seem to be oblivious to the fact that it’s called the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ for a reason.
Neocon pundit Alana Goodman writing in Commentary, says that, because the Gaza Strip now has a lot of stuff coming and going, especially since Egypt opened up the border between the Sinai and the Gaza, that the flotilla to Gaza “is completely unnecessary”.
On 10 May 2011 the Israeli ambassador to the European Union, Ran Curiel, told a news conference in Strasbourg that the flotilla is a “clear political provocation” adding that “there's no need for a flotilla to aid Gaza. You can pass whatever you want to Gaza through normal channels.” The glaringly obvious is missed entirely by the ambassador; if whatever the Gazans want can pass through normal channels then why the naval blockade?
What both the neocons and the Israelis fail to see is the desire for the Palestinians to be free of being dictated to by the Israelis. It is up to the Palestinian people of the Gaza to decide how stuff can come and go to and from the Gaza Strip, not the Israelis or anyone else. The waters off Gaza are not Israeli waters. The Israelis have no more right to dictate who or what may come and go via Gazan ports than the Palestinians have over deciding who or what can come and go via Israeli ports.
The Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip are indeed slowly being relieved of the suffering the blockade brought to them but it is no thanks to the Israelis that that relief is happening. The tunnels have had an enormously positive effect on Gazan life despite Israel’s efforts to close them down, often killing tunnel workers in the process, and the recent opening of the Gazan-Egyptian border has helped even further but, like any other nation that has a sea as part of its border, the Gazan people demand access to it in order to fully realise their trading potential. They want the freedom to be able to use what is rightfully theirs.
The political provocation comes not from the Palestinians and their supporters; rather, it comes from the Israelis themselves together with their neocon supporters who arrogantly and immorally want to deny the Palestinians in the Gaza the right to use what is theirs. The Palestinians in the Gaza want to be the judge of whether it’s ‘completely unnecessary’ or not, not the Israelis.
And that’s what the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ is really all about. It’s about freedom.
Neocon pundit Alana Goodman writing in Commentary, says that, because the Gaza Strip now has a lot of stuff coming and going, especially since Egypt opened up the border between the Sinai and the Gaza, that the flotilla to Gaza “is completely unnecessary”.
On 10 May 2011 the Israeli ambassador to the European Union, Ran Curiel, told a news conference in Strasbourg that the flotilla is a “clear political provocation” adding that “there's no need for a flotilla to aid Gaza. You can pass whatever you want to Gaza through normal channels.” The glaringly obvious is missed entirely by the ambassador; if whatever the Gazans want can pass through normal channels then why the naval blockade?
What both the neocons and the Israelis fail to see is the desire for the Palestinians to be free of being dictated to by the Israelis. It is up to the Palestinian people of the Gaza to decide how stuff can come and go to and from the Gaza Strip, not the Israelis or anyone else. The waters off Gaza are not Israeli waters. The Israelis have no more right to dictate who or what may come and go via Gazan ports than the Palestinians have over deciding who or what can come and go via Israeli ports.
The Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip are indeed slowly being relieved of the suffering the blockade brought to them but it is no thanks to the Israelis that that relief is happening. The tunnels have had an enormously positive effect on Gazan life despite Israel’s efforts to close them down, often killing tunnel workers in the process, and the recent opening of the Gazan-Egyptian border has helped even further but, like any other nation that has a sea as part of its border, the Gazan people demand access to it in order to fully realise their trading potential. They want the freedom to be able to use what is rightfully theirs.
The political provocation comes not from the Palestinians and their supporters; rather, it comes from the Israelis themselves together with their neocon supporters who arrogantly and immorally want to deny the Palestinians in the Gaza the right to use what is theirs. The Palestinians in the Gaza want to be the judge of whether it’s ‘completely unnecessary’ or not, not the Israelis.
And that’s what the ‘Freedom Flotilla’ is really all about. It’s about freedom.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
THE WEST AND HOW IT PERPETUATES ITS OWN ENEMIES
In an article for National Review Online today, neocon writer Clifford May imagines that he can read the mind of Osama bin Laden’s so-called ‘successor’, Ayman Zawahiri. As if he is Zawahiri, May writes:
Now the duty is entrusted to me. Now I am the amir of al-Qaeda’t al-Jihad, better known — indeed, known everywhere on earth — as al-Qaeda.
‘Known everywhere on earth’?! Al Qaeda is, indeed, known everywhere on earth – and, to be sure, the Western media, led by neocon writers just like Clifford May, have made a huge effort to ensure that al Qaeda has become a household name throughout the entire planet.
Osama bin Laden became the quintessential anti-hero figure – the Emmanuel Goldstein in George Orwell’s famous novel, 1984 – for the West to hate. Al Qaeda became the enemy he led. Both gave the West, the US and Israel in particular, the justification needed to pursue their respective interests in the world.
For Israel, al Qaeda represented the Islamic forces that surround them in the Middle East, and Israel has worked hard, but with little success, to associate al Qaeda with Palestinian fighters in the Gaza and the West Bank, and Arab fighters in Lebanon. And for the US, bin Laden and al Qaeda were the ideal scapegoats to blame for 9/11, the Pearl Harbor needed for America and its allies to attack those nations that stood in the way of US hegemony in the resource-rich Central Asian and Middle East region, Afghanistan and Iraq. In doing so, the US and the West have killed several birds with one stone. In Iraq, not only have they got the Saddam Hussein monkey of the backs of the Israelis but they also now control one of the regions most resource-rich nations, one which also happens to be right next to another of Israel’s arch enemies, Iran. The US and their allies by blaming bin Laden and his al Qaeda group for 9/11, were also provided with a casus belli for attacking Afghanistan which, while having few resources of its own, is geographically located at the heart of a resource-rich region which also happens to be not only strategically placed close to Russia and China but also is a neighbour of Iran. Iran is now effectively surrounded by US-led Western dominated countries.
The problem for the neocon-dominated warhawks of the West was basically that their plans went awry from the very start.
9/11, of course, was the trigger that was to set everything in motion. By blaming bin Laden and al Qaeda, the US had an excuse to invade Afghanistan. They quickly overwhelmed the Taliban government and installed a puppet government in its place. The plan then was to completely destroy the Taliban and then build a pipeline across Afghanistan from the Caspian Basin to Karachi in Pakistan to pump gas to a global market controlled by the West. However, the US and their allies didn’t reckon on the tenacious spirit of the Taliban fighters and their resistance allies including those in Pakistan. Militarily overwhelmed, there was no way they could militarily defeat the US and their allies, but they could, using their intimate knowledge of the land and with just a few weapons, resist the US and their allies and wear them into the ground, a feat that is now, almost ten years after the invasion, almost accomplished.
But Afghanistan was not the only country that the neocons had in their sights. As soon as 9/11 happened, they began their propaganda war against Iraq accusing Saddam Hussein of being somehow complicit. Being told that bin Laden and his al Qaeda group who were responsible for 9/11 and were holed up in Afghanistan ensured that there would be no public opinion backlash against invading and occupying Afghanistan especially if it was done quickly while feelings were running hot. However, Iraq was a lot different. While the people of the West were aware of Saddam Hussein’s support of the Palestinians and their Intifada against the Israelis, and were aware that he was a particularly brutal dictator, there was absolutely no evidence at all that he actually had any part to play in the events of 9/11 or was in any way a threat to the US. And so began the propaganda campaign to gain public support for an all-out invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The George W. Bush administration led by the neocons found it difficult to convince the people in the West that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 – though it wasn’t for the lack of trying; they did try hard and, indeed, persist to this day in trying to tell the world that Saddam was complicit – they pushed, instead, the notion that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and suggested that they were an “immediate threat” to the US and the world.
The neocons spent the nineteen months between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 trying to convince the West that Iraq was a threat to world while at the same time convincing themselves that an invasion, occupation and the establishment of a stable Israel-friendly puppet government could be achieved in just a few months and that the American forces and their allies would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as great liberators. Eight years and three months later, bombs were still killing civilians and police in Iraqi streets.
As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the ‘war on terror’ still rages. ‘Al Qaeda’ has become a brand name that has been foisted on all those – regardless of their cause or allegiances – that have had the temerity to take up arms against the West and their allies. The ‘al Qaeda’ brand name has become well known ‘everywhere on earth’, not because of the efforts of Osama bin Laden or Ayman Zawahiri, but by the deeds and actions of the US, Israel and their supporters throughout the West.
Your average 20 to 25 year-old Muslim fighter doing battle against the US and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere today were only ten or fifteen when 9/11 happened. They are now fighting an army that invaded their respective nations. It’s not about ‘Osama bin Laden’ or ‘al Qaeda’; it never has been. For the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, and anywhere else that the US, Israel and the West threaten, it’s about resisting invasion, occupation, persecution, tyranny, brutality and torture. It’s about freedom and the desire to determine their own destiny.
The US, Israel and their allies have created enemies as a result of their own actions. By creating the myth of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ascribing to them a status that the West are supposed to see as enemies succeeds only in giving the West’s enemies a cause to fight for. Taliban fighters today are not the die-hard al Qaeda-like Islamic fundamentalists the propagandists told us were responsible for 9/11. Most fighters today merely want rid their country of the invader and those that support the invaders. Many have been driven to their cause as result of the invaders actions. Many innocent civilians, including women and children, have been killed at the hands of the West over the years and in doing so the West have assured themselves of an enemy to always be at war with while they occupy any country they have invaded.
In short, the West perpetuate its own enemies.
Now the duty is entrusted to me. Now I am the amir of al-Qaeda’t al-Jihad, better known — indeed, known everywhere on earth — as al-Qaeda.
‘Known everywhere on earth’?! Al Qaeda is, indeed, known everywhere on earth – and, to be sure, the Western media, led by neocon writers just like Clifford May, have made a huge effort to ensure that al Qaeda has become a household name throughout the entire planet.
Osama bin Laden became the quintessential anti-hero figure – the Emmanuel Goldstein in George Orwell’s famous novel, 1984 – for the West to hate. Al Qaeda became the enemy he led. Both gave the West, the US and Israel in particular, the justification needed to pursue their respective interests in the world.
For Israel, al Qaeda represented the Islamic forces that surround them in the Middle East, and Israel has worked hard, but with little success, to associate al Qaeda with Palestinian fighters in the Gaza and the West Bank, and Arab fighters in Lebanon. And for the US, bin Laden and al Qaeda were the ideal scapegoats to blame for 9/11, the Pearl Harbor needed for America and its allies to attack those nations that stood in the way of US hegemony in the resource-rich Central Asian and Middle East region, Afghanistan and Iraq. In doing so, the US and the West have killed several birds with one stone. In Iraq, not only have they got the Saddam Hussein monkey of the backs of the Israelis but they also now control one of the regions most resource-rich nations, one which also happens to be right next to another of Israel’s arch enemies, Iran. The US and their allies by blaming bin Laden and his al Qaeda group for 9/11, were also provided with a casus belli for attacking Afghanistan which, while having few resources of its own, is geographically located at the heart of a resource-rich region which also happens to be not only strategically placed close to Russia and China but also is a neighbour of Iran. Iran is now effectively surrounded by US-led Western dominated countries.
The problem for the neocon-dominated warhawks of the West was basically that their plans went awry from the very start.
9/11, of course, was the trigger that was to set everything in motion. By blaming bin Laden and al Qaeda, the US had an excuse to invade Afghanistan. They quickly overwhelmed the Taliban government and installed a puppet government in its place. The plan then was to completely destroy the Taliban and then build a pipeline across Afghanistan from the Caspian Basin to Karachi in Pakistan to pump gas to a global market controlled by the West. However, the US and their allies didn’t reckon on the tenacious spirit of the Taliban fighters and their resistance allies including those in Pakistan. Militarily overwhelmed, there was no way they could militarily defeat the US and their allies, but they could, using their intimate knowledge of the land and with just a few weapons, resist the US and their allies and wear them into the ground, a feat that is now, almost ten years after the invasion, almost accomplished.
But Afghanistan was not the only country that the neocons had in their sights. As soon as 9/11 happened, they began their propaganda war against Iraq accusing Saddam Hussein of being somehow complicit. Being told that bin Laden and his al Qaeda group who were responsible for 9/11 and were holed up in Afghanistan ensured that there would be no public opinion backlash against invading and occupying Afghanistan especially if it was done quickly while feelings were running hot. However, Iraq was a lot different. While the people of the West were aware of Saddam Hussein’s support of the Palestinians and their Intifada against the Israelis, and were aware that he was a particularly brutal dictator, there was absolutely no evidence at all that he actually had any part to play in the events of 9/11 or was in any way a threat to the US. And so began the propaganda campaign to gain public support for an all-out invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The George W. Bush administration led by the neocons found it difficult to convince the people in the West that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 – though it wasn’t for the lack of trying; they did try hard and, indeed, persist to this day in trying to tell the world that Saddam was complicit – they pushed, instead, the notion that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and suggested that they were an “immediate threat” to the US and the world.
The neocons spent the nineteen months between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 trying to convince the West that Iraq was a threat to world while at the same time convincing themselves that an invasion, occupation and the establishment of a stable Israel-friendly puppet government could be achieved in just a few months and that the American forces and their allies would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as great liberators. Eight years and three months later, bombs were still killing civilians and police in Iraqi streets.
As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, the ‘war on terror’ still rages. ‘Al Qaeda’ has become a brand name that has been foisted on all those – regardless of their cause or allegiances – that have had the temerity to take up arms against the West and their allies. The ‘al Qaeda’ brand name has become well known ‘everywhere on earth’, not because of the efforts of Osama bin Laden or Ayman Zawahiri, but by the deeds and actions of the US, Israel and their supporters throughout the West.
Your average 20 to 25 year-old Muslim fighter doing battle against the US and their allies in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere today were only ten or fifteen when 9/11 happened. They are now fighting an army that invaded their respective nations. It’s not about ‘Osama bin Laden’ or ‘al Qaeda’; it never has been. For the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, and anywhere else that the US, Israel and the West threaten, it’s about resisting invasion, occupation, persecution, tyranny, brutality and torture. It’s about freedom and the desire to determine their own destiny.
The US, Israel and their allies have created enemies as a result of their own actions. By creating the myth of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ascribing to them a status that the West are supposed to see as enemies succeeds only in giving the West’s enemies a cause to fight for. Taliban fighters today are not the die-hard al Qaeda-like Islamic fundamentalists the propagandists told us were responsible for 9/11. Most fighters today merely want rid their country of the invader and those that support the invaders. Many have been driven to their cause as result of the invaders actions. Many innocent civilians, including women and children, have been killed at the hands of the West over the years and in doing so the West have assured themselves of an enemy to always be at war with while they occupy any country they have invaded.
In short, the West perpetuate its own enemies.
Friday, June 24, 2011
ANDREW BOLT: THE ‘JULIUS STREICHER’ OF THE AUSTRALIAN EXTREME RIGHT
Andrew Bolt, Australia’s most notorious racist and Islamophobe, like the Nazi Jew-baiter Julius Streicher before him, continues to relentlessly pursue his program of hate against Islamic and non-European immigrants to Australia.
His almost daily attacks (here’s yesterday’s) against Islam at his on-line column at Rupert Murdoch’s Herald-Sun newspaper are designed to demonise the entire Islamic community. Bolt does this by cherry-picking the misdeeds of a very few and inferring that whatever offence has been committed by an Islamic person was done because they are Muslims and that they are representative of what the whole Islamic community are like. In other words, Bolt misrepresents the values of the Islamic community claiming that Western values are different and, therefore, are better than those of Muslims. It is exactly the same propaganda technique that Julius Streicher used in his Der Stürmer newspaper in Germany during the Nazi era to demonise the Jews of Germany and later throughout Europe.
Like Streicher, Bolt hopes that his relentless propaganda demonising Muslims and Islam will influence public opinion to the extent that the Australian people will eventually hate Islam and Muslims as much as he does and that the government will then deport those that are here or, at least, not allow any further Muslim immigration to Australia.
The problem is; it never just ends there. Streicher started his hate campaign against Jews in much the same way. At first he demanded that Jews should be expelled from Germany. Over time, as the Nazis and other extreme right-wing groups coalesced and became increasingly more influential politically, so the persecution against Jews went beyond mere words. Eventually, as the Nazis moved into power, so the persecution of Jews increased. They were shunned by their fellow Germans and then excluded from certain professions. As Hitler’s expansionist dreams became reality so the persecution of Jews was taken a step further and they were put in camps and then later deported, mostly to Poland. As Hitler marched further east into Russia so the final plans that became the ‘final solution to the Jewish problem’ were put into effect. The rest of the story is all too well known.
Yet there are some among us that never learn and others that seem to have forgotten about the horrors of the last century. In more recent history, as we have seen in Bosnia-Herzegovina where over 7000 Muslims were murdered simply because they were Muslims, history does repeat.
The Jews of Germany and Europe, whilst aware of the anti-Semitism that was pervasive, not just in Germany, but throughout Europe and the US during that period, never in their worst nightmares as the war approached imagined that Germany would actually attempt the wholesale slaughter of every one of Europe’s Jews. But in just a very short time it went from abusive harassment in Streicher’s Der Stürmer newspaper to what ended up being the deaths of millions. And one of the reasons so many did die was because they simply did not believe that such hatreds could lead to slaughter on such a massive scale.
We should not allow the abusive harassment against Muslims that we see in Bolt’s column of hate to continue. While Bolt continues to claim his rights to ‘freedom of speech’, his abuse of those rights to harass and demonise Muslims should be stopped in its tracks. His column of hate should be shut down. This meme about ‘freedom of speech being a cornerstone of democracy’ is simply being used by people like Bolt as an excuse to pedal their hatreds.
Freedom of speech is one thing; the abuse of it in order to pedal hatred is something else.
This article is cross-posted at:
http://bolttheracist.blogspot.com/
His almost daily attacks (here’s yesterday’s) against Islam at his on-line column at Rupert Murdoch’s Herald-Sun newspaper are designed to demonise the entire Islamic community. Bolt does this by cherry-picking the misdeeds of a very few and inferring that whatever offence has been committed by an Islamic person was done because they are Muslims and that they are representative of what the whole Islamic community are like. In other words, Bolt misrepresents the values of the Islamic community claiming that Western values are different and, therefore, are better than those of Muslims. It is exactly the same propaganda technique that Julius Streicher used in his Der Stürmer newspaper in Germany during the Nazi era to demonise the Jews of Germany and later throughout Europe.
Like Streicher, Bolt hopes that his relentless propaganda demonising Muslims and Islam will influence public opinion to the extent that the Australian people will eventually hate Islam and Muslims as much as he does and that the government will then deport those that are here or, at least, not allow any further Muslim immigration to Australia.
The problem is; it never just ends there. Streicher started his hate campaign against Jews in much the same way. At first he demanded that Jews should be expelled from Germany. Over time, as the Nazis and other extreme right-wing groups coalesced and became increasingly more influential politically, so the persecution against Jews went beyond mere words. Eventually, as the Nazis moved into power, so the persecution of Jews increased. They were shunned by their fellow Germans and then excluded from certain professions. As Hitler’s expansionist dreams became reality so the persecution of Jews was taken a step further and they were put in camps and then later deported, mostly to Poland. As Hitler marched further east into Russia so the final plans that became the ‘final solution to the Jewish problem’ were put into effect. The rest of the story is all too well known.
Yet there are some among us that never learn and others that seem to have forgotten about the horrors of the last century. In more recent history, as we have seen in Bosnia-Herzegovina where over 7000 Muslims were murdered simply because they were Muslims, history does repeat.
The Jews of Germany and Europe, whilst aware of the anti-Semitism that was pervasive, not just in Germany, but throughout Europe and the US during that period, never in their worst nightmares as the war approached imagined that Germany would actually attempt the wholesale slaughter of every one of Europe’s Jews. But in just a very short time it went from abusive harassment in Streicher’s Der Stürmer newspaper to what ended up being the deaths of millions. And one of the reasons so many did die was because they simply did not believe that such hatreds could lead to slaughter on such a massive scale.
We should not allow the abusive harassment against Muslims that we see in Bolt’s column of hate to continue. While Bolt continues to claim his rights to ‘freedom of speech’, his abuse of those rights to harass and demonise Muslims should be stopped in its tracks. His column of hate should be shut down. This meme about ‘freedom of speech being a cornerstone of democracy’ is simply being used by people like Bolt as an excuse to pedal their hatreds.
Freedom of speech is one thing; the abuse of it in order to pedal hatred is something else.
This article is cross-posted at:
http://bolttheracist.blogspot.com/
Thursday, June 23, 2011
TITLE AND SOVEREIGNTY: A SUBTLE DIFFERENCE THAT ZIONISTS WHO BUY LAND IN THE WEST BANK DON’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND
If an immigrant community of, say, Papua New Guineans settled in Australia buying up large tracts of land, would they then be able to demand that the land they have bought title to be turned over to Papua New Guinean sovereignty subject to PNG laws, government and judiciary?
If the Papua New Guineans (or whoever) were to follow neocon Zionist Daniel Pipes’ logic then the answer is ‘yes’ they would be able to – not, of course, that the Australian government would accede to such demands.
In a recent article in National Review Online titled Not stealing Palestine, But Purchasing Israel, Pipes argues that Israel has been created as much as a result of Zionists purchasing land before the UN partitioned Palestine to create Israel in 1948, as was by occupation after a period of war.
Pipes argues that during the war of 1948/49 most Arabs fled their lands” and that “exceedingly few were forced off”. This is typical Pipes chutzpah. Why did they flee their lands? They fled because they feared being killed as the Israelis moved in, which in many places, as historians like Illan Pappe documents, is exactly what happened to many Palestinians. Fleeing before an advancing enemy with no right of return is the same as being ‘forced out’.
Pipes confines his argument to the purchase of lands prior to the creation of Israel when those lands did indeed revert to Israeli sovereignty. But he frames his argument in a somewhat deceitful way. He infers that Zionists bought all of the lands that became Israel in 1948 “acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house”. This is complete nonsense. In reality only a small proportion of the land was purchased by Zionists. The rest was acquired by intimidation and force of arms. In short, it was the Arab states that attempted to put a hold on Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people rather than the Israelis being attacked by them. Right-wing Zionists have been pushing the lie that Israel was ‘attacked’ by the Arab states around them for years but, as Pappe shows, history and the facts tell an entirely different story.
During the period since the 1967 war, the Israeli government, through the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Israeli Lands Administration, purchased land in the Occupied Territories. At first, private purchasers were not allowed to purchase land in the Territories in order to avoid speculation but by 1979 these rules were relaxed and Israeli and Jewish developers were allowed to purchase land in the Occupied Territories. Many cases of trickery and outright intimidation as a means of purchasing land have been reported since. However, by far the greatest amount of land ceded to Israeli hands is that which Israel has acquired by simple expropriation and by military requisition.
The question now is: Does Israel intend at some stage in the future, possibly just prior to the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to get Palestine unilaterally recognised as a sovereign state at the UN, to annex all of the West Bank settlements to Israeli sovereignty based on title ownership or will the Israelis invade and fully occupy the West Bank under Israeli military governance, or will they do both.
The point here is; regardless of how much land people from one nation own elsewhere in other nations, title to that land does not, as Pipes and other Zionists suggest, confer sovereignty to the nation that the owners of that title are nationalities of.
Many Paua New Guineans live in communities in Australia but they live here either as permanent residents retaining their own nationality or as Australian citizens; either way they are subject to Australian sovereignty and Papua New Guinean.
One wonders what makes Zionists think that they are exempt from these norms?
Note
Folks interested in reading further on this subject should read George E. Bisharat’s in-depth scholarly article: Land, Law and Legitimacy in Israel and the Occupied Territories linked to above and here.
If the Papua New Guineans (or whoever) were to follow neocon Zionist Daniel Pipes’ logic then the answer is ‘yes’ they would be able to – not, of course, that the Australian government would accede to such demands.
In a recent article in National Review Online titled Not stealing Palestine, But Purchasing Israel, Pipes argues that Israel has been created as much as a result of Zionists purchasing land before the UN partitioned Palestine to create Israel in 1948, as was by occupation after a period of war.
Pipes argues that during the war of 1948/49 most Arabs fled their lands” and that “exceedingly few were forced off”. This is typical Pipes chutzpah. Why did they flee their lands? They fled because they feared being killed as the Israelis moved in, which in many places, as historians like Illan Pappe documents, is exactly what happened to many Palestinians. Fleeing before an advancing enemy with no right of return is the same as being ‘forced out’.
Pipes confines his argument to the purchase of lands prior to the creation of Israel when those lands did indeed revert to Israeli sovereignty. But he frames his argument in a somewhat deceitful way. He infers that Zionists bought all of the lands that became Israel in 1948 “acquiring property dunam by dunam, farm by farm, house by house”. This is complete nonsense. In reality only a small proportion of the land was purchased by Zionists. The rest was acquired by intimidation and force of arms. In short, it was the Arab states that attempted to put a hold on Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people rather than the Israelis being attacked by them. Right-wing Zionists have been pushing the lie that Israel was ‘attacked’ by the Arab states around them for years but, as Pappe shows, history and the facts tell an entirely different story.
During the period since the 1967 war, the Israeli government, through the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and the Israeli Lands Administration, purchased land in the Occupied Territories. At first, private purchasers were not allowed to purchase land in the Territories in order to avoid speculation but by 1979 these rules were relaxed and Israeli and Jewish developers were allowed to purchase land in the Occupied Territories. Many cases of trickery and outright intimidation as a means of purchasing land have been reported since. However, by far the greatest amount of land ceded to Israeli hands is that which Israel has acquired by simple expropriation and by military requisition.
The question now is: Does Israel intend at some stage in the future, possibly just prior to the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to get Palestine unilaterally recognised as a sovereign state at the UN, to annex all of the West Bank settlements to Israeli sovereignty based on title ownership or will the Israelis invade and fully occupy the West Bank under Israeli military governance, or will they do both.
The point here is; regardless of how much land people from one nation own elsewhere in other nations, title to that land does not, as Pipes and other Zionists suggest, confer sovereignty to the nation that the owners of that title are nationalities of.
Many Paua New Guineans live in communities in Australia but they live here either as permanent residents retaining their own nationality or as Australian citizens; either way they are subject to Australian sovereignty and Papua New Guinean.
One wonders what makes Zionists think that they are exempt from these norms?
Note
Folks interested in reading further on this subject should read George E. Bisharat’s in-depth scholarly article: Land, Law and Legitimacy in Israel and the Occupied Territories linked to above and here.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
THE ARAB SPRING: ISRAELI AND WESTERN HYPOCRISY
In Israeli online newspaper Ha’aretz today is a report that a senior Israeli official says that “Iran is involved in the suppressing of the anti-regime demonstrations in Syria. Iran's Revolutionary Guard and the Al-Quds force, commanded by Gen. Qassem Suleimani”, and that they “are operating throughout the country”. The Israeli official goes on to say:
…there is clear information on Iran's involvement in the crushing of the protests, as well as the participation of Hezbollah. Their role is not limited to shootings; Iran has also supplied equipment to the Syrian army, including sniper rifles…
Similarly, the US is complaining of the same thing and, even more hypocritically, so is the UK.
If true, then such activity of course cannot be condoned. However, statements like this coming from Israel, the US and the UK demonstrate only gross hypocrisy.
Where were Israel, the US and the UK when the world learnt that Saudi Arabia sent tanks and troops to Bahrain to suppress the democracy movement there? Israel and the US talk about Iran sending sniper rifles to Syria and it’s headline news in Israel and the US yet when it is learnt that the UK are training snipers in Saudi Arabia who are then deployed to Bahrain to shoot at demonstrators, no one says anything.
…there is clear information on Iran's involvement in the crushing of the protests, as well as the participation of Hezbollah. Their role is not limited to shootings; Iran has also supplied equipment to the Syrian army, including sniper rifles…
Similarly, the US is complaining of the same thing and, even more hypocritically, so is the UK.
If true, then such activity of course cannot be condoned. However, statements like this coming from Israel, the US and the UK demonstrate only gross hypocrisy.
Where were Israel, the US and the UK when the world learnt that Saudi Arabia sent tanks and troops to Bahrain to suppress the democracy movement there? Israel and the US talk about Iran sending sniper rifles to Syria and it’s headline news in Israel and the US yet when it is learnt that the UK are training snipers in Saudi Arabia who are then deployed to Bahrain to shoot at demonstrators, no one says anything.
Monday, June 20, 2011
TALKS WITH THE TALIBAN? NOW THERE’S A NOVEL IDEA!
Over the last few days there has been unconfirmed reports that the US have initiated talks with the Taliban with a view to ending the war that’s been going on in Afghanistan for the last ten years. Yesterday, Defence Secretary Robert Gates confirmed that, indeed, such talks have been taking place.
Was it not inevitable that this was the only way it was ever going to end anyway? Various professionals had said all along that the allies could never win their war against the Taliban. In October of last year, Australian ex-Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, an extreme right-wing conservative, said that a military victory would be “impossible”. In July 2009, British soldier, diplomat, academic and Afghanistan scholar, Rory Stewart, writing in the UKs Daily Telegraph told his readers that essentially the war is unwinable and negotiating is the only way to resolve the crisis. Back in October 2008 senior British commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith who had served in Afghanistan with the British 16th Air Assault Brigade had said quite emphatically that “we are not going to win this war”.
The allies have known the war was unwinable since at least 2008 yet did nothing. Since then more than 1600 allied soldiers have been killed, while it is conservatively estimated that some 7307 civilians have been killed, and untold numbers of Taliban and insurgent fighters, certainly numbering in their thousands and possibly tens of thousands, have also been killed.
Experts have been urging that the parties negotiate an end to the war for years but the warmongering neocons influenced allied governments never listened. How many more have to die before these loonies learn that they can’t win?
There’s nothing new about the idea of having talks with the Taliban; it’s just that the longer they are held off, then the more people from all sides will continue dying.
Was it not inevitable that this was the only way it was ever going to end anyway? Various professionals had said all along that the allies could never win their war against the Taliban. In October of last year, Australian ex-Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, an extreme right-wing conservative, said that a military victory would be “impossible”. In July 2009, British soldier, diplomat, academic and Afghanistan scholar, Rory Stewart, writing in the UKs Daily Telegraph told his readers that essentially the war is unwinable and negotiating is the only way to resolve the crisis. Back in October 2008 senior British commander, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith who had served in Afghanistan with the British 16th Air Assault Brigade had said quite emphatically that “we are not going to win this war”.
The allies have known the war was unwinable since at least 2008 yet did nothing. Since then more than 1600 allied soldiers have been killed, while it is conservatively estimated that some 7307 civilians have been killed, and untold numbers of Taliban and insurgent fighters, certainly numbering in their thousands and possibly tens of thousands, have also been killed.
Experts have been urging that the parties negotiate an end to the war for years but the warmongering neocons influenced allied governments never listened. How many more have to die before these loonies learn that they can’t win?
There’s nothing new about the idea of having talks with the Taliban; it’s just that the longer they are held off, then the more people from all sides will continue dying.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
NEOCON WARMONGERS RATCHET UP THE PROPAGANDA ON IRAN’S ‘NUCLEAR WEAPONS’
Early last month the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) published on their gerdab.ir website a satirical puff-piece that imagined the reaction of the world-wide and domestic press after the Iranians had actually achieved what the West are accusing them of doing; building a nuclear bomb and testing it. The article is designed specifically to both satirise and taunt the West over their propaganda about Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.
The neocons, of course, have fallen for it hook line and sinker and are proclaiming the article to be proof positive of Iran’s intention to build a bomb.
As I reported earlier this week, the neocons are also falling over themselves about the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) latest report on Iran’s nuclear program which the neocons are proclaiming is ‘overwhelming evidence’ that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. As I have shown, it actually does nothing of the sort, but the neocons are hoping that you don’t actually read the report to find that out for yourselves.
The neocons aren’t thick; they’re actually a very bright bunch of people. The problem, however, is that, not only are they bright, but that they are also extremely arrogant to the point where they think that the public are thick enough to believe everything that the neocons tell them. While one does have to wonder about the gullibility of some people, generally the neocons deceitful ways are transparent enough for most people to see through them. Then, of course, there are those who, despite knowing what’s really going on, just simply want to believe everything that the neocons and Zionists tell them because it fits in with their own world view.
But when one steps back and takes a look at the bigger picture and then takes the time to think about things, it becomes clear that there is a lot more going on in the neocons heads than a mere paranoid fear of an Iranian existential threat to Israel. Why, when you think about it, would Iran, for example, after having gone to all the effort of building a bomb, then go and destroy it in their own desert when they could let it go off in Israel’s desert if they are so desperate to destroy Israel as the neocons and Zionists would have us believe? The reason they wouldn’t, of course, is because they know that within half an hour of such an event, several of Iran’s cities would likely be turned into sheets of glass in retaliation. One wonders what makes the neocons and Zionists so arrogant that they think the Iranians are willing to sacrifice themselves and many of their fellow Middle Easterners just to get at the Israelis. As I’ve said before, there’s the rhetoric and the propaganda and then there’s the geo-political realities. The more rabid the neocons and Zionists become then the easier it is to distinguish between the two.
As I and many others have said before, there is not a skerrick of any hard evidence whatsoever to even suggest that Iran is building a nuclear weapon or has a nuclear weapons program.
The whole issue of Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ is simply a propaganda ploy by the neocons and Zionists to get world public opinion to support an attack against Iran in order to allow Israel to confront and then destroy Iran’s allies, Hamas and Hezbollah, who stand in the way of the Zionist dream of creating a Greater Israel.
The neocons, of course, have fallen for it hook line and sinker and are proclaiming the article to be proof positive of Iran’s intention to build a bomb.
As I reported earlier this week, the neocons are also falling over themselves about the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) latest report on Iran’s nuclear program which the neocons are proclaiming is ‘overwhelming evidence’ that Iran is building a nuclear weapon. As I have shown, it actually does nothing of the sort, but the neocons are hoping that you don’t actually read the report to find that out for yourselves.
The neocons aren’t thick; they’re actually a very bright bunch of people. The problem, however, is that, not only are they bright, but that they are also extremely arrogant to the point where they think that the public are thick enough to believe everything that the neocons tell them. While one does have to wonder about the gullibility of some people, generally the neocons deceitful ways are transparent enough for most people to see through them. Then, of course, there are those who, despite knowing what’s really going on, just simply want to believe everything that the neocons and Zionists tell them because it fits in with their own world view.
But when one steps back and takes a look at the bigger picture and then takes the time to think about things, it becomes clear that there is a lot more going on in the neocons heads than a mere paranoid fear of an Iranian existential threat to Israel. Why, when you think about it, would Iran, for example, after having gone to all the effort of building a bomb, then go and destroy it in their own desert when they could let it go off in Israel’s desert if they are so desperate to destroy Israel as the neocons and Zionists would have us believe? The reason they wouldn’t, of course, is because they know that within half an hour of such an event, several of Iran’s cities would likely be turned into sheets of glass in retaliation. One wonders what makes the neocons and Zionists so arrogant that they think the Iranians are willing to sacrifice themselves and many of their fellow Middle Easterners just to get at the Israelis. As I’ve said before, there’s the rhetoric and the propaganda and then there’s the geo-political realities. The more rabid the neocons and Zionists become then the easier it is to distinguish between the two.
As I and many others have said before, there is not a skerrick of any hard evidence whatsoever to even suggest that Iran is building a nuclear weapon or has a nuclear weapons program.
The whole issue of Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’ is simply a propaganda ploy by the neocons and Zionists to get world public opinion to support an attack against Iran in order to allow Israel to confront and then destroy Iran’s allies, Hamas and Hezbollah, who stand in the way of the Zionist dream of creating a Greater Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)