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.

Monday, January 30, 2006


In response to the comments made by a Webdiarist at I responded with this:

Alan Curran reckons: “You can put all the spin on it you like, but Hamas do not want peace. They would not know what to do if they got it.”

First off, I haven’t put any ‘spin’ on this issue at all. I’m a left-winger, Hamas is right-wing. I’ve got about as much time for Hamas as I have for the right-wing lunatics in Israel and the US. I am merely making observations about the current situation. At the moment it’s very simple: immovable object meets irresistible force. If they continue on their present collision course there will be disaster for both sides and, of course, it will be the peoples of Palestine and Israel that will suffer – again.

The ONLY answer, regardless of whether the Israelis, you or any one else like it or not, is for the Israelis to remove themselves from real estate that isn’t theirs, get back to the pre-1967 line, recognise a Palestinian sovereign state and concede that East Jerusalem is the Palestinian capital. THERE IS NO OTHER ANSWER to this problem.

Curran goes on to ask: “…with the Palestinians' past record would you trust them? They are cold blooded murderers.”

This implies all Palestinians are untrustworthy and that they are all cold blooded murderers. Such nonsense exposes Curran’s blatant Islamaphobic racism. I might remind him that the right-wing of Israel are as much ‘cold-blooded murderers’ as the extremists of Hamas what with their so-called ‘targeted killings’ and killing of innocent Palestinian civilians.

As I have indicated before, the next most likely move will be for the IDF to re-occupy the Gaza Strip to limit Hamas’ power base.

The neoconservatives have been pushing ever since the first Gulf War for ‘democracy at any cost’. Now it has backfired on them. The Middle East is not interested in US-style secular ‘democracy’. For them it represents greed, crime, poverty, materialism, lack of welfare, and an ‘every man for himself’ attitude. It represents hypocrisy and false values. Bush, Blair and Howard have gone on and on about ‘they hate our values’. Of course they do. Why wouldn’t they? They have seen US ‘values’ at work in Iraq; aerial bombing, flattening of entire cities, indiscriminate killing, torture, puppet governments led by criminals and murderers, wholesale theft of their resources, blatant corruption, literally billions of dollars meant to rebuild infrastructure (destroyed by the Americans and their allies in the first place) being siphoned off to Allied criminals. The people of the Middle East see all this going on and ask: this is democracy? They want us to be like this? Forget it!! The US is not a good example of real democracy.

Democracy in Palestine has thrown up Hamas. The people of Palestine are fed up with living in poverty and being shoved around by Israel. Hamas is their strength whether we like it or not. The ball is now in Israel’s court. You reap, as they say, what you sow.

I republish my response in its entirety here at my blog because the editor of Webdiary, for some unknown reason, chose to censor a part of my comment that related to Curran’s racism. The response also generally sums up the current situation in the Middle East.

Thursday, January 12, 2006


I’m compelled to make mention of several commentators that gather at Webdiary that are apologists for extreme right-wing Israeli politics. With varying degrees of intellectual prowess and articulation ability some of these pro-Zionist fanatics, Mike Iyvers for example, delight in accusing those that disagree with Israel’s expansionism and aggression against the Palestinian peoples as anti-Semite. Others, like the deceitful self-proclaimed academic Will Howard, well-practiced in his art of propagating deception, simply try to hoodwink Webdiarists by presenting documents and reports about Iranian so-called nuclear weapons ambitions that he claims are ‘non-partisan’ when in fact they are produced by retired ex-Israeli Defence Force generals-turned-‘academics’, many of whom have ties with Israeli intelligence and with American neoconservative think-tank organisations. Some of these, in turn, were up to there necks in the generation of the lies that were used to invade, occupy and plunder Iraq when, prior to the invasion, they made repeated visits to the Pentagon for meetings with neoconservative staffers of the Office of Special Plans.

There are others but generally they comprise simply of lunatic ignoramuses like the ridiculous warmongering liar C. Parsons and the foul-mouthed fascist Jay White. Jay White is easily dealt with what with his lack of intellectual capacity, general ignorance of history and inability to write coherently which usually sees him being foisted by his own words, much of which can usually be ignored. Jay White enjoys launching himself into any subject on offer and invariably is able to make a complete idiot of himself without any response being required from other Webdiarists.

In the main, Parsons and White are simply harmless and deluded right-wingers that enjoy the sight of their own words and who seem to have nothing better to do than sit at their keyboards all day trying to pick holes in the constructive opinions and commentary that the Left are able to discuss at Webdiary. However, the offerings of the likes of Will Howard should be considered with great care. His fanaticism is subtle and he is clearly practised in the art of deception.

Mike Iyvers is also a pro-Israeli fanatic but he is far less subtle than Howard. He is however, dangerously obsessed with the delusion that all that are anti right-wing Israel are racist anti-Semites.

Webdiarists and Webdiary readers should be aware.