Over at Webdiary I note that the liar and deceiver Will Howard is trying to deny that Israeli Zionofascist troops in the Gaza, West Bank and other occupied territories have targeted children.[1]
There is abundant evidence available that shows that children have been targeted both indiscriminately and deliberately by Israeli terrorists operating in the various occupied territories for years.[2] Some have even been shot in the head by Israeli terrorist snipers – you can’t get any more deliberate than that.
Will Howard is a liar and deceiver; always has been and always will be. Judging from the email I get, most people at Webdiary and elsewhere on the net are now fully aware of this disgusting person’s lies and deceits in his efforts to deny the undeniable and defend the indefensible of Israeli atrocities and war crimes.
ENDNOTES
[1] Will Howard, ‘Fact Checking’, Comment at Webdiary, 29 November 2006. Available online: http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1725#comment-57548 Accessed 29 November 2006.
[2] For just a few documented incidents see the following:
http://www.nogw.com/israeliatrocities.html
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.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Saturday, November 25, 2006
AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD AND FOREIGN MINISTER ALEXANDER DOWNER CAUGHT IN LIE ABOUT EARLY IRAQ WAR INVOLVEMENT.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, have consistently lied to the Australian people and to the world about the extent to which they had committed Australia to Bush’s invasion of Iraq prior to the actual invasion in March 2003.[1] The Howard government, right up until almost the actual invasion date, had denied that they had committed Australia to this disastrous and criminal adventure. But now their lies are coming back to haunt them.
Just two days after Alexander Downer had haughtily told the ABC’s Lateline program[2] that the notion that Australia had committed itself to Bush’s invasion of Iraq prior to the days just before the actual invasion were just ‘conspiracy theories’, an ex-SAS officer has come forward to tell the world that the Australian SAS were committed to involvement by at least mid-2002 thus putting the lie to Downer and Howard’s insistence that their decision to go to war was not made until just days before the actual invasion.[3]
This comes on top of revelations that the former chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Trevor Flugge, had been told by Australia’s then ambassador to the UN, John Dauth, that the ‘Howard government would participate in military action with the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein’ in early 2002. This directly contradicts Howard’s ‘previous statements that Australia had not agreed to join the war in Iraq before the UN debate in late 2002 and early 2003.’[4]
ENDNOTES
[1] Patrick Walters, ‘Iraq a moral blunder, says war hero’, The Australian, 25 November 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20817682-601,00.html Accessed 25 November 2006.
[2] Alexander Downer, Transcript of ‘Interview – ABC’s Lateline’, 23 November 2006. Available online: http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/061123_abc.html Accessed 25 November 2006.
[3] Patrick Walters, ‘Wrong war, wrong time’, The Australian, 25 November 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20815881-601,00.html Accessed 25 November 2002.
[4] Marian Wilkinson, ‘Flugge knew invasion plans’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 November 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/flugge-knew-invasion-plans/2006/11/22/1163871481920.html Accessed 23 November 2006.
Just two days after Alexander Downer had haughtily told the ABC’s Lateline program[2] that the notion that Australia had committed itself to Bush’s invasion of Iraq prior to the days just before the actual invasion were just ‘conspiracy theories’, an ex-SAS officer has come forward to tell the world that the Australian SAS were committed to involvement by at least mid-2002 thus putting the lie to Downer and Howard’s insistence that their decision to go to war was not made until just days before the actual invasion.[3]
This comes on top of revelations that the former chairman of the Australian Wheat Board, Trevor Flugge, had been told by Australia’s then ambassador to the UN, John Dauth, that the ‘Howard government would participate in military action with the US to overthrow Saddam Hussein’ in early 2002. This directly contradicts Howard’s ‘previous statements that Australia had not agreed to join the war in Iraq before the UN debate in late 2002 and early 2003.’[4]
ENDNOTES
[1] Patrick Walters, ‘Iraq a moral blunder, says war hero’, The Australian, 25 November 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20817682-601,00.html Accessed 25 November 2006.
[2] Alexander Downer, Transcript of ‘Interview – ABC’s Lateline’, 23 November 2006. Available online: http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/transcripts/2006/061123_abc.html Accessed 25 November 2006.
[3] Patrick Walters, ‘Wrong war, wrong time’, The Australian, 25 November 2006. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20815881-601,00.html Accessed 25 November 2002.
[4] Marian Wilkinson, ‘Flugge knew invasion plans’, Sydney Morning Herald, 23 November 2006. Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/flugge-knew-invasion-plans/2006/11/22/1163871481920.html Accessed 23 November 2006.
Friday, November 24, 2006
WILL HOWARD CONTINUES HIS DECEIT AT WEBDIARY!
It seems that the sleazy pseudo intellectual Will Howard over at Webdiary is practising his lies and deceit once again. This time Webdiarist Phil Kendall has stumbled upon the way Will Howard purveys his deceit. Will Howard claims he is not an Israeli apologist and not an Israeli Lobbyist in the sense that Mearsheimer and Walt classically describe the Israeli Lobby, which Will Howard blatantly insists does not exist – a deceit in itself.
Despite his denials however, Will Howard has consistently argued vigorously (albeit unsuccessfully) for the right-wing Zionist Israeli position, which indeed is the lobby that Mearsheimer and Walt refer to. Perhaps Will Howard is labouring under the delusion that the Israeli Lobby is some kind of formalised organisation of Diaspora Jews outside of Israel that barrack for the right-wing Zionist Israelis in whatever country they happen to be in; in Will Howard’s case, Australia.
He says that he is an Australian citizen as though this somehow provides a moral fence which provides him with the cover of just being a commentator rather than being an Israeli Lobbyist. Yet more deceit. Citizenship of a country other than Israel hasn’t stopped the likes of Joshua Muravchik or Max Boot or Michael Ledeen or Douglas Feith or Elliot Abrams or William Kristol or John Podhoretz, et al, all of whom are American citizens, from being part of the Israeli Lobby. And citizenship of Australia hasn’t stopped Will Howard either from being part of the Israeli Lobby.
Will Howard can deny being an Israeli Lobbyist until he is blue in the face. All he is succeeding in doing is demonstrating the length to which he is prepared to practice his disgusting deceit and lies.
Despite his denials however, Will Howard has consistently argued vigorously (albeit unsuccessfully) for the right-wing Zionist Israeli position, which indeed is the lobby that Mearsheimer and Walt refer to. Perhaps Will Howard is labouring under the delusion that the Israeli Lobby is some kind of formalised organisation of Diaspora Jews outside of Israel that barrack for the right-wing Zionist Israelis in whatever country they happen to be in; in Will Howard’s case, Australia.
He says that he is an Australian citizen as though this somehow provides a moral fence which provides him with the cover of just being a commentator rather than being an Israeli Lobbyist. Yet more deceit. Citizenship of a country other than Israel hasn’t stopped the likes of Joshua Muravchik or Max Boot or Michael Ledeen or Douglas Feith or Elliot Abrams or William Kristol or John Podhoretz, et al, all of whom are American citizens, from being part of the Israeli Lobby. And citizenship of Australia hasn’t stopped Will Howard either from being part of the Israeli Lobby.
Will Howard can deny being an Israeli Lobbyist until he is blue in the face. All he is succeeding in doing is demonstrating the length to which he is prepared to practice his disgusting deceit and lies.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
IS ISRAEL READY TO GO IT ALONE TO START WAR WITH IRAN?
A US pre-emptive attack on Iran is out of the question now, but will Israel start war on its own hoping that the US will support them once war is underway?
The signals coming out of Israel over the last few days with regard to it’s position on Iran have become clear and almost explicit – Israel is gearing up to make a pre-emptive attack against Iran, and possibly Syria.
The recent demise of Republican power in Congress after the mid-term elections and the recommendations of the influential Iraq Study Group[1] under the co-chair of James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton about having both Iran and Syria involved in negotiations to find a resolution to the turmoil in Iraq, has all but ruled out the US being involved in any pre-emptive attack against Iran. However, it would not preclude US involvement if the Israelis were to instigate an attack to which Iran retaliates with an attack on both Israeli and US interests in the Gulf or if Israel asks for US assistance if, say, Iran attacked the Israeli homeland with missiles.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the press on board his jet as he was on his way to the US that “…Iran must understand that if they do not accept the request of the international community, they’re going to pay dearly.” An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, is reported to have responded: “If Israel takes such a stupid step and attacks, the answer of Iran and its Revolutionary Guard will be rapid, firm and destructive and it will be given in a few seconds.”[2] Such a ‘rapid, firm and destructive’ response would undoubtedly draw the US into the conflict.
On Monday, 13 November, Olmert met with Bush for 50 minutes of private talk as well as other talks with their senior staff present. Bush spouted his usual rhetoric after the talks saying that Iran should ‘give up its nuclear ambitions’, that the ‘world should unite with one common voice’ and that Iran should be ‘isolated if it does not respond’ and that there would be ‘economic isolation’. But, while Bush fell short of threatening to take military steps to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, Olmert was less conciliatory saying: “ Iran needs to understand that there will be consequences for not agreeing to a compromise”, adding ominously that: “I can’t say what the consequences will be…”[3] Olmert went on to say that he was willing to give the idea of talks between Iran and the US on the subject of uranium enrichment a go but, since Iran is unlikely to give up its enrichment program, Israel will not be holding its breath on the outcome of such talks.
In other indicators of Israel’s impatience to bring on the final confrontation with Iran, Tzipi Livni, Israel’s Foreign Minister, also visiting the US, told an audience of the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Los Angeles that Iran was less than two years away from reaching what she termed the ‘point of no return’, a point, she said, where Iran did not actually have nuclear weapons but where Iran no longer needed outside help in order to produce a nuclear weapon. She added, however, “Iran denies the Holocaust and seeks the weapons to perpetrate one. If the promise of ‘Never Again’ supersedes the price of oil then the time for international indifference and hesitation in the face of the Iranian threat has long passed.”[4]
The Israeli military is also making noises about being prepared for ‘full-scale war’ against both Iran and Syria. An Israeli military official has said that: “The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense agenda, higher than the Palestinian one.”[5]
It is now all but impossible for Bush to be part of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, but the changed circumstances in the US now leaves Israel, knowing the US are no longer able to act, free to take matters in to their own hands.
If Olmert and Livni have received the assurances they need from Bush that, if push comes to shove the US will come to the Israelis aid once they have got their war underway, then one need ask not so much ‘if’ Israel will attack Iran but ‘when’.
ENDNOTES
[1] ‘Iraq Study Group’, United States Institute of Peace, November 2006. Available online: http://www.usip.org/isg/ Accessed 14 November 2006.
[2] Aluf Benn, ‘Olmert hints at possible military action against Iran”, Ha’aretz, 13 November 2006. No longer available online. Hard copy accessed 13 November 2006.
[3] Herb Keinon, ‘Bush: Nuclear Iran ‘very destabilizing’’, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378386632&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 14 November 2006.
[4] Amir Mizroch, ‘Livni to ‘Post’: Iran nearing the point of no return’’, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1162378384729&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 14 November 2006.
[5] ‘Israel must prepare for full-scale war’, Jerusalem Post, 12 November 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378379290&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 13 November 2006.
The signals coming out of Israel over the last few days with regard to it’s position on Iran have become clear and almost explicit – Israel is gearing up to make a pre-emptive attack against Iran, and possibly Syria.
The recent demise of Republican power in Congress after the mid-term elections and the recommendations of the influential Iraq Study Group[1] under the co-chair of James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton about having both Iran and Syria involved in negotiations to find a resolution to the turmoil in Iraq, has all but ruled out the US being involved in any pre-emptive attack against Iran. However, it would not preclude US involvement if the Israelis were to instigate an attack to which Iran retaliates with an attack on both Israeli and US interests in the Gulf or if Israel asks for US assistance if, say, Iran attacked the Israeli homeland with missiles.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the press on board his jet as he was on his way to the US that “…Iran must understand that if they do not accept the request of the international community, they’re going to pay dearly.” An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, is reported to have responded: “If Israel takes such a stupid step and attacks, the answer of Iran and its Revolutionary Guard will be rapid, firm and destructive and it will be given in a few seconds.”[2] Such a ‘rapid, firm and destructive’ response would undoubtedly draw the US into the conflict.
On Monday, 13 November, Olmert met with Bush for 50 minutes of private talk as well as other talks with their senior staff present. Bush spouted his usual rhetoric after the talks saying that Iran should ‘give up its nuclear ambitions’, that the ‘world should unite with one common voice’ and that Iran should be ‘isolated if it does not respond’ and that there would be ‘economic isolation’. But, while Bush fell short of threatening to take military steps to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, Olmert was less conciliatory saying: “ Iran needs to understand that there will be consequences for not agreeing to a compromise”, adding ominously that: “I can’t say what the consequences will be…”[3] Olmert went on to say that he was willing to give the idea of talks between Iran and the US on the subject of uranium enrichment a go but, since Iran is unlikely to give up its enrichment program, Israel will not be holding its breath on the outcome of such talks.
In other indicators of Israel’s impatience to bring on the final confrontation with Iran, Tzipi Livni, Israel’s Foreign Minister, also visiting the US, told an audience of the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Los Angeles that Iran was less than two years away from reaching what she termed the ‘point of no return’, a point, she said, where Iran did not actually have nuclear weapons but where Iran no longer needed outside help in order to produce a nuclear weapon. She added, however, “Iran denies the Holocaust and seeks the weapons to perpetrate one. If the promise of ‘Never Again’ supersedes the price of oil then the time for international indifference and hesitation in the face of the Iranian threat has long passed.”[4]
The Israeli military is also making noises about being prepared for ‘full-scale war’ against both Iran and Syria. An Israeli military official has said that: “The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense agenda, higher than the Palestinian one.”[5]
It is now all but impossible for Bush to be part of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, but the changed circumstances in the US now leaves Israel, knowing the US are no longer able to act, free to take matters in to their own hands.
If Olmert and Livni have received the assurances they need from Bush that, if push comes to shove the US will come to the Israelis aid once they have got their war underway, then one need ask not so much ‘if’ Israel will attack Iran but ‘when’.
ENDNOTES
[1] ‘Iraq Study Group’, United States Institute of Peace, November 2006. Available online: http://www.usip.org/isg/ Accessed 14 November 2006.
[2] Aluf Benn, ‘Olmert hints at possible military action against Iran”, Ha’aretz, 13 November 2006. No longer available online. Hard copy accessed 13 November 2006.
[3] Herb Keinon, ‘Bush: Nuclear Iran ‘very destabilizing’’, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378386632&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 14 November 2006.
[4] Amir Mizroch, ‘Livni to ‘Post’: Iran nearing the point of no return’’, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1162378384729&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 14 November 2006.
[5] ‘Israel must prepare for full-scale war’, Jerusalem Post, 12 November 2006. Available online: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378379290&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Accessed 13 November 2006.
Friday, November 10, 2006
MORE ON THE ISSUE ‘CONTENDING THAT ISRAEL WANTS TO PROVOKE A WAR WITH HAMAS TO DRAW IN HEZBOLLAH’
A perspective from Dr. David Palmer, Senior Lecturer in American Studies at Flinders University, South Australia, who says:
“Perhaps, but very unlikely.
This time Hezbollah will not take the IDF bait. Furthermore, neither Syria nor Iran will permit it (though Hezbollah in Lebanon is hardly an extension of either of those two countries - simply a recipient of aid and arms from them, with loyalties). Syria in particular will focus on its historic self-interest - Lebanon and Gollan Heights. Iran will focus on its interests in Iraq with the Shia majority there. Gaza is an afterthought to these powers, in reality. It is a symbol of oppression, but not strategic to either country - and Hezbollah has enough on its hands to retain popularity and influence in Lebanon, putting pragmatism above ideology.
The "war" between Israel and Hamas is in fact more akin to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising - one side conducting massacres on a population living in an open air prison, the other side trying to respond however ineffectively to defend itself - while the world watches on doing nothing.
Major conservatives - including Gates (now head of Defense) - in the US have gone on record advocating the consideration of discussions with Syria and Iran - in complete conflict with neo-cons (and Rumsfeld / Cheney among the conservatives). This will reinforce this focus for Syria and Iran - they want talks, not a war (despite Iran's rhetoric). The result will be that the Palestinians - once again - will be on their own - and others in the region are not going to sacrifice on their behalf.
Cheney can say what he wants. Given the Democratic control of both houses of Congress now, and Gates moving into Defense, he is increasingly a man with lots to say but less and less real power. Gates and the generals will make sure of it. And Cheney's base in State Dept. is diplomatic - without real power in the current administration (as both Powell learned and Rice is learning). Power in the current administration - in terms of foreign policy - now - after last Tuesday - emanates from two sources: economic (Treasury) and military (Defense). Both Cabinet positions are now held by hardcore pragmatists / conservatives who have no time for neo-con nonsense. Both accepted their posts with the proviso that they could operate completely independently (e.g. Paulson now has total control over trade talks / relations with China, and did not campaign for Republicans in the last election - sanctions here have become the key weapon of choice also; Gates will have same autonomy, being able to coordinate all military and intelligence operations as he chooses - and he will get the generals onside to push his new agenda).
“Perhaps, but very unlikely.
This time Hezbollah will not take the IDF bait. Furthermore, neither Syria nor Iran will permit it (though Hezbollah in Lebanon is hardly an extension of either of those two countries - simply a recipient of aid and arms from them, with loyalties). Syria in particular will focus on its historic self-interest - Lebanon and Gollan Heights. Iran will focus on its interests in Iraq with the Shia majority there. Gaza is an afterthought to these powers, in reality. It is a symbol of oppression, but not strategic to either country - and Hezbollah has enough on its hands to retain popularity and influence in Lebanon, putting pragmatism above ideology.
The "war" between Israel and Hamas is in fact more akin to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising - one side conducting massacres on a population living in an open air prison, the other side trying to respond however ineffectively to defend itself - while the world watches on doing nothing.
Major conservatives - including Gates (now head of Defense) - in the US have gone on record advocating the consideration of discussions with Syria and Iran - in complete conflict with neo-cons (and Rumsfeld / Cheney among the conservatives). This will reinforce this focus for Syria and Iran - they want talks, not a war (despite Iran's rhetoric). The result will be that the Palestinians - once again - will be on their own - and others in the region are not going to sacrifice on their behalf.
Cheney can say what he wants. Given the Democratic control of both houses of Congress now, and Gates moving into Defense, he is increasingly a man with lots to say but less and less real power. Gates and the generals will make sure of it. And Cheney's base in State Dept. is diplomatic - without real power in the current administration (as both Powell learned and Rice is learning). Power in the current administration - in terms of foreign policy - now - after last Tuesday - emanates from two sources: economic (Treasury) and military (Defense). Both Cabinet positions are now held by hardcore pragmatists / conservatives who have no time for neo-con nonsense. Both accepted their posts with the proviso that they could operate completely independently (e.g. Paulson now has total control over trade talks / relations with China, and did not campaign for Republicans in the last election - sanctions here have become the key weapon of choice also; Gates will have same autonomy, being able to coordinate all military and intelligence operations as he chooses - and he will get the generals onside to push his new agenda).
PRESIDENT CHENEY?
Cheney, who, according to Jim Lobe, “lies isolated and exposed”[1] could well become a dangerous man if he is tempted to opt for the Presidency in the light of the defeat of the neoconservatives and ultra-nationalists in the mid-terms and the resignation of his man Rumsfeld from the Department of Defence.
There is, of course, only one way that Cheney could ever become President between now and the next election short of an impeachment of Bush. And it’s not as though the neoconservatives haven’t pondered the idea of a ‘President Cheney’ themselves.[2]
ENDNOTES
[1] Jim Lobe, ‘Rumsfeld takes a hit for Bush’, Asia Times Online, 10 November 2006. Available online: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK10Aa04.html Accessed 10 November 2006.
[2] Fred Barnes, ‘President Cheney?’, Weekly Standard, 7 March 2005. Available online: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/295zkwpw.asp Accessed 10 November 2006.
There is, of course, only one way that Cheney could ever become President between now and the next election short of an impeachment of Bush. And it’s not as though the neoconservatives haven’t pondered the idea of a ‘President Cheney’ themselves.[2]
ENDNOTES
[1] Jim Lobe, ‘Rumsfeld takes a hit for Bush’, Asia Times Online, 10 November 2006. Available online: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/HK10Aa04.html Accessed 10 November 2006.
[2] Fred Barnes, ‘President Cheney?’, Weekly Standard, 7 March 2005. Available online: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/295zkwpw.asp Accessed 10 November 2006.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
NOW WITH NOTHING TO LOSE BUSH IS FREE TO DO AS HE WISHES IN THE MIDDLE EAST; SO WILL IT BE WAR WITH IRAN?
Last month I asked: ‘Are Israeli actions in the Gaza designed to provoke war with Iran?’[1] In it I suggested that Israel were deliberately trying to provoke war with Hamas by attacking the Palestinians in the Gaza. Yesterday, after their criminal tank attack on the sleeping townsfolk in Beit Hanoun that has resulted in the death of some 18 Palestinians, including 8 children and 6 women, Hamas have finally said that enough is enough and have called for retaliation to protect the people of the Gaza.[2]
A full-on war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza will likely bring in Hizbollah in support of Hamas. The previously tried but failed domino of escalation to bring Iran in to the conflict via Hizbollah, Syria and the US in order to bring on the ‘final showdown’ could well be attempted again.
In Colorado Springs last Saturday, Vice-President Dick Cheney told his audience that the administration would continue “full steam ahead” with its Iraq policy regardless of yesterday’s election results.[3] This arrogance not only clearly indicates that the administration is not in the slightest bit interested in the now expressed wishes of the American people but also demonstrates that the administrations ‘full steam ahead’ Iraq policy in all likelihood refers also to the administrations entire Middle East policy which ultimately includes confrontation with Iran.
ENDNOTES
[1] Damian Lataan, ‘Are Israeli actions designed to provoke war with Iran?’ lataan.blogspot, 16 October 2006. Available online: http://lataan.blogspot.com/2006/10/are-israeli-actions-in-gaza-designed.html Accessed 9 November 2006.
[2] Ian Fisher and Steven Erlanger, ‘Isreali Shells Kill 18; Hamas Calls for Retaliation’, New York Times, 8 November 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1163048400&en=279c65ead1f119fb&ei=5094&partner=homepage Accessed 9 November 2006.
[3] Martin Kettle, ‘America has spoken’, UK Guardian, 8 November 2006. Available online: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_kettle/2006/11/america_has_spoken.html Accessed 9 November 2006.
A full-on war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza will likely bring in Hizbollah in support of Hamas. The previously tried but failed domino of escalation to bring Iran in to the conflict via Hizbollah, Syria and the US in order to bring on the ‘final showdown’ could well be attempted again.
In Colorado Springs last Saturday, Vice-President Dick Cheney told his audience that the administration would continue “full steam ahead” with its Iraq policy regardless of yesterday’s election results.[3] This arrogance not only clearly indicates that the administration is not in the slightest bit interested in the now expressed wishes of the American people but also demonstrates that the administrations ‘full steam ahead’ Iraq policy in all likelihood refers also to the administrations entire Middle East policy which ultimately includes confrontation with Iran.
ENDNOTES
[1] Damian Lataan, ‘Are Israeli actions designed to provoke war with Iran?’ lataan.blogspot, 16 October 2006. Available online: http://lataan.blogspot.com/2006/10/are-israeli-actions-in-gaza-designed.html Accessed 9 November 2006.
[2] Ian Fisher and Steven Erlanger, ‘Isreali Shells Kill 18; Hamas Calls for Retaliation’, New York Times, 8 November 2006. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/world/middleeast/08cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1163048400&en=279c65ead1f119fb&ei=5094&partner=homepage Accessed 9 November 2006.
[3] Martin Kettle, ‘America has spoken’, UK Guardian, 8 November 2006. Available online: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/martin_kettle/2006/11/america_has_spoken.html Accessed 9 November 2006.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
A RESPONSE TO A RIGHT-WING PRO-ISRAELI ZIONIST WHO USES THE ‘HOLOCAUST’ AS A PROPAGANDA TOOL TO DEFEND RIGHT-WING ZIONISM.
I reproduce below a post I sent to a predominately right-wing Australian website. I do so in the hope that it attracts more readers here than it does there.
The post was in response to a post written by Mike Lyvers, an extreme right-wing pro-Israeli Zionist, that, in part, read: “…[Roslyn] Ross [a Webdiary commentator in Australia] has questioned the Holocaust, denied that Jews were its primary victims, and made other blatantly anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi style assertions about Jews that had little or nothing to do with Israel.”
I wrote in response:
“Lyvers, I’ve read Roslyn Ross’s posts and I don’t recall seeing anything that she wrote that came anywhere near anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial.
You assert that she ‘denies’ that Jews were the Holocaust’s primary victims. First, if the ‘Holocaust’ is taken to mean the destruction and extermination of all peoples that were an enemy of Nazism, then she is correct. Few people realise what Hitler and the Nazis had in store for the ‘Slavic’ races had he prevailed in his war against Eastern Europe and Russia. The destruction of the Jewish peoples of Europe was merely a part of Hitler’s overall plan and would have paled compared with the slaughter planned in Eastern Europe and Russia.
Secondly, the word ‘Holocaust’ is one that has all but been usurped by right-wing Zionists to symbolize the horrors that were committed on Jews by the Nazis whereas in reality the Jews were not the Nazis only victims; many, many others died alongside Jews in camps that were designed for exterminating all sorts of peoples besides Jews.
You’ll find if you re-read Ross’s posts carefully that there is no anti-Semitism and there is no Holocaust denial. There is only the realignment of historical perspective that more accurately reflects the objective reality of events that over the years have been distorted by the subjective nature of historic sentimentality – a sentimentality that has been abused ever since by certain Zionist elements who now use the ‘Holocaust’ as a propaganda tool to defend against anti right-wing Zionism.”
The post was in response to a post written by Mike Lyvers, an extreme right-wing pro-Israeli Zionist, that, in part, read: “…[Roslyn] Ross [a Webdiary commentator in Australia] has questioned the Holocaust, denied that Jews were its primary victims, and made other blatantly anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi style assertions about Jews that had little or nothing to do with Israel.”
I wrote in response:
“Lyvers, I’ve read Roslyn Ross’s posts and I don’t recall seeing anything that she wrote that came anywhere near anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial.
You assert that she ‘denies’ that Jews were the Holocaust’s primary victims. First, if the ‘Holocaust’ is taken to mean the destruction and extermination of all peoples that were an enemy of Nazism, then she is correct. Few people realise what Hitler and the Nazis had in store for the ‘Slavic’ races had he prevailed in his war against Eastern Europe and Russia. The destruction of the Jewish peoples of Europe was merely a part of Hitler’s overall plan and would have paled compared with the slaughter planned in Eastern Europe and Russia.
Secondly, the word ‘Holocaust’ is one that has all but been usurped by right-wing Zionists to symbolize the horrors that were committed on Jews by the Nazis whereas in reality the Jews were not the Nazis only victims; many, many others died alongside Jews in camps that were designed for exterminating all sorts of peoples besides Jews.
You’ll find if you re-read Ross’s posts carefully that there is no anti-Semitism and there is no Holocaust denial. There is only the realignment of historical perspective that more accurately reflects the objective reality of events that over the years have been distorted by the subjective nature of historic sentimentality – a sentimentality that has been abused ever since by certain Zionist elements who now use the ‘Holocaust’ as a propaganda tool to defend against anti right-wing Zionism.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)