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, October 31, 2007


The Australia Friends of Palestine Association (AFOPA) is holding a public function in the seat of Sturt, Adelaide SA, as part of a campaign to unseat the sitting member Christopher Pyne. The coalition policy and actions are boldly biased in favour of Israel and do not reflect the Australian support for human rights and fair go to all.

The meeting will be held at 7.00pm this evening (Wednesday, 31 October 2007) at the Burnside Community Center on the corner of Burnside Road and Portrush Road Burnside. The speakers will be Dr. David Palmer of the American Studies Department, Flinders University, and Mr. Paul Heywood-Smith, QC.

If you’re in Adelaide, why not come along!

Tuesday, October 30, 2007


The right-wing French government and the US government have rejected the report of Mohamad El Baradei, the head of the UNs nuclear watchdog organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which has said that there is no evidence to suggest that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

The problem with the French and the American’s rejection of the IAEA’s report is that neither the French nor the Americans have produced any evidence whatsoever to support their claim that Iran is developing weapons.

Just more propaganda and rhetoric from those that told us exactly the same stuff about Iraq as they are now trying to tell us about Iran.

Monday, October 29, 2007


The Gaza Strip is already geographically entirely isolated from what remains of Palestine in the West Bank. Now the Israeli stranglehold on the Gazan people is being tightened even further as the Israelis commit a deliberate war crime by collectively punishing the Gazan people because of the actions of a few Palestinian fighters who are resisting Israeli aggression and occupation of Palestinian lands.

As well as depriving the Gazan people of essential power, some Gazans are also being denied access to urgent medical treatment that is only available to them in the West Bank. In one case a man with a heart problem and in need of surgery has been refused permission to leave the Gaza to travel to the West Bank for treatment because he refuses to tell Israeli authorities about his brother who is wanted by the Israelis. Because of the Gaza Strips isolation, all travel to the West Bank by Gazan Palestinians involves Palestinians having to pass through Israel. Conversely, Gazans wishing to return from the West Bank to Gaza must also travel through Israel. This presents a problem however, since the Israelis are making it extremely difficult for Gazans to enter the Strip often forcing them to wait many days before being allowed through.

So why are the Israelis causing the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip to suffer so? What’s their endgame?

The long-term endgame is simple and obvious; the Israeli right-wing Zionists wish to have the Gaza Strip annexed to Israel and the Palestinian people of the Gaza removed, in the first instance to the West Bank, but ultimately out of Palestine altogether as the West Bank too later becomes part of Greater Israel later on. The strategy has been simple. Geographically the Gaza had already been isolated from the West Bank; the next step was to politically isolate the Gaza from the West Bank by wedging Hamas against Fatah.

Fatah corruption in the Gaza became so intolerable to Hamas that Hamas took action to stop it. They needed to do this by taking control of the Gaza which meant eliminating Fatah control and influence.

It is now becoming apparent, however, that, despite the heavy fighting and violence between the two sides in the Gaza, Fatah deliberately ceded the fight to Hamas there in order that the Gaza be isolated even further from the West Bank. In doing so the Israelis supported Abbas, the West Banks Fatah leader, in the suppression of Hamas in the West Bank. This support, in turn, was supported by the US via Elliot Abrams, the deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy’s office. The end result is a West Bank ‘Fatah-land’ and a ‘Hamastan’ in the Gaza; classic divide and rule strategy that was just what the Israelis intended.

Knowing that Hamas and their allies in the Gaza would continue to launch rocket attacks against Israel to deter the Israelis from making incursions into the Gaza and in retaliation for Israeli killings inside the Gaza, the Israelis have used this as an excuse to continue their oppression and persecution of the Palestinians in the Gaza as they move toward the next stage of their plan to destroy the Gaza Strip as a Palestinian territory. In order to substantially up-grade their offensive against the Gazan people, the Israelis are, rather than hoping that the rocket attacks by Gazan fighters diminish or stop, will actually increase in retaliation against increased Israeli sanctions. In other words, the Israelis are deliberately provoking the Gazan fighters to continue attacking Israel with rockets in order to provide a casus belli for ultimately invading the Gaza in a full-on attack similar to that which the Israelis launched against Hizbollah and the Lebanese people last year. Gazans seeking refuge in their thousands would then be allowed to flood into the West Bank never to be allowed to return to the Gaza. Meanwhile the Israelis will then mop up Hamas in the Gaza.

For the Israelis it is then hoped that the scenario would follow what was planned for last year, but failed, when the Israelis provoked Hizbollah in south Lebanon. This time it is the other way around – Israel attack Hamas in the Gaza, Hizbollah attacks Israel to relieve pressure on Hamas in the Gaza, Israel launches massive counter-attack against Hizbollah, Syria aids Hizbollah, Iran aids Syria, US attacks Iran.

Voila! Endgame!

Friday, October 26, 2007


Like most nations that set out to turn the people of another nation against their government, the Israelis have failed to learn the lessons of the past as they try to turn the Gazan people against the Hamas government that now leads them inside what has become a besieged state.

The Israelis are doing everything in their power to pressure the Gazan people to capitulate to Israeli demands that Hamas hand over power to the West Bank’s al-Fatah faction of Mahmoud Abbas. The Israelis know, however, that this is not likely to happen.

They know this because they are very much aware that when a large population of people are subjected to persecution and aggression without actually being fully invaded and occupied the population band together to help each other and, rather than turn against their government, are more inclined to support it even when the population do not otherwise support many of policies of their government. In Germany during the last war the phenomenon was called ‘Kriegsozialismus’ or ‘War Socialism’. It wasn’t confined to Germany; London during the ‘Blitz’ experienced a similar phenomenon whereby people under attack from a foreign enemy disregard notions of any wealth or class distinction within their own population in order to give help to others who, under ordinary conditions, would otherwise feel constrained from doing so. A similar situation can be seen developing in the Gaza. While not everyone is happy with Hamas, they are now supporting Hamas simply because they realise that Israel is not attacking them because of Hamas but because they are simply Gazans living in a land that the Israelis want for themselves.

The Israelis in fact are simply attempting to make life for the Gazan people so intolerable that that they would prefer to leave Gaza permanently and take their chances in the West Bank or elsewhere. This then would also isolate their enemy, Hamas, leaving them free then to repeat the process in the West Bank.


The stand-off between the US and Iran over what the US regards are Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions has reached a new turning point which could greatly escalate tensions between the US and Russia. Not only is Russia not going to support the US in the UN over new sanctions against Iran, support that is essential if the US is be successful in pushing for new sanctions, but, according to a recent report in Asia Times Online by informed reporter Pepe Escobar, Putin has told the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that ‘an American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia’.

Escobar also reports that the Supreme Leader isn’t all that happy with President Ahmadinejad’s leadership style. Escobar has quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying “I approve of this government but this does not mean that I approve of everything they do.” However, the Supreme Leader does continue to support Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

While sanctions are beginning to pinch in Iran, they are not likely to deter Iran from pressing ahead with its civilian nuclear program. For the US this is not really a problem inasmuch that, while Iran pushes ahead with its enrichment program, albeit for peaceful purposes, the US and Israel can continue with their propaganda about Iran seeking nuclear weapons. The last thing the US and Israel really want is for Iran to actually give up its nuclear enrichment program because that would deny at least Israel a casus belli to attack Iran though the US could still attack over the alleged help that the Iranians are giving to the Iraqi insurgents.

The problem, of course, is not so much Irans nuclear plans since Israel concedes that Iran has no nuclear ambitions that are an existential threat to Israel, but the Israeli and US desire for regime change in Iran. Even if internal pressures were to topple Ahmadinejad from office this would not be enough for the US and the Israelis as there would still remain the problem of strong Iranian support for Hizbollah in Lebanon via Syria, and Hamas in the occupied territories. These remain the principle reasons for Israel and the US demanding regime change in Iran.

If the report of Putin’s statement about an American attack on Iran being viewed in Moscow as an attack on Russia is true then this changes entirely the face of Middle East posturing by the West. Firstly, any attack plans the US and/or Israel had for action against Iran will now need to be put on hold or discarded altogether. More importantly, Russia’s new policy of alliance with Iran now positions Russia as another major player for hegemony in the region, a situation that the US will need to consider very carefully before taking any further action anywhere in the Middle East.

What the US and Israel do next is going to be interesting.

Thursday, October 25, 2007



It’s just as well that the Howard government is likely to be ousted at the next election if for no other reason than it will save the Palestinian people of the West Bank from being invaded by Australian troops. The warmongering Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer who lied incessantly about Iraq’s WMDs as he pushed for war against Iraq would like to see Australian troops in the West Bank in order to protect the Palestinian people from democracy and ensure that Hamas aren’t ever voted into government.

Downer told an audience of Jewish leaders in Sydney last night: "If the Israeli defence forces withdrew from the West Bank, Hamas will just take over.” Downer ignores completely the fact that the Palestinian people overwhelmingly asked Hamas to ‘take over’ when it convincingly won the majority of seats in the Palestinian government in free democratic elections held in the occupied territories back in January of 2006.

The last thing the Middle East needs is more foreign troops marching over their real estate – or at least what’s left of it. What Downer should be doing is making representations to the Israeli government deploring the fact that Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, is planning for the collective punishment of Gazan civilians in retaliation for the hostile actions of a small number of Gazan militia against Israel.

It should be made quite clear to the Israeli government that, under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 21 October 1950, the collective punishment of civilians is a war crime. The Israeli government’s crimes against the Palestinian people have included the killing of innocent Palestinian children and other civilians through bombardments and aerial attacks, indiscriminate so-called ‘targeted assassinations’ which are nothing more than extra-judicial executions of Israel’s enemies in which many innocent passers-by are also often killed, the bulldozing of homes and productive fields, the deliberate obstruction of the flow of basic goods and products into the Gaza and the denial of medical facilities to hospitals in the Gaza. These are actions and crimes against an oppressed people which modern societies should not tolerate, let alone condone. Alexander Downer will be seen to be doing both if he does not take steps immediately to at least remind the Israeli government that they are indeed about to commit a specific war crime.

Perhaps after the next election Australia will have a Foreign Minister who, on behalf of all decent people in Australia, will be able to tell the Israeli government that their actions are not tolerated in a modern civilised world.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007


Ex-Israeli Prime Minister, Likud Party leader and extreme right-wing Zionist, Binyamin Netanyahu, is trying to position himself for a second shot at being Israel’s Prime Minister. Speaking in Jerusalem yesterday, Netanyahu demanded that the division of the city of Jerusalem not be part of any of the discussions at the peace conference in Annapolis due later this year.

Likud is not the only right-wing Israeli party that is demanding that Jerusalem remain in its entirety in the hands of the Israelis; Israel Beiteinu and Shas, two of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s coalition partners in the government are threatening to leave the coalition “…if the issue was even raised during the upcoming peace conference” according to a ‘Jerusalem Post’ report on Tuesday. Netanyahu is encouraging them to defect saying that “Olmert is clearly out of touch”.

As Netanyahu demands Jerusalem is not divided, he continues to enjoy popularity in Israeli polls. Olmert, on the other hand, is in a totally unenviable position whereby he is damned by the right-wing of Israel if he does suggest that parts of Jerusalem goes to Palestinian control in a future Palestinian state and damned by the Palestinians if he doesn’t. Not only are the talks doomed to failure for the Palestinians but they seemed to be doomed for failure for Olmert’s own future as well.

Apart from not wanting any part of Jerusalem to be divided, the Israeli right-wing parties are also against the Palestinians having any kind of state of their own, let alone a part of Jerusalem to go with it. Olmert has already told the Knesset that any agreements made at the Annapolis meeting will come to the Knesset for ratification prior to being finally accepted, so he has already doomed any agreement – especially if there is any mention of a piece of Jerusalem being hived off to the Palestinians as part of the deal. A petition has already been signed by more than half of Knesset members stating they would not support a divided Jerusalem. Since the Palestinians will not agree to statehood without at least a part of Jerusalem being part of the deal, the talks are doomed to fail. If, after the failure of the talks which most pundits are already predicting, Olmert still insists on following the road to a two-state solution then his opposition in the Knesset could easily oust him with a vote of no confidence which would put Netanyahu either straight into the Prime Ministership or, if there is an election, his popularity would more than likely get him there anyway.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007


On 31 March 2007 Australian Prime Minister John Howard in a doorstop interview was asked: “Is it likely that he'll [David Hicks] be released, perhaps just after the election and Green's leader Bob Brown saying that this sentence has been designed with the election in mind. How do you feel about....” to which Howard, cutting off the reporter, responded: “Well that is ridiculous. I mean Bob Brown of course would say that. We didn't impose the sentence, the sentence was imposed by the Military Commission and the plea bargain was worked out between the military prosecution and Mr Hicks's lawyers and the suggestion that of Senator Brown that it's got something to do with the Australian election is absurd.”

It turns out that the plea bargain wasn’t worked out between the military prosecution and Mr. Hick’s lawyers after all. Indeed, it was actually worked out between John Howard himself and US Vice-President Dick Cheney personally.

It seems Australian Greens leader, Bob Brown was right after all and, now that the election draws nearer, it seems that it had everything to do with the election – only not quite as Howard anticipated.

Cheney had visited Australia between 22 and 27 February 2007 and in a joint press conference in Sydney on 24 February 2007 it was obvious that the Hicks case had been talked about extensively during their meetings. However, both Howard and Cheney had told the press that they merely wanted to expedite the matter through the US ‘judicial’ system as quickly as possible. There was no mention of any ‘deal’ having been made then and in the 31 March 2007 doorstop, as we have seen, Howard denied that any deal had been made.

The lie has been revealed after a story in ‘Harpers’ by Scott Horton happened to mention the deal while writing an article about justice at Gitmo generally. Horton writes:
“Another officer cited the case of David Hicks. ‘One of our staffers was present when Vice President Cheney interfered directly to get Hicks’s plea bargain deal. He did it, apparently, as part of a deal cut with [Australian Prime Minister] Howard. I kept thinking: this is the sort of thing that used to go on behind the Iron Curtain, not in America. And then it struck me how much this entire process had disintegrated into a political charade. It’s demoralizing for all of us’.”

Now the Howard minions in his government departments are scurrying around to ensure that Hicks, due for release at the end of the year, keeps his mouth shut about the deal by demanding that Hicks is placed under a control order on his release which will ‘restrict Hicks' movements and communications and require him to regularly report to police for up to 12 months’ according to Australia’s ABC.

While the polls look very ominous for Howard and his Liberal government as the 24 November 2007 Australian general election draws ever closer, the last thing Howard needs, both for the short term when looking at his problem from the election point of view, is to be revealed once again as a liar and, from the long term point of view, having history, a subject that Howard himself has always personally revered, reveal him to be nothing more that a liar when the history of his own era is written.

John Howard proves once again that far from being a Great Australian Statesman, he remains just a Lying Tyrant. And that is how history will remember him.

Monday, October 22, 2007



Nobody it seems, least of all Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, is holding their breath in anticipation of anything meaningful coming from the upcoming ‘peace’ talks between Israel and the Palestinians to take place – or at least planned to take place – in either November or December at Annapolis in the US.

In the latest upset the Israelis have claimed that they have unearthed a plot to kill Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. The Palestinians in turn allege that the Israeli claim is just another ploy by which talks can be delayed or put off. The reality is that the right-wing Israeli Zionists do not want a Palestinian state to exist. They are backed by the convergence of powerfully influential pro-Israeli interests in the US consisting of neoconservatives, Christian Zionists and the right-wing Israeli lobby. Going through the motions of attempting peace talks toward some kind of settlement leading to a Palestinian state is only pandering to American public opinion and the Bush administrations efforts to seek support for such talks in order for it to appear that the US is trying to bring about a settlement to the Middle East crisis in general.

For the Israeli Zionists and their supporters in the US a Palestinian state is most definitely not the endgame they want. The endgame for the Israeli Zionists, the neoconservatives, the Christian Zionists and the Israeli lobby is the creation of a Greater Israel which includes the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and hopefully even south Lebanon up to the Litani River.

The quicker the rest of the world realise that this is the only endgame that the Israeli Zionists want then the quicker the world can begin to demand, via the UN, the only conceivable solution to the Israeli-Palestine problem and that is the one-state solution whereby the Israeli and Palestinian people live freely together in all of the Palestine lands governed by a secular democratic government elected by all of its peoples that operates without favour to either Jews or Arabs based on race and which allows all the freedoms expected of a modern democratic, multicultural and tolerant society.

The alternative is more of the same which will ultimately destroy the Middle East and possibly even our world.

Friday, October 19, 2007



Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert paid a quick visit to Russia yesterday to meet President Vladimir Putin anxious to hear what Putin had to say to President Ahmadinejad of Iran who Putin had visited in Tehran only the day before.

The rapidity of Olmert’s visit could well be an indicator that Israel and the US are ready to move on in their quest to deal Iran a blow that it will find difficult to recover from and hopefully, from Israel’s and America’s point of view, usher in the desired ‘regime change’ that Israel needs before it can go ahead with dealing with Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the occupied territories.

President Bush has said that he is determined to go down the diplomatic road to achieving a ‘settlement’ of some kind with Iran over Iran’s alleged ‘nuclear ambitions’. The problem is, as far as Iran is concerned, there is no ‘settlement’ to be reached because Iran doesn’t have any ‘nuclear ambitions’ beyond generating electricity from nuclear powered stations.

The US and Israel are going down the ‘diplomatic road’ first simply because they have to in order to garner as much support as possible from the world community for an eventual attack on Iran that they hope will result in regime change. However, the US and Israel, as well as the Russians, know full well that Iran is not anywhere near having a program that is able to enrich uranium beyond that which is required for electrical power generation. The Russians, indeed, would in particular know because it is they that are helping build the nuclear plants for Iran. Furthermore, a nuclear armed Iran is not in Russia’s interests any more than it is in Israel’s or the US.

But, for the sake of diplomatic appearances, the Israelis and the US must continue to travel down the ‘diplomatic road’ all the while knowing that it is a pointless exercise that achieves nothing accept buy time for the Iranians and the Russians to try and avert a catastrophe that could end in a confrontation that escalates far beyond just the Middle East region.

Olmert went to Russia to see Putin, not to ask Putin to support further sanctions by the UN against Iran – Olmert knows that neither Russia or China are likely to support further sanction – but because he needed to ask anyway as part of the ‘diplomatic road’ Israel and the US need to travel down before launching their attack against Iran.

Over this coming weekend and during the first part of next week Olmert will be travelling to Europe to speak to French President Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown both of whom are likely to support Olmert’s request for sanctions. Visiting Sarkozy and Brown at least keeps up the appearance of ‘diplomacy’. At the end of next week or during the week after, the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, will be heading off to China on a similar mission where the outcome is likely to be the same as Olmert’s visit to Russia – pointless.

Without Russian or Chinese support, Israeli and US requests for UN sponsored sanctions are doomed. The ‘diplomatic road’, as far as the Israelis and the US is concerned, will have been fully travelled.

For all his trouble all Olmert got for his efforts was a suggestion from Putin that Israel negotiate with Iran over the ‘nuclear’ problem. Clearly, that is not going to happen because both know there is no ‘nuclear’ problem to negotiate over and both know clearly what the Israelis really want.

The upshot of all this is; the faux ‘diplomatic road’ has as good as come to an end, just as it did prior to the US and their allies launching their attack against Iraq, and this will now leave the US and/or Israel free to tell the world that it has no choice but to deal with the Iran threat in its own way – which, since Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’ has always been just a propaganda and rhetoric tool to mask the real intent of Israel and the US, is exactly what Olmert was after in the first place.

Perhaps, looking at it from Olmert’s point of view, he didn’t come away from Putin empty-handed after all.

Monday, October 15, 2007



The story in today’s Sydney Morning Herald is an interesting piece of propaganda from the 'West'. The report states that Russian “special services have been warned of a plot to assassinate President Vladimir Putin when he visits Iran on Tuesday”. While the report doesn’t say who has warned the ‘Russian special services’ of this pending ‘assassination’, one could be forgiven for seeming to be cynical after taking a fairly easily assessed guess at who it was simply by asking who would have most to gain by issuing such a warning.

Whoever the ‘assassins’ are, one may rest assured that it simply will not happen. Why will it not happen? Because there never was a plan to assassinate Putin; just putting it about that there is, or was, a plan is all that was intended. The damage is done. The intention, of course, is to wedge Iran and Russia.

Of all of the reports only the far-right Zionist mouthpiece, DEBKAfile, which has connections to Israeli intelligence, can come up with reasons why anyone would want to assassinate Putin. As usual, DEBKAfile have all the answers. They report that:

“…intelligence sources report that the assassination plot, hatched by three gangs which joined hands ad hoc, was betrayed to the Russians by a Chechen who was detained before he managed to slip into Iran and join the conspirators. The three groups are: Chechen separatists, whose revolt is almost completely crushed in Russia; an al Qaeda-Taliban group bidding to settle scores with Putin for his denial of Muslim rights in Kosovo; and an ultra-extremist wing of the clerical regime, which accuses Russia of selling out Iranian interests as an American vassal.”

One need not use too much of ones imagination to hazard a guess as to where this information came from especially considering that none of the other reports on this story in the mainstream media were game enough to cite DEBKAfile or its accusations.

From a propaganda point of view DEBKAfile actually do themselves a disservice. The mainstream media reports do not attempt to explain who is behind the ‘assassination attempt’ only saying that it will be in Iran and by “a number of groups of suicide bombers” leaving the reader to assume that it is Iranian suicide bomber groups and, of course, taking that to its logical conclusion in the minds of those that don’t know any better and have succumbed to just about anything that is told to them in the MSM, one should assume that it is some of the more radical elements within the Iranian government that are behind the plot with official denial that any such thing is likely to happen to top off the story. As always with DEBKAfile, they let themselves down as a propaganda unit for Mossad by going over the top with their stories and providing far too much information; so much so that it simply becomes totally unbelievable.

The reality is that the only people to benefit from putting out this story are the Israelis. The Iranians certainly would not be benefiting from Putin’s death; indeed, they would be losing one of their strongest allies.


The story of the Israeli bombing raid on Syria early last month has taken a new tack. Now we are being told that the building that was attacked was still under construction and that it was intended to be part of a Syrian ‘nuclear reactor’. The story about the Israeli special forces penetrating the plant to steal the ‘nuclear material’ has disappeared; given this new story, such an adventure would now seem superfluous given that there would not have been any ‘nuclear material’ there yet.

The story has also provided neoconservative propagandists some grist for their particular mill. Notorious neocon warhawk, Joshua Muravchik, who has already advocated bombing Iran, has waded into the ideological fray over Syria’s so-called nuclear ambitions. He finds the potential of a ‘nuclear armed’ Syria about as dangerous as a ‘nuclear armed’ Iran, in fact even more so due to Syria’s far closer proximity to Israel.

But, again, when one casts aside all the propaganda and rhetoric about Syria and its so-called nuclear ambitions, we end up with absolutely nothing. Nowhere is there any evidence presented to even suggest that Syria has any kind of nuclear program or ambitions. All we have is the say-so of the US and Israel and its mouthpieces – and we are expected to believe this stuff?

Friday, October 12, 2007


The following article by ex-Webdiary Director Craig Rowley is published following a delay intended to provide Margo Kingston and David Roffey an opportunity to respond to Craig Rowley’s rebuttal of David Roffey’s claims that Craig Rowley had acted deceitfully at Webdiary. There has been no response from either Margo Kingston or David Roffey.

The following is Craig’s rebuttal and counter claim regarding David Roffey’s own deceit.

DNP Dz abuse (however justified) Webdiary Admin:
What Went Wrong Within Webdiary - Part 1

by Craig Rowley

My real name is the same as that which I have used online since I first had any content I'd created published to the World Wide Web. I do not hide my identity. I am Craig Rowley and I was a director of Webdiary Pty Ltd, a company formed by volunteers who believed that what Margo Kingston had made was good and well worth the extraordinary effort to maintain, develop, improve and grow it. These few people and I, we knew what Margo had suffered to see her dream become real and we saw the value in helping her keep that dream alive. Then some time this year something went wrong within Webdiary. This is the story of what has happened within the Webdiary management team in this past year as I have seen it unfold.

I tell this story in the hope that it prompts reflection by some members of that team, and by people who've been part of the Webdiary community, on what it means to be as the motto says: "Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent". In essence, I hope that Webdiary can do what is necessary to once again return to focus on the noble aims Margo had set out in the Webdiary Charter and proudly claim that the motto she bestowed on her creation is truly reflective of its character. I hope the reputation of Webdiary can be restored by how it handles my own act of accountability and transparency in recounting this story.

Before turning to the chronological telling of what happened within Webdiary (that'll form the next part in what will be a short series of posts), it is useful from the outset to explain something of the way Webdiary has operated and how it has been managed.

An explanation of the title I have used for this post is a good place to start. The title I have used is what David Roffey, the Managing Director of Webdiary Pty, had added to a comment not published by Webdiary, a comment submitted by Paul Morrella on September 4, 2007 at 2:16pm. The standard operating procedure for those who've volunteered their time to moderate the comments submitted to Webdiary is to review each comment to ensure publication will be in accord with Webdiary's Editorial Policy. The acronym "DNP" means Do Not Publish, and it is added to those comments which go against the standard set out in the Editorial Policy. "Dz" signifies that the moderator in this instance was David Roffey. He decided that the comment submitted by "Paul Morrella" could reasonably be categorised as "abuse". However, for a reason that only he can properly attempt to justify, David Roffey also added those words within parentheses - (however justified). The "Webdiary Admin" part is the start of the title that the person using the name "Paul Morrella" included with the comment he had submitted.

For some reason, David Roffey determined that the comment by "Paul Morrella" was "abuse" and then indicated to the other Webdiary directors and volunteers working behind the scenes (for by logic they are the only people who David would have counted on being able to see his contemptible appendage) that he thought it was justified abuse. It is essential to make completely transparent what that comment contained in order to demonstrate what David Roffey's decisions represent. So, here it is, the comment in full with the element seen as abusive underlined (Ed note: 'blogspot' does not allow underline function or, if it does, I dont know how to activate it. Apologies):

‘DNP Dz abuse (however justified) Webdiary Admin’
Submitted by Paul Morrella on September 4, 2007 - 2:16pm.

I have read the Phill [sic] Kendall blog on occasion. This person is obviously unbalanced. The anger, and paranoia displayed by him on multiple occasions is palpable. For that reason I decided some time back not to enter into any further discourse with him. I have felt he is a person that not only looks for conflict; he feels an emotional need for it. The creation of imagined enemies all around would suggest this.

Unfortunately we never really know who we converse with over the net. Whilst most have a sense of proportion it is clear a minority do not. For this reason I will avoid any further comment here in the hope this person does find the help he obviously needs. I find the whole episode highly disturbing, and something I wish to refrain from entering into.

PS His claims (and there have been numbers of them) are completely, and disburbingly [sic] bizarre.

Whilst the statement within that comment seen as abusive has been highlighted, it also contains several other errors.

First, the person using the name "Paul Morrella" misspells Phil Kendall’s name. Then, this person makes outrageous and ill-informed claims about Phil's state of mental health (as highlighted) and then claims to have "decided some time back not to enter into any further discourse" with Phil when in fact he had actually engaged in submitting comments about Phil Kendall, even after Phil had been banned from making any further comment on Webdiary.

Also, contrary to the opinion of "Paul Morrella", it is more likely to be true that we seldom really know who we converse with over the net. Perhaps it can be argued that one never really know one's self, let alone really knows anyone else through and through. However, pulling back from diving deep into questions of phenomenology, it is generally the case that whenever a community forms online there are instances where individuals seek and make in the real world a real connection with the people they interact with online. For example, I have had real world contact with Margo and each of the other directors. I do know them reasonably well (and I'll say more on this later).

One can also learn the patterns that repeat in a person's "online voice" and so in a sense can come to know a little about that person through their online ‘character. Based on what I know of the person presenting himself as "Paul Morrella", I am reasonably certain that he is not a member of any of the professions that qualify an individual to make informed comment on the mental health of another person. So, not only is his opinion an inexpert and in all probability very wrong one on the facts, it is indeed obviously abusive toward Phill Kendall and entirely unethical when judged by the criteria set out in Webdiary Ethics and the Editorial Policy.

Further, the person using the name "Paul Morrella" states that he will "avoid any further comment here in the hope this person …", etc. That proved to be a most hypocritical statement because later "Paul" submitted not just one but a number of comments that continued his cowardly attack on Phil Kendall.

Clearly, when judged against the criteria set out in Webdiary's Editorial Policy there was a lot wrong with the comment by "Paul Morrella" and the decision to mark it DNP was the correct one. Why then, did David Roffey decide to show to the others behind the scenes that he thought the abuse was justified? Why did Webdiary's Managing Director effectively join in the abuse?

The answers to those questions I do not know for sure. As indicated earlier, only David can properly account for his actions. However, I can offer what I know of David and the history leading up to this event in order to inform you sufficiently to help you test your own hypotheses about what the answer to the question may be. I'll do that fully in the next part by returning to the point where things started to go wrong within Webdiary and following the chronology through the time in which David Roffey and Margo Kingston started to routinely banish anybody who dares to question whether the decisions made by them accord with the Editorial Policy the published.

For now I'll just briefly explain why this example of unethical behaviour by the Managing Director of Webdiary is crucial to the telling of the whole story. I had by this time already resigned as a director of Webdiary and in part that was due to taking a stand against the non-consultative management style taken by David Roffey. The events described here then sadly mark the beginning of the end of my "membership" of what remains of what was once a much broader Webdiary community, for after I discovered David Roffey's unethical behaviour, I challenged him to be ethical, accountable and transparent. For doing that I was punished.

What I discovered was that David had published a comment submitted by "Paul Morrella" a short time after the one that was marked "DNP Dz abuse (however justified) …":

‘Angela Ryan’
Submitted by Paul Morrella on September 5, 2007 - 11:56am.

Angela Ryan

Anyway, perspective is always good. I think Phil has a good heart and that is always respected.

Well possibly, though, you have always agreed with him or at least never publicly voiced any difference of opinion. There are a few on this site it seems (including me apparently) that have unfortunately not had the same degree of foresight.

I personally find it sad, and disturbing, that a person would feel the need to find their enemies (imagined in my case) in cyberspace. Taking internet discourse regarding politics, and general issues so seriously is not something I would consider very healthy. Sometimes it is just helpful to walk away from the computer monitor, and find a true sense of proportion.

Consequently, I submitted to Webdiary the following comment and, after waiting some time to see it published, I found David Roffey had appended his "editorial" comment to it:

Submitted by Craig Rowley on September 5, 2007 - 12:41pm.

Why is it that Paul Morrella can question Phil Kendall's motives, ethics, and mental health openly on Webdiary, but Phil Kendall could not (before being banned) openly ask the same questions on Webdiary about Paul Morrella's motives, ethics, and mental health?

David R: anyone can question anyone's motives and ethics. I'm not aware of Paul questioning Phil's mental health - his most recent comment on a sense of proportion applies to a fair few Webdiarists. And Phil wasn't banned for asking questions on those, he was banned for continually and persistently questioning identity when Margo had specifically said that she had checked, was satisfied, and would not publish any further comment on the subject, and for repeatedly accusing Margo and other editors of hypocrisy and other misdemeanours for sticking to that ruling. You can only insult Margo so many times before she's had enough.

Given David Roffey's editorial statement, I then submitted the following comment marked NFP (Not For Publication):

‘Dz – publishing previous DNP: That’s a lie David. and I’v (the rest of the title: ... and I've the evidence)’
Submitted by Craig Rowley on September 5, 2007 - 3:42pm.

Dz: I was replying to your accusation that Paul had got away with a published comment, which he hasn't. If we banned everyone who was DNP'd, you'd have gone long ago.

Dz you say "I'm not aware of Paul questioning Phil's mental health...".

Yesterday, Paul Morrella submitted this comment:

‘DNP Dz abuse (however justified) Webdiary Admin
Submitted by Paul Morrella on September 4, 2007 - 2:16pm.

I have read the Phill Kendall blog on occasion. This person is obviously unbalanced. The anger, and paranoia displayed by him on multiple occasions is palpable. For that reason I decided some time back not to enter into any further discourse with him. I have felt he is a person that not only looks for conflict; he feels an emotional need for it. The creation of imagined enemies all around would suggest this.

Unfortunately we never really know who we converse with over the net. Whilst most have a sense of proportion it is clear a minority do not. For this reason I will avoid any further comment here in the hope this person does find the help he obviously needs. I find the whole episode highly disturbing, and something I wish to refrain from entering into.

PS His claims (and there have been numbers of them) are completely, and disburbingly [sic] bizarre.

And I note that you had a shot at Phil as well with the "(however justified)" addition to the title. You were aware, very aware.

I think you should set the record straight and apologise for lying.

Note that David Roffey added his own editorial comment to my comment, which indicates that he intended to publish it. I was advised by a friend that it was published and remained briefly available to readers and then disappeared without explanation. So, in the end, David decided to not publish my comment and his editorial retort despite there being no 'rule' or guideline with Editorial Policy on which to base that decision.

There are a couple important things demonstrated by that comment David had added. First, it can be taken by any reasonable person as an admission that David Roffey had indeed been aware of the abusive comment and the line being taken by "Paul Morrella" and that he'd signalled to those inside Webdiary's backroom that he thought personal abuse of another person (one he and Margo had already banned from making any further comment on Webdiary) no matter how wrong was in his opinion ‘justified’. Second, it shows that David's way when challenged with reason and logic on my part is to turn to attack and try to threaten me for daring to offer a defence for a man who could not defend himself. Third, it shows how quickly transparency is thrown out by David when it becomes inconvenient to him.

What should be obvious by this point, but perhaps I need to bring it to prominence, is that I still had the ability to see both what was and was not published by Webdiary on the conversation threads associated with those posts I had authored. The comments I expose to all here were made on the conversation thread associated with 'What if...? Solving the Iran stand-off'. After I saw that David Roffey had decided to cover up his lie rather than be ethical, accountable and transparent about it, I tried to formulate a comment that could not under any circumstance be categorised as a DNP without that being in itself another example of departure from the published Editorial Policy. My first attempt was this:

'DNP: Dz same Also … why wasn’t this observed?'
Submitted by Craig Rowley on September 5, 2007 - 4:28pm.

In the DNP marked comment submitted by Paul Morrella he stated:

For this reason I will avoid any further comment here in the hope this person does find the help he obviously needs.

Yet he came back the very next day to make further comment here and it was comment on Phil Kendall. One of you published it.

Why didn't editors observe that and contact Paul to tell him it would be best if he stuck to his supposed intention to not comment here, particularly on the very thing that could injure Phil?

As you can see it was marked DNP by David Roffey. Why? Those familiar with Webdiary's Editorial Policy will see that it clearly does not contravene any rule expressed in that policy.
I tried again, submitting this:

‘There he is talking about others health again’
Submitted by Craig Rowley on September 5, 2007 - 6:32pm.

How many times is Paul Morrella going to be published making comments about the health of someone else?

That wasn't published either. I can't show the DNP marks in this instance because I'd only copied this and subsequent comments I tried to submit at this time before they were "processed" by a member of the Webdiary team. Suffice to say that you'll find neither that comment nor this next few published on Webdiary if you look back over the conversation thread today:

‘Look … there is a theme here’
Submitted by Craig Rowley on September 5, 2007 - 6:37pm.

David Roffey you say "I'm not aware of Paul questioning Phil's mental health...".

Yesterday, as you and I know, Paul Morrella submitted a comment yesterday which you did not publish. It contains a stark example of Paul questioning Phil's mental health.

You knew about it because you left your mark on the unpublished comment. So you lied when you said you were "not aware", didn't you?

I think you should set the record straight and apologise for lying.

I also think it is unethical for you to keep publishing comments by Paul Morrella that do so much as even hint at questions about the mental health of another person who comments (or commented in the case of the people you banned).

‘David you lied and need to set the record straight’
Submitted by Craig Rowley on September 5, 2007 - 6:41pm.

David Roffey you say "I'm not aware of Paul questioning Phil's mental health...".

Yesterday, as you and I and all know, Paul Morrella submitted a comment yesterday which you did not publish. It contains a stark example of Paul questioning Phil's mental health.

You knew about that unethical questioning by Paul of Phil's mental health because you left your mark on the unpublished comment.

So you lied when you said you were "not aware", didn't you?

I think you should set the record straight and apologise for lying.

I also think it is unethical for you to keep publishing comments by Paul Morrella that do so much as even hint at questions about the mental health of another person who comments (or commented in the case of the people you banned).

The reason for submitting in a short time two comments trying to convey the same message on this occasion was that I realised after submitting the first that I should have mentioned that all the people working behind the scenes at Webdiary would have already or in time know he had just lied to the broader community involved in the conversation as well as regular and occasional readers of Webdiary.

Seeing that other comments were being published, but not mine, I then submitted this comment thinking David was "on duty":

‘anyone can question anyone’s motives and ethics’
Submitted by Craig Rowley on September 5, 2007 - 6:48pm.

David Roffey today you said:

anyone can question anyone's motives and ethics.

I am questioning yours now because you and I both know you were aware of Paul Morrella's inappropriate comments about the mental health of another 'diarist and yet you subsequently said:

I'm not aware of Paul questioning Phil's mental health...

You were aware he had submitted comment questioning Phil's mental health at the time you published that editorial comment. I think you should explain yourself.

Be accountable.

When that was not published, and yet comment by others was being published, I submitted this comment:

‘NFP – Dz get this straight’
Submitted by Craig Rowley on September 5, 2007 - 7:06pm.

You can keep reacting to presentation of the fact that you've made mistakes by getting mad at me, but it does not alter the facts.

I understand that it is your natural reaction to get angry with me when I challenge you, but when you have acted in a way that warrants challenging then I will do it.

It would be good if we could start talking about a solution to this situation soon. As I see it, this could have been solved a long time ago.

It could have been solved by a simple and consistent editorial approach where every time C Parsons (now as Eliot Ramsey) tried the 'remorseless ridicule' thing his comment is DNP and then at the next acceptable comment he's told by the editor that the earlier comments were not appropriate for publication and why (it runs counter to the 'civil discourse' standard Margo desired for the space).

Same goes for Jay White when he baited Phil Kendall on his return to Webdiary as 'new user' Paul Morrella. You could have DNP'd the 'baiting' comments and on the next acceptable comment explained why targeting and baiting (acting like a troll) runs counter to the 'civil discourse' standard.

That way you probably wouldn't have had to ban anybody.

Notice that last one was submitted marked NFP. I was suggesting to David Roffey and the other Webdiary insiders who could read this comment that I would not back down from defending another 'diarist to a bully even if he is the Managing Director of Webdiary Pty Ltd. David's way, you see, is to attack anyone who challenges his decision making. I was also suggesting a reasonable and sensible solution to an ongoing problem with David's decision-making. A problem I will bring into focus in the next post.

More in Part 2 ...

Tuesday, October 09, 2007


Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has already conceded to the extreme right-wing Israeli Zionists. He told the Knesset, directing his remarks specifically to the right-wing parties that make up Olmert’s coalition, Shas, an ultra-orthodox Judaist party, and Israel Beiteinu, a secular extreme right-wing Zionist political party, on Monday that there will be no Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank ‘unless Palestinian terrorism is stopped’. Since Palestinian ‘terrorism’ is actually Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, one can readily see that Israeli platitudes about peace and talk of a two-state solution are merely a ploy by which the Israeli Zionists can point the finger of blame for the talk’s failures at the Palestinians. The reality is that, like the Likud party, the Shas and Israel Beiteinu do not want a Palestinian state to ever exist. The goal of Israeli Zionists is a Greater Israel that ultimately includes the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And the recent appropriation of 1,100 dunams (110 ha.) of land from four Palestinian villages between East Jerusalem and the West Bank by the IDF only reinforces the notion that Israel has no intention of allowing the Palestinians a state of their own.

The quicker the world wakes up to the reality that a separate Palestinian sovereign state is not on the agenda of political parties like Likud, Shas and Israel Beiteinu then the quicker the world will realise that there can only be one solution – and that is the one-state solution of an integrated Palestine.

Monday, October 08, 2007


The two-state solution as an answer to the Israeli-Palestine conflict is, as most the world learnt long ago, never, ever going to happen – and nor would it ever work. Even more to the point however, is the fact that neither side really wants a partitioned two-state solution.

Next month a few of the stake-holders who claim to have an interest in a resolution to the Israeli Palestine conflict will meet in the US to discuss, yet again, the possibility of a two-state solution. The plan at this initial meeting is simply to plan further meetings but for the participants it buys a little more time and makes it look good in the eyes of the world at large who will assume that at least some effort is being made to solve the problem.

The reality, however, is that the situation is no different today than it was immediately after the al-Nakba in 1948; the Palestinians want their lands back and the Israeli Zionists want to keep all that they have so far taken from the Palestinians. Not content with that, the Israeli Zionists also want to take from the Palestinians all of what little they still have left in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Talk of a two-state solution is a waste of time. What the Palestinians want are their lands returned to them; a goal a two-state solution will not be able to accommodate. The Palestinians also want a right of return for the original refugees and their descendents who were ethnically cleansed from Palestine when the Israelis took over; this is a subject that the Israelis will not even discuss. The Israelis want to keep their settlements inside the West Bank; an aspiration that the Palestinians could not possibly tolerate in a two-state solution.

The Israeli Zionist extremists, which includes the Israeli Likud Party, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, do not even want a Palestinian state of any kind to exist, and, indeed, would secretly prefer, though, for obvious reasons, wouldn’t publicly say so, that all Palestinians in the Gaza and the West Bank be transferred to Jordan leaving those areas entirely free for Jewish-Israeli settlement, full colonisation and eventual incorporation into a Greater Israel State based on Jewish occupation and excluding the Palestinian Arabs. This is the Israeli Zionist ideal of the one-state solution. It excludes entirely the participation of the Palestinian people and is therefore totally racist.

The only possible ultimate solution is a one-state solution whereby both Israelis and Palestinians live together in a secularly governed democratic and integrated single nation.

This is the solution that Dr. Ghada Karmi, the Palestinian academic, is promoting in her visit to Australia which culminated in last Saturday evening’s Edward Said Memorial Lecture which Dr. Karmi delivered at the Adelaide University in South Australia. It is the solution that the peoples of the world should insist upon because it is the only solution that will provide a lasting peace to both the Palestinian and Israeli people and, ultimately, the much needed stability that the region so desperately needs.

A world that supports the one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict will benefit because the successful outcome of a world-endorsed one-state solution will have far more influence in promoting the cause of stability and peace through democracy throughout the rest of the region and will be far more successful than the kind of false ‘democracy’ that is now being forced down the throats of the Arab and Central Asian peoples by the guns and bombs of the US and their allies.

Sunday, October 07, 2007



During the time that the Israeli Defence Forces blocked all news from Israeli sources regarding its attack on Syria back in early September it was leaked that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) had bombed a Syrian nuclear facility that contained nuclear material from North Korea. Quickly realising that bombing a facility that was ‘hot’ with nuclear material would have been a completely stupid thing to do given that radio active nuclear dust could well have spread all over the Middle East, including Israel, and beyond, it was decided to embellish the ‘leak’ of the Syria nuke story by adding that just prior to the air raid a special forces ground operation was mounted to remove the ‘nuclear’ material from the facility.

Then, realising that this story was really pushing the bounds of credibility into the realms of James Bond-like fantasy, the story was changed yet again. This time the air raid was said to have been against North Korean missiles that had found its way to Syria.

Now it seems the story has morphed yet again apparently in order to perpetuate the ‘Syria going nuclear’ myth as part of the continuing propaganda and rhetoric geared to bolster public support for the Final Confrontation between the US-Israel and Iran-Syria. The Jerusalem Post, citing an ABC News report, now claims that the IAF did indeed bomb a Syrian facility but one that contained ‘North Korean nuclear technology’ rather than actual ‘North Korean nuclear material’ implying that there was no danger from nuclear contamination of the region as a result of the bombing. Predictably, no further mention of the James Bond-like ground raid on the ‘facility’ is made; a part of the story that seems to have quietly disappeared from the pages of this particular piece of Israeli military history.

The ABC News report also mentions that the US was privy to Israeli plans well in advance of the planned strike and, indeed, had debated whether or not the Israelis should go a head. In the end, so the article implies, Israel went ahead despite US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s opposition to the strike. Her failure to halt the raid is further evidence demonstrating that Rice is increasingly losing influence over both Israeli policies and the polices of their supporters in the Bush administration, especially Vice-President Dick Cheney and his hawk supporters among the neoconservatives who are itching to get the Final Confrontation against Syria and Iran off the ground.


On 29 March 2002 Bush also told the world he had no plans to attack Iraq. Bush’s non-existent credibility isn’t exactly on the line anymore – he’s told that many lies that the world simply doesn’t believe a word he says. The only difference between the propaganda and rhetoric in the lead up to the attack on Iraq and the lead up to the coming attack on Iran is that this time the US only has Israel as an ally.

Of course, if President Bush insists that there will be no attack on Iran, then there is always the ‘lone deranged gunman’ option. Vice-President Dick Cheney, currently pushing Bush to bomb Iran, once having been sworn in as President, would not hesitate to bomb Iran in his push for the Final Confrontation.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007


David Roffey, company secretary and editor at the Australian current affairs blog, Webdiary, has exposed his true colours over the recent debacle involving ex- Webdiary director Craig Rowley who Roffey has accused, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, of using multiple identities in debate.

This accusation demonstrates Roffey’s outrageous hypocrisy over the question of identities of debaters at Webdiary. As I have noted many times before in previous posts, the extreme right-wing commentator Eliot Ramsey continues to be allowed to peddle his propaganda despite everyone being fully aware that this person is none other than C. Parsons, an equally notorious peddler of right-wing propaganda at Webdiary in the past.

As a direct result of Craig Rowley being banned for reasons that no evidence was presented to support I wrote to Roffey saying the following:

David Roffey
It’s a pity that Webdiary has seen fit to ban Craig Rowley accusing him of adopting other identities, an accusation, I might add, that is not accompanied by any evidence – at least none that you have offered. This banning is gross hypocrisy if you do not ban Eliot Ramsey for the same reasons. There is abundant evidence demonstrating that Eliot Ramsey is C. Parsons, who used to post at Webdiary just prior to being banned himself yet you have made no mention at all of Eliot Ramsey’s deceitfulness or commented on why he is allowed to continue posting while you ban others.One now needs to wonder about your own credibility, Roffey, as well as that of Kingston’s who we know accepted Parsons as part of the right-wing with which the left and centre commentators could ‘debate’ with providing grist for Webdiary’s mill. Kingston has in the past openly said that keeping the right-wing commentators were essential if Webdiary were to be viable; indeed, commenting on the Holocaust and alternative ideas about the events of 9/11 were banned – and Kingston said so at the time – because the right-wing Webdiarists threatened to leave if such debate were allowed. Kingston as we know caved in to the right and their threats. It seems now that you and Kingston are further pandering to the right-wing’s whims by adopting double standards about who can and cannot post at Webdiary.I know that Kingston has suffered stress from death threats, etc., but perhaps if she had stood up to the right-wing and their thugs in the first place she might feel a bit better about herself. Pandering to the likes of Eliot Ramsey and their right-wing garbage certainly does not help and Webdiary’s continued accommodation of these liars and fraudsters reveals only the true corrupt position of Webdiary management.

To which Roffey replied simply…

Damian you continue to be the sort of complete tosser that drove me away from the left thirty years ago ...
David Roffey

My response to that was:

I assume then, Roffey, since you are not able to address the issues I have raised with regard to both Craig Rowley’s banning and Eliot Ramsey still being allowed a platform at Webdiary that you are indeed part of the deceit and fraud that has reared its head there. Furthermore, since you concede that you are now no longer part of the Left, one can assume that you are now a party to the right-wing and support their lies and deceit and, indeed, are a part of it.
The Left, Roffey, I can assure you are far better off without lying and deceiving ‘tossers’ like you in it.

Craig Rowley has asked me if he could air his side of the story at this blog and I have invited him to do so since Webdiary is unlikely to allow him to respond to Roffey’s accusation there. Since many Webdiarists do visit my blog, I think it is only fair that Craig Rowley be provided with an opportunity to have his side of the story told with a strong likelihood that other Webdiarists will be able to read for themselves both sides of the story – something which Webdiary have a very strong history of not otherwise allowing.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007


While the world’s compliant mainstream media focuses on the propaganda and rhetoric about the reasons for their wars in the Middle East, the actual endgame for Israel and the US seems to have been all but forgotten.

As part of the propaganda and rhetoric, Israel and the US would like the world to believe that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are currently an immediate threat to the world and to Israel in particular. This propaganda includes the demonisation of Iran’s theocratic government and the belittling of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s all aimed at getting public opinion on side to support an attack on Iran, or at least minimise objection to it when it does. So far the rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear ambitions hasn’t created the level of public support that the US government would feel comfortable with if it attacked now.

There are two reasons why the public hasn’t taken the bait with only some eight percent of Americans actually supporting an attack on Iran. First, they’ve heard it all before during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and are thoroughly familiar with the extent to which that all turned out to be lies, and, secondly, the public are aware that the UN nuclear watchdog organisation, the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) itself cannot find any evidence to support Israeli and US claims that Iran is enriching uranium beyond that required for generating energy and certainly nowhere near enough to make a bomb.

The US has succeeded in either frightening or cajoling or bribing some of the UN nations into calling for Iran to stop all uranium enrichment, despite the fact that Iran has a legal right to continue enriching uranium to a level where it can be used for power generation, and has even succeeded in convincing the UN to adopt minor sanctions against Iran. Taking it to the next stage, however, has been a little more difficult for the Americans and the Israelis since the Russians and Chinese are now insisting that the IAEA be able to complete their report to the UN under arrangements that the IAEA and Iran have agreed. Russia and China went along with the earlier sanctions simply to buy a little more time for the situation to be resolved in other ways knowing that the sanctions would have only a minimal effect on Iran. The alternative at the time could well have been an Israeli pre-emptive attack against Iran had Russia and China baulked at these minor sanctions. Russia and China again are playing the ‘buying time’ option as the US and Israel, who, as always, have the UK on board, and now also France as its new right-wing President Nicholas Sarkozy is staunchly pro-Zionist Israel, try, albeit unsuccessfully, to bring on tighter sanctions against Iran. Both Russia and China have far more to lose if sanctions against Iran are increased. The Russians and Chinese have managed to buy a little over a month before any more UN decisions are made regarding Iran but even then it may not be that the US, Israel and their allies get the desired result of no sanctions thus opening the way for a non-UN approved attack (again) on a sovereign nation, Iran.

For the US and Israel the diplomacy game is just that – a game which they need to play in order to satisfy public opinion and those nations like Russia and China that are aware of exactly what the geo-political reality actually is and what the US and Israeli endgame really is.

Israel and the US have, ever since Ahmadinejad was elected President of Iran, used his well-known radical views as propaganda to push the idea that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons and using them to destroy Israel and possibly even use them against the US. Against those that argue that Iran would not do such a thing because it knows that both the US and Israel would use their nuclear weapons against Iran, the US and Israel’s propaganda response is that Iran has some kind of fanatical death wish whereby it would use its nuclear weapons even knowing that itself would be destroyed.

In light of the Bush regime realising that the American people aren’t going to bite fully on Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear ambitions’, due mainly to the Bush administrations now totally discredited claims with regard to Iraq’s so-called ‘nuclear ambitions’, they have over the last few months began to change their rhetoric. The emphasis now for American consumers, and for the people of those other nations that still have a military presence in Iraq such as the UK and Australia, is that Iran is now supplying and aiding the Iraqi insurgency with training and weapons and killing US and allied service personnel. For Israeli consumers the ‘nuclear threat’ remains and is used consistently by both the current Olmert government and the especially by the extreme right-wing Zionist Likud party headed by Benjamin Netanyahu. As is usual for the extreme right-wing Israeli Zionists and their neoconservative supporters in the US, the spectre of a second Holocaust is invoked to provide the necessary fear levels among ordinary Israelis that in turn give support to the Zionist extremists policies of regime change via attacking Iran.

Iran being a threat to Israel because Iran seeks nuclear weapons, and Iran being a threat to the US because it is supplying insurgents in Iraq with training and weapons is the propaganda and rhetoric that the US and Israel wants the world to hear about via a compliant mainstream media. The geo-political reality, however, is something entirely different.

The US and Israel are very much aware that Iran has no nuclear bomb and does not have the facilities to make one. The US and Israel are also very much aware of what Ahmadinejad actually said with regard to ‘wiping Israel off the map’, a quote that has been deliberately mistranslated by the neoconservative Middle East Media Research Institute.

The geo-political reality is simple; the US and Israel require regime change in Iran and Syria in order to crush resistance to Israeli expansionist dreams in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and south Lebanon, and also to retain without further threat from Syria the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms. The issue of Iranian nuclear ambitions and Iran’s ties with insurgents in Iraq is merely a propaganda ploy used to create a casus belli to attack Iran to effect that regime change.

The US and the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ attack on Iraq has created the conditions the US and Israel needed to go forward with the next stage of their Middle East program – an attack on Iran. The propaganda and rhetoric are designed purely to cover the US and Israel’s endgame – for the right-wing Israel Zionists that is the creation of a Greater Israel and for the US it is control and hegemony of the world’s richest resource region. Such an outcome also satisfies the endgame outcomes of various other groups with an interest in what happens in the Middle East and Israel; the Christian Zionists get to realise their dream of a Greater Israel, a pre-requisite apparently for Armageddon; the US oil companies get the pick of the Middle Eastern oil contracts; the so-called US ‘reconstruction’ companies get the massive contracts and dollars that go with it; and the big private US security companies also continue to make billions out of other peoples misery, misery that is often created by them in the first place.

And that is the geo-political endgame that the US and Israel are seeking; regime change in Iran and Syria giving Israel and the US control of the Middle East.

Forget the propaganda and rhetoric of Iranian nuclear bombs, Iran attacking Israel and Iran helping the insurgents in Iraq. Israeli and US domination of the Middle East is all it is all about.